PETITION DENIED:  March 2, 2017
CBCA 5616
STOBIL ENTERPRISE, 
Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent.
Billie O. Stone, Chief Executive Officer of Stobil Enterprise, San Antonio, TX,
appearing for Appellant.
Mary A. Mitchell, District Contracting National Practice Group, Department of
Veterans Affairs, Houston, TX, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), ZISCHKAU, and RUSSELL.
RUSSELL, Board Judge.
Petitioner Stobil Enterprise (Stobil) requests that the Board direct the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) to issue a decision on Stobil’s contract claim on a date earlier than
that identified by the VA.  For the reasons set forth below, we deny the request.  
Background
In March 2016, Stobil filed an appeal (CBCA 5246) with the Board based on its
contracts with the VA to provide housekeeping and dietary services for an inpatient living
program at a VA facility.  In that appeal, Stobil requested approximately $166,000 in relief
based on wage determination requirements under the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. §§

CBCA 5616 2
6701-6707 (2012), losses for damaged goods and equipment, loss of contractor
opportunities, incurred administrative costs, interest, and the VA’s past performance
evaluation of Stobil.  On August 19, 2016, the Board dismissed the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because of Stobil’s failure to submit a certified claim to the VA consistent with
section 7103(b) of the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (2012), upon
which the contracting officer could issue a valid decision.  Stobil Enterprise v. Department
of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 5246, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,478, at 177,741, motion for
reconsideration denied, 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,610 (2016).1
Subsequently, by letter dated November 28, 2016, Stobil submitted a claim which it
deemed certified to the VA’s contracting office.  The claim was based on the same contracts
and similar issues as those presented in CBCA 5246.  In the November 2016 claim, Stobil
sought $321,288.20, plus approximately $2.3 million in interest.  By letter dated January 27,
2017, the VA’s  contracting officer notified Stobil that, pursuant to section 33.211(c)(2) of
the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR 33.211(c)(2) (2015)), the contracting officer
would issue his decision on Stobil’s claim by March 31, 2017.  Stobil argues that this date
is unreasonable because the VA is already in possession of the relevant facts and evidence
of Stobil’s claim, and there are no additional matters affecting the complexity of the claim. 
The VA’s position is that the identified date for issuance of the decision, March 31, 2017,
is not unreasonable in light of the significant increase in damages sought by Stobil absent
submission of any documentation to support the increase. 
Discussion
Under the CDA, for claims over $100,000, a contracting officer must, within sixty
days of receipt of a certified claim, issue a decision on that claim or notify the contractor of
the time within which the decision will be issued.  41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(3).  The CDA
requires that a contracting officer issue a decision on a claim within a reasonable time, 
“taking into account such factors as the size and complexity of the claim and the adequacy
of information in support of the claim provided by the contractor.”  41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(3);
see also 48 CFR 33.211(c)(2).  “[I]n the event of undue delay on the part of the contracting
officer,” a contractor may request that the concerned tribunal, either the Board or the Court
1 Notwithstanding the lack of a certified claim, the contracting officer did issue
decisions on Stobil’s claim prior to Stobil’s appeal to the Board.  However, as noted in the
Board’s decision dismissing CBCA 5246, a contracting officer’s decision on an uncertified
claim cannot confer jurisdiction or cure the jurisdictional defect of an uncertified claim. 
Stobil Enterprise, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,478, at 177,740.

CBCA 5616 3
of Federal Claims, “direct [the] contracting officer to issue a decision in a specified period
of time, as determined by the tribunal.”  41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(4).
Here, Stobil submitted its claim to the VA by letter dated November 28, 2016. 
Consistent with 41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(3), within sixty days of that date, the VA’s contracting
officer, by letter dated January 27, 2017, notified Stobil that the VA would release a decision
on Stobil’s claim by March 31, 2017.  Stobil requests that the Board direct the VA to issue
its decision on an earlier date.  The question for the Board is whether the contracting
officer’s identified date for release of the decision on Stobil’s claim suggests “undue delay”
on the contracting officer’s part such that the Board should grant Stobil’s request.   
“Typically, in evaluating undue delay and reasonableness [of the date proposed by
the contracting officer for issuance of a decision on a claim], a tribunal considers a number
of factors, including the underlying claim’s complexity, the adequacy of contractor-provided
supporting information, the need for external technical analysis by experts, the desirability
of an audit, and the size of and detail contained in the claim.”  Hawk Contracting Group,
LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 5527, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,572, at 178,119.  In
Stobil’s favor is the fact that the VA has previously issued decisions on a claim from Stobil
based on matters which overlap Stobil’s pending claim.  See Stobil Enterprise, 16-1 BCA
at 177,740.  Nevertheless, the Board is disinclined to grant Stobil’s request to compel an
earlier decision date on this pending claim.  
With apparently no explanation as to why, Stobil nearly doubled the amount of its
claim from its former appeal (CBCA 5246) to the one submitted in November 2016 - from
approximately $166,000 to $321,288.20, and is also now seeking around $2.3 million in
interest.  This is by no means a slight up-tick in money sought, such that the contracting
officer should be able to rely primarily on whatever documentation Stobil previously
submitted in support of its claim presented in CBCA 5246.  The VA additionally argues that
the items presented in Stobil’s pending claim are not entirely duplicative of those at issue in
CBCA 5246.    
With such a significantly increased monetary demand and possibly new items
requiring review by the contracting officer, the VA argues that Stobil has essentially
submitted a substantively different claim from the one at issue in CBCA 5246. The Board
agrees,  and thus finds that the contracting officer’s determination to issue a decision four
months from submission of Stobil’s claim does not constitute “undue delay.”  Given Stobil’s
greatly enhanced claim, the contracting officer will likely need to consider factors not
discussed in the VA’s previous decisions on Stobil’s claim.  The contracting officer might
want to provide Stobil with an opportunity to support its pending claim and, based on the
response and any other investigative steps determined necessary, make an informed decision

CBCA 5616 4
on the claim. Such effort on the part of the contracting officer advances the VA’s obligations
under the CDA to undertake the initial review of the merits of a contractor’s claim.  As the
Board noted in Ahtna Environmental, Inc. v. Department of Transportation:
Congress made clear in the CDA that the contracting officer’s consideration
and analysis of the claim in the first instance, before judicial review of the
claims’ merits commences, is an essential element of the claim resolution
process that can be helpful to the reviewing tribunal. 
CBCA 5456, slip op. at 5 (Jan. 12, 2017). 
Because Stobil has presented what is fairly characterized as a substantially different
claim from that in CBCA 5246, particularly in terms of damages sought, the VA’s time
frame for considering and deadline for issuing a decision on the claim (March 31, 2017) is
reasonable, constituting only a modest delay.   If, however, the VA does not timely issue a
decision consistent with the provisions of the CDA, Stobil may consider its claim deemed
denied and file an appeal.  See Hawk Contracting Group, 16-1 BCA at 178,119.  The Board
cautions that the timeliness of the contracting officer’s decision might well depend on
Stobil’s own timeliness in providing any comprehensive, responsive information requested
by the contracting officer.  
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY Stobil’s request for the Board to direct the
contracting officer to issue a decision earlier than March 31, 2017. 
___________________________
BEVERLY M. RUSSELL
Board Judge
We concur:
_____________________________ _____________________________
STEPHEN M. DANIELS JONATHAN D. ZISCHKAU
Board Judge Board Judge