Lael Al Sahab & Co.
Docket: ASBCA 58346
Decision date: 2014-09-02

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of -- ) 
) 
Lael Al Sahab & Co. ) 
) 
Under Contract No. W91GET-07-M-0063 ) 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 58346 
Mr. Alie Sufan 
Owner 
Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 
Army Chief Trial Attorney 
CPT Vera A. Strebel, JA 
Trial Attorney 
OPINION 
BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MELNICK 
ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 
This appeal involves a contract for street cleaning and 
grounds maintenance 
services in Iraq. In a previous decision we dismissed the majority of the appeal, except 
for a claim for $8,250 in withheld funds. Lael Al Sahab & Co., ASBCA No. 58346, 
13 BCA ~ 35,394. The government now moves to dismiss the remainder of the appeal. 
We deny the motion. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 
In 2007, Lael Al Sahab & Co. executed a commercial items contract with the Joint 
Contracting Command-Iraq/Afghanistan (government) for street cleaning and grounds 
maintenance services in Iraq (R4, tab 1). On 4 October 2012, Mr. Alie Sufan transmitted 
a notice of appeal to this Board on behalf of Lael Al Sahab, seeking an outstanding 
balance of $11,000 and an additional $1,000,000 resulting from a "fake" report. 
Mr. Sufan has represented Lael Al Sahab since filing the 
notice of appeal. In a 
21 February 2013 letter, he explained he is the director and owner of the company (Bd. 
corr. ltr. dtd. 21February2013). Accordingly, the Board's 19 August 2013 opinion, 
dismissing the majority of the appeal with the exception of a claim for $8,250, identified 
Mr. Sufan as the company's owner. Lael Al Sahab, 13 BCA ~ 35,394 at 173,660. 
The government now moves to dismiss the remainder of the appeal, contending 
that Lael Al Sahab has failed to comply with Board Rule 15 because Mr. Sufan is not an 

officer of the corporation. 1 Alternatively, the government seeks dismissal for lack of 
jurisdiction on the ground that Lael Al Sahab represented that it has ceased to exist, and 
therefore lacks capacity to maintain the appeal. 
DECISION 
I. Board Rule 15 
Under Board Rule 15, if a corporation is not represented by an attorney then it 
must be represented by one of its officers. We have previously been satisfied that 
Mr. Sufan's status as a director and owner meets that requirement. However, the 
government contends that it requested Mr. Sufan to produce documents "prov[ing] that 
he was an officer or an owner of the corporation" and that what he provided fails to do so 
(gov't mot. at 7). The government overstates what it requested. The only relevant 
document requests provided by the government, numbers 6 and 7, seek "documents 
regarding Mr. Alie Sufan as owner of Lael Al Sahab in 2007 and 2012" or his "current 
ownership of Lael Al Sahab" (gov't mot., ex. 5 at 8). They fail to ask for anything 
proving he is an officer. 
According to the government, as part of his document production, Mr. Sufan 
provided a single sheet and translation that appears to be the last page of a document 
identifying him as an "investor" in an unidentified entity (gov't mot., ex. 9). The 
government has produced a second document and translation (without identifying its 
source or providing evidence of authenticity) that its counsel represents is the complete 
version of the document provided by Mr. Sufan. That translation indicates that the 
document is the 19 November 2005 Minutes of Incorporation ofLayl Al-Sahab Company 
General Contracting & Trading Ltd. It purports to establish the company and name a 
chairman, deputy executive director, auditor, and legal advisor, none of whom are 
Mr. Sufan. However, Ali Abdullah Sofan is named as one of three company 
shareholders. (Gov't mot., ex. 10) 
The government argues that because it requested Mr. Sufan to produce documents 
proving he is an officer of the company, and the minutes the government has presented to 
allegedly complete his production fail to do so, we should dismiss the appeal. Even if we 
were to find the government's document from 2005 to be authentic, it is irrelevant to this 
appeal filed in 2012. What is relevant are other materials presented by the government, 
such as Mr. Sufan's interrogatory responses stating that Mr. Sufan was the manager of 
Lael Al Sahab in 2012, as well as his current filings making the same representation now 
(gov't mot., ex. 8; Bd. corr. ltrs. dtd. 23 & 28 May 2014). As noted, Mr. Sufan has 
1 At the time the government filed its motion, the provision it relies upon was located in 
Rule 26. The Board revised its rules on 21 July 2014, relocating the provision to 
Rule 15. 
2 

already represented to the Board that he is an owner of the corporation (which is also 
supported by the government's document naming him as a shareholder) and a director. 
In this case, we accept Mr. Sufan's status as the company's manager, director, and an 
owner, to meet the requirements of Rule 15. 
II. Capacity to Appeal 
In the alternative to its Rule 15 contention, the government argues that Lael Al 
Sahab has "ceased to exist" and therefore lacks capacity to maintain an appeal (gov't 
mot. at 9). The government bases this suggestion upon Mr. Sufan's responses to its 
interrogatories, which state that "the company [has been] closed since [January] 2014," 
and that the company "dismiss[ ed] all [its] workers in 2010, but the company still valid 
but not active since then" (gov't mot., exs. 8, 11 ). It also notes his statement that the 
company has not received new contracts since 2009 (Bd. corr. ltr. dtd. 28 May 2014). 
The government's argument is unpersuasive. Mr. Sufan did not say that Lael Al 
Sahab has "ceased to exist" or is dissolved. Indeed, Mr. Sufan said that the company is 
still "valid." The most the government can claim from his statements is that the 
corporation is not currently engaging in any business or employing anyone. Furthermore, 
even if the corporation has dissolved, that fact would not necessarily bar it from pursuing 
an appeal to this Board. Whether it could do so would depend upon the law of its place 
of incorporation. RMS Technology, Inc., ASBCA No. 50954, 00-1BCA,-r30,763; Micro 
Tool Engineering, Inc., ASBCA No. 31349, 87-1BCA,-r19,372. Thus, we would look to 
the law of Iraq. See Rosinka Joint Venture, ASBCA No. 48143, 97-1 BCA ,-r 28,653 at 
143,138 (applying Russian Federation law to determine the capacity of a joint venture 
formed under Russian law), aff'd, 135 F.3d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (table). Given that the 
government asks us to consider the law of a foreign country, the government should bear 
the burden of demonstrating its application. Board Rule 6( c ); Weigel Hochdrucktechnik 
GmbH & Co. KG, ASBCA No. 57207, 12-1BCA,-r34,975 at 171,924. The government 
has made no showing that a dissolved Iraqi corporation cannot pursue an action such as 
this. Thus, the government has failed to demonstrate that Lael Al Sahab lacks capacity to 
maintain this appeal. 
3 

CONCLUSION 
The government's motion to dismiss is denied. 
Dated: 2 September 2014 
I concur 
~L#= 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
~t.:?# 
MARK A. MELNICK 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58346, Appeal of Lael Al 
Sahab & Co., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
4 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals