ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
 
Appeals of -- ) 
 ) 
Triple Canopy, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 61415, 61416, 61417
 )    61418, 61419, 61420 
 ) 
Under Contract Nos. H92237-10-0593 et al. ) 
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Armani Vadiee, Esq. 
Todd M. Garland, Esq. 
 Sean K. Griffin, Esq. 
  Smith Pachter McWhorter, PLC 
   Tysons Corner, VA 
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq. 
   Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney 
 Colby L. Sullins, Esq. 
   Trial Attorney 
 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WOODROW 
 
This case concerns the application of Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR), 52.229-6, TAXES-FOREIGN FIXED-PRICE CONTRACTS (June 2003), to a 
series of contracts to provide private security services to military bases in Afghanistan.  
Triple Canopy, Inc. (Triple Canopy) appeals the contracting officer’s (CO) deemed 
denial of six certified claims, totaling $382,843.24, each derived by fees imposed by the 
Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRA) on private security 
companies (PSC) operating in Afghanistan with more than 500 employees. 
 
The parties elected to proceed without an evidentiary hearing, via Board Rule 11, 
with each side relying upon the Rule 4 file and its supplements and submitting opening 
and reply briefs in accordance with an agreed-upon schedule.  For the reasons set forth 
below, we conclude that Triple Canopy’s claims are time-barred.  We deny the appeals. 
 
FINDINGS OF FACT 
 
I.  Afghan Government Regulation of Private Security Contractors 
 
1.  In February 2008, GIRA issued a directive entitled “Procedure for Regulating 
Activities of Private Security Companies in Afghanistan” (PSC Regulation) (R4, tab 33 
at 17). 
 

2 
2.  Article 7 of the PSC Regulation required all PSCs to observe Afghanistan law, 
including the PSC Regulation:  “A Security Company is obliged to observe the 
provisions of the valid laws of the country and this procedure.”  (R4, tab 33 at 22) 
 
3.  Article 10 provided:  “The number of staff of each Security Company shall not 
be more the [sic] 500 people, unless the Council of Ministers agrees an increased number 
of staff” (R4, tab 33 at 23). 
 
4.  Although the PSC Regulation limited the number of PSC personnel at 500, the 
regulation did not provide for imposing fees on PSCs operating in Afghanistan that 
exceeded the 500 person limit (see generally R4, tab 33). 
 
II.  The Private Security Contracts 
 
5.  On March 15, 2009, the Department of Defense, through the Combined Joint 
Special Operations Task Force-Afghanistan (CJSOTF-A) Contracting Office 
(government), awarded to Commercial Security Guard Service (CSGS) Contract  
No. W91B4M-09-P-0297 for the provision of security services for the Canadian Forward 
Operating Base, Kabul Military Training Center (the KMTC Contract) (R4, tab 1). 
 
6.  In February 2010, Triple Canopy acquired CSGS and the KMTC Contract 
transferred to Triple Canopy by operation of law (see R4, tab 6) (noting “Triple Canopy 
Limited” as new contractor). 
 
7.  The KMTC Contract was for a base period of six months with two additional 
six month option periods (R4, tab 1 at 28 § 1.2.).  The government extended the period of 
performance for the KMTC Contract through April 30, 2013 (R4, tab 22 at 1). 
 
8.  The KMTC Contract provided for Triple Canopy to provide 124 personnel at 
the time relevant to this appeal (R4, tab 50 at 427). 
 
9.  On July 19, 2010, the government awarded to Triple Canopy Contract  
No. H92237-10-C-0552 for the provision of security services at Forward Operating Base 
Tinsley (Tinsley Contract) (R4, tab 27 at 1). 
 
10.  The Tinsley Contract was for a base period of six months (R4, tab 27 at 3-5).  
The government extended Triple Canopy’s performance of the Tinsley Contract through 
July 31, 2011 (R4, tab 28 at 1).  
 
11.  The Tinsley Contract required Triple Canopy to provide a total of  
237 personnel (R4, tab 27 at 3-5). 
 
12.  On July 19, 2010, the government awarded to Triple Canopy Contract  

3 
No. H92237-10-C-0555 for the provision of security services at Firebase Tycz (Tycz 
Contract) (R4, tab 34 at 1). 
 
13.  The Tycz Contract was for a base period of six months (R4, tab 34 at 3-5).  
The government extended performance of the Tycz Contract through July 31, 2011 (R4, 
tab 35 at 1). 
 
