DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION:  February 24, 2026
CBCA 8606
VIAKORP CORPORATION,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent.
Zakaria Ouahmane, Chief Executive Officer and President of Viakorp Corporation,
Williamsburg, VA, appearing for Appellant.
Timothy M. Saffles, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs,
Redwood City, CA, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges LESTER, ZISCHKAU, and KANG.
KANG, Board Judge.
Respondent, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), contracted with Viakorp
Corporation (Viakorp) for kitchen maintenance.  The agency subsequently terminated the
contract for cause.  After Viakorp appealed the termination, VA moved to dismiss the appeal,
arguing that Viakorp failed to file its notice of appeal within the ninety-day deadline required
by 41 U.S.C. § 7104(a) (2018).  Because Viakorp untimely filed its appeal, we grant the
motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.


CBCA 8606 2
Background
In September 2024, VA awarded Viakorp a task order under a multiple award
indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract in the amount of $118,208 for kitchen
maintenance at the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.  Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 62.1  On April 22, 2025, the contracting officer
issued a show cause notice directing Viakorp to address its failure to make deliveries in
accordance with the task order.  Exhibit 5 at 107-08.  On May 2, 2025, Viakorp responded
to the show cause notice via email.  Exhibit 6 at 109.  On May 19, 2025, the contracting
officer issued a final contracting officer’s final decision (COFD), stating that the contract
was terminated for cause.  Exhibit 10 at 197.  The COFD stated that the termination was
based on a failure to make required deliveries and provide an adequate response to the show
cause notice.  Id.  Viakorp filed this appeal with the Board on September 25, 2025.
Discussion
The Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7109 (2018), provides that
once the contracting officer issues a COFD, the contractor has ninety days from its receipt
of that decision to file an appeal with the appropriate board of contract appeals or twelve
months to file suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims.  41 U.S.C. § 7104.  Our
decisions, relying on binding precedent from the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, have held that the ninety-day requirement may not be waived, as it is strictly
construed, and failure to comply creates a “jurisdictional defect” that precludes the Board
from considering the merits of the appeal.  Acabay Inc. v. General Services Administration,
CBCA 8185, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,716, at 188,246 (2024) (quoting Yerington Paiute Tribe v.
Department of the Interior, CBCA 7818-ISDA, 24-1 BCA ¶ 38,508, at 187,161); see West
Coast General Corp. v. Dalton, 39 F.3d 312, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Cosmic Construction Co.
v. United States, 697 F.2d 1389, 1390-91 (Fed. Cir. 1982); MINACT, Inc. v. Department of
Labor, CBCA 7575, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,243, at 185,701 (2022)).
The parties dispute when Viakorp received the COFD.  VA states that the COFD was
sent via email on May 19, 2025, and argues that the COFD was therefore received on this
date.  Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss at 4 (citing Exhibit 10 at 195).  Viakorp does not
dispute that the email and attached COFD were dated May 19, 2025, but contends that it did
not receive the email until May 27, 2025.  Appellant’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
(Opposition) at 3.  Even accepting Viakorp’s argument that it did not receive the COFD until
1 All exhibits are found in the appeal file unless otherwise noted.  Page citations
to exhibits in the appeal file are to the bates numbers added by the agency.

CBCA 8606 3
May 27, 2025, the appeal is still untimely.2  Ninety days from May 27, 2025, is August 25,
2025.  The appeal was filed with the Board on September 25, 2025.  The appeal was
therefore untimely regardless of whether we calculate the ninety-day period from May 19,
2025, or May 27, 2025.  For this reason, we grant VA’s motion to dismiss this appeal based
on Viakorp’s untimely filing of its notice of appeal.3
Decision
The appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
    Jonathan L. Kang         
JONATHAN L. KANG
Board Judge
We concur:
    Harold D. Lester, Jr.         Jonathan D. Zischkau   
HAROLD D. LESTER, JR. JONATHAN D. ZISCHKAU
Board Judge Board Judge
2 Viakorp contends that “[e]mail transmission alone does not establish receipt
for purposes of triggering the CDA appeal period, and the VA has produced no evidence that
Viakorp actually received, opened, or reviewed the COFD on May 19, 2025.”  Opposition
at 3.  Because the appeal is untimely even if we accept Viakorp’s claimed receipt date, we
need not resolve whether receipt should be deemed May 19, 2025, or May 27, 2025.
3 As noted, section 7104 of the CDA provides that an appeal of a COFD may be
filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims within one year of its receipt.  41 U.S.C.
§ 7104(b)(3).  Viakorp’s twelve-month deadline for filing suit in that court has not yet
expired.