... performance using the Contractor Performance Assessment Report (“CPAR”).⁶ A CPAR was eventually issued but BLR objected to many statements and requested a substantive revision. The AF issued a final CPAR with only a minor change to the Past Performance Information Retrieval Systems (“PPIRS”), but they also included the original CPAR. BLR objected and requested its removal. The AF refused. BLR filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims seeking an injunction and removal of the offending CPAR in BLR Group of America, Inc. vs. the United States, No. 07-579C November 25, 2008 after filing two (2) requests with the assessing official and receiving a denial.

The Court concluded that BLR was seeking non-monetary relief arising under or related to the contract⁷ and further, that it had properly asserted entitlement to relief under

the contract on a legal basis while not asserting a contractual provision as a “matter of right.” The Court noted that both the FAR⁸ and the AF Regulations⁹ require agencies to prepare a performance evaluation of contractor performance when the work under contract is completed. The principal purpose of preparing and submitting the CPAR is to provide accurate and unbiased information about a contractor’s performance.¹⁰ Since BLR filed its complaint to the Contracting Officer (“CO”), who failed to respond, it met the requirement to file the appeal as a “matter of right” because the claim was subject to the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”).¹¹ The Court concluded that BLR had submitted a valid claim under the CDA.

The Court stated that “allowing a contractor to challenge a performance evaluation in the Court of Federal Claims is in complete harmony with the overall jurisdictional scheme fashioned by Congress.” Therefore, the Court had the authority to adjudicate all claims founded upon any act of Congress, such as the CDA.¹²

The Court concurred that the only viable option for BLR was to “challenge an allegedly unfair and inaccurate performance evaluation as a contract-performance claim under the CDA” to avoid being bound to an “inaccurate performance evaluation for unspecified – possibly lengthy – period of time.” Thus, the Court agreed that it was “imperative to ...


1 | 2 | 3