ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
 
Appeals of --  ) 
  ) 
Arcade Travel, Inc. d/b/a Boersma Travel  ) ASBCA Nos. 62009, 62010, 62076 
  Services  )   
  ) 
Under Contract Nos. H98210-18-C-0002  ) 
  HHSP233201300026I  ) 
  HHSP233201400010I  ) 
 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Bryant S. Banes, Esq. 
  Neel, Hooper & Banes, P.C. 
  Houston, TX 
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Hattie R. DuBois, Esq. 
   Associate General Counsel 
Mathew W. Ponzar, Esq. 
  Trial Attorney 
   Defense Human Resources Activity 
   Alexandria, VA 
 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WOODROW ON THE 
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 
 
Arcade Travel, Inc. d/b/a Boersma Travel Services (Boersma or appellant) has 
appealed the Defense Human Resources Activity’s (DHRA’s or government’s) 
terminations for cause of Contract Nos. H98210-18-C-0002, HHSP233201300026I, 
and HHSP233201400010I (travel services contracts).  This appeal has been docketed 
as ASBCA No. 62009.  It also appeals DHRA’s claim for $311,700 for credit 
monitoring services, docketed as ASBCA No. 62010, and the denial of Boersma’s 
certified claim for $664,379.33 related to various alleged breaches by the government, 
docketed as ASBCA No. 62076.  The government moves to dismiss ASBCA 
Nos. 62009 and 62010, the appeal of the termination for cause and appellant’s request 
to prevent collection of the government’s claim for lack of jurisdiction.  The 
government’s motion does not address ASBCA No. 62076.   
 
For the reasons discussed below, we deny the motion as to the termination for 
cause under ASBCA No. 62009.  With regard to ASBCA No. 62010, we grant the 
motion in part, striking appellant’s request that the Board restrain the government from 
collecting its alleged claim during the appeal, but deny the remaining portion of the 
motion. 
 

 
2 
STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 
 
1.  On September 30, 2013, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 
signed Boersma Contract No. HHSP233201300026I, an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite 
Quantity (IDIQ) contract for travel services for the Missile Defense Agency  
(2013 contract) (R4, tab 1 at 1).  HHS also awarded Contract No. HHSP233201400010I, 
another IDIQ Contract, for travel services for the Defense Intelligence Agency (the 2014 
contract).  Though the contract provided has no date, it is effective May 1, 2014.  (Id.  
at 158)  On December 1, 2017, DHRA awarded Contract No. H98210-18-C-0002 to 
Boersma (the 2017 contract) (id. at 503).  This was a Firm-Fixed-Price contract for travel 
management support services for the Air Force in Travel Area 1, which is composed of 
several installations located in Louisiana, Colorado, California, Arizona, Montana, and 
Florida (id. at 536).   
 
2.  The 2017 contract incorporated by reference Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR) 52.233-1, DISPUTES (MAY 2014), which 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 this contract” (R4, tab 1  
at 562; FAR 52.233-1(c)).  This contract also incorporated FAR 52.242-15,  
STOP-WORK ORDER (AUG 1989) and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 
Supplement (DFARS) 252.204-7012, SAFEGUARDING COVERED DEFENSE 
INFORMATION AND CYBER INCIDENT REPORTING (OCT 2016) (id.).  This 
first clause empowers the contracting officer (CO) to “require the Contractor to stop 
all, or any part, of the work called for by this contract for a period of 90 days” after 
which the CO can cancel the stop work order or terminate the work, “as provided in 
the Default, or the Termination for Convenience of the Government, clause of this 
contract.”  FAR 52.242-15(a).  The 2013, 2014, and 2017 contracts incorporated  
FAR 52.212-4, CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS-COMMERCIAL ITEMS 
(JUL 2013), (SEP 2013), and (JAN 2017) respectively (id. at 58-64, 212-18, 561).  
The revisions to this clause between July 2013 and January 2017 are not relevant here. 
 
3.  By letter dated October 4, 2018, the government issued a stop work order to 
appellant for the 2017 contract, effective the same day, “due to the recent notification 
of a data breach to the Boersma Travel Services Information technology systems” 
(R4, tab 2 at 627).  By two letters dated October 5, 2018, HHS issued appellant stop 
work orders on the 2013 and 2014 contracts effective immediately for the same reason 
(id. at 636, 638.) 
 
4.  On October 25, 2018, the government signed Contract No. GS10FCA017 
with Identity Theft Guard Solutions, Inc., for two years of “credit monitoring and 
identity theft protection services” for individuals affected by “the recent data breach 
incident” (R4, tab 3 at 640, 651, 655).   

 
3 
 
5.  On October 29, 2018, HHS issued bilateral modifications on both the 2013 
and 2014 contracts, transferring administration to DHRA (R4, tabs 4-5).  DHRA 
modified these contracts again on November 27, 2018, to cancel the stop work order 
and accept administration of the contracts.  Appellant was to recommence work on 
December 13, 2018.  (R4, tab 8 at 719-20, 749)  However, the government sent 
appellant another Stop Work Order for the contracts on that day (R4, tab 9). 
 
6.  By letter dated March 11, 2019, DHRA terminated the travel services 
contracts for cause (R4, tab 11 at 772).  The government cited an assessment 
conducted by its cybersecurity team and found appellant “non-compliant with National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171” (id.). 
The letter also asserts a government claim against appellant for $311,700 “as a result 
of Boersma’s breach of these contracts” (id.).  However, the government states HHS 
failed to include this requirement in the 2013 and 2014 contracts (gov’t mot. at 3).   
 
7.  Appellant filed a notice of appeal with the Board by letter dated March 19, 
2019.  The Board docketed the challenge to the terminations for cause as ASBCA 
No. 62009, and the government claim for $311,700 as ASBCA No. 62010.  A separate 
appeal from the denial of a Boersma claim in the amount of $664,379.33 for various 
alleged breaches by the government was docketed on May 23, 2019 as ASBCA 
No. 62076; which was subsequently consolidated with these appeals, but is not 
relevant to the present motion.   
 
8.  In a consolidated complaint filed with the Board on June 21, 2019, appellant 
requests that the Board “[d]eny all of DHRA’s claims and dismiss any portion of 
DHRA’s claim that is for $311,700 and restrain collection of same allegedly related to 
a breach of contract by Boersma” (compl. ¶ 14). 
 
DECISION 
 
The government moves to dismiss both appellant’s challenge to the propriety of 
the March 11, 2019 terminations of the travel services contracts for cause and the 
request by appellant to “restrain collection” of the $311,700 for costs resulting from 
Boersma’s alleged breaches of these contracts for lack of jurisdiction.  In motions to 
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof of 
jurisdiction.  Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Watkins, 11 F.3d 1573, 1583 (Fed. 
Cir. 1993). 
 
1.  Terminations for Cause – ASBCA No. 62009 
 
The government argues that the Board lacks jurisdiction over the terminations 
for cause claim because FAR 2.101 defines “claim” as “payment of money in a sum 

 
4 
certain,” and “[a]ppellant’s challenge to the termination for cause . . . fails to state a 
sum certain” (gov’t mot. at 5).  Further, the government argues that “Boersma’s 
challenge to the terminations for cause is not monetary in nature, it is not a claim 
within the meaning [of] the CDA [Contract Disputes Act] and accordingly the ASBCA 
does not have jurisdiction over it” (gov’t reply at 6).  In both its motion and reply, the 
government cites no cases to support the contention that the Board lacks jurisdiction 
over appeals from terminations for cause.  Appellant argues the Board has authority to 
convert terminations for default to terminations for convenience (app. reply at 2).  We 
agree. 
 
