ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of -- ) 
) 
VLOX, LLC ) 
) 
Under Contract No. W91B4N-09-D-5005 ) 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 59305, 59306, 59307 
59308,59309,59310 
Joseph A. Artabane, Esq. 
Artabane & Belden, P.C. 
Washington, DC 
Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 
Army Chief Trial Attorney 
Stephanie B. Magnell, Esq. 
Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL 
ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 
The government requests that the Board dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction 
because, the government contends, the payment requests that appellant submitted to the 
government are not "claims." We deny the motion. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 
1. In March 2009, the Department of the Army (government) and NLC 
Construction, LLC (now VLOX, LLC (appellant) (app. opp'n, ex. 1, ~ 3)), entered into 
Contract No. W91B4N-09-D-5005, an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract for 
trucking services throughout Afghanistan (mot., ex. 1 at 1, 2, 5). The contract provided 
for a base period and an option period (id. at 5-6). 
2. Section E-1 of the contract, "INVOICING," requires, at paragraph 3, the 
contractor to submit monthly invoices that "must contain" specified information, 
including "Invoice Date and Number," "Taxpayer Identification Number," 
and 
"Electronic funds transfer (EFT) banking information" (gov't mot., ex. 1 at 10 of 67). 
Section 4.15 of the contract's statement of work (Revision B), "ECP Demurrage," 
provides for payment of"demurrage charges," but does not specify 
how to submit 
requests for payment of those charges (gov't mot., ex. 4 at 13). 

3. From 11 October 2013 through 27 February 2014, appellant submitted to the 
contracting officer (CO) five separate, written requests for payment, called "Batches" 1 
through 5, for "unpaid demurrage charges" allegedly incurred during the option period. 
(In Batch 2, dated 1November2013, appellant sought $4,528,125.) Each batch sought a 
different, specified payment amount, ranging from $3,496,500, for Batch 4 to 
$5,000,625, for Batch 5. Appellant called each batch a "claim," provided for each a 
factual and legal analysis in support of entitlement, as well as a Contract Disputes Act 
(CDA), 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(l) certification. In each batch appellant requested "that the 
[CO] issue a final decision in 60 days granting this claim." (App. opp'n, exs. 2, 4, 9-11) 
4. On 27 March 2014, the CO issued a final decision upon Batch 2. The final 
decision referenced appellant's "claim dated Ol-Nov-13," and stated that "[t]he 
Government hereby acknowledges your claim in the amount of $4,528,125.00." The CO 
found that appellant was entitled to $3,291,750, and recited appellant's rights to appeal 
the final decision. (App. opp'n, ex. 15 at 1, 3) 
5. On 1April2014, appellant responded to the CO's 27 March 2014 final 
decision. The response offered "additional documentation" in support of Batch 2, and 
requested that the CO "reconsider his position." (App. opp'n, ex. 23 at 1, 3) 
6. On 10 April 2014, appellant submitted to the CO a written request for payment 
in the amount of $5,890,500, for what it called "Batch 6," for unpaid demurrage charges 
for the option period. As with Batches 1 through 5, appellant called Batch 6 a claim, 
provided a factual and legal analysis supporting entitlement, provided a CDA 
certification, and requested that the CO "issue a final decision in 60 days granting [the] 
claim." (App. opp'n, ex. 16 at 1, 11) 
7. On 6 May 2014, the CO issued a final decision revoking the 27 March 2014 1 
final decision, and stating that the government was in the process of reviewing 
appellant's additional documentation (app. opp'n, ex. 19). 
8. The CO did not issue any decisions upon Batches 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. 
9. On 12 May 2014, appellant filed these appeals. 
1 In an apparent typographical error, the CO referred to the 27 March 2014 final decision 
as dated "19 Mar 14" (app. opp'n, ex. 19). 
2 

DECISION 
The government contends that appellant's payment requests - Batches 1through6 
- are not claims because they are appellant's "initial" requests for payment and, 
therefore, not 
in dispute. The government's position is that Batches 1 through 6 could be 
claims only if appellant had previously submitted payment requests that the government 
did not pay in full, creating a pre-existing payment dispute. Because that did not happen, 
the government contends, Batches 1 through 6 are not claims, and we do not possess 
jurisdiction to entertain the appeals. We conclude that Batches 1 through 6 are claims. 
A "claim" is "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." Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 2.101. A "voucher, invoice, or 
other routine request for payment that is not 
in dispute when submitted is not a 
claim." 
Id. However, a pre-existing dispute is not required; an undisputed, non-routine written 
demand seeking payment as a matter of right can be a claim. Rejlectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 
60 F.3d 1572, 1576-77 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Relevant to whether a submission is a claim is 
how the parties treat it; for example, reference to a submission as a claim, a request for a 
CO's final decision, and the issuance of a CO's final decision upon the submission, are 
indications that the submission is a claim. See James M Ellett Construction Co. v. 
United States, 93 F.3d 1537, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Contract Cleaning Maintenance, Inc. 
v. United States, 811F.2d586, 592 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Taj Al Safa Company, ASBCA 
No. 58394, 13 BCA ,-r 35,278 at 173,158. 
Importantly, even if they are appellant's first payment requests, Batches 1 through 
6 are claims because they are non-routine written demands for payment of sums certain 
as a matter of right. Appellant used the term "claim" to describe each of the batches, and 
demanded payment as a matter of entitlement, in sums certain (SOF ,-r,-r 3, 6). Each 
includes a factual and legal narrative supporting entitlement, a certification, and a request 
for a CO's final decision (id.). Moreover, the CO treated Batch 2 as a claim by issuing 
two final decisions that expressly refer to that 
batch as a claim (SOF ,-r,-r 4, 7). That was 
not a passing reference; in the 27 March 2014 final decision the CO even recited 
appellant's appeal rights (SOF ,-r 4). In these respects, appellant's submissions are like 
claims in James M Ellett Construction, 93 F .3d at 1546 (certification, request for CO 
decision), and Contract Cleaning Maintenance, 811 F.2d at 592 (government reference to 
submission as claim). By contrast, they do not resemble the "invoices" that the contract 
requires for monthly payment requests; for example, appellant did not assign invoice 
numbers to them, and they do not include taxpayer identification numbers or EFT 
banking information. 
3 

In addition, it is reasonable to infer that the government viewed Batches 1, 3, 4, 5, 
and 6 as it did Batch 2; that is, as claims. Each of those batches pre-dates the CO's 6 
May 2014 revocation decision, and only Batch 6 post-dates the 27 March 2014 decision. 
Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the government viewed all six batches as a series 
of related claims, if not six parts of the same claim. Indeed, there is no qualitative 
difference among Batches 1 through 6. Each seeks payment of demurrage charges for the 
option period. Each uses the term "claim" and requests a CO's final decision. Each, at 
least according to the government, seeks payments that appellant had not previously 
requested. Yet, at least as late as 6 May 2014, the government regarded one of those 
batches - Batch 2 - unequivocally as a "claim." We find no reason 
to find that the 
government regarded any of the other batches any differently, and find that Batches 1, 3, 
4, 5, and 6 are also claims. 
For these reasons, the Board denies the government's motion. Within 21 days of 
the date of this decision, the parties shall file a jointly-proposed schedule for further 
proceedings. 
Dated: 3 September 2014 
I 
concur 
&:~~~ 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
4 
Administra ve Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
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. 59305, 59306, 59307, 
59308, 59309, 59310, Appeals ofVLOX, LLC, rendered in conformance with the 
Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
5 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals 
I 
i