CBCA 5616

PETITION DENIED: March 2, 2017 CBCA 5616 STOBIL ENTERPRISE, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent. Billie O. Stone, Chief Executive Officer of Stobil Enterprise, San Antonio, TX, appearing for Appellant. Mary A. Mitchell, District Contracting National Practice Group, Department of Veterans Affairs, Houston, TX, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), ZISCHKAU, and RUSSELL. RUSSELL, Board Judge. Petitioner Stobil Enterprise (Stobil) requests that the Board direct the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to issue a decision on Stobil’s contract claim on a date earlier than that identified by the VA. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the request. Background In March 2016, Stobil filed an appeal (CBCA 5246) with the Board based on its contracts with the VA to provide housekeeping and dietary services for an inpatient living program at a VA facility. In that appeal, Stobil requested approximately $166,000 in relief based on wage determination requirements under the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ CBCA 5616 2 6701-6707 (2012), losses for damaged goods and equipment, loss of contractor opportunities, incurred administrative costs, interest, and the VA’s past performance evaluation of Stobil. On August 19, 2016, the Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because of Stobil’s failure to submit a certified claim to the VA consistent with section 7103(b) of the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (2012), upon which the contracting officer could issue a valid decision. Stobil Enterprise v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 5246, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,478, at 177,741, motion for reconsideration denied, 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,610 (2016).1 Subsequently, by letter dated November 28, 2016, Stobil submitted a claim which it deemed certified to the VA’s contracting office. The claim was based on the same contracts and similar issues as those presented in CBCA 5246. In the November 2016 claim, Stobil sought $321,288.20, plus approximately $2.3 million in interest. By letter dated January 27, 2017, the VA’s contracting officer notified Stobil that, pursuant to section 33.211(c)(2) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR 33.211(c)(2) (2015)), the contracting officer would issue his decision on Stobil’s claim by March 31, 2017. Stobil argues that this date is unreasonable because the VA is already in possession of the relevant facts and evidence of Stobil’s claim, and there are no additional matters affecting the complexity of the claim. The VA’s position is that the identified date for issuance of the decision, March 31, 2017, is not unreasonable in light of the significant increase in damages sought by Stobil absent submission of any documentation to support the increase. Discussion Under the CDA, for claims over $100,000, a contracting officer must, within sixty days of receipt of a certified claim, issue a decision on that claim or notify the contractor of the time within which the decision will be issued. 41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(3). The CDA requires that a contracting officer issue a decision on a claim within a reasonable time, “taking into account such factors as the size and complexity of the claim and the adequacy of information in support of the claim provided by the contractor.” 41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(3); see also 48 CFR 33.211(c)(2). “[I]n the event of undue delay on the part of the contracting officer,” a contractor may request that the concerned tribunal, either the Board or the Court 1 Notwithstanding the lack of a certified claim, the contracting officer did issue decisions on Stobil’s claim prior to Stobil’s appeal to the Board. However, as noted in the Board’s decision dismissing CBCA 5246, a contracting officer’s decision on an uncertified claim cannot confer jurisdiction or cure the jurisdictional defect of an uncertified claim. Stobil Enterprise, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,478, at 177,740. CBCA 5616 3 of Federal Claims, “direct [the] contracting officer to issue a decision in a specified period of time, as determined by the tribunal.” 41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(4). Here, Stobil submitted its claim to the VA by letter dated November 28, 2016. Consistent with 41 U.S.C.