Court Opinion

ID: 9940315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 22:00:25.121866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:45.070920
License: Public Domain

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
 Appeals of -                                         )
                                                      )
 Dashti Sanat Logistics and General Contracting       )    ASBCA Nos. 63525, 63643
                                                      )
 Under Contract No. W56KGZ-17-A-6014                  )

 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:                             Salma William Saikaly, Esq.
                                                            Law Offices of Salma William Saikaly
                                                            Willoughby Hills, OH

 APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:                           Dana J. Chase, Esq.
                                                            Army Chief Trial Attorney
                                                           CPT Natalie W. McKiernan, JA
                                                           MAJ Bruce Nessler, JA
                                                            Trial Attorneys

                 OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WILSON
                 ON THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

       The United States Army (Army or government) moves to dismiss ASBCA
No. 63525 for lack of jurisdiction and requests to proceed on the matter under only
ASBCA No. 63643. Dashti Sanat Logistics and General Contracting (Dashti or
appellant) has indicated that it does not oppose the motion. For the reasons stated
below, we grant the government’s motion.

       STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION

   1. On March 8, 2017, the Army issued Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA)
No. W56KGZ-17-A-6014 to Dashti for the leasing of non-tactical vehicles (NTVs) in
northern Iraq (R4, tab 1; gov’t mot. at 2 ¶ 4).

    2. On March 25, 2017, the Army issued an order to Dashti for leasing NTVs under
the BPA (R4, tab 3). Dashti acknowledged the order, thereby establishing a
contractual obligation between the parties (gov’t mot. at 2 ¶ 6).

    3. Appellant filed its first notice of appeal on February 2, 2023, asserting that it is
entitled to additional costs due to damages sustained to the returned NTVs, incurred
traffic citations, and NTVs that were not returned following the leasing period. The
Board docketed the appeal as ASBCA No. 63525.
    4. By Order dated March 13, 2023 and following the government’s filing of the
Rule 4 file, the Board, sua sponte, directed the government to locate appellant’s
certified claim.

    5. On March 14, 2023, the government moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction, contending that appellant failed to file a claim with the contracting officer
(gov’t mot. at 1).

    6. In response, on April 2, 2023, appellant stated that it had previously submitted a
claim to the contracting officer on March 19, 2020, and that the claim “went
unanswered [and] was never received by . . . the Contracting Officer.” Appellant then
stated that it resubmitted a certified claim on March 15, 2023, and subsequently moved
to stay proceedings pending a contracting officer’s final decision (COFD) on this
recently submitted claim. (App. mot. at 2) * We find that the record does not
demonstrate that a claim was filed with the contracting officer prior to the February 2,
2023 Notice of Appeal.

    7. By Order dated April 17, 2023, the Board granted appellant’s motion to stay
proceedings to allow for the contracting officer to consider appellant’s resubmitted
claim.

   8. Appellant filed its second notice of appeal on June 27, 2023 following the
COFD, which denied the claim dated March 15, 2023 (R4, tab 182). The Board
docketed the appeal as ASBCA No. 63643 and consolidated it with ASBCA
No. 63525.

   9. On November 9, 2023, the parties jointly elected to proceed with a hearing
pursuant to Board Rule 10 (Bd. corr. ltr. dtd. November 9, 2023).

   10. By Order dated November 20, 2023, the Board directed the government to
confirm its intentions on its motion to dismiss.

    11. On December 4, 2023, the government requested to renew its motion to
dismiss, further requesting, “that the Board dismiss ASBCA No. 63525 for lack of
jurisdiction, leaving only ASBCA No. 63643 before the Board.” The government
stated that the appeals, “arise from the same identical underlying facts and seek the
same relief, except for ASBCA No. 63525’s lack of a claim or COFD.” (Bd. corr. ltr.
dtd. December 4, 2023 at 1)

*
    Appellant filed a motion to stay proceedings, dated April 2, 2023, in response to the
        government’s motion to dismiss.

                                              2
    12. In response, on December 12, 2023, appellant indicated that it does not oppose
the government’s request to dismiss ASBCA No. 63525, thus leaving ASBCA
No. 63643 as the sole appeal remaining before the Board in this matter. Appellant
further agreed with the government that the same issues outlined in ASBCA
No. 63525 can be resolved by litigating only ASBCA No. 63643. (Bd. corr. ltr. dtd.
December 12, 2023)

                                      DECISION

       In the government’s motion to dismiss ASBCA No. 63525, it contends that the
Board lacks jurisdiction due to appellant’s failure to submit a claim to the contracting
officer in accordance with the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) of 1978 (gov’t mot. at 3-4).

       Pursuant to the CDA, “[e]ach claim by a contractor against the Federal
Government relating to a contract shall be submitted to the contracting officer for a
decision.” 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(1). Further, we have held that, “Under the CDA, the
submission of a claim to the contracting officer and a final decision on (or the deemed
denial of) the claim are prerequisites to jurisdiction over contractor claims.” Parsons
Glob. Servs., Inc., ASBCA No. 56731, 11-1 BCA ¶ 34,632 at 170,653 (citing 41
U.S.C. §§ 605(a), (c)(5); Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).

       Here, we conclude that appellant’s notice of appeal in ASBCA No. 63525 did
not originate from a properly submitted claim to the contracting officer for a final
decision in accordance with the CDA. Despite appellant’s statement that it had
previously submitted a claim to the contracting officer on March 19, 2020, appellant
also acknowledged that the contracting officer never received this claim. (SOF ¶ 6)

       Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to entertain ASBCA No. 63525, but agree with
the parties that resolution of ASBCA No. 63643 will address the same issues outlined
in ASBCA No. 63525 (SOF ¶¶ 11-12).

                                           3
                                      CONCLUSION

        The government’s motion is granted. Accordingly, ASBCA No. 63525 is
  dismissed from the Board’s docket without prejudice, and the appeal shall proceed
  under ASBCA No. 63643.

            Dated: January 29, 2024

                                                 OWEN C. WILSON
                                                 Administrative Judge
                                                 Acting Chairman
                                                 Armed Services Board
                                                 of Contract Appeals

 I concur                                          I concur

 MICHAEL N. O’CONNELL                              LAURA J. ARNETT
 Administrative Judge                              Administrative Judge
 Acting Vice Chairman                              Armed Services Board
 Armed Services Board                              of Contract Appeals
 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 Nos. 63525, 63643, Appeals of
Dashti Sanat Logistics and General Contracting, rendered in conformance with the
Board’s Charter.

      Dated: January 30, 2024

                                                PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS
                                                Recorder, Armed Services
                                                Board of Contract Appeals

                                            4