ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of --
Axxon International, LLC 
Under Contract No. W9124C-13-P-0060 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 59497, 59498 
Mr. Randy Lenz 
Principal 
Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 
Army Chief Trial Attorney 
CPT Lyn P. Juarez, JA 
Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE NEWSOM 
AFFIRMING JURISDICTION 
On 29 October 2014, the Board sua sponte requested the parties to provide their 
views regarding the Board's jurisdiction to entertain these appeals. In ASBCA 
No. 59497, appellant Axxon International, LLC (Axxon), challenges the government's 
decision to terminate 
for cause Contract No. W9124C-13-P-0060, a propane 
supply 
contract. In ASBCA No. 59498, Axxon appeals the government's denial of a claim 
for payment allegedly due for propane deliveries. 
After some exchanges, both parties eventually took the position that the Board 
possesses jurisdiction to entertain each appeal (app. ltrs. dtd. 10 Nov. 2014, 21 Nov. 
2014; government's partial motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (gov't mot.); 
gov't ltr. dtd. 24 Nov. 2014). For the reasons explained below, the Board agrees that it 
possesses jurisdiction to entertain each appeal. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) 
1. On 27 January 2014, the contracting officer issued a written decision 
terminating Axxon's contract for cause (R4, tab 16). The decision document stated it 
was a "final decision [of] the Contracting Officer" and 
notified Axxon of its right to 
appeal either to "the agency board of contract appeals" or to the U.S. Court of Federal 
Claims (id. at 1-2). 
2. On 3 March 2014, Axxon, which is not represented by counsel, submitted 
what it characterized as "an appeal of the wrongful termination of Contract" and 
included a demand for money damages totaling $21,747.78 (R4, tab 19, ~ 1). Instead 
of submitting this document to the Board or to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, 

however, Axxon submitted it to the U.S. Army Materiel Command, Office of the 
Command Counsel (Command Counsel) (id.). 
3. Axxon stated that it thought the Command Counsel was an appropriate 
recipient because the solicitation advised that if it had "complaints about this 
procurement," it could "protest to Headquarters (HQ), Army Materiel Command 
(AMC)" (app. ltr. dtd. 10 Nov. 2014 at 1). Command Counsel treated the submission 
as a contractor claim and forwarded it to the contracting officer (R4, tab 22). 
4. On 16 May 2014, the contracting officer issued a written decision denying 
the monetary claim and 
declining to reconsider the termination, again with a 
notification of appeal rights (R4, tab 22). A U.S. Postal Service tracking sheet shows 
that Axxon received delivery of the contracting officer's decision on 19 May 2014 
(gov't mot., ex. 1, USPS tracking detail). 
5. Axxon submitted notices of appeal to the Board, challenging both the 
termination and the denial of its monetary claim. Axxon transmitted the notices by a 
commercial delivery company, and the Board received them on Monday, 18 August 
2014. (App. ltr. dtd. 10 Nov. 2014, ex. 1, UPS tracking detail) The appeal of the 
termination decision was docketed as ASBCA No. 59497. The appeal of the decision 
on the monetary claim was docketed as ASBCA No. 59498. 
6. Under the Contract Disputes Act, the Board has jurisdiction only if an appeal 
is taken within 90 days of the contractor's receipt of the contracting officer's final 
decision. Cosmic Construction Co., ASBCA No. 26537, 82-1 BCA if 15,541, aff'd, 
697 F.2d 1389 (Fed. Cir. 1982). While the timeline for each appeal was similar, each 
presented slightly different jurisdictional concerns. 
DECISION 
ASBCA No. 59497: Termination Appeal 
ASBCA No. 59497 presents the familiar issue of a misdirected appeal. Axxon 
submitted a document purporting to be an appeal from the 27 January 2014 
termination decision, but submitted it to Command Counsel instead of the Board. 
On similar facts, this Board has held that a misdirected appeal sent to agency 
counsel in timely fashion is not fatal to jurisdiction. Brunner Bau GmbH, ASBCA 
No. 35678, 89-1 BCA if 21,315; see also JE. McAmis, Inc., ASBCA No. 54455 et al., 
04-2 BCA if 32,746; Thompson Aerospace, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 51548, 51904, 99-1 BCA 
if 30,232; Contraves-Goerz Corp., ASBCA No. 26317, 83-1BCAif16,309. 
Axxon' s 3 March 2014 letter was transmitted to Command Counsel on 3 March 
2014, amply within 90 days after the 27 January 2014 contracting officer's termination 
2 

decision. The record does not show when Axxon received the 27 January 2014 
decision, but even if Axxon received it the day it was issued, its 3 March 2014 appeal 
would still have been timely. Also, the submission expresses dissatisfaction with the 
termination and an intention 
to appeal, stating that it is "an appeal of the wrongful 
termination" of the contract (SOF if 2). 
Accordingly, we affirm that the Board possesses jurisdiction to entertain 
ASBCA No. 59497. 
ASBCA No. 59498: Monetary Claim Appeal 
The issue with respect to ASBCA No. 59498 is whether Axxon's appeal was 
taken within 90 days after its receipt of the 16 May 2014 contracting officer's 
decision. 
Initially, some confusion existed over the date that Axxon received the 
contracting officer's decision (gov't mot. if 20; app. ltr. dtd. 21 Nov. 2014). Further 
review of a USPS tracking sheet, however, confirmed that Axxon received delivery of 
the decision on 19 May 2014 (gov't mot., ex. 1, USPS tracking detail). Accordingly, 
to be timely, Axxon had to appeal within 90 days after 19 May 2014. 
The 90th day after 19 May 2014, was 17 August 2014, a Sunday. Pursuant to 
Board Rule 5(b), in computing any period of time, ifthe last day of the period is a 
Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, that day is not counted and the period will run to 
the next business day. The next business day after 17 August 2014 was 18 August 
2014, a Monday. The Board received Axxon's notice of appeal on 18 August 2014 
(SOF if 5). Because the Board received the appeal on 18 August 2014, by rule the 90th 
day after the contractor's receipt of the final decision, the appeal is timely. 
CONCLUSION 
The Board affirms that it possesses jurisdiction to entertain both appeals. 
Dated: 21 January 2015 
(Signatures continued) 
3 
ELIZABETH W. NEWSOM 
Administrative 
Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 

I concur 
~~ 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
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. 59497, 59498, Appeals of 
Axxon International, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
4 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals