ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of -- ) 
) 
Highland Al Hujaz Co., Ltd. ) 
) 
Under Contract No. W917PM-09-C-0049 ) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 59746, 59818 
Herman M. Braude, Esq. 
Edward D. Manchester, Esq. 
Braude Law Group, P.C. 
Washington, DC 
Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq. 
Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 
Daniel B. McConnell, Esq. 
Assistant Counsel 
U.S. Army Engineer District, Middle East 
Winchester, VA 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE THRASHER 
ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE 
GOVERNMENT TO FILE THE COMPLAINT 
This matter 
comes before the Board on appellant's motion for an order requiring 
the government to file the complaint in this appeal. The government opposes the motion. 
For the reasons that follow we grant the motion. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 
1. The government awarded Contract No. W9 l 7PM-09-C-0049 (contract) 
to Highland Al Hujaz Co., Ltd. (HLH), on 3 June 2009, for design and construction of 
the Afghanistan National Army Corps Support Battalion, Camp Hero, Kandahar, 
Afghanistan (R4, tab 11 ). • The government terminated the contract for default on 
23 April 2012 (R4, tab 2). On 18 August 2012, the government issued an invitation 
for bids to reprocure the uncompleted portion of the contract and to correct defects in the 
work completed (R4, tab 903). Five 
bids were received and the government awarded 
the reprocurement contract on 24 September 2012 (ASBCA No. 58243, R4, tab 841). 
• The Rule 4 file in ASBCA Nos. 59746 and 59818 is consolidated with the Rule 4 
file in ASBCA No. 58243, the appeal on the associated default termination 
action giving rise to the demand for excess reprocurement costs. 

The work under the reprocurement contract was completed and accepted by the 
government on 31January2014 (R4, tab 904). 
2. On 21 May 2014 the government issued HLH a demand letter to collect the 
excess reprocurement costs in completing the work which was deficient and/or left 
unfinished as of the date of termination for default of the contract. The demand letter 
asserted the government's right to assess excess reprocurement costs, that the 
reprocurement contract was competitively awarded, identified the reprocurement 
contractor and described how the asserted amount of excess reprocurement costs were 
calculated. (R4, tab 889) HLH responded on 23 May 2014 rejecting the government's 
right to excess reprocurement costs (R4, tab 901 ). In addition to the issue of the 
propriety of the underlying default termination being litigated in ASBCA No. 58243, 
HLH's response asserted a number of reasons why the government's demand for 
excess reprocurement costs was erroneous or questionable. Further, the letter asked 
the government to confirm the demand letter was not a contracting officer's final 
decision (COFD) (R4, tab 901). 
3. Two years earlier, on 18 June 2012, the government issued HLH a demand 
letter for reimbursement of $903,553.79 in overpayments to HLH during performance 
of the contract (R4, tab 98). HLH responded disagreeing with the government's 
assessment and requested further information (R4, tab 900). There is no record of a 
request for a COFD, issuance of a COFD or an appeal to the Board on this issue. 
4. The government issued HLH a second demand letter on 30 May 2014 that 
mirrored the 21May2014 demand letter but also addressed each issue raised by HLH 
in its response. However, the second demand letter did not address whether it was a 
COFD. (R4, tab 893) Again on 4 June 2014, HLH rejected the government's 
demands and repeated its arguments for the rejection of the assessment of excess costs 
(R4, tab 902). On 20 June 2014 HLH requested issuance of a COFD on the 
government's claim for excess reprocurement costs (R4, tab 921 at 2). Having not 
received a COFD by 21 October 2014, HLH asked the government to confirm when it 
would issue a COFD (R4, tab 922). No response or COFD was forthcoming so HLH 
filed a notice of appeal with the Board on 15 December 2014 which was docketed as 
ASBCA No. 59746. On 22 January 2015, the government issued a COFD repeating 
its demand for excess reprocurement costs. The COFD referenced the overpayment 
issue asserted on 18 June 2012 in a recitation of facts but did not appear to include the 
amount of overpayment within the excess reprocurement calculations or otherwise 
address entitlement to any amount for the overpayment issue in its decision. HLH 
appealed the COFD to the Board on 5 February 2015 which was docketed 
as ASBCA 
No. 59818. HLH' s notice of appeal only referenced excess reprocurement costs; there 
was no reference to the overpayment demand. 
2 

5. On 20 February 2015, HLH filed a motion to extend time for filing the 
complaint until 30 days after the government files the Rule 4 file. The motion was not 
opposed by the government and was granted by the Board on 11 March 2015. The 
Board received its copy of the Rule 4 file on 15 April 2015. On 23 April 2015, HLH 
filed a motion for order directing the government to file the complaint in this appeal. 
The government responded on 19 May 2015 opposing the motion asserting that both 
the excess reprocurement cost and overpayment issues were before the Board in the 
appeals, and HLH 
replied to the government's response on 2 June 2015. 
DECISION 
Under the unique procedural requirements of the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 
all claims, whether contractor or government claims, must be the subject of a COFD. 
41 U.S.C. § 7103. The contractor, however, is the only party who may initiate 
proceedings at the Board, 41 U.S.C. § 7104, and Board Rule 6(a) requires appellant to 
file the complaint in an appeal. If the contractor appeals from a final decision on a 
government claim, the contractor typically files a complaint with enough information 
about the government claim to form a sufficient predicate for the government's answer 
and allow for adequate framing of the issues. Therefore, the fact the appeal involves a 
government claim alone, is not enough to compel the government to file the complaint. 
Nonetheless, we have recognized that there may be situations when the 
proceedings would be facilitated by the government filing the complaint or initial 
pleading. E.g., Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 59557, 15-1 BCA 
ii 35,865; Beechcraft Defense Co., ASBCA No. 59173, 14-1BCAii35,592; RO. Vl.B. 
Sri, ASBCA No. 56198, 09-1BCAii34,068. Ifwe determine that the proceeding 
would not be facilitated, we do not order the government to file the initial pleading. 
See, e.g., General Dynamics Corp., ASBCA No. 49339, 96-1BCAii28,244 
(contractor in possession of information upon which government claim is based). 
While ordinarily we might look with disfavor on the instant motion when 
appellant has acknowledged its responsibility to file the complaint and requested an 
extension to do so (SOF ii 5), the fact that it is unclear whether the appeals concern 
excess reprocurement costs alone, or these costs plus an overpayment claim by the 
government, present a unique situation. As near as we can determine on the present 
record, the only issue before us is the government's affirmative claim for excess 
reprocurement costs. However, a substantial portion of the government's 19 May 
2015 response addresses a government demand for collection of overpayments during 
performance of the contract. The government did assert a demand for overpayments 
during performance (SOF ii 3) but there is no record of a COFD or an appeal to the 
Board on this issue. Nonetheless, the government's response to the motion states 
"Appellant does not address the Government's demand for overpayment in its 
Motion. However, both the Government's demands for overpayment and assessed 
3 

reprocurement costs rely upon the same facts and therefore, both demands are 
addressed herein." (Gov't resp. at 1) This statement is then followed by a page and a 
half of discussion of the facts related to the overpayment (id. at 2-3). Then later in 
summary, the government argues: 
(Id. at 4) 
The information to accurately and fairly determine 
the extent of both overpayments and excess reprocurement 
costs caused by Appellant's non-conforming and 
unfinished work resides with both the Government and 
the Appellant, as both ultimately had equal access to the 
information, albeit at different points in time. Therefore, 
the proceedings would be not be facilitated by the 
Government filing the initial pleading, and would be 
better facilitated by Appellant setting forth the facts and 
rationale as to its duty to perform as well as Appellant's 
completion of the work under the original contract and 
how it differs from the scope of work in the 
reprocurement contract. 
These arguments seem to evidence a government belief that the overpayment 
demand is included within the COFD, and is before the Board for decision, or that the 
demand is somehow part of the excess reprocurement claim. The COFD does mention 
the overpayment demand but the CO's calculations used to arrive at the excess 
reprocurement costs do not appear to include the overpayment amounts demanded and 
the CO does not address the overpayment issue in her decision (SOF ii 4 ). Likewise, 
the overpayment demand has not been appealed to the Board; the only issue before us 
in this appeal is the claim for excess reprocurement costs (id.). Consequently, it is 
unclear how the overpayment issue relates to the government's theory of their case on 
the excess reprocurement costs. 
Given these circumstances, we conclude that the proceedings would be 
facilitated by the government setting forth in an initial pleading, the facts and rationale 
for its claim for excess reprocurement costs, and if claimed, overpayments. 
4 

CONCLUSION 
The Board grants appellant's motion to direct the government to file the 
complaint 30 days from the date of this opinion. Appellant's answer shall be due 
30 days following receipt of the government's complaint. 
Dated: 13 July 2015 
I concur 
,//;-;? U-
~:~~Et«r~ 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
of Contract Appeals 
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 Nos. 59746, 59818, Appeals of 
Highland Al Hujaz Co., Ltd., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
5 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals