MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED; ALTERNATE MOTION TO
 
SUSPEND APPEAL GRANTED: September 24, 2010
 
CBCA 2119
 
TKC AEROSPACE,
 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 
Respondent. 
Douglas C. Proxmire of Patton Boggs LLP, Washington, DC, counsel for 
Appellant. 
J. Stephen Brophy, Office of Procurement Law, United States Coast Guard, 
Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges GOODMAN , McCANN , and DRUMMOND . 
McCANN , Board Judge. 
On August 30, 2010, respondent filed “Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the 
Appeal and Alternate Motion to Suspend the Appeal.” On September 9, 2010, appellant 
filed its opposition. 
In response to the submission of a properly certified claim by appellant on 
June 23, 2010, the contracting officer indicated that he will issue his final decision no 
later than November 19, 2010. This is slightly over ninety days more than the typical 
sixty-day period allotted for issuing a final decision under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 
USC § 605(c)(2) (2006). In its motion, respondent asks the Board to dismiss the appeal 
or suspend it on the grounds that the contracting officer needs more time “to investigate 
the claim facts, attempt some discussion and factual resolution or prepare a detailed final 

 
             
             
              
               
  
           
             
               
               
              
              
               
           
                
            
               
             
                 
               
              
                 
   
             
        
          
      
_________________________________ 
  
 
2 CBCA 2119 
decision.” Respondent states that the corrosion issues on the aircraft are technical in 
nature and discussion with experts is required. Respondent also informs the Board that 
the contracting officer is very busy, that September is a busy month for the contracting 
officer, and that the contracting officer is trying to establish a new contract lease of an 
aircraft. 
In response, appellant avers that it has provided the contracting officer with 
extensive information regarding the claim and has responded in detail and in writing to 
many questions submitted to it by the contracting officer. It also contends that the issues 
are not that difficult and that it is suffering substantial hardship because it is a small 
business and has not been paid the $629,536.18 to which it claims it is entitled. 
Under 41 § 605(c)(5), the Board has the option of granting a stay of the 
proceedings when an appeal has been filed prior to a final decision being rendered on a 
properly submitted claim. The Board has considered the arguments and allegations 
presented by the parties in this case. While the Board is not entirely convinced under the 
circumstances that the contracting officer needs until November 19, 2010, to issue his 
decision, in other words that the time set for him to issue the decision is totally 
reasonable, the Board will nevertheless grant the stay requested by respondent. At this 
point, November 19, 2010, is less than 60 days away. The record on the issue of the 
reasonableness of the time period is minimal, and the Board is not inclined to listen to 
further argument to decide upon a lesser time period when that time period will be 
expiring on its own shortly. Such further litigation on this issue is not in the interests of 
either party. 
The Board will issue an amendment to its pre-trial order taking into account the 
granting of the requested suspension of the proceedings. 
Respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal is DENIED . Respondent’s alternate 
Motion to Suspend the Appeal is GRANTED . 
R. ANTHONY McCANN 
Board Judge 

 
 
________________________________ _________________________________ 
     
  
3 CBCA 2119 
We concur: 
ALLAN H. GOODMAN JEROME M. DRUMMOND 
Board Judge Board Judge