CBCA 7992

APPELLANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY PROCEEDINGS DENIED: February 24, 2026 CBCA 7992, 7993 LOUIS J. BLAZY, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Respondent. Louis J. Blazy, pro se, Alexandria, VA. Alexandra N. Wilson, Office of the Legal Adviser, Buildings and Acquisitions, Department of State, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges GOODMAN, KULLBERG, and CHADWICK. GOODMAN, Board Judge. Appellant, Louis J. Blazy, has filed a motion in these consolidated appeals titled “Motion For Procedural Determination on the Validity of the Contracting Officer’s Final Decisions and Stay Merits Proceeding.” We deny appellant’s motion. Background Pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (2018), appellant submitted two claims to respondent’s contracting officer (CO) dated November 13 and 20, 2023. The CO issued contracting officer’s final decisions (COFDs), dated January CBCA 7992, 7993 2 12 and 16, 2024, denying the claims. Appellant filed a single notice of appeal at this Board for both COFDs on January 19, 2024, and an appeal was docketed for each COFD. The appeals were consolidated, and appellant elected to designate his notice of appeal as the complaint in both appeals. Respondent designated the COFDs as respondent’s answer. A schedule was established for discovery. Board’s Order (Feb. 1, 2024). Discovery proceeded through June 2025. On July 21, 2025, appellant filed a motion to compel further discovery, which was denied on August 21, 2025. On August 29, 2025, appellant filed the motion which is the subject of this decision. Appellant’s motion presents factual and legal arguments regarding the Board’s jurisdiction. The motion seeks a determination as to the legal validity of the COFDs issued by the CO, as appellant alleges that the CO did not have a valid warrant. Appellant’s Motion at 8-9. Appellant asks for the following relief: If either COFD decision is ruled invalid, Appellant requests an order declaring them void ab initio and (a) dismissal without prejudice to permit a proper decision by an authorized [CO], or (b) remand with instructions that a proper decision be issued by a date specific by a duly authorized CO and reopening of discovery due to new evidence provided by the government in response to previous discovery requests. In the alternative, and without waiving the foregoing jurisdictional objection, Appellant respectfully requests that the Board deem the COFDs procedurally sufficient solely for the limited purpose of preserving the evidentiary record developed during discovery. Id. at 9. Appellant also requested similar relief at the conclusion of his motion: [T]hat the Board declare the January 2024 COFDs invalid as a matter of law. The proper legal effect is either: 1. Dismissal of the government’s position for want of a valid COFD, depriving the Board of jurisdiction; or 2. Direction that, should the agency wish to pursue its claims, it must do so through the issuance of a new, properly authorized COFD by a duly warranted PSC contracting officer. Appellant’s Motion at 34. CBCA 7992, 7993 3 Discussion1 The Board Possesses Jurisdiction We need not determine the validity of the CO’s warrant at the time the COFDs were issued. Even if the CO did not have a valid warrant and the decisions lacked finality, the claims are deemed denied. Appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal with regard to both denials, and we possess jurisdiction. Our decision in Harbor Services, Inc. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 8323, 26-1 BCA ¶ 38,960 (2025), is instructive. In that case, the CO issued a COFD that lacked finality. Appellant submitted a new claim and filed an appeal at the Board fewer than sixty days after that claim was submitted to the CO. Even though the CO’s initial decision lacked finality, the original claim was deemed denied when the statutory period for issuing a COFD expired. The Board, therefore, had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals.