ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of-- ) 
) 
Lael AI Sahab & Co. ) 
) 
Under Contract No. W91GET-07-M-0063 ) 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 58346 
Mr. Alie Sufan 
Owner 
Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 
Army Chief Trial Attorney 
CPT Tudo Pham, JA 
Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MELNICK ON THE GOVERNMENT'S 
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 
This appeal involves a contract between the government and Lael AI Sahab & Co. 
for work in Iraq. The government has moved to dismiss the appeal. The motion is 
granted in part and denied in part. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 
1. On 21 March 2007, the Joint Contracting Command- Iraq/Afghanistan 
(government) entered into a commercial items contract with Lael AI Sahab for street 
cleaning and grounds maintenance in the International Zone in Baghdad, Iraq. Appellant 
was to be paid $15,000 per month. The initial period of the contract extended from 
20 March 2007 to 19 July 2007. The contract included an option period of20 July 2007 
to 18 November 2007 also at $15,000 per month. (R4, tab 1 at 1, Statement of Work 
(SOW) at 1) 
2. The contract contained FAR clause 52.212-4, CONTRACT TERMS AND 
CONDITIONS- COMMERCIAL ITEMS (SEP 2005). Subsection (a), Inspection/Acceptance, 
required that appellant only tender for acceptance those items that conformed to the 
requirements of the contract. It also reserved the right of the government to inspect the 
services tendered for acceptance. (R4, tab 1 at 4) 
3. Subsection (i) of FAR 52.212-4, Payment, provided that payment would be 
made for items accepted by the government (R4, tab 1 at 6). Also as to payment, the 
SOW stated that the government would not make a full payment if appellant did not 
"perform to the specification of the contract," or if"only partial work was completed." 

Partial payments would be made if appellant did not "provide the stated workforce or 
[did] not clean each street outlined." (R4, tab 1, SOW at 4) 
4. Subsection (m) of FAR 52.212-4, Termination for cause, allowed the 
government to terminate the contract for cause in the event the contractor defaulted or 
failed to comply with any of the terms and conditions of the contract (R4, tab 1 at 6). 
5. Subsection (d) ofF AR 52.212-4, Disputes, stated that the contract was subject 
to the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109, as amended (R4, tab 1 at 
5). 
6. The contract does not appear to designate a particular contracting officer (CO) 
to be a point of contact for appellant or to issue decisions on claims. 
7. Lael AI Sahab asserts 
that it provided the services required by the contract (see, 
e.g., notice of appeal dated 4 October 2012 at 1-2; compl. at 1-2). The record includes 
four invoices submitted by Lael AI Sahab to the government, Joint Contracting 
Command. The first invoice was not dated, covered the period 21 March 2007 to 
20 April2007, and sought $15,000 ($500 per day for 30 days). It appears from the 
payment voucher that the government paid appellant $11,250 on the first invoice in early 
May 2007. The 20 May 2007 second invoice, for the period 20 April 2007 to 21 May 
2007, also sought $15,000 ($500 per day for 30 days). It appears from the payment 
voucher that the government paid appellant $10,500 on the second invoice in late May 
2007. (R4, tab 3) 
8. The record incorporates a number of documents indicating government 
dissatisfaction with some of appellant's work. On 9 May 2007, the government public 
works project officer sent appellant a memorandum complaining that certain roads, 
surrounding areas, and a bum area had not been properly cleaned (R4, tab 4). The daily 
checklists for most of the period 12 May 2007 through 31 May 2007 each show a number 
of uncompleted tasks (R4, tab 5). 
9. On 3 June 2007, CO MAJ Robert W. Hearon, met with appellant to warn that a 
termination was possible (R4, tab 13). 
10. CO TSgt Eric Jordan sent appellant a cure notice on 4 June 2007. It notified 
Lael AI Sahab that its failure "to pick up debris in designated areas, maintain tree & 
shrub trimming in designated areas, properly dispose of trimmings at the end of each 
work day, sweep streets clear of dirt, debris and litter" were endangering performance 
under the contract. CO Jordan indicated at the bottom of the notice that appellant's point 
of contact "for this memorandum" was CO LCDR Anthony Grow. At the bottom of the 
notice is a hand written note apparently by or for appellant stating "I will not perform 
unless paid first." (R4, tab 6) By memorandum dated 5 June 2007, CO Jordan notified 
2 

appellant that the contract was being terminated for cause. The memorandum provided 
appellant with a statement of its appeal rights under the CDA. Appellant was again 
notified that its point of contact "for this memorandum" was CO Grow. (R4, tab 7) On 
the same day, the government issued Modification No. P0002 terminating the contract 
which was signed by CO Jordan (R4, tab 2). 
11. In apparent response to the government's memorandums of 4 and 5 June 
2007, Lael AI Sahab wrote in a 5 June 2007 email to CO Grow that the government had 
"detained" money from the first two invoices. It asked, among other things, that the 
government pay the following amounts: $3,750 for the first month; $4,500 for the second 
month; $7,000 for work performed between 21 May and 3 June 2007; and $500 for a day 
not billed 
in March 2007. Appellant sent a copy of the email to CO Jordan. (R4, tab 8) 
CO Grow responded by requesting a "final" invoice for the period from the end of the 
second invoice to the last day appellant worked (but not later than the termination date). 
As to the withheld payments, the government stated that it had the right, under SOW 
§ 11.1, to make partial payments where only partial work had been done. A copy ofthis 
email was also sent to CO Jordan. (R4, tab 9) 
12. On 6 June 2007, appellant submitted its third invoice, requesting a total of 
$15,750 comprised of: $7,000 for the period 21 May 2007 to 3 June 2007; $3,750 
withheld under the first invoice; $4,500 withheld under the second invoice; and $500 
apparently for a day not billed 
in March 2007, or $7,500 in new billings (R4, tab 3 at 7). 
In response to that invoice, the public works project officer sent a 
6 June 2007 email 
stating that the amount requested was not acceptable. The invoice should cover the 
period 22 May to 3 June 2007 (13 days). Because 25 percent of the work had not been 
done, in the government's view, it would pay $4,875 (13 days x $500 x .75). (R4, tab 10) 
Later that day, appellant submitted its fourth invoice, for a "Partial Payment" in that 
amount, expressing the hope that payment could be collected soon (R4, tab 3 at 8, 
tab 11). The payment voucher indicates that the government paid appellant $4,875 on 
that invoice in early June 2007 (R4, tab 3 at 8-9). 
13. In total, appellant invoiced the government for $37,500 ($15,000 + $15,000 
+ $7,500), was paid $26,625 ($11,250 + $10,500 + $4,875), leaving $10,875 unpaid (R4, 
tab 3). 
14. Lael AI Sahab has provided a copy of an email it sent to the government on 
21 October 2007. Among other things, it mentions a balance due of"around $11,000." 
(App. filing dtd. 20 February 2013, attach. 6) Appellant has also provided a copy of an 
undated "EFT Form" with bank information for a payment to appellant of$1,011,000 
(id., attach. 2). 
15. By email dated 4 October 2012, Lael AI Sahab filed a notice of appeal seeking 
its "claim money" of $1,000,000 for the impact on the company of a "FAKE" report by 
3 

the government and an "outstanding balance" of$11,000. The appeal was docketed as 
ASBCA No. 58346. Lael Al Sahab has not appealed the termination for cause. There is 
no evidence appellant submitted the $1,000,000 "claim" to a CO before filing this appeal. 
In addition, the record does not include a certification meeting the requirements of the 
CDA. 
16. By email dated 13 October 2013, appellant filed a document that the Board 
accepted as the complaint. As in the 
notice of appeal, Lael AI Sahab asserted that it was 
entitled to $1,000,000 for the impact to the company of a "FAKE" report by the 
government and for an "outstanding balance" of$11,000. After appellant's complaint 
was filed, the government 
issued a 31 October 2012 CO final decision (R4, tab 13; gov't 
mot., ex. 1, Wysoske af£ ~~ 3-4). The final decision said that termination of the contract 
was proper and denied the claim for $1,011,000 (R4, tab 13). The Board did not receive 
a copy of the final decision until the government submitted the 14 February 2013 Rule 4 
file. 
17. On 25 February 2013, the government filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for 
lack of jurisdiction. Appellant has responded. 
18. Attached to the motion to dismiss is an affidavit from Joan F. S. Wysoske, one 
ofthe government COs for Contract No. W91GET-07-M-0063. In pertinent part, she 
states the following: 
3. In October 12, 2012, the appellant submitted a claim to the 
ASBCA. 
4. On October 31, 20 12, due to appellant's failure to provide 
substantiating documentation that allowed for meaningful 
settlement discussion or enough information to conduct a 
meaningful review, I denied the appellant's claim for 
$1,011,000.00. 
5. To date, the appellant has failed to submit a valid claim or 
any settlement documentation that substantiates its 
allegations. Further, to date, the appellant has failed to 
submit a valid claim that is in the form or contains sufficient 
substantiating information required by the Contract Disputes 
Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7103 and FAR 52.233-1 DISPUTES 
(JUL 2002). 
(Gov't mot., ex. 1, Wysoske aff. ~~ 3-5) We view these statements as conclusory. 
Ms. Wysoske provides no description of the interactions between appellant and the 
government regarding the contract. 
4 

