ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Petition of--
Commissioning Solutions Global, LLC 
Under Contract No. N55236-13-D-0001 
APPEARANCE FOR THE PETITIONER: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 59007-945 
Mr. Victor Ogunniyi 
President 
Ronald J. Borro, Esq. 
Navy Chief Trial Attorney 
Stephen D. Tobin, Esq. 
Taylor Ferrell, Esq. 
Trial Attorneys 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE STEMPLER 
ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 
Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(4) and Board Rule 1(e), Commissioning Solutions 
Global, LLC (CSG or petitioner) petitions the Board to direct the contracting officer to 
issue a decision on its alleged non-monetary claim for breach of contract. In response, 
the government moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that CSG has not 
filed a claim under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 
1. The Department of the Navy's (government) Southwest Regional Maintenance 
Center awarded Contract No. N55236-13-D-0001 (the contract) to CSG on 1 November 
2012 for Hydraulic/lube oil system flush services on Navy vessels located within a 
50-mile radius of San Diego, California (contract at 1, 221 ). The contract's period of 
performance includes a base period of one year from effective date of award plus four 
one-year option periods (contract at 24 7). The contract incorporates by reference FAR 
52.233-1, DISPUTES (JUL 2002) (contract at 263). 
2. The contract is an Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity type. Work is issued 
through firm fixed-price delivery orders in accordance with FAR 52.216-18, ORDERING 
(OCT 1995) and FAR 52.216-19, ORDER LIMITATIONS (OCT 1995), which are 
incorporated by full text. The contract also incorporates by full text FAR 52.216-22, 
INDEFINITE QUANTITY (OCT 1995). (Contract at 247, 255-56, 264-65) The contract's 

minimum contract guarantee is $3,000 within five years of contract award (contract at 
255). 
3. By letter to the government dated 28 October 2013, with subject heading 
"NOTIFICATION OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT OF THE NAVY CIS LUBE OIL 
FLUSH CONTRACT- N55236-13-D-0001," CSG alleged the government breached the 
contract by failing to issue any delivery orders to CSG for the entire base year of the 
contract: 
We noted in your instruc[ti][ 11ons that we must be prepared 
and capable to respond to within four ( 4) hours of 
no[tifi]ca[ti]on of any emergent work and whereas we have 
had no delivery orders for the en[ti]re Base year whilst we 
noted that you con[ti]nue to assign our type of specialty 
work I services to the Large Shipyards on all occasions since 
the contract has been in e[ ff]ect, thus denying us the 
opportunity and availability to perform our specialty work. 
Hence you are in breach of our contract. As of the date of 
this cer[tifi]ed mail, our company has drawn your 
a[tt]en[ti]on to this breach of contract in numerous 
correspondences with you, but you have failed to respond 
responsibly to all our inquiries. 
The letter concluded with the following statement: 
[U]nless the breach is remedied within 14 days of the date of 
this le[tt]er, we will have no other alterna[ti]ve than to take 
necessary ac[ti]on to protect our rights under the Contract and 
under any applicable laws. All of our rights are therefore 
reserved under this no[ti]ce. 
(CSG pet., attach. A) 
4. By email dated 12 November 2013, CSG petitioned the Board, pursuant to 
Board Rule 1 (e), to direct the government to: 
1 Petitioner's documents frequently contain words with missing letters. We have added 
letters in brackets to attempt to understand petitioner's position. 
2 

[P]rovide responsive answers on the various contractual 
correspondences that the appellant[2J has raised to the 
Respondent wanting to know the Respondent [sic] intent to 
enforce and implement the five ( 5) year Commercial 
Industrial Services (CIS) [sic] for the Lube Oil Flush [sic] on 
the Naval Fleet in 
San Diego and 50 miles radius [sic] or 
cancel the contract and pay the attending [sic] claims for not 
implementing a contract that is in effect and in force between 
both parties (breach of contract). 
(CSG pet. at 1) In support of its contention that the government breached the contract, 
CSG's petition provides the basis for the underlying dispute: 
[F]or the entire base year, the appellant anticipated a work 
load in the magnitude of $18.6M to be generated between her 
and the second contractor; but zero work was generated 
because the respondent has been assigning the work request 
of the contract to the MSM0[ 3J contractors .... 
. . .In order to avoid any doubt or controversy as to work 
existence, the appellant has provided the Respondent with 
active schedules highlighting the appellant's type of specialty 
work ready to be performed on new ship availabilities by the 
large shipyards. 
(CSG pet. at 2-3) CSG states that it "has not requested any monetary damages at this 
time but as a first step for the contract to be remedied immediately" (CSG pet. at 3). 
5. Upon receipt ofCSG's 12 November 2013 petition, the Board issued a 
14 November 2013 Order directing the government to show cause why an order directing 
the contracting officer to issue a decision should not be issued. The Board also directed 
CSG to provide support that a claim meeting the requirements of the CDA was 
submitted. 
6. CSG responded on 18 November 2013 with a submission that appears to be, in 
full, the documents submitted as part of its 12 November 2013 petition. The government 
2 Although it refers to itself as "appellant," CSG submitted a petition for a contracting 
officer's final decision pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(4) and Board Rule 1(e), 
rather than an appeal pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(5) and Board Rule 1(a). 
3 Based on the limited record, MSMO contractors, or alternatively referred to by CSG as 
large shipyards, perform the same or similar work described in CSG's contract 
(CSG pet. at 2). 
3 

filed, by letter dated 2 December 2013, a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of 
jurisdiction, asserting that CSG has failed to submit a CDA claim, and that the "several 
attachments comprised of letters and emails expressing concerns with the scarcity of 
work, administration of the contract, and unrealized financial expectations of 
CommSolGlobal; ... alone or collectively, [do not] constitute a CDA claim" (gov't mot. at 
2). 
7. On 5 December 2013, CSG responded to the government's motion asserting 
that CSG "has requested a decision bv the contracting officer which presently involves 
no monetary amount." CSG further states that: 
[T]he appellant had submi[tt]ed to the contrac[ti]ng o[ffi]cer a 
cer[tifi]ed and formal no[tifi]ca[ti]on of breach of contract 
le[tt]er dated October 28, 2013 (A[tt]achment A) and had 
requested that unless the breach is remedied within 14 days 
from the 
date of the le[tt]er, the appellant will have no 
alternative than to take necessary ac[ti]on to protect her rights 
under the contract and under any applicable laws. Therefore, 
the plead [sic] before the honorable Board has met the 
no[tifi]ca[ti]on delivery requirement. The plead [sic] itself is 
not a monetary damages claim but as [fi]rst step start "a 
performance remedy requirement" to the breach of 
contract. 
(CSG resp. at 2) CSG concludes with the following: 
Consequently; it is very obvious that the breaching and 
viola[ti]on of the mutual agreement (no respect to the other 
party to the contract) has con[ti]nued to in[fl]ict serious harm 
and damages to a small business; though the Base year of the 
contract is completed, similar lax in contrac[ti]ng procedures 
con[ti]nue to unravel unguarded through Op[ti]onal [sic] Year 
1. These issues need to be se[tt]led and resolved through the 
Board [sic] interven[ti]on. THE RESPONSE ON HOW THE 
DEFENDANT INTEND [sic] TO RESTITUTE AND OR 
CANCEL THE CONTRACT IS CRUCIAL TO THE 
APPELLANT [sic] APPROACH TO DEAL WITH THE 
FILING OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES AND BREACH OF 
CONTRACT. [Bold omitted] 
(CSG resp. at 4) The government, in its reply to CSG's 5 December 2013 response, 
acknowledged receipt of the 28 October 2013 letter but argued it was not a CDA claim 
4 

because, among other things, it did not provide notice and basis as to what the contractor 
was seeking (gov't opp'n at 2). 
DECISION 
Under the CDA, "[a] contractor may request the tribunal concerned to direct a 
contracting officer to issue a decision in a specified period of time, as determined by the 
tribunal concerned, in the event of undue delay on the part of the contracting officer." 
41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(4). Board Rule 1(e) implements this section of the CDA, providing 
that "[i]n lieu of filing a notice of appeal under (b) or (c) of this Rule, the contractor may 
request the Board to direct the contracting officer to issue a decision in a specified period 
of time, as determined by the Board, in the event of undue delay on the part of the 
contracting officer." 
For the Board to have jurisdiction under the CDA, a contractor must submit a 
claim in writing to the contracting officer for a final decision. 41 U.S.C. § 7103. If a 
contractor does not submit a proper CDA claim, the contracting officer lacks authority to 
issue a decision. Gray Personnel, Inc., ASBCA No. 54652, 06-2 BCA -,r 33,378 at 
165,474 (citing Paragon Energy Corp. v. United States, 645 F.2d 966, 971 (Ct. Cl. 
1981)). The CDA does not define the term 
"claim." However, FAR 2.101 provides the 
following definition: 
[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. 
CSG argues that it has filed a non-monetary claim for breach of contract as 
evidenced by the 28 October 2013 letter (SOF -,r 7). We disagree with petitioner. We 
believe that petitioner's request is essentially monetary in nature. Where a claim seeks 
the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating 
to the contract, the Board has jurisdiction unless the essence of the disagreement is 
monetary. Franklin L. Hassell, ASBCA No. 45242-697, 94-1 BCA -,r 26,289 at 130,776. 
We lack jurisdiction of "a money claim clothed as a request for contract interpretation." 
International Creative and Training, Ltd., ASBCA No. 42833, 93-3 BCA -,r 26,009 at 
129,310. Assuming, arguendo, that CSG's 28 October 2013letter otherwise meets the 
requirements of the FAR 2.101 definition of a CDA claim, it fails to state a sum certain. 
Here, the dispute at issue is a disagreement that in essence is monetary and similar 
to the facts in International Creative and Training. CSG specifically stated that it 
anticipated a workload in the magnitude of $18.6 million to be generated between CSG 
5 

and a second contractor for the base period but received no orders (SOF ~ 4 ). Also, CSG 
alleges work falling within the scope of the contract has been assigned to other 
contractors to CSG's detriment (SOF ~~ 3-4). CSG admits the 28 October 2013 letter 
was a first step to remedy the alleged breach before monetary damages would be sought 
(SOF ~~ 4, 7). Taking into account these statements, CSG was capable of filing a sum 
certain claim to the contracting officer for the alleged breach of contract but chose not to 
do so. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to order the contracting officer to issue a final 
decision pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(4) and Board Rule 1(e). 
CONCLUSION 
The government's motion is granted. CSG's petition for an order directing the 
contracting officer to render a decision pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(4) and Board 
Rule 1(e) is dismissed without prejudice to CSG filing a claim in a sum certain in 
accordance with the CDA. 
Dated: 5 February 
20 14 
I concur 
~·· 
N: sfEMPLER 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
--c> ts 0~ ....,P-?n-Tl-ER-D~?~IN~G--~2~~~;::~-- ~ELMAN• 
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board Acting Vice Chairman 
of Contract Appeals Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
6 

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. 59007-945, Petition of 
Commissioning Solutions Global, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's 
Charter. 
Dated: 
7 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals