ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Rawaat Algaidaa Co. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W91GF5-07-M-3125 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59735 

Ms. Gaidaa H. Farj 

Owner/Manager 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

MAJ Michael G. Pond, JA 

Trial Attorney 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE YOUNGER 

ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION 

In this appeal regarding a contract to furnish supplies in Iraq, the Army has 

filed two motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, asserting in both that appellant 

Rawaat Algaidaa Co. (Rawaat) did not submit a claim to the contracting officer. We 

grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTIONS 

1. Effective 28 July 2007, the Army awarded Contract No. W91GF5-07-M-3125 

(the contract) to Al Hujaz Company (Al Hujaz) to supply miscellaneous electrical parts 

(R4, tab 1 at 2-3). The address for Al Hujaz is specified simply as Balad, Iraq (id. at 1 ). 

Only Al Hujaz is identified as the contractor. There is no indication on the face of the 

contract that Rawaat was a party to the instrument (id.). 

2. By Modification No. POOOOl effective 24 August 2007, the government 

terminated the contract "due to vendor, Al-Hujaz unable to fulfill the requirements and 

non-compliancy to the terms/conditions of the contract. This is in agreement of the 

parties." (R4, tab 4 at 1) 

3. The government thereafter reprocured the requirement from Anixter UK Ltd. as 

Contract No. W91GF5-07-M-3190 (R4, tab 8 at 1). That contract was completed 

successfully and paid in full (R4, tab 9). 

4. By email dated 11 December 2014, Rawaat filed a notice of appeal, asserting 

that it was awarded the captioned contract and had delivered copper insulation wires but 

had not been paid. The Board thereupon docketed the appeal. 
5. By correspondence to the Board the next day, Rawaat asked the Board to 

direct the contracting officer to issue a final decision (Bd. corr. file). 

6. The government did not file an answer. Instead, by date of20 January 2015, 

moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The government stipulated for purposes of the 

motion only that it awarded the contract to Rawaat (gov't mot. at 2). The government 

argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction because appellant had never submitted a claim 

to the contracting officer (id. at 3). The government also sought a stay of proceedings 

pending a decision on the motion, as the issue of jurisdiction is dispositive (id. at 5). 

7. By date of20 February 2015, the government filed a second motion to dismiss 

for lack of jurisdiction, together with a motion to stay proceedings. The government 

argued in this second motion that the appeal should be dismissed because Al Hujaz was 

the original contractor, not Rawaat. 

DECISION 

"[O]ur [Contract Disputes Act] jurisdiction extends only to appeals by 

contractors." CBI Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 34983, 88-1 BCA, 20,430 at 103,337. 

Under 41 U.S.C. § 7104(a), only a "contractor" may appeal to the Board. The 

definition of a "contractor" is set out in 41 U.S.C. § 7101 (7), which provides that 

"[t]he term 'contractor' means a party to a Federal Government contract other than the 

Federal Government." We have given effect to this statutory limitation in multiple 

contexts. E.g., Binghamton Simulator Co., ASBCA No. 59117, 14-1BCAiJ35,715 

(dismissing subcontractor's appeal for lack of evidence of sponsorship by contractor); 

CBI Services, 88-1BCA,20,430 at 103,337 (holding that the Board lacked 

jurisdiction over appeal by purported assignee); Sheppard's Interior Construction Co., 

ASBCA No. 45902, 97-1BCA,28,744 at 143,471, ajf'd, 152 F.3d 947 (Fed. Cir. 

1998) (table) (holding that substitution of former owner of contractor liquidated in 

bankruptcy would defeat jurisdiction). 

As the proponent of our jurisdiction, Rawaat bears the burden of proving by a 

preponderance of the evidence that it is the "contractor" within 41 U.S.C. § 7101(7). 

On this record, Rawaat has failed to do so. On its face, the contract identifies only 

Al Hujaz as the contractor, with no mention ofRawaat (statement 1). Modification 

No. POOOOl, by which the contract was terminated, refers to the ''vendor, Al-Hujaz" 

(statement 2). Other than uncorroborated assertions by its owner/manager (statement 

4 ), the record contains nothing in any way supporting a contention that Rawaat was 

ever the contractor. 

We accordingly grant the government's motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. Given this disposition, we deny as moot the government's motion to 

2 
dismiss for failure to submit a claim to the contracting officer. We also deny as moot 

the government's motion for a stay of proceedings. 

CONCLUSION 

The government's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is granted. The 

government's motion to dismiss for failure to submit a claim to the contracting officer, 

and the government's motion for a stay of proceedings, are denied as moot. The 

appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

Dated: 19 February 2016 

I concur 

/~~ MARK N. STEMPLER 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

ALEXANDER YO 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I concur 

CKLEFORD 

A ministrative 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. 59735, Appeal ofRawaat 

Algaidaa Co., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

3 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals