GRANTED: May 14, 2020
CBCA 6783
CTA I, LLC dba CTA BUILDERS, 
Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent.
John M. Manfredonia of Manfredonia Law Offices, LLC, Cresskill, NJ ; and William
E. Dorris of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA, counsel for Petitioner.
Neil S. Deol, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, Decatur,
GA, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges GOODMAN, KULLBERG, and CHADWICK.
CHADWICK, Board Judge.
CTA I, LLC dba CTA Builders (CTA) submitted a certified claim for $4.4 million to
a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) contracting officer in January 2020.  In March 2020,
the contracting officer timely advised CTA under 41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(4) (2012) that he
would decide the claim, not within sixty days of submission, but by November 9, 2020,
284 days after submission.  In early April 2020, CTA petitioned the Board under 41 U.S.C.
§ 7103(f)(4) and Board Rule 2(a)(2) (48 CFR 6101.2(a)(2) (2019)) for an order setting the
deadline for a decision or a deemed denial of the claim “no later than May 30, 2020,” which
CTA has extended in a brief to June 15, 2020.  We grant the petition as modified.


CBCA 6783 2
Background
The parties partially settled an earlier appeal involving the same construction contract
two years ago.  The Board stayed that case (CBCA 5826) in June 2018, noting our
“expectation that it w[ould] be unstayed and consolidated with a future appeal filed after
contract completion, to resolve remaining claims” not settled in CBCA 5826 “for Eichleay
damages, attorney fees, and consultant fees.  The parties should promptly advise the Board,
should it appear that no second appeal will be filed.”  Previously, VA had unsuccessfully
moved to stay CBCA 5826 “until the project [wa]s complete,” noting that CTA had “made
clear that a second Claim is forthcoming.”  CTA I, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
CBCA 5826, 18-1 BCA ¶ 36,995 (single-judge order).
VA terminated the contract for convenience in January 2019, although the current
contracting officer states in a declaration that he is not entirely sure how much work was
completed versus uncompleted.  At that point, the matter fell through the cracks at VA. 
A new contracting officer was assigned in November 2019.  In late January 2020, CTA filed
the second certified claim that the parties had foreseen in 2018, but VA was not ready for
it.  A month after receiving the claim, the contracting officer began seeking funding to retain
a claim consultant.  In March 2020, the contracting officer and the project engineering office
exchanged emails about the duration and expected cost of a claim review.  It was at this time
that the contracting officer promised CTA a decision by November 9, 2020.  The contracting
officer advised us at the end of April 2020 that a “funding request for claim consultant
services” was “with the VISN 6 Network Director for signature.  The funding ha[d] not yet
been obtained and [wa]s not available to issue a solicitation . . . .”
Discussion
We may shorten a deadline to decide a claim that a contracting officer has set within
sixty days of receiving the claim “in the event of undue delay on the part of the contracting
officer.”  41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(4); see Monster Government Solutions, LLC v. Department
of Justice, CBCA 2834, 12-2 BCA ¶ 35,153; Volmar Construction, Inc., ASBCA 60710-910,
16-1 BCA ¶ 36,519.
VA notes that CTA “had the benefit of 362 days from the time of Contract termination
to the time it submitted its Claim” and argues that the agency “did not unduly delay the
matter” or “set an unreasonable deadline for a final decision,” having “taken [steps] to secure
a claims consultant well within the original 60-day review period.”  VA’s projected timeline
to a decision includes ninety days of claim review, thirty days of “negotiation” with CTA,
and thirty days of decision “routing/review,” among other activities.

CBCA 6783 3
CTA does not wish to wait any longer to appeal.  It argues that “VA knew well over
a year ago that CTA would be submitting a second claim” but VA “did nothing . . . .  This
pre-claim knowledge and . . . lack of advance planning [militates] against granting the VA
more time . . . .”  CTA adds that if we were to require a decision by Saturday, June 13, 2020,
this would be 141 days after claim submission and would encompass ninety days for claim
review, thirty days to finalize VA’s position, and 21 days to draft the decision and route it
through approvals, which CTA argues should have been “ample time.”
Under the circumstances, we agree with CTA that it should have the option next
month “to exercise [an] immediate right to appeal or to await a decision on its claim.” 
CTA I, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 5800, 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,829.  VA’s
institutional forgetting to prepare to process this foreseeable claim has resulted in VA’s
having to ramp up after receiving the claim and has caused “undue delay.”  41 U.S.C.
§ 7103(f)(4).  The review timeline suggested by CTA would have been more reasonable.
We emphasize that we cannot literally “order” the contracting officer to issue a
decision, see CTA, 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,829, and that CTA need not appeal from a deemed denial
unless it wants to.  We are “only . . . shorten[ing] an extension that a contracting officer has
granted himself within the sixty-day . . . window.”  Id.  “It is also to be borne in mind that
the issuance of a final decision and the taking of an appeal does not mean an end to the
pursuit of alternatives to litigation for resolving disputes.”  VECO, Inc., DOTCAB 2961,
96-1 BCA ¶ 28,108 (1995).
Decision
The petition is GRANTED as modified, making the deadline for a contracting
officer’s decision Monday, June 15, 2020.
     Kyle Chadwick               
KYLE CHADWICK
Board Judge
We concur:
  Allan H. Goodman                 H. Chuck Kullberg            
ALLAN H. GOODMAN H. CHUCK KULLBERG
Board Judge Board Judge