CBCA 5246

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: August 19, 2016 CBCA 5246 STOBIL ENTERPRISE, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent. Billie O. Stone, Chief Executive Officer of Stobil Enterprise, San Antonio, TX, appearing for Appellant. Mary A. Mitchell, Office of Regional Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, Houston, TX, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), ZISCHKAU, and RUSSELL. RUSSELL, Board Judge. Both parties have filed motions in this case. In its motion, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) asserts that the Board lacks jurisdiction because Stobil Enterprise (Stobil) failed to certify its claim to the contracting officer. The VA additionally argues that this appeal should be dismissed because Stobil’s claim for an equitable adjustment due to increased labor rates applicable to its contract was untimely under the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 6701-6707 (2012). Stobil moves for summary relief, contending that the VA failed to timely file the appeal file in this matter as required by Rule 8 (48 CFR 6101.8 (2015)) of the Board’s Rules of Procedure. For reasons discussed below, the Board grants the VA’s motion dismissing this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  CBCA 5246 2 Background In December 2008, the VA awarded a contract to Stobil to provide housekeeping and dietary services for an inpatient living program at a VA facility in San Antonio, Texas. Appeal File, Vol. 1, Exhibit 3 (all exhibits are in the appeal file). Stobil provided services under the contract for about four-and-a-half years and, in June 2014 and January 2015, the VA awarded Stobil extension contracts covering the period July 2014 to January 2015. Vol. 1, Exhibit 2 at 1-2; Vol. 2, Exhibits 1-3. In January or February 2015, Stobil filed a request with the VA seeking between $110,000 and $117,000 for wage increases and benefits for its employees based on prevailing wage rates established by the Department of Labor.1 Vol. 1, Exhibit 2; Vol. 2, Exhibit 5. Stobil also requested approximately $5800 in damages for goods that Stobil contended were lost or damaged during contract performance or close-out.2 Vol. 1, Exhibit 2 at 1. In December 2015, the VA issued a decision on Stobil’s request, providing partial relief in response to the company’s request for an equitable adjustment and damages but noting that Stobil had failed to certify its claim in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation at 48 CFR 33.207(a) (2015). Vol. 1, Exhibit 2. On March 17, 2016, Stobil appealed the contracting officer’s December 2015 decision to the Board. In its appeal, Stobil requested $95,001.03 for wages and benefits “plus interest, taxes, [and] fringe benefits for vacation allowances,” $6287.17 plus interest for contractor losses, and $65,000 for loss of “contractor opportunities and administrative reimbursement.” Discussion The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) provides the Board with jurisdiction to resolve claims disputes between contractors and executive agencies. 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109; Bass Transportation Services, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 4995, slip op. at 4 (July 6, 2016). However, before the Board can exercise its jurisdiction under the CDA, “there must be both a valid claim . . . and a contracting officer’s final decision on that claim.” James M. Ellett Construction Co. v. United States, 93 F.3d 1537, 1541-42 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 1 The contracting officer’s decision states that Stobil sought $111,560 as compensation for employee back wages and benefits. Vol. 1, Exhibit 2. In its appeal to the Board, Stobil appears to dispute this figure, stating that it sought $116,866.40 in compensation. The difference, however, is not material to the Board’s determination. 2 In its appeal to the Board, although not entirely clear, it appears that Stobil disputes this figure, stating that it actually sought $7419.99 for such damages. Again, the difference is not material to the Board’s determination.  CBCA 5246 3 While the CDA does not define the term “claim,” the regulations implementing the statute do, and we apply the regulatory definition to determine what constitutes a claim. Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc); Richter Developments, Ltd. v.