ASBCA 64468

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEAL Appeal of - ) ) VESEQU LLC ) ASBCA No. 64468 ) Under Contract No. SP8000-25-C-0005 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Jason Shadburn VESEQU, LLC Los Angeles, CA APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Steven M. Sosko, Esq. DLA Chief Trial Attorney Rachel M. Noble, Esq. Trial Attorney DLA Land and Maritime Columbus, OH OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SWEET On April 10, 2026, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA or government) filed a motion to dismiss—or in the alternative to strike—two of the causes of action in the complaint (Complaint) of pro se appellant VESEQU LLC (VESEQU) for lack of jurisdiction (Motion). Because the causes of action assert new claims, we grant the Motion. 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 1. On June 17, 2025, DLA awarded Contract No. SP8000-25-C-0005 (Contract) for VESEQU to acquire and make available to DLA Strategic Materials certain web-based subscriptions, publications, and periodicals, including, inter alia, Bloomberg Professional Service B-Unit Device, Platts Metal Daily (Nonferrous Market Data and Market Insight), Benchmark Minerals Intelligence-Industrial Minerals, and the Project Blue Reports (collectively, Cancelled Subscriptions) (R4, tab 6 at 1-2, 4-5, 8-9; tab 6A). 1 On May 8, 2026, VESEQU filed a motion for leave to file a sur-reply. We grant that motion because the government raises a new argument regarding different remedies in its reply brief (compare gov’t mot. at 5-7 with gov’t reply at 4-6). 2. On October 27, 2025, the contracting officer (CO) issued a stop work order pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.242-15, which directed VESEQU to stop work on the Cancelled Subscriptions (R4, tab 18A at 1-2). 3. On November 4, 2025, VESEQU submitted a request for an equitable adjustment (REA) (R4, tab 19 at 1-4). Under the “Request for Relief” section, the REA asserted that: VESEQU LLC respectfully requests an equitable adjustment in the amount of $70,930.80 to recover direct and indirect costs reasonably incurred as a direct result of the Government’s Stop Work Order under Contract SP8000-25-C-0005 (P00003). This request includes no profit or unallowable cost elements and is supported by contemporaneous documentation. (Id. at 4) 4. On November 17, 2025, DLA partially terminated the Contract for convenience pursuant to FAR 52.212-4(l), terminating the Cancelled Subscriptions (R4, tabs 23A-23C). 5. On December 18, 2025, VESEQU converted its REA into a claim to the CO (Claim) (R4, tab 24 at 1-2). The Claim asserted that VESEQU “hereby converts its REA into a claim under the Contract Disputes Act and formally requests a Contracting Officer’s Final Decision on its claim in the amount of $70,930.80 arising from the Stop Work Order issued under Contract SP8000-25-C-0005 (Modification P00003)” (id. at 2). The Claim alleged that: VESEQU fully recognizes the Government’s discretion to pursue its acquisition strategy. The concern is not the existence of resolicitation activity, but the sequencing and prioritization. [DLA] has demonstrated the ability to staff and advance replacement procurement actions for these subscriptions, while VESEQU’s incurred, documented pre-Stop Work costs for the same scope of work remain unresolved. From both a practical and fairness standpoint this creates a disconnect. If resources exist to resolicit and advance replacement actions, it is reasonable to expect parallel 2  capacity to resolve the associated Stop Work claim tied to the original award. (Id. at 2) The Claim contained no allegation that the subscriptions required DLA to execute subscription agreements, or that DLA prohibited the execution of such agreements (id. at 1-34). Nor did the Claim contain any factual allegations related to the execution of subscription agreements (id.). VESEQU attached the REA to the Claim, including the portion of the REA indicating that “[t]his request includes no profit” (id.