ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of -- ) 
) 
Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. ) 
) 
Under Contract No. DAAA09-02-D-0007 ) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 58583 
Jason N. Workmaster, Esq. 
John E. Hall, Esq. 
Raymond B. Biagini, Esq. 
Herbert L. Fenster, Esq. 
Alejandro L. Sarria, Esq. 
Covington & Burling LLP 
Washington, DC 
Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 
Army Chief Trial Attorney 
ChristinaLynn E. McCoy, Esq. 
MAJ Lawrence Gilbert, JA 
CPT Anthony Lenze, JA 
MAJ James W. Nelson, JA 
Trial Attorneys 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE O'SULLIVAN 
ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 
On 4 June 2013, the government filed a motion to dismiss 
ASBCA No. 58583 1 
for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. (KBRS) 
opposes. We deny the motion. 
In ASBCA No. 58583, KBRS appeals the contracting officer's (CO's) deemed 
denial of a claim for breach of contract submitted to the CO on 29 September 20 I I. 
KBRS alleges that the government breached its contractual obligation to provide 
adequate force protection to KBRS and its subcontractors performing contract services 
in support of the war effort in Iraq. For further factual background, see our opinion in 
Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 56358 et al., I4-I BCA iJ 35,639, 
1 While ASBCA No. 58583 is consolidated with ASBCA Nos. 56358, 57I5I and 57327 
the motion applies only to ASBCA No. 58583. 

ajf'd, rev 'din part, vacated in part, and remanded, McHugh v. Kellogg Brown & Root 
Services, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16513 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2015). 
The primary ground for dismissal advanced by the government in its motion was 
that the claim underlying this appeal had been filed outside the six-year statute of 
limitations contained in the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(4)(A). 
Additionally, the government argued that KBRS has not asserted a claim on behalf of 
its subcontractors "as a matter of right" pursuant to FAR 33.201 2, that its claim does 
not give the CO adequate notice of the basis for its claim, and that the claim must fail 
since adequate remedies were available under the contract. The government's motion 
was opposed by KBRS. The Board subsequently stayed further proceedings in this 
appeal pending judicial review of its decision cited above. 
While the government's motion to dismiss was pending, the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. 
United States, 773 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The court in Sikorsky applied the 
Supreme Court's decision in Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, 
133 S. Ct. 817 (2013), which articulated a more stringent test for determining whether 
statutory time limits are jurisdictional, to determine that the six-year limitations period 
in the CDA is not jurisdictional. Sikorsky, 773 F.3d at 1320-22. This Board has 
subsequently denied motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction that are based on the 
CDA limitations period. See, e.g., Al Nawars Co., ASBCA Nos. 59043, 59044, 
15-1 BCA if 35,955; Combat Support Associates, ASBCA Nos. 58945, 58946, 
15-1BCAif35,923. The government may still assert that KBRS's claim is time-barred 
as an affirmative defense, but bears the burden of proof on the issue. A lion Science and 
Technology Corporation, ASBCA No. 58992, 15-1BCAif36,168. 
The remainder of the government's arguments that the Board lacks jurisdiction 
of KBRS's breach claim are unpersuasive. KBRS's 29 September 2011 claim 
submittal clearly apprised the CO that its breach claim was based on the Army's failure 
to provide the force protection required of it by the contract, entitling KBRS and its 
subcontractors as a matter of right to mitigate their damages by hiring private security 
companies. Nor does the Army's assertion regarding the adequacy of contract 
remedies operate as a bar to our jurisdiction. 
2 At the time the contract was awarded, the FAR definition of "claim" was found at 
FAR 33.201. It is now found at FAR 2.101. 
2 

DECISION 
For the reasons stated, the government's motion to dismiss ASBCA No. 58583 
for lack of jurisdiction is denied. 
Dated: 19 January 2016 
I concur 
~~ 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
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.-58583, Appeal of Kellogg 
Brown & Root Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals