DENIED:  April 6, 2022
CBCA 7344
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES GROUP, INC., 
Petitioner,
v.
 
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent.
Andy Moody, Vice President of Construction Services Group, Inc., Charleston, SC,
appearing for Petitioner.
Neil S. Deol, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, Decatur,
GA, counsel for Respondent.
LESTER, Board Judge.1
Construction Services Group, Inc. (CSG) has filed a petition with the Board pursuant
to section 7103(f)(4) of the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(4) (2018),
requesting that the Board direct a contracting officer with the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) to issue a decision on CSG’s certified claim, dated August 31, 2021, by a date certain. 
The purpose of that statutory provision is to allow the contractor, if a decision of the
contracting officer is not forthcoming, to accelerate the date by which it can appeal a
“deemed denial” of its claim.  Here, CSG’s claim is already “deemed denied” because the
1 Pursuant to Board Rule 1(d) (48 CFR 6101.1(d) (2020)), “[t]he presiding judge
may without participation by other panel members decide . . . any petition.”  Because
resolution of this petition does not raise novel issues, it is being decided by a single judge.

CBCA 7344 2
contracting officer neither issued a decision within sixty days after receiving CSG’s claim
nor timely extended the deadline for issuing that decision.  For the same reasons that the
Board discussed in CTA I, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 5800, 17-1 BCA
¶ 36,829, we must deny the petition because the petitioner has already obtained the only
relief that we could effectively provide.
Background
On or about September 30, 2019, the VA awarded task order no. 36C24719N0948
under contract no. 36C24718D0140 to CSG for the renovation of Building 10 at the W.J.B.
Dorn VA Medical Center campus in Columbia, South Carolina.  The original contract
completion date of January 13, 2021, was eventually extended through various contract
modifications to August 15, 2021.
On July 28, 2021, the VA contracting officer issued unilateral modification P00006,
increasing the contract price by $460,000 for a change involving porch repairs.  Even though
the modification provided CSG with a price increase, the contracting officer requested that
CSG provide a cost proposal for the work referenced in the modification.  In the
modification, the contracting officer indicated that, if CSG did not submit a cost proposal,
“consideration will be given to issuing a settlement by determination based on the
government’s estimate of equitable cost and time.”
Instead of submitting a cost proposal, CSG on August 31, 2021, submitted a document
titled “Request for Equitable Adjustment VA Renovations of Building 10” to the VA
contracting officer.  In that document, CSG sought $415,339.74 in home office overhead
costs calculated under the Eichleay formula and an additional $204,385 as the “[d]elta
between MOD P00006 Proposal and Amount Added.”  CSG indicated that it was entitled to
394 calendar days of compensable excusable delay (a number that it used to calculate the
amount of its home office overhead) and a total contract time extension of 180 calendar days. 
As part of the submission, CSG signed a certification using the language set forth in Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 33.207 and requested “a decision to be issued within 60 days
of submission.”  See 48 CFR 33.207 (2020) (FAR 33.207).
On September 14, 2021, CSG submitted what it titled “Revision 1 – Originally
Submitted 8/31/2021” to its “Request for Equitable Adjustment VA Renovations of Building
10.”  In this document, CSG addressed only its home office overhead request, slightly
reducing the amount and number of compensable excusable delay days requested from what
it had submitted on August 31, 2021.  Although CSG included a new certification in
accordance with FAR 33.207 and a request that a decision be issued within sixty days in this
document, CSG has informed us that it intended revision 1 as a clarification of its August 31
claim, not a new claim in and of itself.

