ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MELNICK 
ON THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 
AND APPELLANTS CROSS-MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT 
 
In this appeal, Envistacom, LLC (Envistacom) appeals from a contracting 
officer denial of claims it submitted for costs incurred performing a contract for 
technical services.  The government moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or failure 
to state a claim.  Envistacom cross-moves for a default judgment.  For the reason 
stated below, both motions are denied.   
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTIONS 
 
1.  Starting in 2018, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) issued purchase 
orders under a contract with Atlantic Diving Supply, Inc. (ADS), for Satellite 
Transportable Terminal (STT) Modification Work Orders (MWOs).  ADS 
subcontracted with appellant, Envistacom, to provide hardware, materials, integration, 
and assembly. (R4, tabs 151 at 1, 155 at 9; compl. ¶¶ 9-10; gov’t mot. at 2) 
 
2.  On July 19, 2019, the Army Contracting Command (government) issued a 
task order to Envistacom, called Tactical Network Enhancements (TACNET), upon an 
Appeal of - )  
 )  
Envistacom, LLC ) ASBCA No. 63796 
 )  
Under Contract No. W911NF-17-D-0014 
Task Order No. W909MY-19-F-0066 
) 
) 
 
   
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Daniel A. Schwager, Esq. 
Benjamin R. Ogletree, Esq. 
  Verdi & Ogletree PLLC 
    Washington, DC  
  Thomas F. Proctor, Esq. 
Katie Goodman, Esq. 
  Counsels 
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Dana J. Chase, Esq. 
    Army Chief Trial Attorney 
 Angela M. Fortier, Esq. 
LTC Sean B. Zehtab, JA 
    Trial Attorneys 

2 
existing research and development base contract awarded to Envistacom called 
Deployable Adaptive Global Responder Support (DAGRS) (R4, tabs 1, 156).  In general, 
TACNET sought tactical network enhancements to increase tactical communications for 
deployed warfighters, end users, and partner nations (R4, tab 2 at 5).  Its scope included 
“engineering of prototypes and integration of network enhancements for the Army’s 
tactical network including the Regional Hub Node (RHN) network and tactical satellite 
terminals with all necessary cyber and logistical support” (R4, tab 2 at 1).   
 
3.  The government then provided the STT MWO equipment procured from 
Envistacom through ADS under the DLA purchase orders back to Envistacom for 
integration of upgrades and enhancements under TACNET (R4, tabs 151 at 2, 155 at 9; 
gov’t mot. at 3). 
 
4.  Envistacom submitted a certified claim, dated April 14, 2023, to the 
contracting officer respecting engineering change proposals, program directed 
changes, spare part replacement, and contract material increases, associated with 
DAGRs/TACNET for a total of $9,312,284 (R4, tab 155).  The claim broke down into 
$524,502 in directed changes, $579,627 for engineering change proposals, $1,068,572 
in costs associated with replacing items taken from production inventory for use as 
spare parts to complete STT production, and $7,139,583 in material costs, G&A, and 
fee (id. at 11-13).   
 
5.  Envistacom’s claim noted it had received purchase orders from ADS for 
work ordered from ADS by the government.  It explained that the government’s 
relationship with ADS permitted integration of the research and development work 
Envistacom performed under TACNET into the ADS systems.  It characterized the 
two contracts as tied together.  (Id. at 9)  It suggested the amount it sought represented 
a modest overrun of 6.84% of the total value of both TACNET and the ADS purchase 
orders (id. at 2, 5, 14).  Nevertheless, it stated that its claim was for amounts owed 
under TACNET/DAGRS (id. at 1, 5).  When the contracting officer requested 
Envistacom remove any costs associated with the DLA contract, Envistacom responded 
that its claim did not include any costs associated with that contract (R4, tab 151 at 2). 
 
6.  On September 22, 2023, the contracting officer partially granted Envistacom’s 
TACNET claim (R4, tab 151).  The decision recognized that under the DLA contract 
Envistacom provided integration services as a subcontractor and under TACNET the 
government provided the integrated STTs to Envistacom to perform engineering and 
additional integration services (id. at 1-2).  Without indicating any uncertainty about the 
sums demanded, the decision then addressed each claim component.  It recognized 
$900,106.97 in engineering change proposal costs (id. at 5-8).  The contracting officer 
concluded Envistacom had failed to sufficiently prove its procurement of replacement 
parts and that the contract lacked any obligation by the government to supply spares (id. 
at 8-9).  The contracting officer also denied the material cost claim, noting that the 

3 
contract was for a firm-fixed price, and that Envistacom was not required to procure 
STT MWO materials under TACNET.  Envistacom had been provided funding from 
ADS to procure those materials under the DLA contract.  (Id. at 9)   
 
7.  Envistacom has appealed the decision, saying in its complaint that it seeks 
review of the partial denial of its certified claim brought under the DAGRS contract 
and TACNET task order (compl. at 1).  It cites provisions of that contract and task 
order that it contends govern its entitlement (compl. ¶¶ 23-37).  It seeks equitable 
adjustments for engineering change proposals, costs of providing spare kits outside the 
STT warranty, and material overruns, based upon TACNET changes (compl. ¶¶ 54-59).  
It also seeks the same compensation under a theory of breach of the implied duty to 
cooperate and not to hinder its contractual rights (compl. ¶¶ 60-62).  In response to the 
appeals, the government submitted a Rule 4 file containing 157 tabs, which it later 
increased to 201. 
 
DECISION 
 
The government asks us to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing 
that Envistacom’s claim and complaint demand costs owed under its subcontract 
relationship with ADA.  As a subcontractor lacking privity of contract, the government 
maintains Envistacom may not bring an appeal to the Board.  (Gov’t mot. at 7)  The 
government also suggests the appeal must be dismissed for failure to state a claim 
because Envistacom combined claims involving both TACNET and its ADA 
subcontracts.  It contends this “confusion as to which contract is applicable to its claims 
makes Envistacom’s complaint ambiguous to the point where it fails to state a claim on 
which relief may be granted.”  Envistacom, argues the government, “should not be able 
to hide the ball from the [government] as to which contract its claims belong.”  (Gov’t 
mot. at 12)  Furthermore, the government seeks dismissal for failure to state a claim 
because it says Envistacom’s claim lacks a sum certain.  According to the government, 
because Envistacom has “conflat[ed] the two distinct contracts,” it “has failed to 
provide a clear and unequivocal statement to give the contracting officer adequate 
notice of the basis and amount of [its] claim.”  (Gov’t mot. at 14)
1  In addition to 
opposing the government’s motion, Envistacom cross moves for default judgment on 
the basis that the government’s Rule 4 file is incomplete, and its motion is frivolous.  
  
 
1 The title of the government’s motion also says it is for summary judgment, though it 
does not advance a separate argument on that theory. 

4 
I. Government Motion 
 
 Under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-09, we review the 
claim, not the complaint, to determine whether the requirements of our jurisdiction 
have been met.  See Am. Gen. Trading & Contracting, WLL, ASBCA No. 56758, 12-1 
BCA ¶ 34,905 at 171,639.  For jurisdictional purposes, a claim need only have been 
submitted according to the procedures delineated in the CDA.  Red Bobtail Transp., 
ASBCA Nos. 63783, 63784, 24-1 BCA ¶ 38,598 at 187,639.  It must be by a 
contractor against the Federal Government relating to a contract and be submitted to 
the contracting officer for a decision.  Id.  It also must make a demand in writing, and 
if for money, provide notice of its general amount.  Id.  If the claim exceeds $100,000 
it must be certified in accordance with the provisions of the CDA contained in 41 
U.S.C. § 7103(b).  Id.  With rare exceptions not relevant to this dispute, only a 
contractor, meaning a party to a Federal Government contract other than the Federal 
Government, may appeal to the Board under the CDA, which typically excludes 
subcontractors not in direct privity with the government.  Binghamton Simulator Co., 
ASBCA No. 59117, 14-1 BCA ¶ 35,715 at 174,870-71.  These conditions all exist 
here.   
 
 Envistacom is in privity of contract with the government through the DAGRS 
contract and TACNET task order (SOF ¶ 2).  It submitted a certified claim to the 
contracting officer in writing seeking payment of amounts it claims are associated with 
that contract.  Like the government, it acknowledged that it first provided STT 
products to DLA through a subcontract with ADS but made clear that its claim is for 
amounts due under DAGRS/TACNET, which the contracting officer partially granted.  
(SOF ¶¶ 4-6)  The government contends that the claim seeks costs under both 
TACNET and the DLA subcontract, dictating the appeals must be dismissed.  We 
disagree with the premise that the claim asserts entitlement under both contracts.  
However, we need not dwell upon the matter.  Even if the government is correct, that 
would not dictate dismissal of the appeal in its entirety.  At most, we would be 
deprived of jurisdiction to make an award solely dependent upon Envistacom’s rights 
under the subcontract, which Envistacom denies seeking anyway.   
 
The government’s contention that the appeal should be dismissed for failure to 
state a claim essentially relies upon the same arguments, namely that Envistacom’s 
claim combines TACNET and the DLA subcontract together to establish its 
entitlement to the claimed costs.  For this reason, it says the claim fails to comply with 
the requirement that it contain a sum certain.  It is true that a CDA claim for monetary 
relief must include a “sum certain indicating for each distinct claim the specific 
amount sought as relief.”  MTS Gen. Trading & Constr., ASBCA No. 63522, 24-1 
BCA ¶ 38,528 at 187,289 (quoting ECC Int’l Constr., LLC v. Sec’y of Army, 79 F.4th 
1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023)).  Envistacom’s claim specified separate amounts for 
directed changes, engineering change proposals, spare parts, and materials.  Each is a 

5 
sum certain.  (SOF ¶ 4)  Nevertheless, the government insists the claim fails to meet 
the sum certain standard because it seeks costs owed under both TACNET and the 
DLA subcontract.  Again, we disagree that the claim seeks costs claimed to be owed 
under the subcontract.  Even if it did, premising specific costs upon rights provided by 
two different contracts does not render the amounts uncertain.  Notably, and contrary 
to the government’s suggestion, while partially granting the claim the contracting 
officer did not express any uncertainty about the amounts demanded (SOF ¶ 6).  Nor 
do we perceive any.  That the government contends that a portion of the sums cannot 
be due under TACNET is irrelevant to whether a sum certain was specified in the 
claim.  
 
The government also contends Envistacom’s complaint reflects confusion as to 
which contract is applicable to its claims, making the complaint ambiguous.  We are 
not confused and doubt the government is either.  The complaint need only provide the 
government “with a fair notice of the claim and its grounds.”  Wilwood Eng’g. Inc., 
ASBCA Nos. 62773, 62774, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,116 at 185,144.  Though the complaint’s 
factual summary lacks specifics, the general story is plain enough.  It explains that in 
2018 DLA ordered STT equipment from Envistacom through ADS (compl. ¶ 9).  The 
Army directly issued TACNET to Envistacom in 2019 for, among other reasons, the 
acquisition of enhancements and logistical support for the previously ordered STTs 
and other systems (compl. ¶ 12).  Design changes introduced under TACNET affected 
the assembly of the STTs, prompting different cost adjustments issued under both 
contracts, leading Envistacom to characterize performance of the two contracts as 
indistinguishable (compl. ¶¶ 14-15).  Additionally, government part repair demands 
required replacement at additional and escalated costs (compl. ¶ 18).  After these 
general allegations, the complaint’s thrust becomes quite clear.  It contains a specific 
heading titled, “Contract Provisions Entitling Envistacom to Relief” (compl. at 10).  
Following that, it quotes several sections of DAGRS and TACNET that it says support 
its right to the amounts sought (compl. ¶¶ 23-37).  Nowhere does it cite any provisions 
of the DLA subcontract.  On this we find the complaint unconfusing and 
unambiguous.  It provides the government with fair notice of the claim and its 
grounds.  Moreover, contradicting its contention that it does not know what portions of 
the claim apply to the different contracts, the government’s reply purports to 
demonstrate exactly the opposite, explaining why certain sums sought can only apply 
to the DLA subcontract (gov’t reply at 26).  The government shows it grasps the issues 
presented by the complaint sufficiently to have developed its own set of competing 
facts and conclusions of law.  The government’s disagreement with Envistacom’s 
version of the facts and law does not dictate that the claim and complaint are not 
comprehensible. 
 

6 
II. Envistacom’s Cross-Motion 
 
In addition to opposing the government’s motion, Envistacom seeks to bring the 
appeal to an immediate conclusion in its favor by demanding the Board issue a default 
judgment against the government.  It purports to justify such an action by complaining 
that the Rule 4 file submitted by the government is inadequate and the government’s 
motion to dismiss is frivolous. 
 
Board Rule 17 states that “[w]henever the record discloses the failure of either 
party to file documents required by these Rules, respond to notices or correspondence 
from the Board, comply with orders of the Board, or otherwise indicates an intention 
not to continue the prosecution or defense of an appeal, the Board may, . . . [i]n the 
case of a default by the Government, . . . issue an order to show cause why the Board 
should not act thereon pursuant to Rule 16.”  Rule 16 authorizes the Board to impose 
sanctions as it considers necessary.  A default judgment is the severest sanction 
available.  Quality Tr., Inc., ASBCA No. 62576, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,217 at 185,613.  It is 
reserved for contumacious or contemptuous conduct.  Id. 
 
There is no basis to issue a show cause order, much less a default judgment.  
Board Rule 4 requires the government to submit the decision from which the appeal is 
taken, the contract, correspondence relevant to the appeal, and documents the 
government considers relevant.  Inherent in its provisions is the exercise of subjective 
judgment by the government.  So far, the government has submitted a file containing 
201 tabs that it considers relevant (SOF ¶ 7).  That Envistacom believes other 
documents should be in the file does not demonstrate contempt by the government for 
the Board’s rules that would entitle it to the remedy of a default judgment.
2  
Additionally, the government’s motion, though unsuccessful, is not so unserious as to 
be frivolous.  Nor would the sanction for one frivolous motion be a default judgment 
for the claimant.  On a scale of strength ranging from meritorious, to unsuccessful, to 
frivolous, Envistacom’s motion is no stronger than the government’s. 
  
 
2 Moreover, our rules specifically allow appellant the opportunity to supplement the 
record.  Board Rule 4(b) authorizes appellant to submit additional documents 
missing from the government’s initial Rule 4 file transmittal. 

7 
CONCLUSION 
 
The government’s motion to dismiss is denied.  Envistacom’s cross-motion for 
default judgment is denied. 
 
Dated:  February 19, 2025 
 
 
 
MARK A. MELNICK  
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 
I concur  I concur 
 
 
 
 OWEN C. WILSON 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 J. REID PROUTY 
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 No. 63796,
 Appeal of 
Envistacom, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. 
 
Dated:  February 19, 2025 
 
 
 
 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals