ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SMITH ON APPELLANT’S MOTION 
FOR RECONSIDERATION 
 
This appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in our decision of May 19, 
2022.  We received appellant’s May 23, 2022, objection to our decision which we will 
treat as a timely-filed motion for reconsideration under Board Rule 20.  No further 
briefing is required and we deny the motion.  
 
Board Rule 20 requires a party to provide “specific[] grounds relied upon to 
grant the motion” but appellant only makes a vague argument, without any evidence to 
support it, that appellant’s two projects discussed in our dismissal were run by 
different project managers (app. mot. at 1).  Appellant implies, without actually stating 
or showing, that one of the project managers may have been impeded more by the 
Taliban takeover of Afghanistan than the other, justifying equitable tolling of the 
jurisdictional time limit to submit this appeal.  But even if there were two project 
managers who were affected differently by the Taliban, it does not refute our fact 
finding, supported by the record, that appellant demonstrated email capability during 
the 90-day period for submitting its notice of appeal here.  Given the low bar for the 
contents of a notice of appeal (see Board Rule 1(a)), appellant has not shown that it 
required detailed information from its project manager, or that he or she was prevented 
from providing such information by the Taliban.  There is no factual basis upon which 
to consider equitable tolling.  
 
We also note that appellant’s motion seeks to negotiate the claim with the 
contracting officer (app. mot. at 1).  Our dismissal explicitly provided appellant that 
Appeal of - )  
 )  
Zahra Rose Construction & Logistics 
Services Company 
) 
) 
ASBCA No. 63221 
 )  
Under Contract No. H92237-20-P-3029 )  
   
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Ms. Zahra Noori 
    CEO 
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq. 
    Deputy Chief Trial Attorney 
 Maj Brian Shust, USAF 
Maj Ashley Ruhe, USAF 
    Trial Attorneys 

2 
 
opportunity, assuming the government determines there is any merit to appellant’s 
claim – a decision we do not possess jurisdiction to make. 
 
Last, even though appellant asserts that, as a contractor, it has given many years 
of support to the United States, under the Contract Disputes Act, the time limit for 
appeal to the Board is within 90 days of receipt of the contracting officer’s final 
decision (see 41 U.S.C. § 7104(a)), unlike the rules for the Court of Federal Claims, 
which allow one year. 
  
 Date:  June 10, 2022 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I concur 
 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 I concur 
 
 
 
 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. 63221,
 Appeal of Zahra 
Rose Construction & Logistics Services Company, rendered in conformance with the 
Board’s Charter. 
 
 Dated:  June 13, 2022 
 
 
 
Brian S. Smith 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 
 
 
 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals