Free Response to Motion [Dispositive] - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA

Document 16

Filed 08/25/2008

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

CHENEGA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES,

) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________)

No. 08-191C Judge Allegra

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Pursuant to Rule 56(h)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), plaintiff, Chenega Technology Services Corporation defendant, the United States, submits the following proposed findings of uncontroverted fact in support of plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment upon plaintiff's complaint.

1.

Neither the contract, its modifications nor any of the Task Order contain a requirement

for a COTR. None of these documents state the requirements for a COTR.

2.

The Contracting Office knew that Chenega was continuing contract performance after the

expiration of TO 0052 on December 8, 2006, and took no action to prevent the performance.

3.

The first occasion where the COTR training requirement was communicated to Chenega

was on January 9, 2007 by email. Exhibit 1.

1

Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA

Document 16

Filed 08/25/2008

Page 2 of 4

4.

On February 26, 2007, CTS received an email from the Army that the COTR had

completed the necessary training and received a certification that met DOI's requirement for COTR training. Exhibit 2.

5.

Chenega reasonably relied on the information contained in the February 26, 2007 email

in continue in continuing to perform TO 0052.

6.

On May 4, 2007, DOI provided its first written notification to Chenega that the COT had

not fulfilled the training requirement. Exhibit 3.

6. On May 17, 2007, and at Chenega's request, DOI provide the first detailed explanation of the required COTR training. Exhibit 4.

7. On June 12, 2997, DOI was notified by the Army that the COTR had completed the required training. Exhibit 5.

8. At no time did DOI inform Chenega of any deficiencies by the COTR in the performance of his duties.

9. The lack of training by the COTR did not have any impact on Chenega's contract performance.

2

Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA

Document 16

Filed 08/25/2008

Page 3 of 4

Respectfully submitted this 25th day of August, 2008. /s/William K Walker William K Walker Walker Reausaw 888 17th Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington DC 20006 Tele: 202-857-7910 Fax: 202-857-7912

3

Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA

Document 16

Filed 08/25/2008

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on this 25th day of August 2008, a copy of the foregoing "Plaintiff's Responses To Defendant's Proposed Finding Of Uncontroverted Facts" was filed electronically. I understand that notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

/s/William K. Walker

4