CBCA 4459

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: March 4, 2015 CBCA 4459 CONSTRUCTION GROUP LLC, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondent. Bobby Knight, Owner of Construction Group LLC, North Charleston, SC, appearing for Appellant. Cassandra Walbert, Legal Service Command, Procurement Law Division East, United States Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, Norfolk, VA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), HYATT, and KULLBERG. DANIELS, Board Judge. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction because no underlying claim or contracting officer decision exists. Background On December 28, 2010, the United States Coast Guard awarded to Construction Group LLC a contract to restore Pier Papa Substation P3 and perform other miscellaneous electrical repairs at the Coast Guard’s Naval Engineering Support Unit (NESU) Charleston CBCA 4459 2 in North Charleston, South Carolina. The contract was originally in the amount of $426,757.65. According to the Coast Guard, “Construction Group, LLC successfully completed the work and the project was accepted on September 7, 2012. The Coast Guard is satisfied with the work that was performed. Construction Group, LLC is fully entitled to the remaining obligated contract balance in the sum of $6,028.55.” On April 10, 2013, Construction Group wrote to the contracting officer, “advising [her] of [its] intent to submit a claim arising under and relating to the . . . contract.” On June 6, 2013, the appellant again told the contracting officer that “it is our intent to submit a claim.” On March 14, 2014, the appellant wrote that it was making a “Part 1 Claim for us to modify, reform, and renegotiate the contract” and that a part 2 claim was pending. No claim was made in or attached to the letter, however. Construction Group appears to allege, in its complaint, that on or about September 14, 2012, it asked the Coast Guard to pay for rework that Construction Group performed after its subcontractor, Atlantic Electric, performed the work unsatisfactorily and the agency accepted it. Construction Group says that in February 2011, the subcontractor had stolen copper from Pier Papa and the Coast Guard had prevented its security contractor from making an arrest. Construction Group has not demonstrated that it has made a written claim to the contracting officer regarding any matter involving the subcontractor, however. Complaint ¶ 11. Construction Group asserts, in its complaint, that it has suffered “monetary damages, losses and injuries cumulatively about the contract” in an amount of between $40,000 and $120,000. Construction Group says additionally that it wishes the Board to order that the appellant be granted relief “to correct for revisions, equitable modifications and/or ratifications [that] have a potential increase in the contract extra costs and losses to the appellant.” Complaint ¶ 13. The appellant says that due to “the intentional, malicious, and wrongful acts so heinously perpetrated upon the appellant between NESU Director and my subcontractor, Atlantic Electric,” the appellant has lost the opportunity to bid on other jobs. Id. ¶ 14. On January 6, 2015, a Coast Guard contracting officer wrote to Construction Group as follows: As stated in previous letters of 28 March 2013 and 3 April 2013, there is no dispute of claim between your firm and the Coast Guard. All items under the terms and conditions of the [contract] have been received and accepted. CBCA 4459 3 This contract is hereby considered complete. As a result, the Contracting Officer is proceeding with a unilateral closeout of [the contract]. The final amount on this contract is $461,179.20. The most recent payment was made on 17 November 2011, leaving a remaining balance of $6,028.55. Attached for your review is the contract modification with the supporting closeout documentation. If a response is not received within 14 calendar days from the date of this letter, the Contracting Officer will proceed with unilaterally signing the modification. . . . It should be noted that Contractor’s rights are protected under the Contract Disputes Act[] . . .