New Iraq Ahd Company ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                  ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
    Appeal of --                                     )
    )
    New Iraq Ahd Company                             )      
    ASBCA No. 58800
    )
    Under Contract No. W91GFB-10-C-5005             )
    APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:                           Mr. Abbas Abed Mohsin
    Owner
    APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:                         Raymond M. Saunders, Esq.
    Army Chief Trial Attorney
    CPT Vera A. Strebel, JA
    Trial Attorney
    OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE STEMPLER
    ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
    New Iraq Ahd Company moves for reconsideration of our decision in New Iraq
    1
    Ahd Company, 
    ASBCA No. 58800
    , 14-1BCAii35,479. We dismissed the appeal
    without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction for failure to certify in accordance with the
    Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), 
    41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109
    . The government
    opposes the motion.
    DECISION
    The Board routinely corresponds with party representatives located in Iraq and
    Afghanistan by email due to the difficulties of communicating by mail in those countries.
    Taj Al Rajaa Company, 
    ASBCA No. 58801
    , slip op. at 1 n.1 (26 March 2014). By
    administrative error, the Board's 18 December 2013 decision appellant seeks to have
    reconsidered was not sent to appellant. Upon receipt of appellant's 4 February 2014
    email requesting the status of the appeal, the Board became aware of this error and sent
    appellant a copy of the decision by email of the same date, explaining the mistake.
    Appellant emailed the Board on 7 February 2014, objecting to the decision and
    demanding reconsideration. The email did not contain any reasons appellant was
    alleging that should cause the Board to reconsider its decision. Board Rule 29 states:
    A motion for reconsideration may be filed by either
    party. It shall set forth specifically the grounds relied upon to
    1
    Judge Grant who participated in the decision has since retired.
    sustain the motion. The motion shall be filed within 30 days
    from the date of the receipt of a copy of the decision of the
    Board by the party filing the motion.
    48 C.F .R., Ch. 2, Appx. A, Pt. 2, Rule 29.
    In response to appellant's 7 February 2014 email, the Board emailed a 10 February
    2014 Order to appellant, explaining to appellant that to file a motion for reconsideration,
    Rule 29 requires that the motion explain what portions of the decision appellant believes
    to be incorrect and the reasons why.
    On 27 February 2014, appellant emailed the Board, asking whether it should send
    a certified claim to this Board or to the contracting officer (CO). This was followed on
    3 March 2014 with appellant's email to the Board attaching its certified claim. By email
    dated 7 March 2014, the Board forwarded the claim to government counsel and advised
    appellant that claims must be submitted to the CO and that CDA certifications must be
    signed. Appellant sent a claim to the CO by email dated 8 March 2014.
    The record indicates that by email dated 20 March 2014, the CO sent to appellant
    an 18 March 2014 decision on its 8 March 2014 claim. On 27 March 2014, appellant
    emailed the Board stating that it was in discussions with the CO and that it would inform
    the Board when a final decision was made. The Board has not received any Notice of
    Appeal to date from appellant respecting the 18 March 2014 CO' s decision.
    Board Rule 29 requires that a proper motion for reconsideration must contain the
    grounds alleged for reconsideration. Appellant has not done this and its 30-day period to
    file a proper motion has long expired. The motion for reconsideration is denied as
    untimely. 2
    Dated: 29 April 2014
    `` MARK N. STEMPLER
    Administrative Judge
    Acting Chairman
    Armed Services Board
    of Contract Appeals
    (Signature continued)
    2
    In any event, it appears appellant is pursuing the claims process in accordance with our
    decision inasmuch as it has represented to the Board that it has filed a certified
    claim with the CO. It is up to appellant to determine whether to appeal the CO's
    18 March 2014 decision.
    2
    I concur
    ~ ll-.~
    ELiZABHA:TUNKS
    Administrative Judge
    Acting 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. 58800
    , Appeal of New Iraq
    Ahd Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter.
    Dated:
    JEFFREY D. GARDIN
    Recorder, Armed Services
    Board of Contract Appeals
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: ASBCA No. 58800

Judges: Stempler

Filed Date: 4/29/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014