ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of --
Combat Support Associates 
Under Contract No. DASA02-99-C-1234 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
ASBCA Nos. 58945, 58946 
Karen L. Manos, Esq. 
Owen E. Whitehurst, Esq. 
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 
Washington, DC 
E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 
DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 
Douglas R. Jacobson, Esq. 
Trial Attorney 
Defense Contract Management Agency 
Bloomington, MN 
David C. Hoffman, Esq. 
Deputy General Counsel 
Defense Contract Audit Agency 
Fort Belvoir, VA 
OPINION BY JUDGE MCILMAIL 
ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
On 31 October 2014, appellant, Combat Support Associates, timely moved that 
the Board reconsider its 22 October 2014 decision denying appellant's motion to 
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction these appeals from government claims. Appellant had 
contended that the government's claims are barred by the six-year statute of limitations 
set forth in the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(4). Combat 
Support Associates, ASBCA Nos. 58945, 58946, 14-1 BCA ii 35,782. Upon 
reconsideration, the Board vacates its 22 October 2014 decision and denies the motion 
to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 
On 10 December 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit issued its opinion in Sikorsky Aircraft Co. v. United States, 773 F.3d 1315 
(Fed. Cir. 2014). Pursuant to that opinion, 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. See id. at 1320-22. 
We decline appellant's suggestion in its motion to treat its motion to dismiss for 
lack of jurisdiction as a motion for summary judgment. See Aries Marine Corp., 
ASBCA No. 37826, 90-1 BCA ~ 22,484 at 112,846-47. At this juncture of the 
appeals, we consider the better approach is to leave it to each party to determine 
whether to pursue summary judgment separate from these jurisdictional proceedings. 
Cf Tele-Consultants, Inc., ASBCA No. 58129, 13 BCA ~ 35,234 at 172,994 (denying 
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and deferring merits ruling "to an appropriate 
merits proceeding, whether it be a motion for summary judgment or after a hearing"). 
Upon reconsideration, the Board's 22 October 2014 decision is vacated, and the 
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is denied. 1 
Dated: 16 March 2015 
I concur 
Administrati e Judge 
Armed Serv· es Board 
I concur 
~·····~ ~ ;= RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
1 Appellant's motion contained a request that the Chairman refer the motion to the 
Board's Senior Deciding Group pursuant to paragraph 4 of the Board's Charter. 
The Chairman has denied that request. 
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. 58945, 58946, Appeals of 
Combat Support Associates, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals