DISMISSED IN PART AS MOOT,
DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION:
January 28, 2026
CBCA 8232
MEGA STAR LOGISTIC SERVICES CO.,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Respondent.
Abdul Ghafoor Sultani, Ex-President and Chief Executive Officer of Mega Star
Logistic Services Co., Glen Allen, VA, appearing for Appellant.
Erin M. Kriynovich, Office of the Legal Adviser, Buildings and Acquisitions,
Department of State, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges LESTER, GOODMAN, and NEWSOM.
GOODMAN, Board Judge.
Mega Star Logistic Services Co. (appellant) has appealed a contracting officer’s final
decision (COFD) denying its claim (first claim).  The Department of State (respondent or
Government) moved to dismiss this appeal as moot due to the Government’s payment of the
contract balance after the appeal was filed and for lack of jurisdiction over another claim
(second claim) which was denied in a separate COFD and not appealed here.  Appellant did
not file an opposition to the Government’s motion within the time required by the Board’s
rules, nor did appellant state its intent to file an opposition in response to the Board’s order
dated January 7, 2026.  We grant the Government’s motion.


CBCA 8232 2
Background
Appellant submitted its first claim pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act (CDA),
41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7109 (2018), to the contracting officer (CO) on April 16, 2024.  The
claim requested “clarification on the status of the contract, assurance of payment for services
rendered, and assistance in recovering funds from [the designated internet service provider
in Afghanistan].”  Appeal File, Exhibit 85 at 430.1  The CO interpreted this request for
“assurance of payment” for services rendered to be a request for “payment for the unpaid
portion of Option Year 2 of the [c]ontract,” i.e., the contract balance and CDA interest and
denied the claim in its entirety.  Exhibit 87 at 442.  On October 10, 2024, appellant filed a
timely appeal to the Board, which was docketed as CBCA 8232.
The parties engaged in negotiation to resolve the appeal, during which appellant
raised, for the first time, claim items that had not been included in the first claim and COFD. 
These new claim items were not resolved during the negotiation; however, on or about
May 17, 2025, the Government paid appellant an amount which appellant acknowledged as
full satisfaction of the unpaid contract balance and associated interest sought in the first
claim.  Appellant’s Status Report (July 21, 2025) at 1.
On May 24, 2025, appellant submitted the second claim to the CO.  The second claim
is comprised of the claim items that had not been included in the first claim but had been
discussed during the previous negotiation—payment requests for unrecoverable equipment,
administrative and personal efforts, financial burden due to delayed payment, and settlement
and negotiation efforts.  Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, or
Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment, Attachment 1.2  On July 23, 2025, the CO
issued a COFD denying appellant’s second claim and advising appellant of its appeal rights
via an email to the same email address on record with the Board for this appeal and from
which appellant has been communicating with both the Board and the Government
throughout this appeal.  See Attachment 2 at 1 (cover email from CO to appellant, stating that
“[a] final decision is attached”); Attachment 3 (COFD on the second claim).  There is no
indication that appellant did not receive the July 23, 2025, COFD, as the CO has stated there
was no “bounceback” or other indication that the email transmittal was not received.  CO
Declaration (Nov. 26, 2025), Attachment 4 ¶¶ 7-8.
1 All exhibits are found in the appeal file, unless otherwise noted.  The page
numbers cited are the Bates numbers on the exhibits if included.
2 References to attachments are to documents attached to respondent’s motion.

CBCA 8232 3
Discussion
For the Board to exercise jurisdiction over a claim, the CDA requires the contractor
to submit a written claim to the contracting officer for a COFD, with a subsequent appeal of
the COFD or deemed denial if the CO does not issue a COFD.  41 U.S.C. §§ 7103(a),
7104(a), 7105(e)(1)(B).  Should a contractor choose to appeal to the Board, the CDA requires
that the contractor file its appeal no more than ninety days following receipt of the COFD. 
Id. § 7104(a).
In its motion to dismiss, the Government asserts that the only claim properly before
the Board is appellant’s first claim for the remaining contract balance and CDA interest
which the Government has now paid.  The Government asserts that the second claim had not
been submitted to the CO for a final decision before this appeal was filed and the COFD
denying the second claim has not been appealed to this Board.  Therefore, the Government
argues, the second claim cannot be resolved in this appeal.  See Respondent’s Status Report
(Mar. 26, 2025) at 2; Respondent’s Status Report (July 18, 2025) at 2.
The Appeal of the First Claim
The Government paid appellant the outstanding contract balance plus CDA interest
which appellant has acknowledged as full satisfaction of the unpaid contract balance and
associated interest.  Appellant’s Status Report (July 21, 2025) at 1.  The contract balance was
the amount sought in the first claim, the denial of which was the subject of this appeal.  This
dispute is moot because the Government has reimbursed appellant for the entirety of the
claim, and, therefore, the claim pending before the Board has been resolved.  As there is no
longer a dispute to be resolved, we dismiss the appeal as moot.  Shaw Environmental, Inc.
v. Department of Homeland Security, CBCA 2177, 13 BCA ¶35,188, at 172,667 (2012).
The Second Claim
The July 23, 2025, COFD denying appellant’s second claim was transmitted to
appellant via email that same day.  Receipt of a final decision by email occurs on the day the
contractor receives the email message.  Government Services Corp. v. Department of
Homeland Security, CBCA 4204, 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,807 (2014); Dekatron Corp. v. Department
of Labor, CBCA 4444, 15-1 BCA ¶ 36,045.  It is the Government’s burden to provide
sufficient objective evidence that the contractor received the final decision, which the
Government has provided as noted above.  Appellant did not respond to the Government’s
motion to dismiss and, therefore, has not provided any evidence to the contrary.  Appellant
did not appeal the COFD on the second claim to the Board within the ninety-day period

CBCA 8232 4
required by the CDA.3  See 41 U.S.C. § 7104(a).  Even assuming, for purposes of argument,
that appellant never received the CO’s emailed final decision, appellant never filed an appeal
of a “deemed denial” of the second claim with the Board.  We therefore do not have
jurisdiction over, and cannot resolve, the claim items that comprise the second claim.
Decision
This appeal as to appellant’s first claim is DISMISSED AS MOOT.  As appellant
did not appeal the COFD denying the second claim to this Board, the Board does not have
jurisdiction over the claim items that comprise the second claim.
    Allan H. Goodman        
ALLAN H. GOODMAN
Board Judge
We concur:
    Harold D. Lester, Jr.           Elizabeth W. Newsom     
HAROLD D. LESTER, JR. ELIZABETH W. NEWSOM
Board Judge Board Judge
3 Appellant may also appeal to the United States Court of Federal Claims within
twelve months of receipt of the COFD.  41 U.S.C. § 7104(b)(3).  The Government states that
it is not aware that appellant has filed an appeal in that forum.