DENIED: August 22, 2017
CBCA 5800
CTA I, LLC,
Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
       Respondent.
John M. Manfredonia of Manfredonia Law Offices, LLC, Cresskill, NJ, 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 (CTA) submitted a certified claim to a Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) contracting officer in February 2017.  The contracting officer has promised
twice to “respond” to CTA’s claim by a date certain, but has yet to do so.  In July 2017,
CTA filed a petition under 41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(4) (2012) and Board Rule 2(a)(2) (48
CFR 6101.2(a)(2) (2016)) for an order directing the contracting officer to decide the
claim “no later than September 8, 2017.”  VA opposes the petition.  We deny the petition
because CTA already possesses the only effective relief we could grant: the right to file
an appeal from a deemed denial.


CBCA 5800 2
Background
CTA is performing contract VA246-14-C-0030 to construct a dialysis center at a
VA medical facility in Richmond, Virginia.  On February 15, 2017, CTA submitted a
certified claim for $2,023,745.58 for delay, labor inefficiencies, and related costs.  Fifty-
five days later, on April 11, 2017, the VA contracting officer advised CTA by letter that,
“[d]ue to the size and complexity of the claim documentation, our office will respond to
your request for a Contracting Officer’s final decision by 10 July 2017.  The additional
time is required for us to further evaluate the merits of the claim and review the
associated documentation you provided.”
On May 15, 2017, CTA filed a petition with the Board for an order directing the
contracting officer to issue a decision on the claim “no later than June 1, 2017.”  We
denied the petition because there was insufficient time to resolve the matter by June 1.
CTA I, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 5748 (May 18, 2017).
When July 10 arrived, the contracting officer notified CTA by letter that VA
“required a commercial claims consultant” to evaluate CTA’s claim, and that “to allow
the claims consultant adequate time to assess the validity of the claim, I will respond to
your request for a Contracting Officer’s final decision by 8 September 2017.”  VA states
in its brief in this matter that the contracting officer has not yet retained the consultant and
no longer expects to meet the September 8 deadline.
CTA filed the instant petition on July 25, 2017.  In it, CTA alleges that VA “is
engaged in bad faith delaying tactics,” never intended to issue a decision by September 8,
and “has failed to issue a final decision within a reasonable time,” causing CTA and its
subcontractors “severe financial hardship.”  CTA asks us to direct the contracting officer
to decide its claim by September 8.  VA responds that the contracting officer’s “need for
additional time to review the claim is reasonable,” and that “review by a claims
consultant, followed by a final decision, would benefit the Petitioner, the Government,
and any tribunal asked to review the claim.”  VA adds that the contracting officer will, at
some point, “advise [CTA] of a new anticipated date” for a decision.
Discussion
This case affords the Board an opportunity to clarify the function of the provision
of the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) that empowers us “to direct a contracting officer to
issue a decision [on a claim] 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).  The CDA grants a contracting officer sixty days, after receipt of a certified
claim exceeding $100,000, to either decide the claim or notify the contractor “of the time

CBCA 5800 3
within which a decision will be issued.”  Id. § 7103(f)(2).  If the contracting officer does
neither of those two things within the sixty days, the contractor may, at its option, appeal
from a “deemed” denial of its claim.  Id. § 7103(f)(5); ThinkGlobal Inc. v. Department of
Commerce, CBCA 4410, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,489, reconsideration granted in non-relevant
part and denied in part, 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,642.  
Moreover, “no language in the CDA provides the government with the right to a
second extension” beyond the sixty days.  Rudolph & Sletten, Inc. v. United States, 120
Fed. Cl. 137, 142 (2015) (emphasis added).  This means that any deadline for a decision
that the contracting officer sets within sixty days of receiving a claim is firm.  If that
deadline later passes with no decision, an appealable deemed denial occurs.  Id.; Tuba
City Regional Health Care Corp. v. United States, 39 F. Supp. 3d 66, 70-71 (D.D.C.
2014); Claude E. Atkins Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 142, 143 (1992).
CTA is therefore already entitled to treat its claim as having been denied.  A
deemed denial occurred here, either in April, sixty days after CTA submitted the claim, or
in July (we need not decide which).  CTA has the right under the CDA, but not an
obligation, to file an immediate appeal.  See Fire-Security Systems, Inc. v. General
Services Administration, GSBCA 12175, 93-2 BCA ¶ 25,851.  Granting CTA’s petition
would provide no additional relief.  See Hawk Contracting Group, LLC v. Department of
Veterans Affairs, CBCA 5527, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,572, at 178,119 (noting that CDA
authorizes Board to “alter a time extension that the contracting officer has granted
himself, and to allow a contractor to appeal on a ‘deemed denial’ basis if the contracting
officer fails to issue a decision by the Board’s revised deadline”); see also Sylvan B. Orr
v. Department of Agriculture, CBCA 5299, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,522, at 177,930 (Board cannot
grant injunctive relief). 
Although we have said in dictum that a contractor has “two options for advancing
the process” when a decision on a claim is delayed, i.e., either appealing a deemed denial
or petitioning to obtain a contracting officer’s decision, USProtect Corp. v. Department of
Homeland Security, CBCA 65, 08-1 BCA ¶ 33,782, at 167,200 (denying motion to
dismiss appeal), a petition is useful only to shorten an extension that a contracting officer
has granted himself within the sixty-day CDA window.  E.g., Rudolph & Sletten, 120
Fed. Cl. at 141-42 n.2; Volmar Construction, Inc., ASBCA 60710-910, 16-1 BCA
¶ 36,519, at 177,904.  If the contracting officer does not act on the claim within sixty
days, or if he extends the deadline but misses it (one of which must have happened here),
the contractor’s effective options are to exercise its immediate right to appeal or to await
a decision on its claim.  Cf. Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC v. Department of
Energy, CBCA 5636, 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,750, at 179,119 (“If petitioner believed the
contracting officer’s actions had resulted in a deemed denial of its claim, it was not

CBCA 5800 4
prevented from filing a notice of appeal of a deemed denial of its claim and titling it as
such.”).  The Board has no role at this juncture in perfecting CTA’s right to appeal.
Decision
The petition is DENIED.  
________________________
KYLE CHADWICK
Board Judge
We concur:
_______________________________ _________________________________
ALLAN H. GOODMAN H. CHUCK KULLBERG
Board Judge Board Judge