14.  The Tycz Contract required Triple Canopy to provide a total of 287 personnel 
(R4, tab 34 at 3-5). 
 
15.  On September 17, 2010, the government awarded to Triple Canopy Contract 
No. H92237-10-C-0593 for the provision of security services for Parmakan Village 
Stability Operations (Parmakan Contract) (R4, tab 45 at 1). 
 
16.  The Parmakan Contract was for a base period of three months (R4, tab 45  
at 3-4).  The government extended performance of the Parmakan Contract through  
June 26, 2011 (R4, tab 46 at 1). 
 
17.  The Parmakan Contract initially required Triple Canopy to provide a total of 
33 personnel (R4, tab 45 at 3). 
 
18.  On July 25, 2010, the government awarded to Triple Canopy Contract  
No. H92237-10-C-0572 for the provision of security services for Maiwand Village 
Stability Operations (Maiwand Contract) (R4, tab 39 at 1). 
 
19.  The Maiwand Contract was for a base period of 6 months (R4, tab 39 at 3-4).  
The government extended performance of the Maiwand Contract through August 15, 
2011 (R4, tab 41 at 1). 
 
20.  The Maiwand Contract required Triple Canopy to provide a total of  
24 personnel (R4, tab 39 at 3-4). 
 
21.  On September 17, 2010, the government awarded to Triple Canopy Contract 
No. H92237-10-C-0594 for the provision of security services for Sanowghan Village 
Stability Operations (Sanowghan Contract) (R4, tab 51 at 1). 
 
22.  The Sanowghan Contract was for a base period of three months (see R4,  
tab 51 at 3-4).  The government extended performance of the contract through June 26, 
2011 (see R4, tab 52 at 1). 
 
23.  The contract initially required Triple Canopy to provide a total of  
33 personnel (R4, tab 51 at 3). 

4 
24.  Each contract incorporated by reference FAR 52.229-6, TAXES-FOREIGN 
FIXED-PRICE CONTRACTS (June 2003).  The clause provides, in relevant part:  “The 
contract price shall be increased by the amount of any after-imposed tax . . . that the 
Contractor is required to pay or bear.”  (R4, tab l at 7, tab 27 at 9, tab 34 at 9, tab 39 at 8, 
tab 45 at 7, tab 51 at 7). 
 
25.  Each contract required Triple Canopy to comply with local law (R4, tabs 1, 
27, 34, 39, 45, 51). 
 
III.  The Government Requested that Triple Canopy be Exempt from the 
GIRA’s Regulations Limiting PSCs to 500 Personnel 
 
26.  On August 13, 2010, the CO, Captain Brussell C. Bungay, sent a letter to the 
Afghanistan Ministry of Interior (MOI).  In the letter, the CO informed the MOI that 
“Triple Canopy’s manning requirement in support of US Military contracts will exceed 
500 personnel.”  (R4, tabs 33, 38, 44, 50, 54 at 258-59)  In the August 13, 2010 letter, the 
CO stated: 
 
In order to ensure there is no disruption to Afghanistan’s 
reconstruction process, the CJSOTF-A [] respectfully requests 
an exemption excepting from the 500 allowable security staff, 
for the above referenced contracts.  It is understood and 
expected that Triple Canopy will still be required to abide by 
all other relevant laws and regulations as a licensed Private 
Security Company. 
 
(Id.) 
 
27.  The CO further stated that:  “This exemption shall be considered immediately 
valid by both [] CJSOTF-A and Triple Canopy.”  (Id.) 
 
28.  On August 16, 2010, Triple Canopy submitted the letter to the MOI to support 
Triple Canopy’s request that MOI issue a formal exemption in accordance with the 
government’s position (R4, tabs 33, 38, 44, 50, 54 at 264-269). 
 
IV.  Afghanistan Government Issues Presidential Directive Enforcing PSC Regulation 
 
29.  On March 15, 2011, the GIRA issued Presidential Directive No. 7339 (PD7339) 
(R4, tabs 33, 38, 44, 50, 54 at 396-98). 
 

5 
30.  PD7339 required that all PSCs operating in Afghanistan pay a fee of 100,000 
AFN ($2,323.42)* for each person over the 500 employee cap and 250,000 AFN ($5,808.56) 
for each foreign national working without an Afghan visa (id.). 
 
31.  On March 24, 2011, the GIRA implemented PD7339 by assessing fees for 
each individual Triple Canopy employed over the 500 person limit.  Specifically, GIRA 
assessed a fee for 174 unregistered Afghan citizens and 30 unregistered foreign citizens.  
The penalty was assessed against Triple Canopy’s total number of personnel across all of 
its contracts.  GIRA’s fine totaled 37,860,000 AFN ($879,647.95) (R4, tab 33 at 400). 
 
32.  The GIRA directed Triple Canopy to pay this assessment within 15 days of 
the notification (R4, tab 33 at 400). 
 
33.  In a March 27, 2011 memorandum to the GIRA, Captain Jeffrey D. Gillespie 
stated: 
 
Triple Canopy’s manning requirement in support of US 
Military contracts will exceed 500 personnel.  In order to 
ensure there is no disruption to Afghanistan’s reconstruction 
process, the US Department of Defense respectfully requests 
an exemption excepting from the 500 allowable security staff, 
for the above referenced contracts.  It is understood and 
expected that Triple Canopy will still be required to abide by 
all other relevant laws and regulations as a licensed Private 
Security Company. 
 
(R4 tabs 33, 38, 44, 50, 54 at 403) 
 
34.  The March 27, 2011 memorandum further stated:  “This exemption shall be 
considered immediately valid by both the United States Department of Defense Regional 
Contracting Centers and Triple Canopy.”  (Id.) 
 
35.  On March 28, 2011, Captain David W. Knox of the U.S. Air Force drafted a 
memorandum to the GIRA with the subject “Triple Canopy.”  The memorandum stated: 
 
Triple Canopy’s manning requirement in support of US 
Military contracts will exceed 500 personnel.  In order to 
ensure there is no disruption to Afghanistan’s reconstruction 
process, the US Department of Defense respectfully requests 
an exemption excepting from the 500 allowable security staff, 
for the above referenced contracts.  It is understood and 
                                              
* Conversion to U.S. currency as of July 2011. 

6 
expected that Triple Canopy will still be required to abide by 
all other relevant laws and regulations as a licensed Private 
Security Company. 
 
(R4 tabs 33, 38, 44, 50, 54 at 405-07) 
 
36.  The memorandum further stated:  “This exemption shall be considered 
immediately valid by both the United States Department of Defense Regional 
Contracting Centers and Triple Canopy.”  (Id.) 
 
37.  On April 8, 2011, Triple Canopy appealed the assessment to the GIRA (R4, 
tabs 33, 38, 44, 50, 54 at 409-19). 
 
38.  On April 21, 2011, Triple Canopy told the CO that it would submit a request 
for equitable adjustment (REA) if its appeal was denied (R4, tab 38 at 12). 
 
39.  On July 6, 2011, the GIRA sent a revised letter to Triple Canopy reducing the 
original fees assessed in the GIRA’s March 24, 2011 letter (R4, tabs 33, 38, 44, 50, 54  
at 421-22). 
 
40.  The revised letter restructured the GIRA’s March 24, 2011 assessment by 
applying a fee of 100,000 AFN ($2,323.42) per individual for 174 Afghan nationals and 
four foreign nationals, and 250,000 AFN ($5,808.56) per individual for three additional 
foreign nationals.  (Id.)  The total fee assessed against Triple Canopy was 18,550,000 
AFN ($430,994.97).  (R4, tabs 33, 38, 44, 50, 54 at 427) 
 
41.  On July 18 and 20, 2011, Triple Canopy paid the GIRA a total of 18,550,000  
AFN ($430,994.96) in satisfaction of the assessed fees (R4, tab 54 at 424-25). 
 
V.  Procedural History 
 
42.  On June 6, 2017, Triple Canopy submitted its claims under each contract to 
the CO seeking reimbursement for the amounts allocable to each contract (R4, tabs 26, 
33, 38, 44, 50, 54). 
 
43.  To date, the government has not issued any contracting officer final decisions 
(COFDs). 
 
44.  Triple Canopy appealed to the Board on November 20, 2017, on the basis of 
deemed denials. 
  

7 
DECISION 
 
I.  Standard of Review 
 
Board Rule 11 permits parties “to waive a hearing and to submit [their] case upon 
the record.”  The standards of review and burdens of proof of a motion for summary 
judgment and a decision on the merits under Board Rule 11 vary substantially.  DG21, 
LLC, ASBCA No. 57980, 15 BCA ¶ 36,016 at 175,909 n.1.  Unlike a motion for 
summary judgment, which must be adjudicated on the basis of a set of undisputed facts, 
pursuant to Board Rule 11, the Board “may make findings of fact on disputed facts.”  
Grumman Aerospace Corp., ASBCA No. 35185, 92-3 BCA ¶ 25,059 at 124,886 n.13. 
 
II.  Whether Triple Canopy Presented its Claim Outside of the Six-Year 
   Presentment Period 
 
A contractor must submit its claim to the CO within six years after accrual of that 
claim.  41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(4)(A); Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 773 F.3d 
1315, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2014).  The failure of a party to submit a contract claim within the 
six-year limitations period is an affirmative defense to that claim.  Alion Science & Tech. 
Corp., ASBCA No. 58992, 15 BCA ¶ 36,168 at 176,488-89. 
 
In this appeal, the government bears the burden of demonstrating that Triple 
Canopy’s claim accrued on or before June 6, 2011, six years prior to the date on which 
Triple Canopy submitted its claims to the CO.  The government contends that Triple 
Canopy’s liability affixed on March 24, 2011, the date on which GIRA assessed its fines.  
Triple Canopy, in contrast, contends that its claim did not accrue until July 18, 2011, the 
date on which it paid the assessment. 
 
A.  The Legal Basis for Triple Canopy’s Claim  
 
The question of “whether and when a CDA claim accrued is determined in 
accordance with the FAR, the conditions of the contract, and the facts of the particular 
case.”  Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. Murphy, 823 F.3d 622, 626 (Fed. Cir. 2016).   
Although the CDA does not define the term “accrual,” the FAR defines “accrual of a 
claim” as “the date when all events, that fix the alleged liability of either the Government 
or the contractor and permit assertion of the claim, were known or should have been 
known.”  FAR 33.201.  To determine when a claim accrued, and the events that fix the 
alleged liability, we start by examining the legal basis for the particular claim.  
Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc., ASBCA No. 54615, 07-1 BCA ¶ 33,483  
at 165,984; Gray Personnel, Inc., ASBCA No. 54652, 06-02 BCA ¶ 33,378 at  
165,475-76; Raytheon Co., Space & Airborne Systems, ASBCA No. 57801 et al.,  
13 BCA ¶ 35,319 at 173,376 (“To evaluate when the claimed liability was fixed, we look 
to the legal basis of the claim”). 

8 
Our analysis of the legal basis for Triple Canopy’s claim begins with FAR 52.229-6, 
which is incorporated into each of Triple Canopy’s contracts with the government (finding 24).  
FAR 52.229-6 provides: 
 
(d)  The contract price shall be increased by the amount of 
any after-imposed tax or of any tax or duty specifically 
excluded from the contract price by a provision of this 
contract that the Contractor is required to pay or bear, 
including any interest or penalty, if the Contractor states in 
writing that the contract price does not include any 
contingency for such tax and if liability for such tax, interest, 
or penalty was not incurred through the Contractor’s fault, 
negligence, or failure to follow instructions of the Contracting 
Officer or to comply with the provisions of paragraph (i) 
below. 
 
If we accept Triple Canopy’s contention that the GIRA assessment is an “after-
imposed tax,” then Triple Canopy’s legal obligation to pay the assessment arises when 
Triple Canopy is “required to pay or bear” the assessment.  Here, there is no dispute that 
GIRA demanded payment of the assessment on March 24, 2011.  (Finding 31) 
 
To counter this conclusion, Triple Canopy makes two arguments regarding its 
legal obligation to pay the GIRA assessment.  First, Triple Canopy contends that its claim 
did not accrue until it actually paid the assessment (app. reply br. at 3-4).  According to 
Triple Canopy, the legal basis for its claims is the obligation to reimburse it for “after-
imposed” taxes.  Specifically, Triple Canopy contends that the government’s contractual 
obligation to reimburse Triple Canopy only arises after Triple Canopy paid the 
assessments – on July 18 and July 20, 2011.  (App. reply br. at 3) 
 
In contrast, the government contends that Triple Canopy’s legal obligation to pay 
the penalty was set on March 24, 2011, when GIRA assessed the penalty.  According to the 
government, incurred costs are costs for which a party has some sort of legal liability to 
make payment.  Here, the government asserts that the government’s liability would attach 
when “the contractor is required to pay or bear” such a tax.  (Gov’t reply br. at 12-13) 
 
Triple Canopy relies on Raytheon Co., ASBCA No. 57576, 57679, 13 BCA ¶ 35,209 
for the proposition that a claim does not accrue until an actual payment is made (app. reply 
br. at 4).  Triple Canopy stretches the holding in Raytheon too far. 
 
In Raytheon, the government, as claimant, sought to recover costs it had already 
paid to Raytheon.  The issue in Raytheon was when the government knew, or should have 
known, that it had overpaid.  13 BCA ¶ 35,209 at 172,751.  In Raytheon, we held that the 
government’s claims to recover costs in fiscal years in which it had already made 

9 
overpayments accrued when it audited those costs and determined that they were 
unallowable.  (Id.)  However, with respect to subsequent fiscal years, we held that the 
government’s claims were timely, because the government could not have known of any 
overpayments in these years “until the advent of these years and until payments were 
made under government contracts in those years.”  (Id. at 172,752)  It is logical that a 
claim to recover an overpayment cannot accrue until the overpayment has occurred, 
because the claimant cannot know it has overpaid until it has made a payment. 
 
Here, in contrast, the issue is when Triple Canopy knew, or should have known, 
that it had an obligation to pay the GIRA assessment.  Triple Canopy knew it was 
obligated to pay the GIRA assessment when it received GIRA’s demand letter on 
March 24, 2011. 
 
Once Triple Canopy became legally obligated to pay the assessment, the costs 
were incurred.  The fact that the final amount could change does not matter, nor does the 
fact that actual payment had not yet occurred.  Gray Personnel, Inc., 06-02 BCA ¶ 33,378 
at 165,476; see also McDonnell Douglas Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 56568, 10-1 BCA 
¶ 34,325 at 169,528.  Indeed, the CDA permits contractors to submit claims before they 
have incurred the total costs relating to the claim.  Gray Personnel, Inc., 06-02 BCA 
¶ 33,378 at 165,476.  This is because the incurrence of costs – and the tolling of the 
statute of limitations – occurs when the claimant is legally obligated to pay.  The legal 
obligation to pay arises when a fee is assessed or a fine is levied, not when the claimant 
decides to actually pay the assessment or fine.  Id. (holding that once a party is on notice 
that it has a potential claim, the statute of limitations can start to run). 
 
Alternatively, Triple Canopy contends that the relevant legal obligation is the 
government’s contractual obligation to reimburse Triple Canopy, and that obligation 
arises only after the date Triple Canopy  paid its fine (July 18 or July 20, 2011) (app. 
reply br. at 3).  This argument misses the mark.  The relevant point in time is when Triple 
Canopy became aware that it was obligated to pay, not when the government might 
conceivably be required to reimburse Triple Canopy for its payment.  The statute of 
limitations applies to the claimant (here, Triple Canopy), and is necessarily viewed from 
the perspective of when the claimant knew, or should have known, of its obligation to 
pay the fee.  KBR v. Murphy, 823 F.3d at 628 (holding that accrual is based on when the 
claimant could have requested a sum certain from the government); see also Raytheon 
Co., Space & Airborne Systems, ASBCA No. 57801, et al., 13 BCA ¶ 35,319 at 173,376 
(holding that a claim accrues when the claimant knew, or should have known, that some 
costs have been incurred, even if the amount is not finalized). 
 
On March 24, 2011, GIRA assessed a penalty on Triple Canopy in the amount of 
37,860,000 AFN ($879,647.95) (finding 31).  Therefore, we conclude that the legal 
obligation to pay the fine – the final amount of which was yet to be determined – arose 
when GIRA assessed the fine on March 24, 2011. 

10 
 
III.  Whether Triple Canopy’s Appeal of the GIRA Assessment Tolls the Statute of 
  Limitations 
 
We next examine whether Triple Canopy’s appeal of the GIRA assessment tolls 
the limitations period.  Triple Canopy contends that, even if it was “required to pay or 
bear” the taxes before payment, its claims did not accrue until after Triple Canopy 
exhausted its appeal rights.  (App. reply br. at 6-8)  In particular, Triple Canopy contends 
that, by announcing to the government that it was “appealing the entire imposed [GIRA] 
fee,” Triple Canopy had not yet incurred any costs (app. reply br. at 7). 
 
We disagree, and hold that appealing the GIRA fine did not toll the limitations 
period. 
 
The Federal Circuit recently held that “the limitations period does not begin to run 
if a claim cannot be filed because mandatory pre-claim procedures have not been 
completed.”  Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. Murphy, 823 F.3d 622, 628 (Fed. 
Cir. 2016); see also Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar 
Corp. of California, Inc., 522 U.S. 192, 200-01 (1997) (holding under “basic limitations 
principles” that the statute of limitations cannot begin until such time as the claimant is 
legally eligible to bring the claim). 
 
In KBR v. Murphy, the Army required KBR to first resolve disputed costs with its 
subcontractor before KBR could present a claim for reimbursement of those costs.  The 
Federal Circuit held that KBR’s claim accrued only after KBR had resolved the disputed 
costs with its subcontractor and the contractor had received a claim from its 
subcontractor.  KBR v. Murphy, 823 F.3d at 628. 
 
This appeal is distinct from KBR v. Murphy, in three key ways.  First, Triple 
Canopy seeks reimbursement from fees imposed on it, not those of a subcontractor.  
Second, although the government stated that it would seek an exemption on Triple 
Canopy’s behalf, there is no evidence that the government ever told Triple Canopy to 
defer submitting its claim until after Triple Canopy had resolved its appeal with the 
GIRA (findings 26 - 28).  KBR v. Murphy, 823 F.3d at 626-27.  Third, Triple Canopy 
possessed the information necessary to present a claim for a sum certain on March 24, 
2011, when Triple Canopy received GIRA’s demand letter.  In contrast, as the Federal 
Circuit points out, KBR did not possess the necessary information to present a claim for a 
sum certain until after the critical limitations date.  (Id. at 627) 
 
In this appeal, we conclude that the process of appealing the fine levied on Triple 
Canopy was not mandatory, but was rather an optional process Triple Canopy elected to 
undergo in order to potentially reduce the amount of the fine (finding 37).  Therefore, the 
appeal process did not toll the statute of limitations. 

11 
 
B.  Whether Triple Canopy Could File a Claim While Simultaneously Appealing 
the Fine 
 
In an alternative argument, Triple Canopy contends, without support, that it could 
not file a claim while simultaneously appealing the fine, arguing that to do so would have 
“potentially subjected Triple Canopy to liability under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 
§ 3729 et seq.”  Triple Canopy warns that it “would have been seeking to recover 
amounts from the US government while at the same time arguing to the GIRA that those 
amounts were not due and owing.”  (App. reply br. at 7-8)  We disagree. 
 
FAR 52.229-6(i) expressly requires the contractor to take all reasonable action to 
obtain exemption from or refund of any taxes or duties: 
 
(i)  The Contractor shall take all reasonable action to obtain 
exemption from or refund of any taxes or duties, including 
interest or penalty, from which the United States 
Government, the Contractor, any subcontractor, or the 
transactions or property covered by this contract are exempt 
under the laws of the country concerned or its political 
subdivisions or which the governments of the United States 
and of the country concerned have agreed shall not be 
applicable to expenditures in such country by or on behalf of 
the United States. 
 
Pursuant to this provision, Triple Canopy had a duty to appeal the fine levied by GIRA, if 
it believed in good faith that it had a reasonable basis for challenging the amount of the 
assessment. 
 
In addition, FAR 52.229-6(j) requires the contractor to “promptly notify the 
Contracting Officer of all matters relating to taxes or duties that reasonably may be 
expected to result in [] an increase . . . in the contract price . . . .”  This prompt notice 
provision is prospective in nature, in that it requires notice of taxes or duties that “may be 
expected” to increase the contract price.  Pursuant to this provision, therefore, Triple 
Canopy had a duty to promptly notify the government as soon as GIRA assessed the 
penalty on March 24, 2011.  See, e.g., Gazpromneft–Aero Kyrgyzstan LLC v. United 
States, 132 Fed. Cl. 202 (2017) (holding that contractor’s failure to provide timely notice 
of after-imposed taxes barred it from seeking reimbursement). 
 
Thus, pursuant to FAR 52.229-6, Triple Canopy had a duty both to notify the 
government of the potential fine and to challenge the amount of the fine.  In light of the 
statutory duties, we cannot conclude that filing a claim, while simultaneously appealing 

12 
the assessment, would have subjected Triple Canopy to liability under the False Claims 
Act. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
For these reasons, we conclude that Triple Canopy’s claims under each of its 
contracts are time-barred.  Accordingly, the appeals are denied. 
 
Dated:  May 7, 2020 
 
 
 
 
KENNETH D. WOODROW 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 
I concur 
 
 
 
 I concur 
 
 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 OWEN C. WILSON 
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. 61415, 61416, 61417, 
61418, 61419, 61420, Appeals of Triple Canopy, Inc., rendered in conformance with the 
Board’s Charter. 
 
Dated:  May 7, 2020 
 
        
 PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals