CBCA 8256

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: January 2, 2025 CBCA 8256 JOHN BLANKSON, Appellant, v. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, Respondent. John Blankson, pro se, Newark, NJ. Rachel B. Cochran and Danielle K.S. Lindermuth, Office of the General Counsel, Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges SHERIDAN, KULLBERG, and NEWSOM. KULLBERG, Board Judge. Respondent, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. USAID contends that appellant has only appealed the contracting officer’s (CO’s) termination of appellant’s contract for convenience, and appellant has not submitted a claim requesting a CO’s final decision (COFD). Appellant argues that he filed this appeal in response to the CO’s letter that notified him of the termination of his contract for convenience, and he has elected to have his appeal heard pursuant to the Board’s small claims procedure, Rule 52 (48 CFR 6101.52 (2023)). For the reasons set forth below, the Board dismisses this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. CBCA 8256 2 Background On June 13, 2024, USAID awarded to appellant contract 7206242S00013 (contract) for personal services, senior development outreach and communication specialist, at USAID’s West Africa regional executive office in Accra, Ghana. The contract had an effective date of July 8, 2024, and the period of performance included a base period and three option periods. Contract clause 16, termination, provided, in pertinent part, the following: (a) The Government may terminate performance of work under this contract in whole or, from time to time, in part: .... (2) For the convenience of USAID, by giving not less than 15 calendar days advance written notice to the contractor. Upon such a termination, contractor’s right to compensation shall cease when the period specified in such notice expires except that the contractor shall be entitled to any unused vacation leave, return transportation costs and travel allowances and transportation of unaccompanied baggage costs at the rate specified in the contract and subject to the limitations which apply to authorized travel status. By letter dated October 3, 2024, the CO terminated appellant’s contract for convenience. The CO’s letter stated the following: The Senior Development Outreach and Communication (DOC) specialist position requires a commitment to working within USAID and U.S. Embassy structures. It requires developing and maintaining close working relationships within the Embassy and with USAID’s Bureau for Legislative and Public Affairs (LPA). Given your stated preference for working independently rather than collaboratively, your reluctance to engage in public events fully, and your resistance to working within our established USAID and Embassy frameworks for approvals and clearances, I have reached the conclusion that continuing your contract with USAID/West Africa is not in the Government’s interest. The letter further stated that it was “the final decision of the Contracting Officer,” and it listed appellant’s right to file an appeal, which included filing an appeal with “the agency board of contract appeals” and the option of requesting the “[s]mall claim procedure for claims of $50,000 or less.” Appellant subsequently filed an appeal with the Board and requested that this appeal be heard under the Board’s small claims procedure. USAID submitted a motion to dismiss CBCA 8256 3 this appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that appellant has not submitted a claim to the CO. Appellant filed an opposition to USAID’s motion to dismiss and argued that the appeal was in accord with the guidance in USAID’s letter that notified him of the termination of the contract for convenience. Discussion At issue is whether the CO’s notice of termination of appellant’s contract for convenience was a COFD that may be appealed to this Board. The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) provides that “[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) (2018).