ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of--
Line Government Services, LLC 
Under Contract Nos. W91B4N-10-C-5006 
W91 GD W -09-C-400 1 
W52P1J-10-D-0105 
W91 GER-06-D-0006 
W91GY0-11-D-0001 
W91 GDW -1 0-C-6002 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
ASBCA Nos. 58561, 58562, 58563 
58565,58566,58567 
BryantS. Banes, Esq. 
Sean D. Forbes, Esq. 
Neel, Hooper & Banes, P.C. 
Houston, TX 
Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 
Army Chief Trial Attorney 
MAJ John R. Longley, JA 
Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JAMES ON THE 
GOVERNMENT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 
Line Government Services, LLC, (Line) appealed the contracting officer's (CO's) 
deemed denial of Line's alleged claims under the contracts in the captioned appeals. The 
government moved to dismiss these appeals for lack of Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 
41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109,jurisdiction, alleging there were no contractor or government 
claims and no CO decisions. Line opposed those motions. The government replied to 
the opposition. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTIONS 
1. The government awarded six contracts to Line on the following dates to be 
performed at the sites indicated for the following ASBCA docket numbers: 

ASBCA No. Contract No. 
58561 
58562 
58563 
58565 
58566 
58567 
W91 B4N-1 0-C-5006 
W91 GDW -09-C-400 1 
W52PIJ-10-D-0105 
W91 GER-06-D-0006 
W91 GY0-11-D-000 1 
W91 GD W -1 0-C-6002 
Date Site 
1 7/02/1 0 Afghanistan 
04/23/09 Iraq 
16/09/10 Iraq 
03/09/06 Iraq 
03/01111 Iraq 
03/03110 Iraq 
(Gov't mot.~ 11) Hereafter these contracts will be indicated by their last four digits. 
2. Five such contracts (omitting contract 0 105) included the DFARS 
252.225-7040, CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL AUTHORIZED TO ACCOMPANY U.S. ARMED 
FORCES DEPLOYED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES clause, which authorized contractor 
personnel in designated situations to receive medical care at military treatment facilities, 
and required the contractor to reimburse the government's costs of medical treatment or 
transportation of contractor personnel to a civilian medical facility (ASBCA No. 58561 
(58561), R4, tab 1 at 31; ASBCA No. 58562 (58562), R4, tab 1 at 38; ASBCA No. 58565 
(58565), R4, tab 1 at 9; ASBCA No. 58566 (58566), R4, tab 1 at 62; ASBCA No. 58567 
(58567), R4, tab 1 at 44). 
3. Five such contracts (omitting contract 0006) included a 952.225-0003, FITNESS 
FOR DUTY AND MEDICAL/DENTAL CARE LIMITATIONS clause, whose text was essentially 
identical except for the clause's date of issue and paragraph numbering. That clause 
provided in pertinent part: 
(c) In accordance with military directives (DoDI 
3020.41, 
DoDI 6000.11, CFC FRAGO 09-1038, DoD PGI 225.74), 
resuscitative care, stabilization, hospitalization at Level III 
(emergency) military treatment facilities and assistance with 
patient movement in emergencies where loss of life, limb or 
eyesight could occur will be provided. Hospitalization will 
be limited to emergency stabilization and short-term medical 
treatment with an emphasis on return to duty or placement in 
the patient movement system. Subject to availability at the 
time of need, a medical treatment facility may provide 
reimbursable treatment for emergency medical or dental care 
1 Citations to a paragraph in the government's motion or to an exhibit attached thereto, 
and to a Rule 4 document, refer to the paragraphs, exhibits and Rule 4 documents 
in all six motions, except when an ASBCA number(s) prefixes the citation. 
2 

such as broken bones, lacerations, broken teeth or lost 
fillings. 
(d) Routine and primary medical care is not authorized. 
Pharmaceutical services are not authorized for routine or 
known, routine prescription drug needs of the individual. 
Routine dental care, examinations and cleanings are not 
authorized. 
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of the contract, the 
contractor shall be liable for any and all medically-related 
services or transportation rendered [at inpatient daily rate of 
$2,041 and daily outpatient daily rate of $195]. 
(58561, R4, tab 1 at 39-40; 58562, R4, tab 1 at 25; 58563, R4, tab 1 at 39; 58566, R4, 
tab 1 at 37; 58567, R4, tab 1 at 31) 
4. During the period 18 July 2011 to 27 March 2012, Line received several letters 
from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DF AS). These letters were signed by 
Meggan Mczeal, Rose Seaton and Steven Bunting and requested Line to pay for allegedly 
unpaid medical services provided for its employees in various stated amounts. Exhibit A 
to each DFAS letter set forth the invoice number, patient's name, date of service and 
amount due. (Gov't mot., attach. 1, ex. A) The appeal records contain no evidence that 
Meggan Mczeal, Rose Seaton and Steven Bunting were COs. 
5. Line also sent letters dated 18 September 2012 by email to CORey Romero on 
contract 5006, CO Lena Unverrich on contract 4001, CO Barbara J. Voss on contracts 0001 
and 0105, MAJ Manuel E. Saenz, USAF, CO on contract 0006, and CO Glenn Basso on 
contract 6002 (58561, app. supp. R4, tabs 6A-E, 6H). 
6. For example, Line's 18 September 2012 letter to CO Romero stated: 
Re: Contract No. W19B4N-10-C-5006 
Dear Mr. Romero: 
My name is Sean Forbes [ofNeel, Hooper & Banes, 
P.C.] and I represent Line .... This letter is in response to 
several letters Line has received from [DFAS] regarding 
alleged unpaid medical services (Exhibit A). 
3 

... Based on the plain language of[10 U.S.C. § 1079(b), 
DoD Instruction 3020.41 and DF ARS Clause 252.225-7040], 
there has not been 
enough evidence presented to demonstrate 
that Line is responsible for these medical bills . 
. . . [T]hese regulations were designed to account for 
situations where a civilian contractor was injured in the 
course of their duty while in a combat zone, thus requiring 
emergency care (see DODI 3020.41, [§] 4.i ... ). In the event 
of such an injury, one of two things happens: either the 
civilian is rehabilitated with an eye towards returning them to 
duty, or the civilian is so seriously injured they must be 
transported to a civilian facility out of theater (see id.). If the 
civilian is rehabilitated with the intent of returning them to 
duty, the government is responsible for those medical 
expenses (see id.). It is only when the injured civilian is 
transported out of theater into a civilian facility that the 
contractor is responsible for that transportation and treatment 
during transport .... Moreover, when the civilian ... must be 
transported out of the theater due to the extent of their [sic] 
injuries, the [CO] receives written notification that the 
employee is being taken out of the theater .... Thus, as Line's 
[CO] for the subject contract, you would have received these 
notifications.... As this would serve to justify the 
government's claim for reimbursement, we are hereby 
requesting any such notifications be produced to our 
offices ... on or before 20 days after the date of this letter . 
. . . Thus, until such evidence is received Line disputes 
the government's allegation that Line is required to reimburse 
the government for these medical expenses and will not pay 
for expenses which it is not responsible. 
Further, we are notifying you of this issue in the event 
that DFAS attempts to stop payment on any of Line's future 
vouchers associated with this contract to pay these 
outstanding medical bills. Line is not responsible for these 
bills and thus should not suffer any interruption in payment as 
4 

a result. We would like you to coordinate with DFAS to 
reach a resolution on this issue. 
(Gov't mot., attach. 1, ex. G-1) 
7. Mr. Forbes also sent letters dated 18 September 2012 to DFAS repeating most 
of the statements in his foregoing letters to the COs, disputing that Line was required to 
reimburse DF AS for the medical expenses, and stating: "Please correct this discrepancy 
immediately and provide written proof thereof. Failure to adjust this debt as requested 
will result in a claim before the Court of Federal Claims" (gov't mot., ex. G-6). 
8. Regarding contract 5006, the government's motion avers that: (a) Line's 
18 September 2012letters to CO Romero were sent to rey.a.romero@afghan.swa.army.mil, 
an address Mr. Romero used during his deployment to Afghanistan, but was disabled 
upon his redeployment before September 2012, he never received Line's letter and learned 
about it from respondent's trial attorney (58561, gov't mot. at 4, ,-r 8, exs. G-1 to G-3); 
(b) Capt Bryce Fiacco, who was PCO on 18 September 2012, never received Line's 
18 September 2012letter and was not afforded an opportunity to reply thereto (58561, 
gov't mot. at 4, ,-r 9, ex. G-4); (c) Mr. Adam Goldstein, current CO on the date of 
respondent's motion, did not receive Line's 18 September 2012letter and was not afforded 
an opportunity to reply thereto (58561, gov't mot. at 4, ,-r 10, ex. G-5). 
9. A 4 May 2011 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between DF AS and the 
Department ofthe Army set out DFAS' billing practices for reimbursing DFAS for medical 
treatment provided at military medical treatment facilities. The MOA was used for the 
billings sent to Line. It specified the responsibilities ofDFAS and of the Army, but did not 
address the topic of a CO's final decision. (Gov't mot. at 4, ,-r 12, ex. G-7, ,-r 4) 
10. On 14 February 2013, Line sent six notices of appeal to the ASBCA which 
were docketed as ASBCA Nos. 58561-58563 and 58565-58567. 2 
11. Line's complaint in ASBCA No. 58561 alleged, inter alia: 
2. Rey Romero ("Contracting Officer") was the 
Agency's contracting officer for the Contract [5006]. 
2 Since the parties agreed that ASBCA No. 58561 was duplicative of ASBCA 
No. 58564, ASBCA No. 58564 was dismissed on 5 November 2013. 
5 

9. [O]n September 18, 2012, Line sent a letter 
to.,. [CO Rey Romero] because he was the last known [CO] 
for the Contract. There were no modifications to the Contract 
or notices to Line identifying a different [CO]. 
17. Only after Line filed its notice of appeal was it 
informed that the [CO] for the Contract had changed. In fact, 
Line did not even learn the name of the new [CO] until the 
Government filed its motion to dismiss this appeal. ... 
DECISION 
The government argues that Line's 18 September 2012 letters to the COs did not 
constitute CDA claims (gov't mot. at 8-11 ). DF AS' billing letters to Line were not 
government claims (id. at 12-13 ). Thus, no deemed denial of claims occurred and Line 
has the burden to prove CDAjurisdiction (gov't reply br. at 2). The government 
requested a stay of proceedings until its jurisdictional motions are resolved (gov't mot. at 
13).3 Line argues that it submitted non-monetary requests for determination of its duty to 
pay for medical services under the contracts, which constituted CDA claims (app. opp'n 
at 10-16), and since deemed denials of such claims arose from the COs' inactions (id. at 
17-22), the Board can direct the COs to issue final decisions (id. at 24). 
The government's motions raise the issue of whether there is a government or 
contractor claim that complies with the CDA requisites for Board jurisdiction. A claim is 
defined 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 the contract. FAR 2.101 
(previously FAR 33.201); see Rejlectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 
1995) (since the CDA does not define the term "claim," the court turned to the FAR 
33.201 definition). When the six contracts here in dispute were awarded, the CDA 
provided that a 
contractor shall submit a written claim to the CO, and all claims by the 
government against a contractor relating to a contract shall be the subject of a CO's 
decision. 41 U.S.C. § 605(a), now§ 7301(a)(1), (3); HL. Smith, Inc. v. Dalton, 49 F.3d 
1563, 1564, reh 'g, en bane, denied (Fed. Cir. 1995). A contractor must appeal from the 
CO's written decision on, or deemed denial of, its claim. See 41 U.S.C. §§ 1703(f)(5), 
7104(a), (b); Gray Personnel, Inc., ASBCA No. 54652, 06-2 BCA ~ 33,378 at 165,474. 
3 The Board's 23 May 2013 letter to the parties stated that respondent need not file 
answers in ASBCA Nos. 58561-58567, effectively granting respondent's request. 
6 

In deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a tribunal 
must accept as true, and construe in a light most favorable to the non-movant, only 
undisputed factual allegations. When such a motion challenges the truth of alleged 
jurisdictional facts, the tribunal may consider relevant evidence beyond the pleadings to 
resolve disputed facts. These rules apply to such motions before the ASBCA. Raytheon 
Missile Systems, ASBCA No. 58011, 13 BCA '1!35,241 at 173,015. 
We first address Line's argument (app. reply to mot. at 10) that the six appeals 
contain a valid CDA government claim against Line to pay for medical services. The 
only communications in the appeal records are 
the letters DFAS sent to Line from 18 July 
2011 to 27 March 2012 seeking such payment (SOF '1!4). Those letters do not qualify as 
government claims. The appeal record contains no evidence that the signatories to those 
DFAS letters, Meggan Mczeal, Rose Seaton and Steven Bunting, were COs (id.). We 
conclude the DF AS letters did not meet the requirements for government claims under 
the CDA. 
We tum next to Line's alternate argument, that there is a non-monetary contractor 
CDA claim regarding liability for medical services. The contractor has the burden to 
establish Board jurisdiction of a contractor claim. See Security Insurance Co. of 
Hartford, ASBCA No. 51759,00-2 BCA '1!31,021 at 153,210 (appellant had burden to 
establish Board jurisdiction). 
Appellant's 18 September 2012 letters to the various COs of the contracts clearly 
seek the COs' interpretations of the terms of the contracts under which the alleged 
liability for medical costs is asserted. While ordinarily a contractor would file a claim for 
a sum certain since the alleged amount of liability was known, there was no authority for 
the DF AS letter writers to assert liability against Line. The fact that the Army and DF AS 
entered into a MOA that set up a process that allegedly does away with the CDA 
requirement that government claims 
against contractors be the subject of a CO's decision 
necessitated such a procedure by Line. The source of the alleged liability for the medical 
costs was the contracts and their terms. It is only a CO that may assert government 
claims under these CDA contracts. What Line needed was the COs' interpretations of the 
clauses and the COs' actions on that interpretation: whether it be the conclusion that no 
government claim should be asserted, or the issuance of COs' decisions asserting 
government claims. Line was not required to merely stand by and continue to operate in 
a 
realm of uncertainty. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 58578, 13-1 
BCA '1!35,411. 
The government does not dispute that such 
letters were written requests for the 
interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to the contracts. 
The government does argue that Line's letters addressing all six contracts did not clearly 
request CO's decisions and that, regarding contract 5006 (ASBCA No. 58561), 
7 

COs Romero, Fiacco, and Goldstein did not receive Line's September 2012 letter before 
Line filed its appeal. (SOF .,-r 8; gov't mot. at 5-1 0) 
We tum first to the government's argument about lack of a request for a CO's 
decision. The CDA does not require a contractor claim to explicitly request a CO's 
decision, so long as the contractor implicitly requests a decision. Whether a contractor's 
communication constitutes a CDA claim is determined on a case-by-case basis, 
employing a common sense analysis. See 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a); Transamerica Insurance 
Corp. v. United States, 973 F.2d 1572, 1576, 1578-79 (Fed. Cir. 1992). To determine 
whether a contractor implicitly requested a decision, we look at the "totality of the 
correspondence" and "continuing discussions between the parties." Lael AI Sahab & Co., 
ASBCA No. 58346, 13 BCA .,-r 35,394 at 173,659. 
With respect to Line's 18 September 2012 letters to the COs, the totality of the 
circumstances include: (a) DFAS invoices seeking payment for medical services 
provided to Line's employees (SOF .,-r 4); (b) Line's attorney's letters to the five COs on 
the six contracts (SOF .,-r 6); (c) Line's 18 September 2012 letters to DFAS (SOF .,-r 7); and 
(d) the COs' failures to issue final decisions. 
It is abundantly clear that Line was requesting the COs to exercise their authority 
to decide the issue on whether it was contractually liable for the medical expenses. 
Survival Technology, Inc., ASBCA No. 37453, 90-2 BCA .,-r 22,817 at 114,577 (request 
for the CO's prompt attention is a demand for resolution or decision by the CO). 
Advanced Materials, Inc., ASBCA No. 47014,94-3 BCA .,-r 27,193 at 135,517. In 
Transamerica, 973 F.2d at 1578, the Federal Circuit stated: 
This court is loathe to believe that ... a reasonable contractor 
would submit to the [CO] a letter containing a payment 
request after a dispute had arisen solely for the [CO's] 
information and without at the very least an implied request 
that the [CO] make a decision as to entitlement. Any other 
finding offends logic. 
Based on these legal authorities, we hold that Line's attorney's letters to the COs 
implicitly requested COs' decisions. 
We address finally the government's argument about non-receipt of Line's claim 
letter under contract 5006, ASBCA No. 58561. Line sent letters to CO Romero (SOF 
.,-r.,-r 5, 11), who was the CO for contract 5006, but whose email address was disabled 
before Line emailed him in September 2012 (SOF .,-r 8). Line's complaint in this appeal 
alleges that it sent its 18 September 20 12 letter to CO Romero because he was the last 
known CO for contract 5006, there was no modification to that contract or notice to Line 
8 

indentifying a new CO, and Line did not learn the name of the successor CO until the 
government filed its 5 April 2013 motion to dismiss (SOF ,-r 11 ). The government has not 
disputed Line's allegations. Therefore, we accept those allegations as true for the 
purposes ofthese motions. Raytheon, 13 BCA ,-r 35,241 at 173,015. 
When a contractor's claim letter was 
directed to the CO and requested a CO's 
decision, but, unbeknownst to the contractor, the agency mailroom mishandled the claim 
and failed to forward it to the CO's mail stop, we held that the Board had jurisdiction of 
the appeal on a deemed denial basis: 
To hold otherwise would allow the agency to benefit from its 
own negligence, or might encourage the less scrupulous to 
lose or misplace properly submitted contractor claims and 
frustrate a contractor's statutory right under the CDA to have 
its claim considered administratively with prompt recourse to 
board or court review. Absent evidence to the contrary, we 
conclude that the NIH mailroom was authorized to receive 
and in fact received appellant's claim on behalf of the CO. 
Corners and Edges, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 55767, 56277, 08-2 BCA ,-r 33,949 at 167,970. 
Similarly, when the CO sent a final decision to the contractor's address stated in 
the contract, but the contractor had notified the CO of his changed address, the Board 
denied the government's motion to dismiss, stating that the tardy appeal 
"may be 
reasonably ascribed to the 
Government improperly sending the decision to the home 
office and is not the fault of the appellant." Kaufman & Broad Building Co., ASBCA 
No. 9615, 1964 BCA ,-r 4052 at 19,879. 
Based on the foregoing precedents, we hold that Line's 18 September 2012letter 
was submitted to CO Romero in compliance with 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(l). Moreover, the 
government's allegations that CO Romero never received Line's 18 September 2012 email, 
and successor COs Fiacco and Goldstein had no opportunity to respond to Line's letter 
before it filed its appeal in ASBCA No. 58561 (SOF ,-r 8), are inconsequential. Here, the 
government should have advised Line who would succeed Mr. Romero as CO. 
9 

CONCLUSION 
We conclude we have jurisdiction pursuant to the '"deemed" denied provision of 
the CDA, 41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(5). The government's motions to dismiss for lack of 
jurisdiction is therefore denied. 
Dated: 5 December 20 13 
I concur 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
Administrative 
Armed Services 1-l-~ .. rt 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
PETER D. TING 
Administrative Judge 
Acting 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 Nos. 58561, 58562, 58563, 
58565, 
58566, 58567, Appeals ofLinc Government Services, LLC, rendered in 
conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
10 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals