ASBCA 60602

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Seven Seas Shipchandlers LLC ) ASBCA No. 60602 ) Under Contract Nos. W91B4L-09-P-0318 ) W91B4L-09-P-0518 ) W91B4L-09-P-0436 ) W91B4L-09-P-0465 ) W91B4L-09-P-0585 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Joseph E. Schmitz, Esq. Schmitz & Socarras LLP McLean, VA APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. Army Chief Trial Attorney LTC Jose A. Cora, JA Trial Attorney OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE NEWSOM Appellant, Seven Seas Shipchandlers, LLC (Seven Seas), appeals from the deemed denial of its claim for Prompt Payment Act (PPA) interest on five contracts. Because of a dispute that ripened into a claim under the Contract Dispute Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (CDA), Seven Seas did not receive payment on these contracts until more than five years after it submitted invoices. That dispute was resolved by this Board in Seven Seas Shipchandlers, LLC, ASBCA No. 57875 et al., 15-1 BCA ~ 35,908 (Seven Seas/). Seven Seas elected use of the Board's expedited procedures under Rule 12.2. 1 Both parties filed motions for judgment on the record pursuant to Rule 11. 2 We deny the appeal. 1 A decision under Board Rule 12.2 shall have no value as precedent, and in the absence of fraud, shall be final and conclusive and may not be appealed. 2 The government filed a motion for summary judgment on 7 September 2016, then converted it to a Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record under Board Rule 11 (Bd. corr., gov't mot. dtd. 26 Sept. 2016). By Board order dated 13 September 2016 the appellant's 8 September 2016 Legal Memorandum Addressing the Merits of the Appeal was deemed a motion for judgment on the administrative record under Board Rule 11.  SUMMARY FINDINGS OF FACT The predicate for the present appeal is the Board's decision in Seven Seas I. Familiarity with that decision is presumed, although we highlight certain aspects of that decision that are relevant to this appeal. 1. Seven Seas I concerned five firm-fixed-price supply contracts that the Kandahar Regional Contracting Center awarded to appellant in 2009: Contract Nos. W91B4L-09-P-0318 (Contract 318); W91B4L-09-P-0436 (Contract 436); W91B4L-09-P-0465 (Contract 465); W91B4L-09-0518 (Contract 518); and r'. I . W91B4L-09-P-0585 (Contract 585). The contracts called for appellant to provide supplies to Kandahar Air Field in Afghanistan. Seven Seas I at 175,527 (findings 1-3, 6). 2. Seven Seas delivered the supplies required by all five contracts and was entitled to payment on the contracts. Seven Seas I at 175,529 (finding 28). Seven Seas submitted invoices for payment between 1 and 9 June 2009 (R4, tab 12 at 120-24). I 3. The government payment office disbursed to an individual named t Muhammad Qahir (Mr. Qahir) some $240,549.90 in Afghan cash which was intended as payment to Seven Seas. Seven Seas I at 175,529-30 (findings 35, 37). On prior occasions, the government had disbursed cash to Mr. Qahir in payment to Seven Seas, without incident. Id. at 175,528 (finding 18). However, on this occasion, Mr. Qahir r disappeared with Seven Seas' money and was not seen again. Id. at 175,530 (finding 39). 4. Seven Seas reported its money stolen. Seven Seas I at 175,530 (findings 40, f 42)). Asserting that it never received payment, Seven Seas submitted certified claims seeking contract payments from the government. The contracting officer denied the claims. Id. at 175,530 (finding 46). 5. During the ensuing appeals before this Board, the government disputed !I Seven Seas' claims on the ground that Seven Seas had already been paid.