ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of --
Greenland Contractors I/S 
Under Contract No. F A2523- l 5-C-0002 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 61113, 61248 
James J. McCullough, Esq. 
Michael J. Anstett, Esq. 
Anayansi Rodriguez, Esq. 
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & 
Jacobson LLP 
Washington, DC 
Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq. 
Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney 
Kyle E. Gilbertson, Esq. 
Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE D' ALESSANDRIS 
ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 
This appeal concerns the interpretation of the performance work statement 
regarding the maintenance and repair of electrical generation equipment pursuant to 
the Thule Greenland base maintenance contract between appellant Greenland 
Contractors I/S (Greenland) and respondent, the Department of the Air Force (Air 
Force or government). Greenland appeals from correspondence issued by an Air 
Force contracting officer that interpreted the contract to impose certain requirements 
upon Greenland which Greenland contends constitutes a government claim for 
contract interpretation. The Air Force moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, 
asserting that the contracting officer's correspondence was contract administration and 
that the government has not asserted a claim. As explained below, we find that the 
Air Force's letter constitutes a government claim, though not a claim for contract 
interpretation. 
Subsequent to briefing of the Air Force's motion to dismiss, the Air Force 
unilaterally reduced the price of Greenland's contract, pursuant to the inspection clause, 1 
1 The inspection clause gives the government the right to inspect and test contract 
services. If the services do not conform to contract requirements, the 
government can require the contractor to perform the services again. If the 

by an amount purportedly representing the value of the work required by the contract but 
not performed. Greenland filed a second appeal, ASBCA No. 61248, from that 
correspondence. As we find that the contracting officer's letter at issue in this appeal 
asserts a government claim, we consolidate ASBCA Nos. 61113 and 61248 for future 
consideration because the appeals involve the interpretation of the same provision of the 
same contract. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 
As a complaint has not yet been filed, we rely on documents contained in the Rule 
4 file to provide context to this motion. The Air Force awarded the Thule Greenland Base 
Maintenance Contract No. F A2523-15-C-0002 to Greenland in September 2015 (R4, 
tab 2). The contract contains Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.246-4, 
INSPECTION OF SERVICES-FIXED-PRICE (AUG 1996) (the inspection of services clause) 
(id.). Relevant to this appeal, the Performance Work Statement of the contract contains 
paragraph 3.13.4 "Operate, maintain and repair electrical generation equipment in 'M' 
plant (Building 1391) and 'J' plant (Building 4016)" (R4, tab 3 at 49). The Air Force and 
Greenland disagree as to the proper interpretation of paragraph 3 .13 .4 and specifically the 
interpretation of a provision of that paragraph providing: "Note: Government will furnish 
depot level maintenance" (id. at 50). 
By letter dated 12 May 2016, Stephanie Tancik, the Air Force contracting officer, 
responded to an 11 May 2016 email (not in the record) from Greenland, and informed 
Greenland that the Air Force interpreted the performance work statement as requiring 
Greenland to "accomplish all depot level repairs required on M Plant Diesel Units" (R4, 
tab 4). By letter dated 26 May 2016, Greenland provided the Air Force with its 
interpretation of the performance work statement requirements (R4, tab 5). The Air 
Force responded on 7 September 2016, repeating its prior interpretation of the 
performance work statement and directing Greenland to "immediately initiate all actions 
to return Engines # 1-5 in M-Plant to full operational capability" (R4, tab 6). On 
17 November 2016, Greenland wrote to the contracting officer following meetings 
between Greenland and the Air Force, apparently held on 7 and 8 November 2016 (R4, 
tab 8). In the letter, Greenland again set forth its interpretation of the performance work 
statement and provided that it "hereby asserts that the [government's] failure to complete 
the 40,000 hour [depot level maintenance] required by the [performance work statement] 
was a violation of its obligations under the contract" (id.). The letter further requested 
the government's response to Greenland's position (id.). 
defects cannot be corrected by re-performance, the government can require the 
contractor to take steps to ensure performance in the future or reduce the 
contract price. FAR 52.246-4(e). 
2 

On 11 January 2017, the contracting officer responded to Greenland's letter 
providing that Greenland "is hereby directed to immediately initiate and continue all 
actions to return electrical generation equipment #1-5 in M-Plant to full operational 
capability" (R4, tab 9). In conclusion, the letter provided that it: 
stands as the Contracting Officer's Response concerning 
the maintenance and repairs of the Electrical Generation 
Equipment at M-Plant under Thule Base Maintenance 
Contract - FA2523-l 5-C-0002. To the extent the 
Electrical Generation Equipment Nos. 1-5 in M-Plant are 
not brought back to full operational capability by the 
period of performance end date of 30 September 2017, the 
Government reserves the right to monetary consideration 
for any repairs not completed. 
(Id.) On 30 March 2017, the Air Force issued a notice of rejection of Greenland's 
work due to Greenland's failure to perform the depot level repairs directed by the 
contracting officer in her letters of 7 September 2016 and 11 January 2017 ( app. supp. 
R4, tab S-1 ). The letter stated that Greenland had until 16 June 2017 to perform the 
depot level maintenance work and requested a response from Greenland by 27 March 
2017 (id.). By letter dated 27 March 2017, Greenland responded to the contracting 
officer, again disputing the government's interpretation of the performance work 
statement and proposing alternative methods 2 of meeting the government's 16 June 
2017 deadline (app. supp. R4, tab S-2). On 10 April 2017, appellant submitted an 
appeal of the contracting officer's 11 January 2017 letter to the Board, which it 
docketed as ASBCA No. 61113. 
On 11 July 2017, the contracting officer issued a unilateral modification of the 
contract pursuant to the inspection of services clause, reducing the contract price by 
$3.2 million for work purportedly required by the performance work statement and 
which cannot be re-performed (app. supp. R4, tab S-3). Greenland subsequently filed 
an appeal from that final decision which has been docketed as ASBCA No. 61248. 
2 Greenland's proposed "alternatives" do not appear to be serious options as each 
alternative notes major obstacles to implementation. For example, one alternative 
is to shutdown the M-plant and rely only on the back-up generators, a second 
option proposes to reduce base operations, with a "pre-emptive partial evacuation" 
of the base based on the likely failure of back-up power, and another option is to 
airlift in new generators at government expense (app. supp. R4, tab S-2). 
3 

DECISION 
Pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109, a 
contractor may, "within 90 days from the date of receipt of a contracting officer's 
decision" under 41 U.S.C. § 7103 appeal the decision to an agency board. 41 U.S.C. 
§ 7104(a). Our reviewing court, the Federal Circuit, has held that CDAjurisdiction 
requires "both a valid claim and a contracting officer's final decision on that claim." 
M Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 
(citing James M Ellett Constr. Co. v. United States, 93 F.3d 1537, 1541-42 (Fed. Cir. 
1996)). Normally, when the CDA claim is a government claim, the contracting officer's 
final decision is considered to be the claim. See, e.g., Lockheed Martin Corp., 
ASBCA No. 57525, 12-1BCAii35,017. In such instances, the government bears the 
burden of establishing jurisdiction for a government claim. See, e.g., Cedars-Sinai 
Medical Center v. Watkins, 11F.3d1573, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, however, 
Greenland contends that the government has asserted a claim, while the government has 
filed a motion to dismiss, contending that it has not asserted a claim. In such instances, 
the party asserting jurisdiction, Greenland, bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. 
DynPort Vaccine Company LLC, ASBCA No. 59298, 15-1BCAii35,860 at 175,332 
(citing Cedars-Sinai, 11 F.3d at 1584). 
The parties dispute the significance of the 11 January 2017 letter from the 
contracting officer to Greenland. We find that the letter constitutes a valid government 
claim. 3 The 11 January 2017 letter provides that Greenland "is hereby directed to 
immediately initiate and continue all actions to return electrical generation equipment 
# 1-5 in M-Plant to full operational capability" (R4, tab 9). This direction constitutes a 
government claim. The situation here is similar to the facts in Garrett v. General Elec. 
Co., 987 F.2d 747 (Fed. Cir. 1993), where the government directed General Electric to 
repair or replace purportedly defective jet engines. The Federal Circuit held that, 
pursuant to that contract's inspection clause, the government had three options; it could 
have: 1) reduced the contract price by an equitable portion of the contract price; 
2) demanded that the contractor repay an equitable portion of the contract price; 
or 3) directed the contractor to correct or replace the defective product. General Electric, 
987 F.2d at 749. Rather than seeking monetary options of reducing the contract price or 
requiring repayment, the government directed performance which constituted "other 
relief' pursuant to the FAR. Id. The Federal Circuit noted in General Electric that the 
government's "choice of relief- a substitute for monetary remedies - fit within the CDA 
3 The correspondence between Greenland and the government prior to the 11 January 
letter may also constitute a contractor claim seeking contract interpretation, to 
which the 11 January letter is a final decision. Both parties reject this 
interpretation. Regardless, we are satisfied that the 11 January letter is a valid 
claim providing us with jurisdiction. 
4 

concept of 'claim."' Id. Similarly, here, pursuant to the inspection clause FAR 52.246-4, 
the Air Force had the option of directing Greenland to perform the work, or reducing the 
contract amount by the value of the services not performed. As in General Electric this 
direction constitutes a government claim. 
The Air Force asserts that the 11 January 201 7 letter does not constitute a claim 
because it is not styled as a contracting officer's final decision, does not seek 
interpretation or adjustment of contract terms, and because Greenland's true goal is a 
monetary claim for work performed beyond the scope of the contract (gov't mot. 
at 2-3). None of the Air Force's arguments are meritorious. First, the fact that the 
11 January 2017 letter was not captioned as a contracting officer's final decision, and 
does not satisfy the requirements of a final decision contained in the FAR is of no 
importance to determining our jurisdiction. "The absence of an express styling of a 
document as a [contracting officer's] decision or of notice of the contractor's appeal 
rights, or of both, does not render a [contracting officer's] decision ineffective or 
deprive the Board of jurisdiction." DynPort Vaccine, 15-1 BCA ii 35,860 at 175,333. 
The Air Force's argument that the final decision does not seek adjustment or 
interpretation of contract terms is similarly unavailing because even though Greenland 
incorrectly characterizes the decision as one seeking the interpretation of contract terms, it 
is, nevertheless, one seeking "other relief' as permitted by the FAR. The FAR defines a 
claim as "a written demand or written assertion by one of the contracting parties seeking, 
as a matter of right, the payment of money in a sum certain, the adjustment or 
interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to the contract." 
FAR 2.101. The Board interprets the term "claim" broadly. DynPort Vaccine, 15-1 BCA 
ii 35,860 at 175,333 (citing Todd Construction, L.P. v. United States, 656 F.3d 1306, 1311 
(Fed. Cir. 2011 )). The Board has held that there is a question of contract interpretation 
when there is a dispute as to whether the contract requires performance of a task. Kaman 
Precision Products, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 56305, 56313, 10-2 BCA ii 34,529 at 170,288. 
Even though the 11 January 2017 letter does not seek "the adjustment or interpretation of 
contract terms" - for it, in fact, acts to interpret them - it clearly seeks "other relief arising 
under or relating to the contract." See General Electric, 987 F.2d at 949; DynPort Vaccine, 
15-1 BCA ii 35,860 at 175,333; see also Donald M Lake, d/b/a Shady Cove Resort & 
Marina, ASBCA No. 54422, 05-1BCAii32,920 at 163,071. 
The Air Force additionally cites to Wests tar Engineering, Inc., ASBCA 
No. 52484, 02-1BCAii31,759 and Woodington Corp., ASBCA No. 37272, 89-2 BCA 
ii 21,602, for the proposition that there is not a valid claim because Greenland's true 
dispute is a request for an equitable adjustment to the contract. The cited cases do not 
support this proposition. Neither Weststar nor Woodington involved a government claim. 
In Weststar, the contractor had submitted requests for equitable adjustments, but had not 
certified the requests. The contractor was subsequently the subject of a fraud 
5 

investigation by the Department of Justice. The contractor asserted a claim for contract 
interpretation while repeatedly referring to its claim as being for $4.2 million. In fact, the 
contractor admitted that it was "trying to avoid presentation of its monetary claim 
because of [Department of Justice] concerns." Weststar, 02-1 BCA ,-i 31,759 at 156,852. 
In Woodington, the complaint filed with the Board requested an equitable adjustment 
without specifying a dollar amount. Woodington, 89-2 BCA ,-i 21,602 at 108,758. The 
Board dismissed the appeal holding that there was "no indication that such claim has 
been quantified and presented to the contracting officer" and thus, the Board lacked 
jurisdiction to review it. Id. Taken together, Weststar and Woodington stand for the 
proposition that a contractor cannot assert a monetary claim as a contractor claim for 
contract interpretation. Here, Greenland is alleging a non-monetary claim by the 
government. Both DynCorp and General Electric provide that that Board possesses 
jurisdiction to entertain such claims. 
In its reply brief, the Air Force asserts that case law demonstrates that contract 
interpretation claims are filed by contractors and not by the government and that the only 
reason to bring a contract interpretation claim is to lead to a price adjustment claim (gov't 
reply at 6-8). As noted above, we agree that this is not a contract interpretation claim by 
the government, but nevertheless hold that the Board possesses jurisdiction to entertain 
Greenland's appeal. The government is correct that the typical procedure would be for 
Greenland to file a request for equitable adjustment of the contract seeking increased 
compensation, followed by a claim. However, the fact that Greenland did not follow the 
typical procedure cannot deprive the Board of jurisdiction to entertain a claim within its 
jurisdiction. See Kaman Precision Products, 10-2 BCA ,-i 34,529 at 170,287 ("The fact 
that a decision on [a claim for contract interpretation] may later result in a monetary 
claim does not affect our jurisdiction to hear the appeal before us nor does it lead us to 
conclude that it would be premature to decide [the claim for contract interpretation] at 
this time."). 
As the government notes, resolution of the contract interpretation issue does not 
obtain any relief for Greenland and can only lead to a request for equitable adjustment 
in the event that Greenland's interpretation of the contract prevails (gov't reply at 7). 
Thus, contractors typically follow the request for equitable adjustment process as it is 
likely more efficient than pursuing two rounds of litigation. The benefit, if any, to 
Greenland of appealing a government claim, rather than filing a request for equitable 
adjustment is unclear. The appeal of a contract interpretation claim is not a monetary 
claim and therefore does not get Greenland an earlier claim accrual date for possible 
CDA interest. In addition, a claim for contract interpretation is a question of law, so 
there is no burden of proof. Moreover, we note that the Air Force issued a unilateral 
6 

modification reducing the contract amount, and, thus, it appears4 that the issues in this 
appeal will largely be duplicated in the second appeal. 
By order dated 18 July 2017, the Board requested supplemental briefing from 
the parties on whether this appeal should be consolidated with ASBCA No. 61248. 
Greenland indicated that the appeals should be combined because both appeals involve 
interpretation of the performance work statement and arise from the same operative 
facts and questions oflaw, and moved for consolidation (app. supp. br. at 1). The 
government opposed consolidation of the appeals because the two claims involve 
different government actions and because the Board lacks jurisdiction to entertain the 
initially filed appeal (ASBCA No. 61113) (gov't supp. br. at 2-3). As the 
government's main objection to consolidation (that the Board lacks jurisdiction in this 
appeal) has been rejected in this opinion, we find that consolidation is appropriate. 
Finally, Greenland has filed motions to require the government to file the 
complaint in each of the appeals. The Air Force has responded to both motions. 
Briefing of the motion to direct the government to file the answer in ASBCA No. 61113 
was held in abeyance by order dated 9 May 2017. The motion in ASBCA No. 61248 
was held in abeyance by order dated 20 September 2017. Greenland may file a reply 
brief in the consolidated appeal within 30 days of this opinion. 
Dated: 8 December 2017 
I concur 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
DAVID D' ALESSANDRIS 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
J. REID PROUTY 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
4 We assume, but do not hold, that the modification is properly before us in ASBCA No. 
61248. The Air Force may choose to challenge our jurisdiction to entertain that appeal. 
7 

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. 61113, 61248, Appeals of 
Greenland Contractors l/S, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
8 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals