CBCA 6171, 6414

AT&T Technical Services Company, Inc.

Aug 14, 2019Judge LesterDEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
DismissalSettled

Key Facts

Appellant
AT&T Technical Services Company, Inc.
Respondent agency
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Judge
Lester
Case number
CBCA 6171, 6414This cell names 2 dockets: 6171, 6414.
Decided
Aug 14, 2019The decision states Aug 14, 2019 on its own face, which agrees with the listing.
Decision type
Dismissal
Law firm for the appellant
The decision's own appearances block names no outside firm, which happens when the appellant appeared pro se, through one of its own officers, or through its in-house counsel.
Outcome
Settled
These appeals are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Read from the shouted disposition line the Board prints above this decision's own date, and quoted from its operative sentence above. No model is involved.

Topics

The topic rules ran over this decision's own words and none of them matched.

Topics are derived from each decision's own text by keyword rules, not a classification by the Board. A decision matching several topics carries all of them, so topic counts sum above the number of decisions.

Appearances

For the appellant
Paul R. Hahn
AT&T Technical Services Company, Inc.
Vienna, VA
For the respondent
Jason A.M. Fragoso
Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs
Washington, DC
For the respondent
Chris Tiroff
Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs
Austin, TX
For the respondent
Frank V. DiNicola
Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs
Eatontown, NJ
Decision PDF (cbca.gov) Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, Contract Disputes Act casesThe Board's year listing this row was read fromThe decision document is hosted by the Board itself, so it is an official copy, and the Board's own Contract Disputes Act case listing is the citable source. The topics, the disposition and the appearances above are read deterministically from the decision's own words; no model is involved.

Research This Decision

Create a free account to open this decision in the CBCA workspace: a grounded decision brief drafted from the Board's own words, the Insights dashboard over the whole corpus, and the filtered browser.

CBCA Decision Brief

A Workflows Hub brief on this decision, drafted from the captured text with every quote and authority checked against it.

Insights

Who prevails before the Board, by topic and by judge, with every denominator visible: merits rulings, not decisions.

Browse with Filters

The whole corpus by year, decision type, topic, judge and disposition, searchable across the decisions' own text.

Full Decision

Full text of the decision1 pages, 874 characters, read from the Board's own documentDecided Aug 14, 2019 on its own faceRespondent DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Decision documentOfficial source: Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, Contract Disputes Act cases

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: August 14, 2019

CBCA 6171, 6414

AT&T TECHNICAL SERVICES COMPANY, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent.

Paul R. Hahn of AT&T Technical Services Company, Inc., Vienna, VA, counsel for

Appellant.

The case caption as the decision prints it. Every word is kept; the rule the Board draws around it is not text, so it is not repeated here.

Jason A.M. Fragoso, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC; Chris Tiroff, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, Austin, TX; and Frank V. DiNicola, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, Eatontown, NJ, counsel for Respondent.

LESTER, Board Judge.

Order

On August 9, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss these consolidated appeals with prejudice, reporting that they have settled their dispute and reduced it to writing. The parties’ motion is granted. These appeals are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Harold D. Lester, Jr.

Board Judge

This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the Board's own document in AT&T Technical Services Company, Inc., CBCA 6171, 6414. Nothing is summarized or reworded, and the sections run in the order the Board wrote them. What the page shows and the text does not repeat is the pagination furniture: the page numbers and the rules the Board draws around its caption and under its signatures. The signatures are set back into the columns the Board prints them in, each judge under the name he or she signed, and the typed copy of that name the page carries beneath each signature is not repeated.

Related Decisions

Same Judge

Same Year

Newsletter

New decisions every Monday

GovConDash Weekly lists the decisions GAO, the boards, the courts and SBA OHA released that week, alongside the FAR Overhaul deviations and proposed rules that reach every contractor. Free.

Free, weekly, and one click to unsubscribe. We send a confirmation email first. See our Privacy Policy.