TTF, LLC
Docket: ASBCA 59512, ASBCA 59514, ASBCA 59516
Decision date: 2015-02-05

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of -- ) 
) 
TTF, LLC ) 
) 
Under Contract Nos. SPM4A7-08-C-0416 ) 
SPM4A 7-08-M-443 8 
) 
SPM4A7-08-M-4749 ) 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 59512, 
59514, 59516 
Mr. David Storey 
President 
Daniel K. Poling, Esq. 
DLA Chief Trial Attorney 
Edward R. Murray, Esq. 
Trial Attorney 
DLA Aviation 
Richmond, VA 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE O'SULLIVAN 
ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
These appeals arise under three separate contracts between the Defense Logistics 
Agency Aviation (DLA Aviation or the government), a field activity of the Defense 
Logistics Agency, and appellant TTF, LLC (TTF or appellant). The question at the 
heart of these appeals is whether a contracting officer may issue a final decision absent 
an affirmative claim by the contractor. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTIONS 
1. The Board has issued an Opinion on this same day on a government motion 
to dismiss three related appeals arising under the same contracts and operative facts as 
these appeals. Familiarity with the facts in that Opinion is presumed. See TTF, LLC, 
ASBCA Nos. 59511, 59513, 59515, slip op. (5 February 2015). The additional facts 
below are those pertinent to the captioned appeals. 
2. By certified mail on 2 June 2014, appellant sent three claims to the DLA 
contracting officer (Bd. corr. ltr. <ltd. 9 December 2014 at 3).1 Each ofthe claims 
1 All cites to the correspondence and Rule 4 files are to the correspondence and Rule 4 
files in ASBCA Nos. 59511, 59512; ASBCA Nos. 59513, 59514; and ASBCA 
Nos. 59515, 59516. ASBCA No. 59515 has been dismissed. ASBCA 
Nos. 59511 and 59513 are not at issue in these motions. 

related to one of the three contracts involved in these appeals ( 59511, 59512, R4, tab 9 
at 4, 59513, 59514, R4, tab 10 at 11, 59515, 59516, R4, tab 8 at 8). Each ofthe claims 
sought an identical determination from the contracting officer: 
I[n] accordance with the disputes provision of the 
contract and the Contract Disputes Act, TTF, LLC. hereby 
request[s] a contracting officer's final decision on the 
parties['] dispute as follows: 
1. The Contracting Officer[']s Terminated for Default 
letter dated April 30, 2014 included a premature Contracting 
Officer's final decision in the cover letter from Susan E. 
Perkins. At no time nor at any time will or has TTF, LLC. 
agreed to a shorter time period of 6 years for the Contractor to 
file a claim. TTF, LLC request[ s] relief from this inappropriate 
government imposed timeline which in fact would be no earlier 
than [ASBCA Nos. 59512, 59514: 19 May 2020; ASBCA No. 
59516: 9 May 2020] allowing 
for the 6 years, that TTF, LLC 
may file a claim. 
3. By letters dated 14 August 2014 and postmarked 18 August 2014, appellant 
submitted notices of appeal from the "decision (or failure of a decision) sent to the 
[contracting officer on] 2 June 2014" (59511, 59512, R4, tab 9 at 1, 59513, 59514, R4, 
tab 10 at 8, 59516, R4, tab 8 at 5). 
4. On 21 October 2014, appellant filed motions for summary judgment in these 
appeals. The government responded on 24 October 2014 with cross-motions for 
summary judgment. 
DECISION 
In moving for summary judgment, appellant contends that the termination 
decisions at issue in ASBCA Nos. 59511, 59513, and 59515 were invalid contracting 
officer's final decisions which unfairly yoked appellant to a "90[-]day improper 
timeline submission ... that was not initiated by a Contractor[']s claim" (59512, 59514, 
59516, app. mots. at 3, 6). By way of relief, appellant requests the Board to declare the 
termination decisions to be invalid and permit appellant to submit a claim or claims 
relating to the terminated contracts to the contracting officer within six years pursuant to 
the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (id. at 6). The government 
cross-moves for summary judgment, arguing that appellant has confused the 90-day 
appeal period set forth in§ 7104(a) of the CDA with the six-year statute of limitations 
specified in§ 7103(a)(4)(A), and that the government has the right to terminate 
contracts independently of any affirmative claim by a contractor ( 59512, 59514, 59516, 
2 

gov't cross-mots. at 5-7). Accordingly, the government requests the Board to deny 
these appeals in their entirety (id. at 7). 
Summary judgment is appropriate when the movant establishes that there is no 
genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of 
law. Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387, 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 
Here, there 
are no material facts in dispute. The only questions before us in these 
appeals are questions of law, which are appropriate for summary judgment. 
It is well-settled that the decision to terminate a contract for default is considered to 
be a government claim against the contractor, and no affirmative claim by the contractor is 
required prior to the issuance of such a decision. Amina Enterprise Group, LTD, ASBCA 
Nos. 58547, 58548, 13 BCA ii 35,376 at 173,580 (default termination is a government 
claim and does not require a contractor to file a monetary claim for Board jurisdiction); 
Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 828 F.2d 759, 764 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (default 
termination is deemed to be a decision by the contracting officer on a government claim). 
The fact that appellant had not submitted a claim or claims prior to the issuance of the 
termination decisions cannot render the decisions invalid. 
CONCLUSION 
Appellant's motions are denied. The government's motions are granted. These 
appeals are denied. 
Dated: 5 February 2015 
I concur 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
4--~---~g ~~ ~ RJCHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals of Contract Appeals 
3 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 59512, 59514, 59516, 
Appeals of TTF, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
4 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals