ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of -- ) 

) 

Al Nawars Company ) 

) 

Under Contract Nos. W917BE-06-C-OO 18 ) 

W917BE-06-C-0052 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 59043, 59044 

Mr. Buraier Yassien 

Owner 

Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq. 

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

James D. Stephens, Esq. 

Assistant District Counsel 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Middle East 

Winchester, VA 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE O'SULLIVAN ON THE 

GOVERNMENT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps or government) awarded 

the two contracts at issue in these appeals to Al Nawars Company (appellant). The 

first of the two contracts, W917BE-06-C-OO 18, was for a series of valve/pipe 

hardening projects in the Iraqi Governorate of Nineveh (ASBCA No. 59043 (59043), 

R4, tab 3 at 4). The second contract, W917BE-06-C-0052, was for the paving of a 

section of road, also in the Nineveh Governorate (ASBCA No. 59044 (59044), R4, 

tab 2 at 10). The government terminated both contracts for default (59043, R4, tab 9; 

59044, R4, tab 4); appellant subsequently submitted what it alleges to be claims for 

certain unpaid amounts due (59043, compl. at 7; 59043, 59044, Notice of Appeal); 

and, ultimately, appellant appealed to the Board. 1 

On 17 July 2014, the government moved to dismiss both of these appeals for 

lack of jurisdiction on the basis that no claim had been filed within the six-year statute 

oflimitations of the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (59043, 

gov't mot. at 3-6; 59044, gov't mot. at 2-4). Subsequent to the filing of the 

government's jurisdictional motions, however, the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 

773 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 

1 The dates of these events are not relevant to our decision on the government's 

motions to dismiss the appeals under the CDA's six-year statute of limitations. 
As we recently explained in the appeals of Combat Support Associates, on 

reconsideration: 

Pursuant to [Sikorsky], which is binding upon the Board, 

the court overruled its line of cases holding that the 

six-year statute of limitations contained in the CDA was 

jurisdictional, and held that the CDA's six-year statute of 

limitations is not jurisdictional; therefore, the six-year 

statute of limitations in the CDA provides no basis to 

dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

Combat Support Associates, ASBCA Nos. 58945, 58946, slip op. (16 March 2015) 

(citing Sikorsky, 773 F.3d at 1320-22). Accordingly, the government's motions to 

dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the CD A's six-year statute of 

limitations are denied. 2 

Dated: 8 April 2015 

I concur I concur 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

2 We need not and do not decide in this opinion any other issues of jurisdiction that 

may exist in these appeals. 

2 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 59043, 59044 Appeals of 

Al Nawars Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

3 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals