Court Opinion

ID: 9956150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-01 13:01:14.141387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:13.703042
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2143     Document: 47    Page: 1   Filed: 03/27/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

        BCC-UIPROJECTS-ZAAZTC TEAM JV,
                   Appellant

                             v.

                SECRETARY OF THE ARMY,
                          Appellee
                   ______________________

                         2022-2143
                   ______________________

     Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Ap-
 peals in No. 62846, Administrative Judge J. Reid Prouty,
 Administrative Judge Michael N. O’Connell, Administra-
 tive Judge Richard Shackleford.
                  ______________________

                  Decided: March 27, 2024
                  ______________________

    PATRICK BERNARD KERNAN, Kernan and Associates
 Law Group, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant.

     DANIEL B. VOLK, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by BRIAN
 M. BOYNTON, WILLIAM JAMES GRIMALDI, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________
Case: 22-2143    Document: 47      Page: 2    Filed: 03/27/2024

 2 BCC-UIPROJECTS-ZAAZTC TEAM JV v. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

   Before PROST, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
 PROST, Circuit Judge.
      BCC-UIProjects-ZAAZTC Team JV (“B-U-Z”) 1 appeals
 an Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) de-
 cision dismissing B-U-Z’s Board appeal. For the reasons
 below, we affirm.
                         BACKGROUND
     B-U-Z was formed for the purpose of bidding on a gov-
 ernment construction contract. The B-U-Z joint-venture
 agreement provided that:
     Both parties agreed to introduce and authorize
     Mr. Ahmad Tariq Barakzai to sign the contract
     on behalf of the joint venture and [he] is authorized
     to sign solicitations, applicable amendments, and
     bind the entire joint venture to its obligation under
     any contract which may result from the solicita-
     tion.
 J.A. 193 (emphasis in original). The agreement was signed
 by Dr. Zahed2 as VP of ZAAZTC and Mr. Barakzai as pres-
 ident of BCC. J.A. 194. In 2011, the government awarded
 B-U-Z the solicited contract and, as contemplated by the
 joint-venture agreement, the contract between the govern-
 ment and B-U-Z was signed by Mr. Barakzai. J.A. 107

     1   Behnam Construction Company (“BCC”); United
 Infrastructure Projects (“UIP”); Zamarai Ali Ahmad Zada
 General Trading and Construction Company (“ZAAZTC”).
     2   We have adopted the Board’s convention of refer-
 ring to “Dr. Zahed” with the same spelling throughout,
 while likewise noting that there are some spelling varia-
 tions across the documents. See J.A. 3 n.4; see also J.A. 194
 (“Dr. Wahid Zahedi”); J.A. 202 (“Dr. Wahidullah Zhed”);
 J.A. 2448 (“Dr. Wahidullah Zahed”).
Case: 22-2143    Document: 47      Page: 3    Filed: 03/27/2024

 BCC-UIPROJECTS-ZAAZTC TEAM JV v. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY     3

 (Name and Title of Contractor or Person Authorized: Ah-
 mad Tariq Barakzai/Team President).
     On July 17, 2014, the contracting officer received a “re-
 quest for equitable adjustment (REA)” that generally
 sought compensation for “delay days” and “differing site
 condition[s].” J.A. 2444. The REA was signed “Dr. Wa-
 hidullah Zahed . . . Vice President . . . BCC-ZAAZTC.”
 J.A. 2448.
     On March 23, 2015, Mr. Barakzai sent a letter to the
 contracting officer that stated, “only Mr. Ahmad Tariq Bar-
 akzai has the legal rights to enter into contractual negoti-
 ations and/or claims with [United States Army Corps of
 Engineers] USACE and claims submitted to USACE by
 BCC-ZAAZTC JV-UIP Team officials and not signed by
 Mr. Ahmad Tariq shall be immediately dismiss[]ed by
 USACE.” J.A. 189. It further stated that any other indi-
 vidual submitting claims related to the contract “has no le-
 gal authority to do so.” Id.
      Subsequently, another correspondence titled “[r]equest
 for [e]quitable [a]djustment” and dated May 27, 2015, was
 sent to the contracting officer. J.A. 199–202. Like the July
 2014 REA—which Mr. Barakzai indicated was unauthor-
 ized and should be dismissed—this request was also signed
 “Dr. Wahidullah      Z[a]hed . . . Vice  President . . . BCC-
 ZAAZTC.” J.A. 202.
     USACE sent Mr. Barakzai two emails inquiring about
 whether anything had changed since his March 23, 2015
 letter. J.A. 2517–18. The emails explained that the con-
 tracting officer had received a May 2015 request signed by
 Dr. Zahed. Id. Based on Mr. Barakzai’s earlier letter,
 USACE reiterated its understanding that “USACE is to not
 accept such [an] REA or claim.” J.A. 2518. However, the
 emails generally provided Mr. Barakzai with an oppor-
 tunity to indicate that the May 2015 request was author-
 ized or to authorize it. J.A. 2518. Mr. Barakzai responded
 by stating that “[t]he REA has been submitted to USACE
Case: 22-2143    Document: 47      Page: 4    Filed: 03/27/2024

 4 BCC-UIPROJECTS-ZAAZTC TEAM JV v. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

 by unauthorized parties without Mr. Ahmad Tariq Bar-
 akzai’s consent.” J.A. 2517.
     In 2021, B-U-Z appealed from what it termed “the con-
 tracting officer’s deemed denial” of its 2015 claim. 3
 J.A. 104. The Board dismissed B-U-Z’s appeal on several
 alternative grounds. Relevant for our disposition, the
 Board concluded that (1) B-U-Z had not submitted a claim
 because neither REA was submitted by someone with au-
 thority to bind the joint venture and (2) even assuming that
 Dr. Zahed had authority to submit claims on behalf of
 B-U-Z, Mr. Barakzai, who was undisputedly authorized to
 bind the joint venture, had withdrawn those claims. See
 J.A. 11–15.
     B-U-Z timely appealed to this court. We have jurisdic-
 tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(10).
                         DISCUSSION
      We review the Board’s decisions on questions of law de
 novo. 41 U.S.C. § 7107(b)(1). The Board’s jurisdiction un-
 der the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) presents a question
 of law. Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572, 1575 (Fed.
 Cir. 1995) (en banc). The interpretation of a government
 contract is also a question of law. Triple Canopy, Inc. v.
 Sec’y of Air Force, 14 F.4th 1332, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
     “As a prerequisite for the Board’s jurisdiction, the CDA
 requires a contractor to present a valid claim over which
 the contracting officer has rendered a final decision.” Par-
 sons Glob. Servs., Inc. ex rel. Odell Int’l, Inc. v. McHugh,
 677 F.3d 1166, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The CDA itself

     3   Since we conclude that any submitted claim was
 unauthorized and withdrawn, communications from the
 contracting officer that might be considered as part of a de-
 nial or timing-of-denial analysis are unimportant for our
 purposes, so they have not been discussed.
Case: 22-2143     Document: 47     Page: 5    Filed: 03/27/2024

 BCC-UIPROJECTS-ZAAZTC TEAM JV v. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY      5

 contemplates that claims are “by a contractor.” 41 U.S.C.
 § 7103(a)(1), (a)(2). Section 7101(7) defines “contractor,” as
 used in chapter 71, as “a party to a Federal Government
 contract other than the Federal Government.”
      Here, the Board concluded that because the contracting
 officer was never presented with a request for decision by
 a contractor, there was no claim under the CDA. We agree
 that the requests Dr. Zahed submitted to the contracting
 officer were not requests by B-U-Z. 4 As a result, we do not
 reach the parties arguments about whether the REAs were
 requests for final decisions or whether the Board properly
 dismissed the claims as untimely.
     There is no dispute that the only contractor here was
 B-U-Z. The only question is whether REAs submitted by
 Dr. Zahed were requests by B-U-Z. We agree with the
 Board that Dr. Zahed was not authorized by the joint-ven-
 ture agreement to submit claims on behalf of B-U-Z. Thus,
 his submissions to the contracting officer were not B-U-Z’s
 claims or requests.
     B-U-Z argues that the Board incorrectly concluded that
 Dr. Zahed did not have authority to submit claims under
 the joint-venture agreement. Further, B-U-Z argues that
 the claims were authorized because BCC and ZAAZTC sent

     4   In general, B-U-Z’s briefing appears to
 acknowledge that there is a distinction between the issue
 of whether a claim was submitted by a contractor and the
 issue of whether a claim contains a compliant CDA certifi-
 cation. Nonetheless, B-U-Z argues that, “to the extent that
 the Board found” a certification defect, “this defect can be
 cured and does not divest the Board of jurisdiction.” Ap-
 pellant’s Br. 17. We agree with the Board that its determi-
 nation that a claim was not submitted by the contractor is
 distinct from a determination that the claim’s certification
 contained a technical defect. J.A. 11 n.16.
Case: 22-2143     Document: 47     Page: 6    Filed: 03/27/2024

 6 BCC-UIPROJECTS-ZAAZTC TEAM JV v. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

 their settlement agreement to the contracting officer.
 These arguments are unpersuasive.
     First, we agree with the Board that the best reading of
 the joint-venture agreement is that it granted Mr. Bar-
 akzai sole authority to bind the joint venture, which in-
 cluded sole authority to bring claims on behalf of the joint
 venture.
     The Board correctly determined that the contract pro-
 vision broadly authorizing Mr. Barakzai to sign the con-
 tract, solicitations, and applicable amendments as well as
 to “bind the entire joint venture to its obligation under any
 contract which may result from the solicitation” encom-
 passed an authorization to submit claims, even though
 claim submission was not explicitly enumerated. J.A. 12–
 13 (quoting J.A. 193).
     Next, we agree with the Board that this grant of au-
 thority to Mr. Barakzai was to the exclusion of others.
 J.A. 13. B-U-Z argues that Dr. Zahed had authority be-
 cause, as a default matter, each member of a joint venture
 can act on the joint venture’s behalf. However, this default
 rule serves to reinforce the conclusion that the contract lan-
 guage at issue granted Mr. Barakzai exclusive authority.
 Under B-U-Z’s reading, the clause would simply indicate
 authority Mr. Barakzai already had by virtue of his role as
 BCC’s president—authority that unlisted others would
 share—without having any other effect. This would render
 the clause superfluous. “A reasonable interpretation must
 ‘assure that no contract provision is made inconsistent, su-
 perfluous, or redundant.’” Medlin Constr. Grp., Ltd. v.
 Harvey, 449 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Lock-
 heed Martin IR Imaging Sys., Inc. v. West, 108 F.3d 319,
 322 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Here, the most reasonable interpre-
 tation of the authority provision is that it gave Mr. Bar-
 akzai sole authority.
     Regardless, even if B-U-Z were correct that the con-
 tract’s grant of authority is non-exclusive, the result would
Case: 22-2143    Document: 47      Page: 7    Filed: 03/27/2024

 BCC-UIPROJECTS-ZAAZTC TEAM JV v. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY     7

 be the same. Mr. Barakzai was authorized to bind the joint
 venture and B-U-Z does not contend that Mr. Barakzai was
 not authorized to request dismissal or withdraw claims.
 Mr. Barakzai expressly indicated that both requests from
 Dr. Zahed were unauthorized and instructed the contract-
 ing officer to dismiss any requests Mr. Barakzai did not
 submit himself. See J.A. 189; J.A. 2517. We agree with the
 Board that irrespective of Dr. Zahed’s authority in the first
 instance, Mr. Barakzai’s authorized communications “ef-
 fectively withdr[ew] both REAs.” J.A. 14.
     Finally, the mere submission of BCC’s and ZAAZTC’s
 settlement agreement to the contracting officer did not
 serve to retroactively authorize or resubmit the withdrawn
 claims by an authorized party. As B-U-Z recognizes, the
 settlement agreement between the parties did not mention
 authority. See Appellant’s Br. 15. This agreement did not
 purport to alter the authority clause or submit a new claim.
 Instead, the settlement agreement indicated that the par-
 ties resolved an internal dispute about how proceeds, if
 any, from a claim “[ZAAZTC] covenant[ed] and agree[d]
 that it has submitted” would be divided. J.A. 275 (empha-
 sis added). Further, both entities agreed to dissolve the
 joint venture. J.A. 275. The Board correctly concluded
 that the submission of this agreement did not change the
 nature of the earlier claims, which were unauthorized and
 withdrawn.
                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered B-U-Z’s remaining arguments and
 find them unpersuasive. For the reasons provided, we af-
 firm the Board’s dismissal of B-U-Z’s appeal for lack of ju-
 risdiction.
                        AFFIRMED