MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM DENIED: August 23, 2018
CBCA 6038
STERLING DESIGN, INC.,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Respondent.
Matthew R. Keller of Matthew Keller Law, PLLC, Herndon, VA, counsel for
Appellant.
Carlin R. Walsh, Office of Procurement Law, United States Coast Guard, Department
of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges SOMERS, HYATT, and SHERIDAN.
SOMERS, Board Judge (Chair).
Sterling Design, Inc. (Sterling) appealed a contracting officer’s decision denying its
claim for $177,235.09 in unpaid invoices under a fixed-price Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) task order. DHS filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. We deny the motion.
Background
We base this summary on the complaint’s factual allegations, which we treat as true
for this purpose, and on contract documents attached to or integral to the complaint.


CBCA 6038 2
On March 9, 2012, DHS issued a firm fixed price commercial order with Sterling for
diagnostic inspections on twenty-five personal computers (PCs) for a total sum of $3,125,
with the possibility of the contracting officer modifying the contract to add repairs to the
units as necessary. Between March and September 2012, Sterling ran diagnostics on all
twenty-five units. Sterling informed DHS that it determined that two of the units did not
need repair, but the other twenty-three units did. Sterling returned the two units to DHS after
completing the diagnostic testing.
On September 18, 2012, DHS issued contract modification P00001, which increased
the contract value to $109,825, and authorized Sterling to perform repairs on the remaining
twenty-three units. When Sterling failed to complete repairs on any of the twenty-three
remaining units, DHS issued modification P00002, which directed Sterling to return the
units. Sterling did so.
After multiple exchanges between the parties discussing the termination of the
contract and the outstanding voucher, in an email dated November 15, 2016, Sterling
submitted an invoice totaling $43,673 for the purchase order. Later, Sterling’s president sent
an email with a revised invoice attached. The email stated:
I am informed that despite the reality of this contract being terminated for the
convenience of the government supported by written and verbal instructions,
you have made the decision that this claim/invoice is to be processed under
CFR 41 U.S. Code § 7101 contract disputes and not under CFR 48-52.249-2 -
Termination for Convenience of the Government (Fixed Price). I am further
informed that this decision is FINAL with NO appeal. Therefore I am
submitting our revised invoice #948 dated 10/1/2017.
The revised invoice for $177,235.09 included the following charges:
1. Creation/review/send/receive 660 emails ($24,750)
2. Test diagnosis time ($10,800)
3. Creation test fixtures ($4,373)
4. Assemble cost data ($750)
5. Contingent time for negotiation from 1/6/1027 forward 20 hours ($3,000)
6. General and administrative expense ($3,756.86)
7. Profit ($7,678.01)
8. Cost of capital at small business unsecured rates from award to present
($122,127.22)
The president certified the claim:

CBCA 6038 3
I as president of Sterling Design am authorized to CERTIFY that the claim is
made in good faith, the supporting data previously supplied in voluminous
detail is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief; and the
amount requested accuratelyreflects the contract adjustment for which Sterling
Design believes the Coast Guard is liable.
Sterling provided no additional explanation or supporting cost data for this revised itemized
claim.
On November 29, 2017, the contracting officer issued a final decision on the claim.
Pointing to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.212-4(l), incorporated in the
purchase order, the contracting officer noted that in the event of termination for convenience,
the “Contractor shall be paid a percentage of the contract price reflecting the percentage of
the work performed prior to the notice of termination, plus reasonable charges the contractor
can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Government using its standard record keeping
system, have resulted from the termination.” The contracting officer found:
The charges submitted do not adequately demonstrate that they occurred prior
to the termination, or as a result thereof, nor do they represent a percentage of
price that corresponds to the work performed prior to the notice of termination.
Because all 23 circuit cards [from the PCs] under the repair modification were
returned in an un-repaired condition, there is no indication that any repair work
was performed prior to termination. Thus, there is insufficient information to
support payment of monies due beyond the originally awarded, and completed,
[diagnostic tests] as negotiated for $3,125.00.
Sterling timely appealed the final decision, which the Board docketed on February 20,
2018. The notice of appeal identified the amount in dispute as $177,235.09, referencing the
amended invoice. However, in its complaint, Sterling claims entitlement to $55,107.87, plus
interest from October 31, 2017, based upon an alleged breach of contract. The only invoice
attached to the complaint states that $177,235.09 is due in costs. Sterling provides no
explanation for this discrepancy.
Discussion
Pending before us is DHS’s motion to dismiss Sterling’s appeal for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to Board Rule 8(c)(1) (48 CFR
6101.8(c)(1) (2017)). Under the corresponding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule
12(b)(6), to survive such a motion, the “complaint must allege facts ‘plausibly suggesting
(not merely consistent with)’ a showing of entitlement to relief.”Kam-Almaz v. United

CBCA 6038 4
States, 682 F.3d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Acceptance Ins. Cos., Inc. v. United
States, 583 F.3d 849, 853 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). The facts as alleged “must be enough to raise
a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the
complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).”Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “This does not require the plaintiff to set out in detail the facts upon
which the claim is based, but enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.”Cary v. United States , 552 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Twombly).
Ultimately, however, in reviewing the sufficiency of the complaint under our Rule 8(c)(1),
as under Rule 12(b)(6), we must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw
all reasonable inferences in the appellant’s favor.See Call Henry, Inc. v. United States, 855
F.3d 1348, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Sterling’s complaint
must have alleged facts that plausibly suggest that it had performed compensable work and
that it is entitled to compensation. Here, Sterling alleges it “incurred significant costs in the
performance and termination of the contract” and that these costs included “inspection and
repair of units of equipment” and “significant amounts of communications with the Agency
during performance and termination of the effort.”
We accept these factual allegations as true for the purpose of reviewing the
sufficiency of the complaint. There appears to be no dispute that Sterling performed work
under the contract, specifically the required diagnostic inspections, to which it would be
entitled to payment of $3,125. The issue of whether Sterling can substantiate the remainder
of its claim (whether for $177,235.09 claimed in the amended invoice dated October 1,
2017, or $55,107.87, plus interest, the amount asserted in its complaint) is, at this point in the
litigation, premature for us to decide.
Decision
DHS’s motion isDENIED. The parties shall confer and agree upon a schedule for
processing this appeal to resolution. The parties are to submit this joint proposed schedule
to the Board on or before September 17, 2018. Please refer to the Board’s Order on
Proceedings dated February 20, 2018.
Jeri Kaylene Somers
JERI KAYLENE SOMERS
Board Judge

CBCA 6038 5
We concur:
Catherine B. Hyatt Patricia J. Sheridan
CATHERINE B. HYATT PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN
Board Judge Board Judge