CBCA 7344 3
Separately on September 14, 2021, CSG also submitted a document to the VA
contracting officer titled “Response for Equitable Adjustment – MOD #P00006 VA
Renovations of Building 10,” with a subheading of “Revision 1 (Originally Submitted
8/31/2021 in the REA).”  In the document, CSG indicated that it was submitting information
“regarding the additional porch work added to the project via modification P00006” and
reiterated its August 31 assertion that it was entitled to an additional $204,385 for the added
P00006 work and an additional 180 days to complete the contract.
In a declaration filed with the Board, the VA contracting officer has indicated that,
when he received these documents on August 31 and September 14, 2021, he did not
originally perceive any of them to be a claim.  Instead, he viewed them as requests to
negotiate.  As a result, he did not issue a written decision in response to them.
On March 10, 2022, CSG filed its petition with the Board requesting that we direct
the VA contracting officer “to render a decision on CSG’s certified claim submitted on
August 31, 2021, by a date determined reasonable by the CBCA.”  In its petition, CSG
represents that, “[a]s of the date of this petition, the [contracting officer] has failed to issue
a decision and has failed to provide CSG with a reasonable date by which a decision would
be issued.” 
In response to CSG’s petition, the VA contracting officer has notified us that he
expects to render a decision on CSG’s prior submissions by May 2, 2022.
Discussion
“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 within
which a decision will be issued.’”  CTA I (quoting 41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(2)).  Once the
contracting officer issues a written decision, the contractor has ninety days from the date of
the decision’s issuance to file an appeal with this Board or twelve months to file suit in the
Court of Federal Claims.  41 U.S.C. § 7104.  If the contracting officer fails to issue a decision
within that sixty-day window, “the contractor may, at its option, appeal from a ‘deemed’
denial of its claim” unless the contracting officer notified the contractor within the initial
sixty-day window that he or she was extending the time for issuing a decision.  CTA I (citing
41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(5)).  If the contracting officer notifies the contractor of a new deadline
for issuance of a decision, the claim will not be “deemed denied” (and appealable) unless and
until the extended deadline passes by without a contracting officer’s decision.  John C.
Grimberg Co., ASBCA 42695, 91-3 BCA ¶ 24,074.
It is in that last circumstance that the contractor’s right to ask the Board to direct the
contracting officer to issue a decision earlier than the date identified typically comes into

CBCA 7344 4
play.  Section 7103(f)(4) of the CDA “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.’”  CTA I (quoting 41 U.S.C.
§ 7103(f)(4)).  Although, on its face, that provision might read as though the Board has some
power to force the contracting officer actually to issue a written decision, we do not, in
reality, possess authority to demand specific performance or grant injunctive relief. 
MicroTechnologies, LLC, ASBCA 59911, 15-1 BCA ¶ 36,125.  Instead, under that statutory
provision, “the Board is authorized 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 for a decision, if
it finds that the contracting officer’s extension was unreasonable.”  Hawk Contracting
Group, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 5527, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,572.
Here, the VA contracting officer did not issue a decision within sixty days of CSG’s
August 31, 2021, submission and did not extend the time for issuing a decision beyond the
original sixty-day statutory window.  The VA properly does not dispute that the certified
August 31, 2021, submission was a claim: it described the basis for CSG’s monetary
requests, sought payment of a sum certain, was certified in accordance with FAR 33.207
(which identifies the certification language for CDA claims), and requested issuance of a
contracting officer’s decision within sixty days.2  See Bon Secour Management, LLC v.
Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 4703, 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,888 (describing elements of
a claim).  Once the contracting officer failed to issue a decision within sixty days after CSG
submitted its claim, it was “deemed denied,” and CSG was entitled immediately to appeal
that deemed denial to the Board or to file suit in the Court of Federal Claims.
Given that CSG already has the right to appeal as a result of the deemed denial, there
is no further relief that we can effectively provide.  CTA I.  CSG can file an appeal of the
“deemed denial” of its claim immediately, or it may elect to wait until the contracting officer
actually issues a written decision by the May 2, 2022, date that the contracting officer has
2 The VA notes that CSG’s second September 14, 2021, submission, titled
“Response for Equitable Adjustment – MOD #P00006 VA Renovations of Building 10,” was
not a valid claim because it contained no certification and did not request a final decision. 
It seems clear, however, that this document and the other September 14, 2021, submission
were simply supplements adding information to the certified claim that CSG had already
submitted on August 31, 2021, and were not intended to be independent claims.  The
submission of additional data does not retroactively invalidate the original claim submission. 
See Newell Clothing Co., ASBCA 24482, 80-2 BCA ¶ 14,774 (“Even after a certification has
been submitted, a contractor is not precluded from . . . producing additional data.”).

CBCA 7344 5
identified before deciding whether to appeal.  See id.  We lack authority to grant CSG any
broader rights than it already has.
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the contractor’s petition is DENIED.
    Harold D. Lester, Jr.      
HAROLD D. LESTER, JR.
Board Judge