CBCA 8210

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: January 15, 2025 CBCA 8210 TESLA LILIANA REYES RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, Respondent. Tesla Liliana Reyes Ramirez, pro se, McLean, VA. Eugene Benick and John B. Alumbaugh, Office of the General Counsel, Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges BEARDSLEY (Chair), GOODMAN, and VOLK. GOODMAN, Board Judge. Appellant, Tesla Liliana Reyes Ramirez, has appealed a contracting officer’s decision terminating for convenience her personal services contract with respondent, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). We grant respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Background Appellant’s personal services contract with respondent contained the following clause allowing for termination for convenience: CBCA 8210 2 (a) The Government may terminate performance of work under this contract in whole or, from time to time, in part: .... (2) For the convenience of USAID, by giving not less than 15 calendar days advance written notice to the contractor. Upon such a termination, contractor’s right to compensation shall cease when the period specified in such notice expires except that the contractor shall be entitled to any unused annual leave, return transportation costs and travel allowances and transportation of unaccompanied baggage costs at the rate specified in the contract and subject to the limitations which apply to authorized travel status. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 42. On July 19, 2024, appellant was terminated for convenience by a contracting officer’s (CO) decision, which stated in part: “This is the final decision of the Contracting Officer. You may appeal this decision to the agency board of contract appeals.” Notice of Appeal, Attachment 1 at 1. On September 23, 2024, appellant filed a notice of appeal at this Board, which summarizes various conversations with the contracting officer and other employees of respondent after receipt of the CO’s decision and describes the effect of the decision on appellant’s mental and physical health. The notice of appeal also states: “Considering that I was doing a stellar job, had a five year contract (two initial years plus three option years), and the [United States] Government continues to have a need for the position, the amount in dispute is the maximum allowed of US $100,000.” Notice of Appeal at 2. However, appellant has not submitted a claim to the CO for the alleged amount in dispute. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss at 1. Discussion On October 22, 2024, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not file a response to the motion to dismiss. In a recent Board decision, John Blankson v. Agency for International Development, CBCA 8256 (Jan. 2, 2025), we dismissed a similar appeal of a CO’s decision terminating for convenience a personal services contract by this respondent pursuant to the same contract language that is in this appellant’s contract. In that case, the Board held that the CO’s decision was not an appealable CO’s final decision (COFD) and that issues which were asserted as a monetary claim were premature, as a claim had not been submitted to the contracting officer. As explained in that decision: CBCA 8210 3 The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) provides that “[e]ach claim by a contractor against the Federal Government relating to a contract shall be submitted to the contracting officer for a decision.” 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(1) (2018). A contractor may appeal a COFD or appeal the deemed denial of a claim when the CO fails to issue a timely decision. Id. § 7103(f)(5)-(g). The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines a claim as follows: Claim means a written demand or written assertion by one of the contracting parties seeking, as a matter, of right, the payment of money in a sum certain, the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to the contract. . . .