June 18, 1998
Appeal of
LISA COFFRON
Under Contract No. 072368-95-P-0113
PSBCA No. 4069
APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANT:
Lisa Coffron
P. O. Box 123
Coleville, CA 96107-0123
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Robert E. O'Connell, Esq.
San Francisco Office
United States Postal Service
577 Airport Boulevard, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010-2040
OPINION OF THE BOARD
Appellant, Lisa Coffron, has filed a timely appeal of the contracting officer's decision terminating Appellant's contract for cleaning services at the Coleville, California Post Office. At the election of the parties, the appeal has been submitted on the record pursuant to 39 C.F.R. §955.12.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On October 18, 1994, Respondent, United States Postal Service, awarded Contract No. 072368-95-P-0113 to Appellant for cleaning services at the Coleville,
California Post Office. The contract had an annual rate of $3,380 and a term from October 29, 1994, through October 25, 1996, with four additional two-year options, at Respondent's election. (Appeal File Tabs (AF) 1, 2).
2. The contract required that Appellant perform specified cleaning services on Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. Clause E.3, FAILURE TO PERFORM WORK, provided that the contractor has agreed to perform cleaning services during the hours and for the days specified and that continued failure to perform may be cause for termination of the contract. (AF 2).
3. Clause G.7, TERMINATION ON NOTICE, provided that:
"This contract may be terminated, in whole or in part, by either party upon 30 days written notice. In the event of such termination, neither party will be liable for any costs, except for payment in accordance with the payment provisions of the contract for the actual services rendered prior to the effective date of the termination. When, in the contracting officer's judgment, the interests of the Postal Service require such action, the contract may be terminated by the contracting officer, giving the contractor one day's notice in writing." (AF 2).
4. The contracting officer appointed the Coleville Postmaster as the Contracting Officer's Representative (Declaration of Rondal R. Scandrett).
5. Bilateral modification M01 to the contract, effective November 23, 1994, changed Appellant's hours of performance to Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays between 1:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. This change was made to avoid interference with the operation of the post office. (AF 4; Declaration of Rondal R. Scandrett).
6. On August 13, 1996, Respondent exercised the option to extend the contract for two years beginning on October 26, 1996, and ending on October 23, 1998 (AF 9).
7. At the time of the extension to Appellant's contract, the postmaster discussed with Appellant his concern about the number of hours she was working. Appellant worked only approximately one and one-half hours each day instead of the contractually allotted two and one-half hours. In addition, Appellant routinely failed to perform all the tasks specified in the contract's Frequency and Performance Schedule[1]. (AF 10, 11; Declarations of Rondal R. Scandrett and William K. Peairs).
8. On November 26, 1996, Appellant informed the postmaster that she wanted to change both the days and times she performed her contract and that if the change did not meet the needs of the Postal Service, she would accept a thirty-day notice of termination of her contract (AF 12; Declaration of Rondal R. Scandrett).
9. Since Appellant's proposed schedule change did not meet the needs of the Coleville Post Office, the postmaster requested that the contracting officer terminate the contract on thirty days' notice (AF 16; Declarations of Rondal R. Scandrett and William K. Peairs).
10. On December 4, 1996, the contracting officer issued Modification M04 terminating the contract on thirty days' notice, effective January 3, 1997 (AF 17; Declaration of William K. Peairs).
11. Appellant advised the postmaster that she would work during the days and hours required by the contract during the thirty-day termination period. However, on December 6, 1996, Appellant requested to work outside the contractually specified hours on the following Wednesday (December 11). The postmaster advised her that she had to comply with the contractually specified hours. (AF 19; Declaration of Rondal R. Scandrett).
12. The postmaster closed the office for lunch from 1:00 to 1:30 p.m. each day. On December 13, 1996, Appellant arrived at 1:00 p.m. to begin work, but was informed by the postmaster that she had to wait until 1:30 p.m. (the contractually specified time) to begin work. Appellant returned at 2:30 p.m. and began arguing with the postmaster in a loud voice while he waited on a customer. She then immediately left the post office without performing her work that day. (AF 19; Declaration of Rondal R. Scandrett).
13. Based on a report from the postmaster concerning Appellant's actions on December 13, 1996, the contracting officer issued Modification M05 on the same date, terminating Appellant's contract, effective immediately, because of her disruptive behavior (AF 21, 23; Declaration of William K. Peairs).
DECISION
Appellant contests the decision to terminate her contract by arguing that she always kept the post office clean and that it was the discourteous behavior of the postmaster towards her on December 13, 1996, that caused her own behavior on that date. She asks that the Board reinstate her contract.
Respondent argues that the contracting officer could properly terminate Appellant's contract on one day's notice because of Appellant's disruptive behavior at the post office on December 13, 1996.
In this case, because of Appellant's assertion that she needed a different work schedule, the contracting officer had already provided Appellant notice of his decision to terminate Appellant's contract on thirty days' notice, effective January 3, 1997 (Finding of Fact (FOF) 10). When informed of Appellant's disruptive behavior on December 13, 1996, and that she failed to perform her cleaning services that day, he decided to terminate her contract, "effective immediately" (FOF 13).
Based on Appellant's actions on December 13, 1996, coupled with her failure to perform on that date (FOF 7), the contracting officer had a sufficient basis to exercise his discretion and terminate the contract on one-day's notice[2]. Tom Kime, PSBCA No. 3480, 95-1 BCA ¶ 27,490 recon. denied 95-2 BCA ¶ 27,673. Appellant
has failed to offer any proof that this action was taken in bad faith or was an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, the appeal is denied.
William K. Mahn
Administrative Judge
Board Member
I concur:
James A. Cohen
Administrative Judge
Chairman
I concur:
David I. Brochstein
Administrative Judge
Vice Chairman
[1] The postmaster also advised the contracting officer concerning Appellant's practice of working only approximately one and one-half hours on each scheduled work day. At the same time, however, the postmaster also informed the contracting officer that Appellant was performing the work "satisfactorily in the time she spends at the P.O." (AF 13; Declarations of Rondal R. Scandrett and William K. Peairs).