ASBCA 61505

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Interaction Research Institute, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 61505 ) Under Contract No. 000000-00-0-0000 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Ms. Barba B. Affourtit Vice President APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq. Navy Chief Trial Attorney John W. T orresala, Esq. Erin L. Hernandez, Esq. Russell R. Henry, Esq. Trial Attorneys Western Area Counsel Office Camp Pendleton, CA OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WOODROW ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION The Department of the Navy (government) moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that Interaction Research Institute, Inc. (appellant), did not file a claim subject to the Contracts Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 because there was no express or implied contract between the parties. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the motion. STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 1. By letter dated September 1, 2011, appellant submitted a document labeled as a claim to the regional contracting office (RCO) for unpaid training services allegedly provided to I Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF). Appellant's letter asserts that it "was paid for seven of these services via SF-182 (Certification, Authorization and Validation of Training) contract vehicles. However, the remainder of four training sessions conducted by [appellant] remain unpaid." (R4, tab 1 at 1-4) 2. I MEF conducted an administrative investigation into appellant's allegations. The investigation confirmed that seven training services were properly paid utilizing I SF-182s. (R4, tab 2 at 200) The standard operating procedure (SOP) at the time provided that "any requirement under $25,000 was to submit and receive approval on SF-182's and then pay with the Government Commercial Purchase Card (GCPC). It I was also the SOP for any requirement over $25,000 to submit a purchase request to the RCO for approval and award of a contract." (Id. at 1) The investigation was unable to locate any SF-182s or contracts for the alleged unpaid training services. However, based on other evidence, the investigation determined that some of the unpaid training services did occur. (Id. at 200) 3. The RCO notified appellant that it was ratifying some of the unpaid training services as unauthorized commitments. Regarding the remaining alleged unpaid training services, the RCO stated that it "has found no evidence to support that a government representative made an agreement with you to provide the training on each of those dates or that training occurred. This includes the training dates of April 6-10, 2009 and June 18 through August 15, 2009." (R4, tab 3 at 1-2) 4. By letter dated January 5, 2016, appellant submitted a request to the RCO for the remaining unpaid training services. Appellant requested "a document stating the final disposition regarding [appellant's] request for payment of services completed in FY 2009, including the rationale and investigative findings for disposition decisions." (R4, tab 4 at 1) 5. I MEF conducted another administrative investigation. The investigation concluded that the remaining alleged unpaid training services could not be validated. (R4, tab 6 at 4-5) By letter dated October 31, 2017, the RCO notified appellant that no further actions or payments would be made (R4, tab 7). 6. On January 24, 2018, appellant filed a notice of appeal with the Board alleging that it has not been paid for services provided to I MEF between April 6 and August 15, 2009. DECISION In moving to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the government maintains that it has not received a claim from appellant, as defined by FAR 2.101, because no express or implied contract existed between the parties. The government notes that the RCO purposefully did not style its October 31, 201 7 letter as a contracting officer's final decision because it did not recognize appellant's request as a valid claim.