ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Green Valley Company ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W912Dl-05-A-0063 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 61275 

Salma William Saikaly, Esq. 

Willoughby Hills, OH 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

CPT William T. Wicks, JA 

Trial Attorney 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MELNICK 

ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Green Valley Company (Green Valley) seeks the payment of invoices it 

presented in 2006 under a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BP A) with the United States 

Army. The government correctly responds that Green Valley's 2017 certified claim 

that it submitted to the contracting officer was time-barred. Accordingly, summary 

judgment is granted to the government. Green Valley's appeal is denied. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 

On April 26, 2005, the United States Army Regional Contracting Command 

SWA-Kuwait (the government) executed the BPA identified above with Green Valley. 

The BP A was for the supply of life support services, including water supply and 

removal, portable latrines and toiletry for United States military forces in Kuwait. (R4, 

tab 9) Between January 2 and October 2, 2006, Green Valley invoiced the government 

for services performed under the BPA (compl. 12; gov't mot. at 2). On May 18, 2007, 

the United States Army debarred Green Valley until December 1, 2009 (R4, tab 419; 

compl. 15; gov't mot. at 2). 

On March 9, 2017, Green Valley submitted a certified claim to the contracting 

officer for payment of its unpaid invoices in the amount of 427,822.96 Kuwaiti Dinars 

(R4, tabs 484-85; compl. 1 10; gov't mot. at 3). The unpaid invoices were for a period 

ranging from December!, 2005 to September 23, 2006 (id. at 4). The claim was denied 

by contracting officer decision dated June 7, 2017 (R4, tab 485). This appeal followed. 
DECISION 

The government seeks summary judgment on the ground that Green Valley's 

claim is time-barred. Under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109, 

a timely claim must be submitted to the contracting officer within six years after accrual. 

41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(4). Summary judgment will be granted to the government on this 

issue if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the government is entitled to 

judgment as a matter oflaw. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); 

Adamant Grp. for Contracting and Gen. Trading, ASBCA No. 60316, 16-1 BCA 

,r 36,577 at 178,134. A claim accrues when "all events, that fix the alleged liability 

of ... the Government...and permit assertion of the claim, were known or should have been 

known." FAR 33.201. Although an invoice that is not in dispute when submitted is not 

a claim, it may be converted to one by a written notice to the contracting officer "if not 

acted upon in a reasonable time." FAR 2.101; see Adamant Grp., 16-1 BCA ,r 36,577 at 

178,134. 

It is undisputed that Green Valley submitted the invoices that are the subject of 

the claim to the government between January and October of 2006. Green Valley 

knew or should have known it could convert them to a claim within a reasonable time 

after that. However, Green Valley waited over a decade, until 2017, to do so. That is 

well more than six years after it became reasonable to convert the invoices to a claim. 

Green Valley maintains that the six-year limitation period to submit its claim 

should be equitably tolled. Equitable tolling might be appropriate when "a litigant has 

( 1) been pursuing [its] rights diligently, and (2) some extraordinary circumstance 'stood 

in [its] way and prevented timely filing."' Adamant Grp., 16-1 BCA ,r 36,577 at 

178,136 (quoting Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 750, 755 

(2016)). Green Valley argues that from November 5, 2009, until December 16, 2016, it 

was a defendant in a government lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Texas. It contends that it could not submit its claim for the invoices 

while that matter was pending, and that if it had the government would have pursued 

fraud based defenses and causes of action against it, exposing it to harsh legal 

consequences. It argues that it was therefore required to forego the submittal of its claim 

while it diligently worked to relieve itself from debarment and the government suit. 

Green Valley has not demonstrated the elements of equitable tolling. It has not 

shown that the pendency of a government suit against it in district court, or its 

debarment, prevented it from submitting a CDA claim. Nor does it explain why the 

possibility that the government might respond to its claim with fraud based defenses or 

causes of action would block it from submitting a claim. The mere fact that such a 

response from the government might be undesirable to Green Valley is irrelevant. 

Thus, there is no basis for concluding Green Valley diligently pursued its rights and 

that some extraordinary circumstance prevented it from advancing its claim. 

2 
Accordingly, equitable tolling is inapplicable and Green Valley's claim is time-barred 

under the CDA. 

CONCLUSION 

The government's motion for summary judgment is granted. The appeal is 

denied. 

Dated: 13 February 2018 

I concur 

RICHARD 

~ SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

MARK A. MELNICK 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I concur 

OWEN C. WILSON 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No.61275 Appeal of Green 

Valley Company rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

3 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals