DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: May 8, 2014
CBCA 3630
MAGWOOD SERVICES, INC.,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Respondent.
Heyward Manigault, President of Magwood Services, Inc., Campbell Hall, NY, 
appearing for Appellant.
Gregory C. Carter, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges SOMERS, STERN, and SHERIDAN. 
SHERIDAN, Board Judge.
This matter is before the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) on a notice of
appeal submitted by appellant, Magwood Services, Inc. (Magwood).  This Board lacks
jurisdiction to resolve the dispute because Magwood is not a contractor in privity with the 
Federal Government as required by the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-
7109 (2012).


CBCA 3630 2
Background
A review of the documents submitted in this appeal indicates that Magwood was a
contractor who provided services at Sky Acres Airport (Sky Acres) located in Millbrook,
New York.  Sky Acres is a privately-owned reliever airport that appears to have received a
grant, FAA AIP 3-36-0223-24-12, from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under
the Airport Improvement Program authorized by chapter 471 of title 49 of the United States
Code.  49 U.S.C. § 47101-47142 (2012).  The grant was for replacement of storm water
drainage and the airfield lighting electrical vault for runway 17/35 at Sky Acres.  Sky Acres
contracted with Magwood to provide those services.
Disputes arose between Magwood and Sky Acres.  According to Magwood, its
attempts to have those disputes addressed by Sky Acres went unanswered so it filed an
appeal with this Board.  
Discussion
Clearly, our Board has no authority to resolve this appeal.  Magwood is not a
contractor in privity with the Federal Government as required by the CDA.  “The term
‘contractor’ means a party to a Federal Government contract other than the Federal
Government.”  41 U.S.C. § 7101(7).  As we recently explained in Eagle Peak Rock &
Paving, Inc. v. Department of the Interior, CBCA 2770, 12-2 BCA ¶ 35,146, at 172,521:
The requisite privity of contract needed to permit an appeal under the CDA has
generally been limited to prime contractors who have actually contracted with
the Government.  Attempts by other parties, such as subcontractors and
sureties, to extend the concept of privity beyond the prime contractor have
typically been rejected. 
Magwood’s contract appears to have been with Sky Acres, a privately-owned airport
in New York.  As such, we have no jurisdiction under the CDA to consider this dispute.1
1 We also note that even if Magwood had a contract with the FAA, the Board
does not have jurisdiction to decide protests and contract disputes arising out of
procurements and contracts entered into under the FAA’s Acquisition Management System
(AMS).  To the extent Magwood’s contract might have been entered into under the FAA’s
AMS, the dispute would be handled by the FAA’s Office of Dispute Resolution for
Acquisition (ODRA).  49 U.S.C. § 40110(d)(4) (2012).  ODRA’s procedural rules can be
found at 14 CFR Part 17.  Whether Magwood’s contract was a contract entered into under
the FAA’s AMS will be a question for the ODRA if Magwood files a case in that forum.

CBCA 3630 3
Decision
This appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
                                                 
PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN
Board Judge
We concur:
                                                                                                  
JERI K. SOMERS JAMES L. STERN
Board Judge Board Judge