CBCA 7092-C(6682, 6765, 6767)

Prime Tech Construction LLC

Jan 27, 2022Judge ChadwickDEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
DecisionDenied

Key Facts

Appellant
Prime Tech Construction LLC
Respondent agency
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Judge
Chadwick
Case number
CBCA 7092-C(6682, 6765, 6767)
Decided
Jan 27, 2022The decision states Jan 27, 2022 on its own face, which agrees with the listing.
Decision type
Decision
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
Denied
The application is DENIED.
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

EAJA and feesProcedure and sanctions

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. They are ordered strongest first.

Appearances

For the appellant
Chizoma B. Onyems
Prime Tech Construction LLC
Auburn, CA
For the respondent
Thomas M. Cordova
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy
Lakewood, CO
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 decision2 pages, 1,885 characters, read from the Board's own documentDecided Jan 27, 2022 on its own faceRespondent DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Decision documentOfficial source: Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, Contract Disputes Act cases

Authorities cited

3 authorities read from this decision's own text, grouped by the body of law each comes from. Select one to read it at its publisher.

Equal Access to Justice Act2
Agency FAR supplements1

Read from the decision's own words with no model involved. Statutes, regulations, the acts these forums argue by name, and cases at the board, this office or the Comptroller General are recognized; any other citation form is left out rather than guessed at, so this is a floor on what the decision cites.

DENIED: January 27, 2022

CBCA 7092-C(6682, 6765, 6767)

PRIME TECH CONSTRUCTION LLC,

Applicant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,

Respondent.

Chizoma B. Onyems, President of Prime Tech Construction LLC, Auburn, CA,

appearing for Applicant.

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.

Thomas M. Cordova, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy, Lakewood, CO, counsel for Respondent.

Before Board Judges ZISCHKAU, SULLIVAN, and CHADWICK.

CHADWICK, Board Judge.

The applicant filed three appeals with the Board in which it obtained no relief. Prime Tech Construction LLC v. Department of Energy, CBCA 6682, et al. (Mar. 31, 2021), motion for reconsideration denied, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,839, motion for full Board consideration denied (July 2, 2021), appeal dismissed for failure to prosecute, No. 21-2179 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 28, 2021). In April 2021, the applicant sought attorney fees and costs for the appeals under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504 (2018). We deferred action on the application, which the applicant has “updated” several times, until “the time to seek appellate review of” our decisions “expired” and the application became timely. Board Rule 30(b) (48 CFR 6101.30(b) (2020)); see 5 U.S.C. § 504(a)(2).

We require no response from the respondent under Rule 30(d)(1). The application is meritless. The applicant was not the “prevailing party,” was not represented by an attorney, and did not proffer expert testimony. For these reasons, the applicant is not entitled to an award of fees or costs. See 5 U.S.C. § 504(a)(1), (2); Comter Systems, Inc. v. General Services Administration, CBCA 4878-C(3534), 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,283; Vehicle Maintenance Services v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 12942-C (11663), 95-1 BCA ¶ 27,513.

Decision

The application is DENIED.

Kyle Chadwick

Board Judge

We concur:

Jonathan D. Zischkau

Board Judge

Marian E. Sullivan

Board Judge

This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the Board's own document in Prime Tech Construction LLC, CBCA 7092-C(6682, 6765, 6767). 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 Topic

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.