Court Opinion

ID: 9929829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-05 15:00:50.981482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:55:48.950628
License: Public Domain

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
    Appeal of -                                     )
                                                    )
    MTS General Trading & Construction 1            )   ASBCA No. 63521
                                                    )
    Under Contract No. W56KGZ-15-A-6000             )

    APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:                        Abathar N. Alkudari, Esq.
                                                          At Law Group, PLLC
                                                          Dearborn, MI

    APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:                      Dana J. Chase, Esq.
                                                          Army Chief Trial Attorney
                                                         CPT Jules L. Szanton, JA
                                                          Trial Attorney

                   OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ARNETT
                   ON THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
                           FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

       MTS General Trading & Construction (appellant or MTS) filed an appeal from
the denial of its claim involving unpaid invoices arising from orders against a Blanket
Purchase Agreement (BPA) issued by the U.S. Army (the government or the Army).
The government has moved to dismiss this appeal pursuant to Rule 7(b). The
government asserts that the Board lacks jurisdiction to address this appeal because the
claim was not certified by any contractor in privity with the government (gov’t mot.
at 5). The government notes that the contractor’s name on the claim differs from the
name on the contract and asserts that this certification “defect” cannot be corrected (id.
at 6). Appellant contends that its name, MTS, remains unchanged and variations in its
name arise from the use of suffixes to reflect a company’s business activities
consistent with Iraqi contract law (app. opp’n at 10).

      Because we find the claim was submitted and certified by the same legal entity
and corporate officer identified in the BPA and orders issued under the BPA, the
government’s motion is denied.

1
    In accordance with this decision, appellant’s name in this appeal is changed to MTS General
          Trading & Construction to be consistent with its name on most of the orders issued
          under the BPA and its registration in SAM.gov.
                                                1
        STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION

        1. On May 17, 2015, the government awarded BPA No. W56KGZ-15-6000 to
MTS General Trading Co. and listed Cage Code 2 SXD00 as an identifier for the
contractor (R4, tab 1 at 1). Under the BPA, the government could place call orders for
the provision of material-handling equipment in Erbil, Iraq (id. at 1, 3-7). The BPA
listed Zrar Abbas on the second line of the contractor’s name and identified Zrar
Mohammed Ameen Abbas Gardi as the CEO of MTS (id. at 1, 3).

       2. From May 2015 through December 2017, the government issued dozens of
orders under the BPA. Each identified the contractor as MTS General Trading
Company 3 or MTS General Trading & Construction, listed Zrar Abbas, and referenced
Cage Code SXD00. (R4, tabs 30-126)

        3. On October 6, 2022, the government notified MTS that its registration in
SAM.gov 4 had expired and it could not be paid without an active registration (R4,
tab 18 at 115). The government’s Rule 4 file includes a screenshot of an expired
registration in SAM.gov for MTS General Trading & Construction, Cage Code
SXD00 (R4, tab 27 at 1). A current search of SAM.gov indicates an active registration
for MTS General Trading & Construction in Erbil, Iraq, Cage Code SXD00, and
identifies Zrar Abbas as the General Manager. It lists the corporate website as
https://mtscompany.net.

       4. On October 11, 2022, a claim from “MTS General Trade and contracting”
was certified by Zirar Mohamed Ameen as MTS Executive Manager and submitted to
the government (R4, tab 28 at 1). The claim letterhead listed “MTS Group: General
Trading and Contracting Travel and Tourism, Cargo Express and Technology” at the
top and “MTS General Contracting” at the bottom and referenced NCAGE Code
SXD00 (id.). The claim subject line stated, “W56KGZ-15-A-6000 contract unpaid
invoices” (id.).

2
  A Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code is a five-character alpha-numeric
        identifier assigned by the Defense Logistics Agency as a standardized means of
        identifying legal entities located in the United States and its territories. For entities
        located outside of the US and its territories, a North Atlantic Treaty Organization
        Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) code is assigned. The terms CAGE
        code and NCAGE code appear to be used interchangeably.
3
  The first thirty-eight orders identify the contractor as MTS General Trading Company; the
        remaining balance identify the contractor as MTS General Trading & Construction
        (R4, tabs 30-126).
4
  SAM.gov is an official government database/website managed by the U.S. General Services
        Administration for entities engaged in or seeking federal contracting opportunities.
                                                2
        5. On October 27, 2022, the contracting officer issued to MTS General
Contracting a final decision which denied the October 11, 2022 claim arising from
BPA No. W56KGZ-15-A-6000 (R4, tab 20 at 1-2). Throughout the decision, the
contracting officer referred to the contractor as “MTS” (id.). The final decision was
sent to Zirar Abbas via email at zirar_mts@yahoo.com (R4, tabs 21-24).

       6. Appellant submitted plausible information indicating its legal name as
registered in Iraq is “MTS” and explaining a practice in Iraq whereby a business may
“update” its registration to reflect its business activities resulting in variations of the
suffix of its name (app. opp’n, ex. A at 1, ex. B at 1).

      7. We find that MTS General Trading Co. which executed the BPA, MTS
General Trading & Construction which performed numerous orders under the BPA,
and MTS General Contracting which submitted the certified claim are all associated
with CAGE Code SXD00 and appear to be the same legal entity.

        8. Appellant submitted plausible information indicating that the person
identified as Zrar Abbas, Zirar Abbas, Zirar Mohammed Ameen, and Zrar Mohammed
Ameen Abbas Gardi in the BPA, orders, and claim documents are the same person
(app. opp’n, ex. A at 1-2, ex. B at 1). The claim was certified by Zirar Mohamed
Ameen who is identified as the CEO/Executive Manager of MTS (R4, tab 1 at 1,
tab 28; app. opp’n ex. A at 1). Thus, we find that the claim was certified by an
authorized representative of appellant.

      9. On January 25, 2023, the Board received notice from “MTS General Trading
and Construction” (Cage Code SXD00) of its intent to appeal the contracting officer’s
October 27, 2022 final decision denying its claim. The appeal was docketed as
ASBCA No. 63521 in the name of MTS General Contracting.

                                        DECISION

        The government contends that appellant failed to certify the claim “under its
own name” and that the lack of certification deprives the Board of jurisdiction (gov’t
mot. at 2). Appellant asserts that its name is “MTS,” that variation of its name to
describe its business activities is typical under Iraqi contract law, and that it properly
certified the claim at issue in this appeal (app. opp’n at 4, 12).

       As the proponent of the Board's jurisdiction, appellant bears the burden of
establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Najmaa Alshimal Co.,
ASBCA No. 62701, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,872 at 183,899; see also K-Con Bldg. Sys., Inc. v.
United States, 778 F.3d 1000, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “The facts supporting
jurisdiction are subject to our fact-finding upon a review of the record.” CCIE & Co.,
ASBCA Nos. 58355, 59008, 14-1 BCA ¶ 35,700 at 174,816 (citing Raytheon Missile

                                             3
Sys., ASBCA No. 58011, 13-1 BCA ¶ 35,241 at 173,016).

       Under the Contract Disputes Act (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). The CDA defines a contractor as “a
party to a Federal Government contract other than the Federal Government.” 41 U.S.C.
§ 7101(7). For claims exceeding $100,000, the contractor must certify that:

              (A) the claim is made in good faith;
              (B) the supporting data are accurate and complete to the
              best of the contractor’s knowledge and belief;
              (C) the amount requested accurately reflects the contract
              adjustment for which the contractor believes the Federal
              Government is liable; and
              (D) the certifier is authorized to certify the claim on behalf
              of the contractor.

41 U.S.C. § 7103(b); see FAR 2.101 (definition of a claim)

       The certification may be executed by an individual authorized to bind the
contractor with respect to the claim. 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(2). Certification is a
“jurisdictional prerequisite that must be satisfied by the contractor before it may appeal
the contracting officer’s claim denial.” Tefirom Insaat Enerji Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.,
ASBCA No. 56667, 11-1 BCA ¶ 34,628 at 170,630. While a defective certification
does not deprive the Board of jurisdiction, 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(3), the complete
absence of a certification is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be corrected. Al Rafideen
Co., ASBCA No. 59156, 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,983 at 175,808.

        With respect to a contractor’s name, the Board has held that minor
discrepancies between the documents creating the contractor, the contracts as awarded,
the certified claim, and the notice of appeal do not deprive the Board of jurisdiction.
Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. & the Boeing Co., ASBCA No. 59561, 15-1 BCA ¶
36,111 at 176,289-90, 176,293. Furthermore, we have found that the entity identified
in the claim as the contractor was, in fact, a party to the BPA and orders awarded
under the BPA (SOF ¶ 7). Once an order is placed under a BPA, a contract is created
with respect to that order. See Hewlett-Packard Co., ASBCA Nos. 57940, 57941, 13-
1 BCA ¶ 35,366 at 173,551. Thus, we conclude that appellant submitted a claim
against the government relating to contracts arising under the BPA. We have also
found that the claim was certified by an authorized representative of appellant (SOF ¶
8).

       To remain consistent with the CDA requirement that the “contractor” file the
appeal, we construe this appeal as having been brought in the name of MTS General

                                            4
  Trading & Construction and treat MTS General Trading Co., MTS General Trading &
  Construction, MTS General Trade and contracting, and MTS General Contracting as
  different names for the same entity. See Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. & the Boeing
  Co., ASBCA No. 59561, 15-1 BCA ¶ 36,111 at 176,293.

                                        CONCLUSION

            For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is denied.

            Dated: January 22, 2024

                                                       LAURA J. ARNETT
                                                       Administrative Judge
                                                       Armed Services Board
                                                       of Contract Appeals

 I concur                                              I concur

 OWEN C. WILSON                                        MICHAEL N. O’CONNELL
 Administrative Judge                                  Administrative Judge
 Acting Chairman                                       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 No. 63521, Appeal of MTS
General Trading & Construction, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

      Dated: January 22, 2024

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

                                                5