DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION:  January 15, 2025
CBCA 8210
TESLA LILIANA REYES RAMIREZ,
Appellant,
v.
AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,
Respondent.
Tesla Liliana Reyes Ramirez, pro se, McLean, VA.
Eugene Benick and John B. Alumbaugh, Office of the General Counsel, Agency for
International Development, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges BEARDSLEY (Chair), GOODMAN, and VOLK.
GOODMAN, Board Judge.
Appellant, Tesla Liliana Reyes Ramirez, has appealed a contracting officer’s decision
terminating for convenience her personal services contract with respondent, the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID).  We grant respondent’s motion to dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
Appellant’s personal services contract with respondent contained the following clause
allowing for termination for convenience:


CBCA 8210 2
(a)  The Government may terminate performance of work under this contract
in whole or, from time to time, in part:
. . . .
(2)  For the convenience of USAID, by giving not less than 15 calendar days
advance written notice to the contractor.  Upon such a termination,
contractor’s right to compensation shall cease when the period specified in
such notice expires except that the contractor shall be entitled to any unused
annual leave, return transportation costs and travel allowances and
transportation of unaccompanied baggage costs at the rate specified in the
contract and subject to the limitations which apply to authorized travel status.
Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 42.
On July 19, 2024, appellant was terminated for convenience by a contracting officer’s
(CO) decision, which stated in part:  “This is the final decision of the Contracting Officer. 
You may appeal this decision to the agency board of contract appeals.”  Notice of Appeal,
Attachment 1 at 1.
On September 23, 2024, appellant filed a notice of appeal at this Board, which
summarizes various conversations with the contracting officer and other employees of
respondent after receipt of the CO’s decision and describes the effect of the decision on
appellant’s mental and physical health.  The notice of appeal also states:  “Considering that
I was doing a stellar job, had a five year contract (two initial years plus three option years),
and the [United States] Government continues to have a need for the position, the amount in
dispute is the maximum allowed of US $100,000.”  Notice of Appeal at 2.  However,
appellant has not submitted a claim to the CO for the alleged amount in dispute. 
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss at 1.
Discussion
On October 22, 2024, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.  Appellant did not file a response to the motion to dismiss.  In a recent Board
decision, John Blankson v. Agency for International Development, CBCA 8256 (Jan. 2,
2025), we dismissed a similar appeal of a CO’s decision terminating for convenience a
personal services contract by this respondent pursuant to the same contract language that is
in this appellant’s contract.  In that case, the Board held that the CO’s decision was not an
appealable CO’s final decision (COFD) and that issues which were asserted as a monetary
claim were premature, as a claim had not been submitted to the contracting officer.  As
explained in that decision:

CBCA 8210 3
The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) provides that “[e]ach claim by a contractor
against the Federal Government relating to a contract shall be submitted to the
contracting officer for a decision.”  41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(1) (2018).  A
contractor may appeal a COFD or appeal the deemed denial of a claim when
the CO fails to issue a timely decision.  Id. § 7103(f)(5)-(g).  The Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines a claim as follows:
Claim means a written demand or written assertion by one of the
contracting parties seeking, as a matter, of right, the payment of
money in a sum certain, the adjustment or interpretation of
contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to the
contract. . . . A voucher, invoice, or other routine request for
payment that is not in dispute when submitted is not a claim.
The submission may be converted to a claim, by written notice
to the contracting officer as provided in 33.206(a), if it is
disputed either as to liability or amount or is not acted upon in
a reasonable time.  48 CFR 2.101 (FAR 2.101).
Blankson, slip op. at 3.
“[T]ermination of a contract for the convenience of the Government is not in and of
itself an appealable contracting officer decision within the terms of the CDA.”  Blankson, slip
op. at 3 (quoting Frank Bonner v. Department of Homeland Security, CBCA 605, et al., 07-2
BCA ¶ 33,592, at 166,387).  As in Blankson, the appellant here has not submitted a claim to
the CO for any amount, and the CO has not asserted a claim against appellant.  Even though
the termination notice stated that it was a “final decision,” that letter was not an appealable
COFD but, rather, was only a notice of the termination of appellant’s contract for
convenience.  “Parties cannot bestow subject jurisdiction upon the board and the board
cannot exceed its jurisdictional boundaries.”  Blankson, slip op. at 4 (quoting Universal
Canvas, Inc. v. Stone, 975 F.2d 847, 850 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
As the CO’s decision to terminate appellant’s contract for convenience was not an
appealable COFD, and appellant has not submitted the monetary claim asserted in the notice
of appeal to the CO, the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal.  See Mubashir
Ali v. Agency for Global Media, CBCA 6914, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,802, at 183,588-89; Arthur
Jean Pierre v. Agency for Global Media, CBCA 6901, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,853, at 183,822.

CBCA 8210 4
Decision
The appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
    Allan H. Goodman     
ALLAN H. GOODMAN
Board Judge
We concur:
    Erica S. Beardsley            Daniel B. Volk                    
ERICA S. BEARDSLEY DANIEL B. VOLK
Board Judge Board Judge