DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH
RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED: September 23, 2016
CBCA 5379
JONATHAN NOELDNER,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Respondent.
Jonathan Noeldner, pro se, Eau Claire, WI.
James L. Rosen, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Agriculture, San
Francisco, CA, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), HYATT, and GOODMAN.
DANIELS, Board Judge.
Respondent, the Department of Agriculture, moves the Board to dismiss, for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, an appeal filed by contractor Jonathan
Noeldner.  Respondent maintains that the claims at issue were submitted to the agency later
than the time permitted by the contract. We grant the motion.
Background
The United States Forest Service, an entity within the Department of Agriculture,
awarded the Whipsaw Fuelwood timber sale contract to Mr. Noeldner on January 13, 2011. 


CBCA 5379 2
The contract permitted Mr. Noeldner to cut and remove lodgepole pine, Jeffrey pine, and
white fir timber from the Inyo National Forest.
The contract included clause BT9.21, Time Limits for Submission of Claim.  This
clause provided:
Failure by Purchaser to submit a Claim within established time limits shall
relinquish the United States from any and all obligations whatsoever arising
under the contract or portions thereof.  Purchaser shall file such Claim within
the following time limits:
. . . .[1]
(d) . . . Purchaser must file any Claim not later than 60 days after
receipt of Contracting Officer written notification that timber sale is closed.
On July 1, 2015, Mr. Noeldner asked the contracting officer by e-mail, “[W]hen will
I be able to submit claims against the [Forest Service], per contract documents, on this
contract?”    The contracting officer replied later that day, also by e-mail, “[Y]ou may submit
disputed issues you have with the Forest Service at any time.  Once the determination related
to the Whipsaw Sale default is settled, a sale closure letter will be issued to you and the
normal submission of claims timeline will then be in effect.”
By letter dated July 15, 2015, the contracting officer wrote to Mr. Noeldner:
This sale has been closed on our records. . . .  Any claim or reservation of
claim must be filed in accordance with contract provisions BT9.2 – Disputes
and BT 9.21 – Time Limits for Submission of Claim, with the Forest
Supervisor.  Failure to do so shall relinquish the United States from any and
all obligations whatsoever arising under this contract or portion thereof.
Mr. Noeldner signed a certified mail receipt for this letter on July 27, 2015. 
Consequently, in accordance with clause BT9.21, he had until sixty days later – until
September 25, 2015 – to file a claim.
1 Paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) contain time limits for filing claims regarding road
construction and payment and cutting units.  The Forest Service says that “[b]ecause all of
Appellant’s claims were untimely even under the more generous standard of BT9.21(d), there
is no reason to conduct a separate analysis for claim items that might fall under BT9.21(c).”

CBCA 5379 3
By letter dated March 16, 2016,2 which was received by the contracting officer on
March 23, 2016, Mr. Noeldner made eight separate claims for money regarding the contract. 
The contracting officer responded on March 24, 2016:
 As stated in Provision BT9.21, “Failure by Purchaser to submit a Claim within
established time limits shall relinquish the United States from any and all
obligations whatsoever arising under the contract or portions thereof.” 
Therefore your claim will not be considered any further because it did not meet
this time limit.  
Mr. Noeldner received the contracting officer’s letter on March 29, 2016, and filed
an appeal from it on June 24, 2016.
Discussion
The Contract Disputes Act provides that “in general,” “[e]ach claim by a contractor
against the Federal Government relating to a contract . . . shall be submitted within 6 years
after the accrual of the claim.”  41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(4)(A) (2012).  Parties are free, however,
to “agree[] to terms that would further expedite the claim resolution process.”  Do-Well
Machine Shop, Inc. v. United States, 870 F.2d 637, 641 (Fed. Cir. 1989).  “The United States
can enforce the waiver of, or agreement to, a given limitations period with the same force as
a private party.”  Id.
Here, the parties agreed in clause BT9.21 of their contract that if the contractor did
not submit a claim within “60 days after receipt of Contracting Officer written notification
that timber sale is closed,” he would “relinquish the United States from any and all
obligations whatsoever arising under the contract or portions thereof.”  Although Mr.
Noeldner may not like this limitation now, he in submitting his bid “expressly adopt[ed] the
terms of . . . the sample contract,” which included the clause, “as material parts of [his]
offer.”  Clause BT9.21 has consistently been enforced by this Board, its predecessor
Department of Agriculture Board of Contract Appeals, and the Court of Federal Claims. 
Duffy Inc. v. Department of Agriculture, CBCA 1369, 09-2 BCA ¶ 34,250; Thomas Creek
Lumber & Log Co., AGBCA 2005-132-1, 06-1 BCA ¶ 33,283; Buse Timber & Sales, Inc.,
AGBCA 90-168-1, et al., 94-1 BCA ¶ 26,456 (1993); Stone Forest Industries, Inc. v. United
States, 26 Cl. Ct. 410, 414 (1992) (“The rule of law stated in Do-Well is binding on this
court.”). 
2 The letter contains a certification which says that it was made on March 23,
2016, but was signed by Mr. Noeldner and two witnesses on March 22, 2016.

CBCA 5379 4
The clause is enforced because “[t]he consequences of failing to comply with [the]
time limitation provision[] are explicit in the contract language.”  Duffy, 09-2 BCA at
169,253.  As explained in Riggs National Bank of Washington, D.C. v. General Services
Administration, GSBCA 14061, 97-1 BCA ¶ 28,920, at 144,179:
Generally, [time] limitations imposed by contract provisions should be applied
liberally; if the contractor fails to meet such a limitation, the provision should
be enforced only where the Government demonstrates that it has been
prejudiced by the failure.  Where a contract clearly states that the contractor
will lose rights if it does not make a submission within a prescribed period of
time, however, the limitation should be strictly enforced.  This guidance
effectively meshes the teaching of Hoel-Steffen [Construction Co. v. United
States, 456 F.2d 760 (Ct. Cl. 1972)] and decisions following it with the general
rule that “agreed-upon contract terms must be enforced” and “[c]ontracting
parties must be held to their agreements.”  Madigan v. Hobin Lumber Co., 986
F.2d 1401, 1403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing numerous decisions).
As a party to the Whipsaw Fuelwood timber sale contract, Mr. Noeldner agreed that 
if he did not submit a claim within sixty days of the date on which he received the contracting
officer’s written notification that the timber sale was closed, the consequence would be clear:
he would “relinquish the United States from any and all obligations whatsoever arising under
the contract or portions thereof.”  He submitted his claims far more than sixty days after he
received the notification.  The contracting officer responded properly, in accordance with the
contract, that the claims could not be considered.
Mr. Noeldner maintains, as he wrote in an e-mail message to the contracting officer
on September 12, 2015, that he believed the sale had been closed prematurely.  In his
opinion, the sale should not have been considered closed until he had been paid the balance
of his performance bond and “for costs incurred by the malicious, biased, and unlawful
activities employed by the [Forest Service].”3  Whether Mr. Noeldner’s view is correct or not,
the fact is that the contracting officer closed the sale when he did.  Under clause BT9.21, and
3 The Department of Agriculture notes that the contracting officer’s letter of
July 15, 2015, included the statement, “[Y]our remaining unencumbered balance and your
performance bond deposit shall be applied towards . . . damages.  A refund of the balance in
the amount of $935.67 will be processed.”  The contracting officer later told Mr. Noeldner
that this money had been offset against a debt the contractor owed to the Government. 
Whether the Forest Service ever paid Mr. Noeldner $935.67 or any other amount regarding
his performance bond deposit is irrelevant to our decision.

CBCA 5379 5
as cautioned in the contracting officer’s July 1, 2015, e-mail message and more pointedly in
his July 15, 2015, notification that the sale was closed, Mr. Noeldner was required by the
clear terms of the contract to submit whatever claims he might have had within sixty days of
the date on which he received the notification.  He did not meet the deadline specified in
clause BT9.21 and must therefore suffer the consequence that was expressly set forth in the
clause.
Decision
The Department of Agriculture’s motion is granted.  The appeal is DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED.
_________________________
STEPHEN M. DANIELS
Board Judge
We concur:
_________________________ _________________________
CATHERINE B. HYATT ALLAN H. GOODMAN
Board Judge Board Judge