It is well settled that a termination for default is considered to be a government 
claim that does not require a contractor to file a claim for the Board to exercise its 
jurisdiction.  Ro. VI.E. Sri, ASBCA No. 56198, 09-1 BCA ¶ 34,068 (default 
termination is considered a government claim).  We will not disturb this settled area of 
law.  In the appeal at issue, the DHRA CO issued a written, final decision to the 
contractor terminating the travel services contracts for cause.  Accordingly, we find 
that we possess jurisdiction to entertain appellant’s appeals of the government’s 
terminations for cause.  Thus this portion of DHRA’s motion is denied. 
 
2.  Restraining Collection of Costs on the Government’s Claim –ASBCA 
No. 62010 
 
 Appellant requests in its consolidated complaint for the Board to “restrain 
collection” of DHRA’s claim for $311,700, and further clarifies that it requests the 
Board restrain collection of the government’s “alleged claim until the Board has 
decided this matter” (consolidated compl. ¶ 14; app. resp. at 5).   
 
The government argues this is injunctive relief, and the Board lacks jurisdiction 
to grant such relief (gov’t mot. at 5).  The government’s motion “requests removal 
from the accepted issues, and dismissal. . . .  DHRA respectfully requests that these 
portions of Boersma’s appeal be dismissed, and all reference stricken from the record 
as accepted issues in controversy” (id. at 5-6).  We interpret DHRA’s request as a 
motion to strike Boersma’s request to “restrain collection” as an improper request for 
injunctive relief (id. at 5). 
  
In its response, appellant argues two things simultaneously.  First, it asserts that 
the Board possesses jurisdiction to determine the entitlement of the $311,700 which 
the government claims, as these costs are founded upon a termination for cause which 
appellant also challenges.  Second, it asserts that the Board possesses jurisdiction to 
prevent the government’s collection of these fees while this appeal is being decided.  
(App. resp. at 3-5).  
 

 
5 
As to the first assertion, the Board indeed has jurisdiction over this government 
claim.  This is the type of claim considered by the CDA when it enabled Boards like 
this one to review a “claim by the Federal Government against a contractor relating to 
a contract . . . .”  41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(3).   
 
However, the second argument is something different.  The Board has long 
held, as DHRA has asserted, that the government’s decision to collect on a claim 
“pending a hearing, rather than waiting until a final judgment, is ‘an administrative 
matter over which the Board has no jurisdiction.’”  Applied Ordnance Tech., Inc., 
ASBCA Nos. 51297, 51543, 98-2 BCA ¶ 30,023 at 148,543 (quoting Southern 
Disposal, ASBCA No. 11031, 66-2 BCA ¶ 5,867 at 27,252).  While we may decide 
ultimate entitlement to a monetary claim, we are not empowered by the CDA to 
prevent the government collecting on its claim while that claim is the subject of an 
appeal.  Such a request is for injunctive relief, and the Board lacks jurisdiction to grant 
this relief.  Lulu’s Ostrich Ranch, ASBCA Nos. 59252, 59450, 14-1 BCA ¶ 35,769 
at 175,000.  
 
To the extent the complaint requests the Board restrain collection of the 
government’s claim during the appeal, that request for relief is dismissed for lack of 
jurisdiction.  To the extent the government requests that we dismiss appellant’s 
challenge to the government’s claim of ultimate entitlement to the $311,700 claim, 
which includes the challenge to the government’s termination for cause, the motion is 
denied. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
For the reasons discussed above, the motion is denied in part and granted in 
part.   
 
 Dated:  July 1, 2020 
 
 
KENNETH D. WOODROW 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 
 
(Signatures continued) 
 
 


 
6 
I concur 
 
 
 
 I concur 
 
 
 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 OWEN C. WILSON 
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 Nos. 62009, 62010, 62076, 
Appeals of Arcade Travel, Inc. d/b/a Boersma Travel Services, rendered in 
conformance with the Board’s Charter. 
 
 Dated:  July 2, 2020 
 
 
        
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals