CBCA 8184

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: November 14, 2025 CBCA 8184 KLAMATH WILDLIFE RESOURCES, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent. Brian Shaw, Owner of Klamath Wildlife Resources, Redding, CA, appearing for Appellant. Adam J. Hermann, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Agriculture, Kansas City, MO, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges VERGILIO, SHERIDAN, and ZISCHKAU. Opinion for the Board by Board Judge ZISCHKAU. Board Judge VERGILIO concurs. ZISCHKAU, Board Judge. Respondent, the Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service (Forest Service or agency), contracted with Klamath Wildlife Resources (Klamath or KWR) for stationary bat acoustic surveys. The agency subsequently terminated the contract for default, claiming that Klamath did not perform in accordance with contract specifications. After Klamath appealed the termination, the agency moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming that Klamath failed to file its notice of appeal within the ninety-day deadline required by CBCA 8184 2 41 U.S.C. § 7104(a) (2018). Because Klamath untimely filed its appeal, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Background On June 26, 2023, the Forest Service awarded a contract to Klamath in the amount of $25,750 for Klamath to conduct stationary acoustic bat monitoring in areas of the Ouachita National Forest. Appeal File, Exhibit A at 214-15.1 The contract was an order issued under a General Services Administration (GSA) multiple award schedule contract. On May 21, 2024, the Forest Service contracting officer notified Klamath by email that the contract had been terminated for cause. Exhibit A at 542. The May 21, 2024, email attached modification P00001, which provides, in relevant part: Award 12444223F0154 for Stationary Bat Acoustic Surveys is Terminated for Cause. Per FAR 52.212-4(m), Contract Terms and Conditions Commercial Products and Commercial Services, Termination for Cause. As such, the remaining funding on this award, $20,177.44 will be de-obligated and the award will be closed in it’s [sic] entirety. No additional work is to be completed, nor will any additional payments be made. Id. at 540. Although Klamath states that it received notice of the termination on May 20, 2024, we agree with the agency that the termination letter was sent to Klamath on May 21, 2024. Klamath asserts that it tried to file its notice of appeal on either Friday, August 16, 2024, or Saturday, August 17, 2024, but was unable to do so because the Board’s “system” was “down.” Klamath claims that it successfully filed it the following Monday, August 19, 2024. However, the record shows that Klamath, in fact, efiled its notice of appeal on Tuesday, August 20, 2024, at 7:47 p.m. Klamath’s August 20, 2024, notice of appeal was ninety-one days after its receipt of the termination notice on May 21, 2024. During this period of time, the Board was using its efile system for filing documents, which consisted of a party sending an email to the Board’s efile address (cbca.efile@cbca.gov) with the document(s) to be filed as attached pdf file(s). Although Klamath asserts that the Board’s “system” was “down” on the preceding Friday (August 16) and throughout the weekend, we find no evidence that the government email system was “down” during that period. Emails sent to government email 1 All exhibits are found in the appeal file, unless otherwise noted. The page numbers cited are the Bates numbers on the exhibits. CBCA 8184 3 servers during that period were timely received and showed the proper time stamp. Board rules also permitted filing by United States Postal Service mail; however, Klamath did not mail its notice of appeal. In a related case, CBCA 8130, Klamath timely filed a notice of appeal on June 16, 2024, using the same email efiling process. Discussion The Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7109 (2018), provides that “[a] contractor, within ninety days from the date of receipt of a contracting officer’s decision . . . , may appeal the decision to an agency board.” Id. § 7104(a). In the alternative, a contractor may appeal a contracting officer’s decision to the United States Court of Federal Claims within twelve months of receipt. Id.