DECISION 
In its motion to dismiss, the government simply asserts that there "is no record that 
appellant filed a claim prior to filing a notice of appeal or complaint with the Board." For 
that reason, the government concludes, the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal. 
The government also argues that the appeal should be dismissed because appellant claims 
more than $100,000 and the claim was not certified. (Gov't mot. at 3) Appellant's 
submissions focus on the facts relating to the appeal. 
Our jurisdiction to decide an appeal from a contractor claim depends on the prior 
submission of the claim to a CO for decision and a final decision on, or deemed denial of, 
the claim. 41 U.S.C. § 7103; see also Taj Al Safa Co., ASBCA No. 58394, 13 BCA 
~ 35,278. In addition, where the claim exceeds $100,000, it must be certified in 
accordance with the CDA. 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b). The Federal Acquisition Regulation 
defines "Claim" as follows: 
Claim means 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. However, a written demand or 
written assertion by the contractor seeking the payment of 
money exceeding $100,000 is not a claim under the Contract 
Disputes Act of 1978 until certified as required by the Act. A 
voucher, invoice, or other routine request for payment that is 
not in dispute when submitted is not a claim. The submission 
may be converted to a claim, by written notice to the 
contracting officer as provided in 33.206(a), if it is disputed 
either as to liability or amount or is not acted upon in a 
reasonable time. 
FAR 2.101 (italics in original). 1 While a pro se appellant is entitled to a liberal reading 
of its pleadings, it must still meet, and show that it meets, the requirements for Board 
jurisdiction. Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. 
Cir. 1988); United Healthcare Partners, Inc., ASBCA No. 58123, 13 BCA ~ 35,277. 
It appears to be the government's position that this appeal involves one "claim" in 
the amount of$1,011,000. In our view, appellant seeks $1,000,000 for harm to its 
business based on a "FAKE" report that led to the termination, and separately seeks 
FAR 3 3 .206( a) requires a written submission to the contracting officer within 6 years 
after accrual of the claim. 
5 

$11,000 which is the approximate total ofthe invoiced amounts that the government 
refused to pay- $10,875 (SOF ~ 13). 
Based on the record, the request for $1,000,000 is not properly before the Board 
because appellant never submitted a claim for it to the CO before filing this appeal (SOF 
~ 15). The fact that the CO issued a final decision in response to the complaint appellant 
filed with the Board is irrelevant (SOF ~ 16). An appellant cannot first assert a claim in 
its complaint. United Healthcare Partners, 13 BCA ~ 35,277 at 173,154; see also 
Sharman Co. v. United States, 2 F.3d 1564, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Uurisdiction is 
determined based on the facts existing upon commencement ofthe action), overruled on 
other grounds by Reflectone v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en bane). 
Additionally, a final decision issued in the absence of a proper claim fails to provide a 
basis for jurisdiction. Northeastern Commc 'n Concepts, Inc., ASBCA No. 39053, 91-2 
BCA ~ 24,042 at 120,345. 
The requests totaling $11,000 in unpaid invoices are a different matter. We see 
two separate sets of requests. The first set includes the two invoices for $15,000 each 
(SOF ~ 7). The second set, which totals $7,500, includes the request for payment for the 
period from the end of the second invoice to the termination, and the request for $500 in 
payment for a day in March 2007 not previously billed (SOF ~ 11). These were certainly 
requests for relief under the contract. Lael AI Sahab made the requests before the appeal 
was filed (SOF ~~ 12-14). And, the amounts sought, individually and in total, were less 
than $100,000 so appellant was not required to certify them. 
At least as first made, appellant's requests and invoices must be viewed as routine 
requests for payment and not claims. See FAR 2.101; James MEllett Construction Co. 
v. United States, 93 F.3d 1537, 1542 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Rejlectone, 60 F.3d at 1575-76; 
Kalamazoo Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 37 Fed. Cl. 362, 368 (1997). If, however, 
those requests were disputed as to liability or amount, they could have been converted 
into claims by written notice to the contracting officer. !d. Here, the requests were 
disputed by the government. As explained below, the requests relating to the first two 
invoices were converted by Lael AI Sahab into a claim totaling $8,250. The requests for 
the period of time after the second invoice, and the missed day in March 2007, although 
initially disputed, were not converted into a claim. 
A claim "need not contain any particular language or conform 
to any specific 
format." Kalamazoo Contractors, 37 Fed. Cl. at 368 (quoting Pevar Co. v. United States, 
32 Fed. Cl. 822, 824 (1995)). In assessing whether a claim has been submitted, it is 
appropriate to look at the "totality of the correspondence" and the "continuing 
discussions between the parties." Vibration & Sound Solutions Ltd., ASBCA No. 56240, 
09-2 BCA ~ 34,257 at 169,270. In addition, the expression of interest in a CO decision 
may be made implicitly. CleanServ Executive Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 47781, 96-1 
BCA ~ 28,027 at 139,923. 
6 

Appellant submitted a $15,000 invoice, apparently in April2007, for work done 
from 21 March 2007 to 20 April2007, and a $15,000 invoice in May 2007 for work done 
from 20 April 2007 to 21 May 2007 (SOF ~ 7). The government clearly questioned the 
amount and quality of the work covered by the invoices, disputing what was owed 
(SOF ~ 8). As a result, the government paid appellant $11,250 on the first invoice and 
$10,500 on the second invoice in May 2007, withholding a 
total of$8,250 (SOF ~ 7). On 
5 June 2007, appellant sent an email to the participating COs complaining, in part, about 
the money withheld from the first two invoices and requesting that the government pay 
the $8,250 it had withheld (SOF ~ 11 ). See, e.g., Roy McGinnis & Co., ASBCA 
Nos. 40004, 40005, 91-1 BCA ~ 23,395 at 117,395 (a claim should be submitted "in a 
manner reasonably calculated to be received by the 'contracting officer' authorized to 
decide the claim"); United States Logistics and Supply, Inc., ASBCA No. 51790, 99-2 
BCA ~ 30,465. At that point, there was a dispute as to $8,250 and a writing from 
appellant demanding payment of that amount in a sum certain, in other words, a claim. 
Cf JWA Emadel Enterprises, Inc., ASBCA No. 51016, 98-2 BCA ~ 29,960 
(resubmission of a request for payment that had been denied constituted a claim); accord 
Westinghouse Electric Corp., ASBCA No. 25787, 85-1 BCA ~ 17,910, aff'd, 782 F.2d 
1017 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 
Appellant's 5 June 2007 email also sought payment of$7,000 for work done from 
the end of the period covered by the second invoice to the date of termination, and $500 
for a day not previously billed. A government CO responded by requesting a final 
invoice limited to the period from the end of the second invoice to the termination date. 
(SOF ~ 11) Lael Al Sahab complied by submitting its third invoice that included work 
performed after the last invoice and before the termination, and the missed workday in 
March 
(SOF ~ 12). The government responded with an email indicating that appellant 
should invoice only for the period 22 May to 3 June 2007 and only at 75 percent of the 
contract rate. Lael Al Sahab submitted its fourth invoice for that amount, $4,875, which 
the government paid. (SOF ~ 12) Although the government clearly disputed part of the 
billing for the last period of work, and the billing for the missed day in March 2007, there 
is no evidence in the record that Lael 
Al Sahab challenged the government's position and 
converted its request for the remaining funds into claims. Indeed, appellant sent in its 
partial payment invoice with a note saying appellant hoped it could collect payment soon 
(SOF ~ 12). This, along with the invoices themselves, does not reflect an intent by 
appellant to continue the dispute or assert a claim. 
7 

CONCLUSION 
For the reasons set out above, the government's motion to dismiss is granted as to 
the $1,000,000 claim, denied as to the claim for $8,250, and granted as to the claims 
totaling $2,625. 
Dated: 19 August 20 13 
I concur 
/fC:~~ 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
d-e~ 
MARK A. MELNICK 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
E riZ ETH M. GRANT 
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 No. 58346, Appeal ofLael AI 
Sahab & Co., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
8 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals