ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Mansoor International Development ) 

Services ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W91B4N-11-D-7011 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 58423 

Terry L. Elling, Esq. 

Thomas M. Brownell, Esq. 

Holland & Knight LLP 

McLean, VA 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

Erica S. Beardsley, Esq. 

MAJ Raymond Adams, JA 

Trial Attorneys 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MELNICK 

ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 

Appellant, Mansoor International Development Services (MIDS), had a contract 

for trucking services in Afghanistan. In March 2012, the government issued a letter 

indicating the termination of the contract for cause, without providing the complete 

notification of rights required by FAR 33.21 l(a)(4)(v). In September 2012, the 

government issued modifications to the contract, terminating the contract for cause and 

including an explanation of appeal rights. MIDS filed a notice of appeal within 90 days 

of the modifications, but more than 90 days after the March letter. The government 

moves to dismiss the appeal as time barred. We deny the motion. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 

1. On 16 August 2011, the Bagram Regional Contracting Center awarded 

Contract No. W91B4N-11-D-7011 to MIDS, effective 12 August 2011 (R4, tab 2). The 

contract was for trucking services in Afghanistan (R4, tab 2 at 159; compl. ~ 3). It 

incorporated FAR 52.212-4, CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS - COMMERCIAL ITEMS 

(JUN 2010) (R4, tab 2 at 168). 

2. On 31March2012, the contracting officer issued NAT 0234, a "NOTICE OF 

TERMINATION FOR CAUSE OF CONTRACT W91B4N-11-D-7011; AND TASK 
ORDER W91B4N-11-D-7011-0002; AND TASK ORDER W91B4N-11-D-7011-0002-0003" 

(R4, tab 245; compl. ilil 4, 21). The document states that: 

1. The purpose of this letter is to notify your company that [the 

identified contract and task orders] will be terminated in their 

entirety in accordance with contract clause 52.212-4(m). 

The termination is effective immediately upon completion of 

the final outstanding mission, currently being pe[r]formed 

under the contract. 

(R4, tab 245 at 2774) The document provides grounds for the termination, followed by 

the following statements: 

3. No further missions will be issued to your company under 

the referenced task orders or contract. Your company is 

responsible for completing all transportation missions that 

are currently in progress. Those missions shall be 

completed within the terms and conditions of the contract. 

Upon completion of the final outstanding mission, your 

company's right to proceed under this contract is 

terminated. 

4. A final invoice shall be provided to the government within 

thirty days after completion of the final mission. The final 

invoice shall include all outstanding missions which have 

not been previously invoiced and shall be suitable for final 

payment. 

6. This termination constitutes the Contracting Officer's 

final decision. Your company has the right to appeal such 

decision under the Disputes clause. 

8. This notice constitutes a decision that your company is in 

default as specified. Your company has the right to appeal 

under the disputes clause. 

(R4, tab 245 at 2776-77) MIDS acknowledged receiving the letter on 31 March 2012 

(R4, tab 246). 

2 
After the contracting officer issued the 31 March letter to MIDS, various 

correspondence followed between the parties, including emails from 28 July and 

1 August, where MIDS explained that it understood the contract had been terminated in 

March but indicated it believed that it had 90 days from final invoice to close out the 

contract and was trying to do so. On the same date, the contract specialist referred to an 

"impending Final termination for the MIDS contract." (R4, tabs 284-85) 

3. On 1 September 2012, the contracting officer executed Modification 

No. POOOlO of the contract. In its "SUMMARY OF CHANGES," the modification 

included the following language: 

1. Your right to proceed further under this contract is hereby 

terminated pursuant to the authority of FAR 52.2124(m) [sic] 

effective 31 March 2012. As a result of this termination, the 

Government shall not be liable to [MIDS] for any amount for 

supplies or services not accepted, and the Government is not 

liable for any costs incurred by this termination. Your 

company was notified of this termination on 31 March 2012. 

3. This is the final decision of the Contracting Officer. You 

may appeal this decision to the agency board of contract 

appeals. If you decide to appeal, you must, within 90 days 

from the date you receive this decision, mail or otherwise 

furnish written notice to the agency board of contract appeals 

and provide a copy to the Contracting Officer from whose 

decision this appeal is taken. 

The modification also described what should be contained in the notice of appeal, 

provided notice of the Board's small claims and accelerated procedures, and of MIDS' 

right to elect the alternative forum provided by the United States Court of Federal Claims 

within 12 months of receipt. (R4, tab 293) Similar modifications were issued for Task 

Orders 0001through0003 (R4, tabs 294-96). 

4. On 29 November 2012, the Board received a notice of appeal from MIDS. The 

notice stated: 

This letter gives formal notice that MIDS pursuant to the 

Contract Disputes Act. . .is appealing the final decision to 

terminate for default of the Contracting Officer ... dated 

31 March 2012, and of the September 1, 2012 modification 

and correction of that final decision which included required 

3 
clauses absent in the initial letter and extended the time for 

appeal with an additional 90 days .... 

The notice of appeal, and complaint filed the same day, requested conversion of the 

termination for cause to a termination for convenience. 

5. On 17 September 2013, the Board issued an order to the parties seeking 

commentary about whether this appeal was timely filed within 90 days of MIDS' receipt 

of the 31 March letter under 41 U.S.C. § 7104(a). The government responded with a 

motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. MIDS opposed, contending that the 

31 March letter was not a proper termination because it did not contain the explanation of 

MIDS' appeal rights required by FAR 33.21 l(a)(4)(v). 

6. After considering the parties' positions, the Board issued another order on 

22 May 2014, seeking briefing about whether the contracting officer's 31 March letter 

constituted a notification of intention to terminate rather than an actual termination. The 

Board also sought briefing about the effect of second decisions upon the time period for 

appeal and whether any of the communications between the parties constituted 

reconsideration of a decision by the contracting officer. That briefing is now complete. 

DECISION 

Under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C §§ 7101-7109, the Board may 

only exercise jurisdiction over an appeal filed "within 90 days from the date of receipt of a 

contracting officer's decision." 41 U.S.C. § 7104(a); see Medina Contracting Co., ASBCA 

No. 53783, 02-2 BCA ii 31,979 at 158,020. The government contends that the contracting 

officer's 31 March 2012 letter was a proper contracting officer's decision terminating the 

contract for cause. Accordingly, it contends MIDS' 29 November 2012 appeal from that 

decision is untimely and should be dismissed. MIDS counters that the 31 March 2012 

letter was merely a notice of intent to terminate and therefore not a proper termination for 

cause. Additionally, it was an incomplete final decision because it did not contain the 

language notifying MIDS of its appeal rights required by FAR 33.21 l(a)(4)(v) and 

appellant was prejudiced thereby. MIDS argues that only the 1 September 2012 contract 

modifications contain the required notices and that its 29 November 2012 notice of appeal 

was filed within 90 days of receiving them. 

There is a significant question as to whether the 31 March 2012 letter was 

intended to immediately terminate the contract for cause or merely notify MIDS of an 

intention to do so in the future. Favoring notification of future intent is the fact that the 

letter informed MIDS that it would be terminated upon completion of its final mission 

and that it "is responsible for completing all transportation missions that are currently in 

progress." Also, the government subsequently referred to an impending final 

termination. Favoring immediate termination is the letter's statement that MIDS is in 

4 
default, that "[t]his termination constitutes the Contracting Officer's final decision" and 

that MIDS "has the right to appeal under the disputes clause." There is also MIDS' 

admission that the contract was terminated in March 2012. (SOF ~ 2) However, even 

assuming arguendo that the 31 March 2012 letter otherwise constituted a valid final 

decision, because it lacked the required language notifying MIDS of its appeal rights, and 

prejudiced MIDS ability to prosecute a timely appeal, the 90-day period for appealing to 

this Board was suspended until the contracting officer cured it by issuing the 1 September 

2012 decision. 

Under the CDA, a "contracting officer's decision shall .. .inform the contractor of 

the contractor's rights as provided in this chapter." 41 U.S.C. § 7103(e). FAR 

33.21 l(a)(4)(v) governs the notifications to be placed in contracting officer final 

decisions, and requires language substantially as follows: 

This is the final decision of the Contracting Officer. 

You may appeal this decision to the agency board of contract 

appeals. If you decide to appeal, you must, within 90 days 

from the date you receive this decision, mail or otherwise 

furnish written notice to the agency board of contract appeals 

and provide a copy to the Contracting Officer from whose 

decision this appeal is taken. The notice shall indicate that an 

appeal is intended, reference this decision, and identify the 

contract by number. 

With regard to appeals to the agency board of contract 

appeals, you may, solely at your election, proceed under the 

board's -

(1) Small claim procedure for claims of $50,000 or 

less or, in the case of a small business concern (as defined in 

the Small Business Act and regulations under that Act), 

$150,000 or less; or 

(2) Accelerated procedure for claims of $100,000 or 

less. 

Instead of appealing to the agency board of contract 

appeals, you may bring an action directly in the United States 

Court of Federal Claims (except as provided in the Contract 

Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 603, regarding Maritime 

Contracts) within 12 months of the date you receive this 

decision .... 

5 
The 31 March 2012 letter did not in any manner describe those appeal and judicial review 

rights and the time limits for pursuing them. 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the 

implications of a defective termination notice in Decker & Co. v. West, 76 F .3d 1573 

(Fed. Cir. 1996). There, the contracting officer's decision terminating a contract for 

default incorrectly informed the contractor that it could challenge the termination in the 

United States Court of Federal Claims within 12 months when in fact, at that time, the 

Court of Federal Claims had no jurisdiction over pure default terminations. This Board 

ruled that because the notice was defective it did not trigger the 90-day filing 

requirement, regardless of whether the contractor had relied upon it. The court of appeals 

reversed. It stated that nothing in the CDA "prevents the Board ... from requiring 

contractors seeking to avoid an otherwise proper time bar on the basis of a defect in the 

notice of appeal rights to demonstrate detrimental reliance on that defect." Id. at 1579. 

Thus, ifthe contractor's actions are unaffected by the defect, "[t]he notice ... continues to 

be an effective Contracting Officer's decision under [the CDA] with respect to triggering 

the limitation period." Id. at 1579-80. It is the contractor's burden to demonstrate that 

the defective notice "prejudiced its ability to prosecute its timely appeal before the 

limitation period will be held not to have begun." Id. at 1580. Since Decker, when 

confronted with contracting officer decisions that only advise the contractor that it may 

appeal under the Disputes clause, omitting additional details of its rights, the Board has 

required the contractor to prove it was actually prejudiced by the omission, or that the 

contractor detrimentally relied upon it, to avoid the 90-day limitation period. Am. 

Renovation & Construction Co., ASBCA No. 54039, 03-2 BCA ~ 32,296 at 159,804; 

Medina Contracting, 02-2 BCA ~ 31,979 at 158,020-21. 

In its filing responding to the Board's 17 September 2013 order, and the 

government's motion to dismiss, MIDS essentially ignored Decker by suggesting that a 

defect in the notice required by the FAR was categorically prejudicial. In a surreply, 

MIDS (by prior counsel) suggested for the first time that it was not familiar with the 

appeal process, but failed to present any affidavits or declarations supporting that 

assertion. Mere argument by MIDS' counsel is not evidence. Stewart & Stevenson 

Servs., Inc., ASBCA No. 43631, 98-1 BCA ~ 29,653 at 146,926. Only after MIDS 

retained its current counsel and it filed its response to the Board's 22 May 2014 order did 

it file an affidavit from its CEO, Yousuf Mansoor. Mr. Mansoor testified that MIDS 

understood the 31 March 2012 letter to mean no more missions would be awarded, MIDS 

was to complete existing missions, and it was to complete its billings. He explained that 

at the time of the termination MIDS had no personnel experienced in administration of 

government contracts and stated that "MiDS had neither specific nor general knowledge 

of the time limits imposed upon it for appealing to this Board as of the time it received 

the Notice of Termination, or for many months thereafter." Instead, MIDS "understood 

and believed that any time limits flowed from the completion of the contract close out 

process, including the completing of outstanding missions and submission of final 

6 
invoices and claims." He closed by reiterating that "[w]e did not understand our appeal 

rights and obligations and MiDs was prejudiced by the failure of the Contracting Officer 

in March to explicitly recite them." (App. hr. dtd. 22 July 2014, Mansoor aff. ~~ 5, 8, 9, 

15, 16) 

The government contends that Mr. Mansoor's affidavit is too late because MIDS 

filed it after the parties completed briefing the government's motion to dismiss the appeal 

and while responding to the Board's 22 May 2014 order about the nature of the 31 March 

2012 letter. We reject that suggestion. No inflexible rules bar us from receiving 

Mr. Mansoor's affidavit after a certain date. Indeed, we commenced this inquiry 

ourselves with the intent to find the truth. It is clear that MIDS' new counsel thought to 

obtain the affidavit from Mr. Mansoor to address MIDS' knowledge of its appeal rights. 

It is relevant and we accept it. 

The government also contends that MIDS was not prejudiced by the absence of 

information in the 31 March 2012 decision about the extent of its appeal rights because 

the decision noted MIDS could appeal it. The government says that reference should 

have prompted MIDS to seek clarification about the rest of its rights. However, Decker 

does not permit the contracting officer to shift to the contractor responsibility to 

determine all of its appeal rights so long as the final decision mentions that the contractor 

can appeal. If that was the case, then FAR 33.21 l(a)(4)(v)'s requirement for extensive 

explanation about the time and place for appeal or suit would be reduced to "you may 

appeal this decision." 

Here, MIDS did not understand its appeal rights, or know of the time limits for 

appealing to the Board, when it received the 31March2012 letter. Instead, it believed 

that time limits flowed from the completion of the contract close out process, which it 

was still attempting to pursue as late as August 2012. The government says these facts 

are inadequate to conclude MIDS was prejudiced by the government's omissions in the 

31 March letter because MIDS has not said it would have filed an appeal within 90 days 

had it been given a full explanation of its rights. However, MIDS should have been given 

that information to allow it to make a timely, informed choice about an appeal. Where it 

lacked the knowledge itself, the government's failure to provide it prejudiced MIDS. 

MIDS' interest in appealing is revealed by the fact that it did just that within 90 days of 

receiving the 1 September termination notice containing its full appeal rights. 1 

1 Given this ruling, we do not address the other issues raised in our 22 May 2014 order. 

7 
CONCLUSION 

The government's motion to dismiss is denied. 

Dated: 4 September 2014 

I concur 

~~ Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

~t.£2.L/ MARK A. MELNICK 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I concur 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

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. 58423, Appeal ofMansoor 

International Development Services, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

8 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals