ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of -- ) 
) 
Al Nawars Company ) 
) 
Under Contract Nos. W917BE-06-C-OO 18 ) 
W917BE-06-C-0052 ) 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 59043, 59044 
Mr. Buraier Yassien 
Owner 
Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq. 
Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 
James D. Stephens, Esq. 
Assistant District Counsel 
U.S. Army Engineer District, Middle East 
Winchester, VA 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE O'SULLIVAN ON THE 
GOVERNMENT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps or government) awarded 
the two contracts at issue in these appeals to Al Nawars Company (appellant). The 
first of the two contracts, W917BE-06-C-OO 18, was for a series of valve/pipe 
hardening projects in the Iraqi Governorate of Nineveh (ASBCA No. 59043 (59043), 
R4, tab 3 at 
4). The second contract, W917BE-06-C-0052, was for the paving of a 
section of road, also in the Nineveh Governorate (ASBCA No. 59044 (59044), R4, 
tab 2 at 10). The government terminated both contracts for default (59043, R4, tab 9; 
59044, R4, tab 4); appellant subsequently submitted what it alleges to be claims for 
certain unpaid 
amounts due (59043, compl. at 7; 59043, 59044, Notice of Appeal); 
and, ultimately, appellant appealed to the Board. 1 
On 17 July 2014, the government moved to dismiss both of these appeals for 
lack of jurisdiction on the basis that no claim had been filed within the six-year statute 
oflimitations of the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (59043, 
gov't mot. at 3-6; 59044, gov't mot. at 2-4). Subsequent to the filing of the 
government's jurisdictional motions, however, the United 
States Court of Appeals for 
the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 
773 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 
1 The dates of these events are not relevant to our decision on the government's 
motions to dismiss the appeals under the CDA's six-year statute of limitations. 

As we recently explained in the appeals of Combat Support Associates, on 
reconsideration: 
Pursuant to [Sikorsky], which is binding upon the Board, 
the court overruled its line of cases holding that the 
six-year statute of limitations contained in the CDA was 
jurisdictional, and held that the CDA's six-year statute of 
limitations is not jurisdictional; therefore, the six-year 
statute of limitations in the CDA provides no basis to 
dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 
Combat Support Associates, ASBCA Nos. 58945, 58946, slip op. (16 March 2015) 
(citing Sikorsky, 773 F.3d at 1320-22). Accordingly, the government's motions to 
dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the CD A's six-year statute of 
limitations are denied. 2 
Dated: 8 April 2015 
I concur I concur 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
2 We need not and do not decide in this opinion any other issues of jurisdiction that 
may exist in these appeals. 
2 

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. 59043, 59044 Appeals of 
Al Nawars Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals