DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION:  January 2, 2025
CBCA 8256
JOHN BLANKSON,
Appellant,
v.
AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,
Respondent.
John Blankson, pro se, Newark, NJ.
Rachel B. Cochran and Danielle K.S. Lindermuth, Office of the General Counsel,
Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges SHERIDAN, KULLBERG, and NEWSOM.
KULLBERG, Board Judge.
Respondent, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), has
filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  USAID contends that appellant
has only appealed the contracting officer’s (CO’s) termination of appellant’s contract for
convenience, and appellant has not submitted a claim requesting a CO’s final decision
(COFD).  Appellant argues that he filed this appeal in response to the CO’s letter that
notified him of the termination of his contract for convenience, and he has elected to have
his appeal heard pursuant to the Board’s small claims procedure, Rule 52 (48 CFR 6101.52
(2023)).  For the reasons set forth below, the Board dismisses this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.


CBCA 8256 2
Background
On June 13, 2024, USAID awarded to appellant contract 7206242S00013 (contract)
for personal services, senior development outreach and communication specialist, at
USAID’s West Africa regional executive office in Accra, Ghana.  The contract had an
effective date of July 8, 2024, and the period of performance included a base period and three
option periods.  Contract clause 16, termination, provided, in pertinent part, the following:
(a) The Government may terminate performance of work under this
contract in whole or, from time to time, in part:
. . . .
(2) For the convenience of USAID, by giving not less than 15 calendar
days advance written notice to the contractor.  Upon such a termination,
contractor’s right to compensation shall cease when the period specified in
such notice expires except that the contractor shall be entitled to any unused
vacation leave, return transportation costs and travel allowances and
transportation of unaccompanied baggage costs at the rate specified in the
contract and subject to the limitations which apply to authorized travel status.
By letter dated October 3, 2024, the CO terminated appellant’s contract for
convenience.  The CO’s letter stated the following:
The Senior Development Outreach and Communication (DOC) specialist
position requires a commitment to working within USAID and U.S. Embassy
structures.  It requires developing and maintaining close working relationships
within the Embassy and with USAID’s Bureau for Legislative and Public
Affairs (LPA).  Given your stated preference for working independently rather
than collaboratively, your reluctance to engage in public events fully, and your
resistance to working within our established USAID and Embassy frameworks
for approvals and clearances, I have reached the conclusion that continuing
your contract with USAID/West Africa is not in the Government’s interest.
The letter further stated that it was “the final decision of the Contracting Officer,” and it
listed appellant’s right to file an appeal, which included filing an appeal with “the agency
board of contract appeals” and the option of requesting the “[s]mall claim procedure for
claims of $50,000 or less.”
Appellant subsequently filed an appeal with the Board and requested that this appeal
be heard under the Board’s small claims procedure.  USAID submitted a motion to dismiss

CBCA 8256 3
this appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that appellant has not submitted a claim to
the CO.  Appellant filed an opposition to USAID’s motion to dismiss and argued that the
appeal was in accord with the guidance in USAID’s letter that notified him of the termination
of the contract for convenience.
Discussion
At issue is whether the CO’s notice of termination of appellant’s contract for
convenience was a COFD that may be appealed to this Board.  The Contract Disputes Act
(CDA) provides that “[e]ach claim by a contractor against the Federal Government relating
to a contract shall be submitted to the contracting officer for a decision.”  41 U.S.C.
§ 7103(a)(1) (2018).  A contractor may appeal a COFD or appeal the deemed denial of a
claim when the CO fails to issue a timely decision.  Id. § 7103(f)(5)-(g).  The Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines a claim as follows:
Claim means a written demand or written assertion by one of the contracting
parties seeking, as a mater, 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. . . . A voucher, invoice, or other routine request for
payment that is not in dispute when submitted is not a claim.  The submission
may be converted to a claim, by written notice to the contracting officer as
provided in 33.206(a), if it is disputed either as to liability or amount or is not
acted upon in a reasonable time.
48 CFR 2.101 (FAR 2.101).
Although appellant contends that the CO’s notice of the termination of his contract
for convenience was a COFD, the requirements for the Board’s jurisdiction under the CDA
have not been met in this case.  This Board has recognized that the “termination of a contract
for the convenience of the Government is not in and of itself an appealable contracting
officer decision within the terms of the CDA.”  Frank Bonner v. Department of Homeland
Security, CBCA 605, et al., 07-2 BCA ¶ 33,592, at 166,387 (citing Larry G. Pyle, ASBCA
41155, 90-3 BCA ¶ 23,252, at 116,668; Baranof Mental Health Clinic, ASBCA 33172, 87-1
BCA ¶ 19,346, at 97,869 (1986); Naranjo Sales, Inc., ASBCA 32872, 86-3 BCA ¶ 19,214,
at 97,181).  Appellant has not submitted a claim to the CO for any amount, and the CO has
not asserted a claim against appellant.  Although USAID’s letter represented that it was a
“final decision,” that letter was not a COFD, but rather, it was only a notice of the
termination of appellant’s contract for convenience.  The Board, accordingly, has no
jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

CBCA 8256 4
Appellant contends that he filed this appeal as instructed by USAID’s letter, and he
elected the Board’s small claims procedure in this appeal.  As discussed above, the Board
lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal, and “[p]arties cannot bestow subject jurisdiction upon
the board and the board cannot exceed its jurisdictional boundaries.”  Universal Canvas, Inc.
v. Stone, 975 F.2d 847, 850 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Insurance Corp. of Ireland Ltd. v.
Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982)).  Jurisdiction “either exists
or it does not.”  Id. (citing UNR Industries. Inc. v. United States, 962 F.2d 1013, 1022 (Fed.
Cir. 1992)).  All of the issues raised by appellant regarding the termination of the contract
for convenience are premature unless a claim is first submitted to the CO.  Appellant
erroneously requests that the Board hear this appeal under the Board’s small claims
procedure, but appellant has only asserted, for the first time in his appeal, a claim for
$50,000.  He has not submitted a claim to the CO for those costs referenced in the
termination clause or a claim for any other amount, and the Board’s small claims procedure
only applies when there is a “monetary amount in dispute.”  See Brent Packer v. Social
Security Administration, CBCA 5038, et al., 15-1 BCA ¶ 36,178, at 176,525 n.1.
Decision
The appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
    H. Chuck Kullberg         
H. CHUCK KULLBERG
Board Judge
We concur:
    Patricia J. Sheridan           Elizabeth W. Newsom     
PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN ELIZABETH W. NEWSOM
Board Judge Board Judge