MAC International FZE, ASBCA No. 56355

ARMED

SERVICES

BOARD

OF

CONTRACT

APPEALS

Appeal

of--

)

)

MAC

International

FZE

)

ASBCA

No.

56355

)

Under

Contract

No.

W194NS-04-D-0117

)

APPEARANCES

FOR

THE

APPELLANT:

Sara

Beiro

Farabow,

Esq.

Michael

J.

Bauer,

Esq.

Joshua

C.

Drewitz,

Esq.

Seyfarth

Shaw

LLP

Washington,

DC

APPEARANCES

FOR

THE

GOVERNMENT:

Raymond

M.

Saunders,

Esq.

Army

Chief

Trial

Attorney

CPT

Tudo

N.

Pham,

JA

Trial

Attorney

OPINION

BY

ADMINISTRATIVE

JUDGE

DICKINSON

ON

GOVERNMENT

MOTION

TO

DISMISS

FOR

LACK

OF

JURISDICTION

This

appeal

arises

from

a

MAC

International

FZE

(MAC

or

appellant)

claim

against

the

United

States

government

for

reimbursement

under

a

contract

between

MAC

and

the

Coalition

Provisional

Authority

(CPA)

in

Iraq.

In

the

claim

MAC

sought:

(1)

that

part

of

the

contract

price

that

had

not

been

paid,

plus

interest

under

the

Prompt

Payment

Act

(PPA),

31

U.S.C. §§

3901-3907,

under

delivery

orders

(DOs)

8

and

9,

that

had

been

funded

with

Development

Fund

for

Iraq

(DFI)

funds;

and

(2)

PPA

interest

based

on

allegedly

late

payments

made

under

16

additional

DOs

that

had

referenced

United

States

government

appropriated

funds.

The

part

of

the

claim

involving

DOs

8

and

9

was

the

subject

of

a

government

motion

for

partial

summary

judgment

or,

in

the

alternative,

to

dismiss

for

lack

of

jurisdiction.

The

Board

granted

the

government's

motion and

dismissed

that

claim,

finding

that

it

did

not

have

jurisdiction

to

hear

disputes

relating

to

DOs

8

and

9.

MAC

International

FZE,

ASBCA

No.

56355,

10-2

BCA

Tf

34,591

{"MAC

F).

Familiarity

with

the

earlier

decision

is

assumed.

MAC

appealed

our

earlier

decision

to

the

United

States

Court

of

Appeals

for

the

Federal

Circuit.

The

appeal

was

voluntarily

dismissed

in

May

2012.

We

then

requested

the

parties

brief

whether

the

Board

had

jurisdiction

to

consider

the

remainder

of

the

claim

involving

the

PPA

interest

sought

under

the

16

DOs.

The

government

has

filed

a

motion

to

dismiss

the

remainder

of

the

appeal

for

lack

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction

and

appellant

has

opposed

the

motion.

The

parties

have

fully

briefed the

matter

and

rely

upon

the

record

previously

submitted

in

support

of

MAC

I.

We

incorporate

in

this

decision

pertinent

findings

made

in

MAC

I.

The

government's

motion

is

granted.

STATEMENT

OF

FACTS

(SOF)

FOR

PURPOSES

OF

THE

MOTION

1.

The

CPA

was

created

by

coalition

partners

in

2003

under

the

laws

and

usages

of

war

and

was

recognized

by

the

United

Nations

Security

Council

as

"a

temporary

entity

formed

under

applicable

international

law

by

the

coalition

partners

as

occupying

powers

under

unified

command."

MAC

I,

SOF

Tflf

1-4.

More

than

ten

countries,

including

the

United

States

and

the

United

Kingdom,

contributed

significant

amounts

of

money,

personnel

and

various

other

resources

to

support

the

operation

of

the

CPA.

MAC

I,

SOF

Iflf

5,

6.

One

of

the

many

contributions

of

support

to

the

CPA

made

by

the

U.S.

government

was

the

assignment

of

U.S.

Army

personnel

to

provide

program

management

and

acquisition

support

to

the

CPA

and

any

successor

entity.

At

the

time

the

contract

at

issue

was

awarded,

the

Army

performed

these

functions

in

support

of

the

CPA

within

the

CPA

Contracting

Activity

which

was

specifically

referenced

in

the

contract

as

the

responsible

office.

MAC

I,

SOF

ffl

7,

15.

The

CPA

created

the

Program

Review

Board

(PRB)

to,

among

other

things,

recommend

the obligation

and

disbursement

of

funds

contributed

to

the

CPA

for

and

on

behalf

of

the

Iraqi

people.

Membership

of

the

PRB

was

comprised

of

20

officials

including

officials

representing

the

CPA,

United

States,

United

Kingdom,

Australia

and

various

international

financial

organizations

and

Iraqi

ministry

officials.

The

funds

authorized

for

disbursement

by

the

PRB

included

U.S.

government

appropriated

monies

contributed

to

the

CPA

and

various

Iraqi-sourced

funds.

MAC

I,

SOF

^f

8.

The

CPA

issued

contracts

obligating

Iraqi

funds

and

U.S.

government

appropriated

funds

that

had

been

contributed

in

support

of

the

CPA.

Only

CPA

contracting

officers

were

authorized

to

issue

contracts

on

behalf

of

the

CPA.

Even

though

individuals

may

have

been

contracting

officers

for

coalition

countries,

they

could

not

award

CPA

contracts

unless

they

received

specific

delegated

authority

to

do

so

from

the

CPA

Head

of

Contracting

or

a

designee.

MAC

I,

SOF

^

10.

2.

On

24

April

2004

the

CPA

awarded

indefinite

delivery/indefinite

quantity

(IDIQ)

Contract

No.

W914NS-04-D-0117

to

MAC.

No

other

contracting

party

was

identified

in

the

contract.

Under

the

contract,

appellant

was

to

deliver

various

General

Motors

vehicles

in

Iraq

for

a

not-to-exceed

amount

of

$122,213,569.00

pursuant

to

the

terms

of

specific

DOs.

The

contract

contained

no

funding

information;

funding

for

each

particular

DO

was

referenced

in

that

DO.

In

total,

MAC

delivered

7,602

vehicles

under

the

DOs

issued

under

the

contract.

MAC

I,

SOF

fflf

14-16.

The

16

DOs

now

at

issue

are:

DO

No.

1-2

3

Issuing

Contracting

Office

CPA

Contracting

Activity

CPA

Contracting

Activity

Date

Issued

24

Apr

2004

12

May

2004

4

6

7

11-12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

CPA

Contracting

Activity

CPA

Contracting

Activity

CPA

Contracting

Activity

CPA

Contracting

Activity

PCO1

Contracting

Activity

PCO

Contracting

Activity

PCO

Contracting

Activity

PCO

Contracting

Activity

PCO

Contracting

Activity

PCO

Contracting

Activity3

PCO

Contracting

Activity

JCC-I/A1

18

May

2004

11

Jun

2004

12

Jun

2004

23

Jun

2004

8

Jul

2004

18Jul2004

Bef.

2

Apr

20052

8

Jul

2004

24

Jul

2004

26

Jul

2004

2

Jan

2005

11

Aug

2005

(R4,

tabs

4,

8,

12, 15,

22,

25,46,

49,

51,

55,

58, 60,

64,

70,

76,

80)

The

address

of

the

contracting

office

referenced

as

issuing

each

of

the

DOs

to

MAC

remained

the

same

regardless

of

the

name

of

the

contracting

activity

that

issued

any

particular

DO.

Id.

All

of

the

DOs

now

at

issue

contained,

in

Block

25

of

Form

SF1449,

U.S.

government

appropriated

fund

cites.

MAC

I,

SOF

117.

It

is

undisputed

that

MAC

was

paid

for

the

vehicles

delivered

under

these

16

DOs.

3.

On

28

June

2004,

the

CPA

was

dissolved

and

all

authorities,

responsibilities,

and

obligations

were

transferred

to

the

Interim

Iraqi

Government

(IIG)

with

whom

the

United

States

then

established

diplomatic

relations.

MAC

I,

SOF

f^f

21,

22.

The

CPA's

28

June

2004

Order

Number

100,

TRANSITION

OF

LAWS,

REGULATIONS,

1

See

SOF

^

3

below.

2

The

record

does

not

contain

the

DO;

however

the

Material

Inspection

and

Receiving

Reports

for

DO

15

show

that

MAC

first

shipped

vehicles

under

that

DO

on

2

April

2005

(R4,

tab

58).

3

DO

18

states

on

its

face

that

the

issuing

contracting

activity

is

the

CPA

Contracting

Activity.

However,

since

the

effective

date

of

the

DO

is

after

the

dissolution

of

the

CPA,

the issuing

office

had

to

be

the

PCO

Contracting

Activity.

(R4,

tab

70)

ORDERS,

AND

DIRECTIVES

ISSUED

BY

THE

COALITION

PROVISIONAL

AUTHORITY,

provided:

This

Order

makes

appropriate

revisions

to

laws,

regulations,

orders,

memoranda,

instructions

and

directives

issued

by

the

CPA

to

facilitate

an

orderly

transfer

of

full

governing

authority

to

the

Iraqi

Interim

Government

on

30

June

2004.

The

Order

seeks

to

ensure

that

the

Iraqi

Interim

Government

and

all

subsequent

Iraqi

governments

inherit

full

responsibility

for

these

laws,

regulations,

orders,

memoranda,

instructions

and

directives

so

that

their

implementation

after

the

transfer

of

full

governing

authority

may

reflect

the

expectations

of

the

Iraqi

people,

as

determined

by

a

fully

empowered

and

sovereign

Iraqi

Government.

This

is

the

final

Order

of

the

CPA,

which

will

dissolve

on

30

June

2004,

after

the

transfer

of

full

governing

authority

to

the

Iraqi

Interim

Government.

http://www.

iraqcoalition.

orz.

MAC

I,

SOF

U

22.

There

is

no

evidence

that

any

obligation

of

the

CPA

was

transferred

from

the

CPA

to

anyone

other

than

the

IIG.

Upon

the

dissolution

of

the

CPA,

the

IIG

delegated

to

the

Project

and

Contracting

Office

(PCO)

the

responsibility

of

overseeing

the

expenditure

of

U.S.

government

appropriated

funds

contributed

in

support

of

Iraqi

reconstruction.

Id.

In

October

2004,

the

Joint

Contracting

Command-Iraq/Afghanistan

(JCC-I/A)

was

established

to

provide

contracting

support

for

(1)

Iraqi

reconstruction

begun

under

the

CPA

and

continued

by

the

IIG

and

(2)

Operation

Enduring

Freedom

military

efforts

in

Iraq

and

Afghanistan.

MAC

I,

SOF

^

23.

Pursuant

to

specific

delegation

of

contracting

authority

by

the

IIG,

the

PCO

and

then

the

JCC-I/A

supplied

continuing

contracting

support

through

31

December

2007

for

CPA

contracts

that

were

in

existence

as

of

the

28

June

2004

dissolution

of

the

CPA

and

which

were

transferred

to

the

IIG

upon

dissolution.

MAC

I,

SOF

lfl[

23,

26.

The

contract

now

at

issue

was

one

of

those

contracts.

4.

On

14

February

2008,

approximately

six

weeks

after

the

31

December

2007

expiration

of

IIG's delegation

of

authority

to

the

JCC-I/A

to

handle

contracting

matters

on

the

IIG's

behalf,

MAC

submitted

a

certified

claim

for

$5,598,129.52

to

the

JCC-I/A.

In

the

portion

of

the

claim

now

remaining

before

us,

MAC

sought

PPA

interest

in

the

amount

of

$653,629.52

for

vehicles

delivered

under

16

DOs

(nos.

1-4,

6, 7,

11-18,

20,

21)

for

which

it

had

been

paid,

but

allegedly

later

than

required

by

the

PPA.

MAC

I,

SOF

\

25.

The

JCC-I/A

advised

that

it

no

longer

had

any

contracting

authority

as

the

delegation

of

such

from

the

IIG

had

expired;

MAC

filed

this

appeal

from

the

"deemed

denial"

of

its

claim.

MAC

I,

SOF

ffl[

26,

27.

DECISION

The

sole

issue

remaining

before us

in

this

appeal

is

the

PPA

interest

sought

by

appellant

under

16

DOs

that

referenced

U.S.

government

appropriated

funds

contributed

to

the

CPA

for

Iraqi

reconstruction.

The

government

has

moved

to

dismiss

this

remaining

part

of

the

appeal

for

lack

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction

(gov't

mot.

at

1-4).

Appellant

opposes

the

government's

motion

and,

first,

argues

that

the

government

did

not

previously

challenge

the

Board's

jurisdiction

to

hear

the

dispute

involving

the

16

DOs

now

before

us

(app.

opp'n

at

6-7).

The

existence

of

our

jurisdiction

can

be

challenged

at

any

time

and

cannot

be

conferred

by

consent,

estoppel,

or

waiver.

See,

e.g.,

Brazos

Electric

Power

Cooperative,

Inc.

v.

United

States,

144

F.3d

784,

788

(Fed.

Cir.

1998);

Diggs

v.

Department

of

Housing

and

Urban

Development,

670

F.3d

1353,

1355

(Fed.

Cir.

2011).

Appellant's

primary

argument

in

opposition

to

the

government's

motion

is:

Contracting

authority

over

the

16,

non-DFI

funded

Delivery

Orders

never

transferred

to

the

IIG.

These

Delivery

Orders

are

U.S.

contracts

issued

by

U.S.

Contracting

Officers

using

U.S.

money

for

the

benefit

of

the

U.S.

Government.

When

the

CPA

dissolved,

the

U.S.

Government

served

as

the

contracting

activity

and

exercised

authority

over

the

16

Delivery

Orders.

(App.

opp'n

at

7)

MAC

further

argues

that

the

governmental

contracting

party

after

the

dissolution

of

the

CPA

was

the

PCO

and

not

the

IIG,

so

the

Board's

earlier

decision

that

no

executive

agency

was

involved

does

not

apply

and

we

have

jurisdiction

under

the

Contract

Disputes

Act

(CDA),

41

U.S.C.

§§

7101-7109.5

More

particularly,

MAC

argues

that,

unlike

the

situation

in

our

earlier

decision

which

involved

the

DFI

funds,

only

U.S.

appropriated

funds

were

used

in

the

16

DOs

now

at

issue

and,

for

that

reason,

MAC

argues

that

liabilities

under

the

DOs

were

not

transferred

to

the

IIG,

but

were

liabilities

of

4

The

government

also

argues

the

merits

of

appellant's

claim

to

PPA

interest

(gov't

mot.

at

4-5).

Given

our

resolution

of

the

jurisdictional

argument,

we

need

not

address

the

substantive

issues.

We

note

that

this

argument

would

seem

to

apply

only

to

the

DOs

13-18,

20,

and

21

which

were

issued

after

the

PCO

(and

later

the

JCC-I/A)

became

the

contracting

activity.

DOs

1-4,

6,

7,

11,

and

12

were

issued

by

the

CPA.

the

U.S.

government.

(App.

opp'n

at

7-11)

As

discussed

below,

the

record

does

not

support

MAC's

position.

The

contract

under

which

the

DOs

now

before

us

were

issued

was

a

contract

between

the

CPA,

an

international

entity,

and

MAC.

The

U.S.

government

was

never

a

party

to

the

contract

nor

to

any

of

the

DOs.

MAC

I,

10-2

BCA

^

34,591

at

170,515-17.

The

U.S.

government's

role

in

the

contracting

process

(through

the

CPA

Contracting

Activity,

PCO

and

JCC-I/A)

was

solely

as

the

specific

delegate

of

the

CPA

until

its

dissolution

on

28

June

2004

and,

after

the

dissolution

of

the

CPA,

by

specific

delegation

by

the

IIG.

MAC

argues

that

the

16

DOs

now

at

issue

were

U.S.

government

contracts

and

that,

after

dissolution

of

the

CPA,

they

were

obligations

of

the

U.S.

government

and

did

not

transfer

to

the

IIG

(app.

opp'n

at

7).

However,

the

DOs

issued

under

the

CPA

contract,

to

which

the

U.S.

government

was

never

a

party,

obligated

the

same

contracting

party

as

the

contract

itself:

the

CPA

and,

by

virtue

of

CPA

Order

Number

100,

any

successor

entities

such

as

the

IIG.

And,

since the

U.S.

government

was

never

a

party

to

the

contract

or

the

DOs,

it

could

not

be

the

obligated

party

after

dissolution

of

the

CPA.

MAC's

arguments

focus

on

the

presence

of

U.S.

government

personnel,

funds,

contracting

forms,

etc.

in

the

contracting

process

as

if

they

were

dispositive

evidence

that,

despite

the

express

terms

of

the

contract

and

the

DOs

to

the

contrary,

the

U.S.

government

and

not

the

CPA

and

IIG

was

the

contracting

party.

As

we

stated

in

MAC

I:

On

the

basis

of

the foregoing,

it

is

apparent

to

us

that

the

CPA

was

an

international

entity

and

was

not

an

entity

of

any

of

the

member

nations

of

the

CPA,

including

the

U.S.

government.

We

find

the

district

court's

logic

in

DRC

/6]

in

this

regard

persuasive:

[TJhere

is

no

dispute

that

the

CPA

was

not

established

by

Congress.

Instead,

as

described

in

a

letter

to

the

United

Nations,

the

CPA

was

an

entity

created

by

the

United

States,

United

Kingdom,

and

its

Coalition

partners

"acting

under

existing

command

and

control

arrangements

through

the

Commander

of

Coalition

Forces."

Moreover,

the

United

Nations

recognized

the

CPA,

not

as

an

instrumentality

of

the

United

States,

but

as

an

entity

through

which

the

Coalition

nations

acted

"as

occupying

powers

under

unified

command."

UNSCR

1483.

And

while

the

substantial

majority

of

6

th

United

States

of

America

ex

rel.

DRC,

Inc.

v.

Custer

Battles,

LLC,

376

F.

Supp.

2d

617

(E.D.

Va.

2005),

rev

'd in

part

on

other

grounds

and

remanded, 562

F.3d

295

(4

Cir.

2009).

the

CPA

staff

was

comprised

of

United

States

employees,

a

significant

portion

-

13%

-

hailed

from

other

Coalition

partners.

Thus,

the

CPA

may

also

be

described

as

an

international

body

formed

by

the

implicit,

multilateral

consent

of

its

Coalition

partners,

which

would

not

be

subject

to

the

specific

laws

of

its

member

states....

Given

the

fluid

nature

of

the

conflict

in

Iraq

and

the

challenges

of

establishing

a

new

government

in

a

war

zone,

it

is

not

surprising

that

the

organization

of

the

CPA

appears

at

times

to

have

been

ad

hoc

and

to

have

relied

heavily

on

the

resources

of

its

largest

contributing

member. Thus

it

would

seem

that,

like

NATO

or

any

other

international

organization

created

by

the

multilateral

consent

of

multiple

member

nations,

whether

by

treaty

or

otherwise,

the

CPA

is

not

an

instrumentality

of

each

of

its

members

[sic]

states,

distinctly

subject

to

the

laws

of

all

of

its

members,

but a

wholly

distinct

entity

that

exercises

power

through

a

structure

agreed

to

by

its

member

states

and

that

is

subject

to

the

laws

of

war

and

to

its

own

laws

and

regulations.

DRCI,

376

F.

Supp.

2d

at

650....

...And,

indeed,

the

result

of

that

analysis

is

clear-although

the

CPA

was

principally

controlled

and

funded

by

the

U.S.,

this

degree

of

control

did

not

rise

to

the

level

of

exclusive

control

required

to

qualify

as

an

instrumentality

of

the

U.S.

government.

See

Rainwater,

356

U.S.

at

592-94,

78

S.

Ct.

946.

In

fact,

the

evidence

clearly

establishes

that

it

was

created

through

and

governed

by

multinational

consent....

DRCII,[1]

444

F.

Supp.

2d

at

688-89.

MAC

I,

10-2

BCA^f

34,591

at

170,516-17.

7

United

States

of

America

ex

rel.

DRC,

Inc.

v.

Custer

Battles,

LLC,

444

F.

Supp.

2d

678

(E.D.

Va.

7

Cir.

2009).

(E.D.

Va.

2005),

rev'd

in

part

on

other

grounds

and

remanded,

562

F.3d

295

(4

7

While

our

earlier

decision

necessarily

addressed

itself

to

DOs

8

and

9,

which

were

funded

with

DFI

funds,

the

existence

of

our

jurisdiction

is

not

changed

by

the

fact that

the

16

DOs

at

issue

in

the

remainder

of

the

appeal

contained

U.S.

government

appropriated

fond

cites.

As

we

held

in

MAC

I:

We

find

the

U.S.

government's

role

in

the

CPA,

as

reflected

in

the

record

before

us

and

in

existing

case

law,

to

be

entirely

consistent

with

its

role

as

a

coalition

partner

who

made

very

significant

contributions

of

money,

personnel

and

expertise.11

The

use

by

the

government

of

its

various

agencies,

including

the

Department

of

Defense

and

Department

of

State,

among

others,

as

part

of

the

United

States'

contribution

is

entirely

consistent

with

its

role

as

a

coalition

partner

in

the

CPA.

The

government's

appointment

of

the

Army

to

have

lead

responsibility

to

provide

support

to

the

CPA

in

the areas

of

contract

awards,

administration

and

financial

management

is

also

entirely

consistent

with

its

role

as

a

coalition

partner.

This

conclusion

is

further

supported

by

the

express

delegation

of

authority

by

the

IIG

for

continued

contract

administration

by

the

Army

through

the

PMO,

PCO

and

JCC-I/A

after

the

dissolution

of

the

CPA.

The

government

did

not

become

the

CPA

(nor

did

the

CPA

become

the

government)

by

virtue

of

the

government's

use

and

contribution

of

its

resources

in

its

role

as

a

coalition

partner.

And

we

do

not

find

it

surprising,

nor

at

all

inappropriate,

that

the

government

would

want

U.S.

government-led

oversight

of

the

significant

contribution

of

appropriated

funds

it

had

made

to

the

CPA.

Further,

the

government's

resources

were

not

the

only

significant

contributions

made

by

coalition

partners

to

the

CPA.

More

than

ten

other

coalition

partners

and

nations

also

contributed

money,

personnel

and

expertise.

This

is

all

consistent

with

the

CPA's

status

as

an

international

entity

and

consistent

with

the

government's

status

as

one

of

many

coalition

partners.

To

hold

otherwise

would

be

to

ignore

or

nullify

the

significant

contributions

of

the multi-national

coalition

partners

other

than

the

U.S.

government

and

we

decline

to

do

so.

In

our

view,

therefore,

the

CPA

was

an

international

entity

and

not a

[U.S.]

government

entity.

As

a

result,

the

CPA

is

not

an

executive

agency

for

purposes

of

the

CDA

and

there

is

no

basis

for

jurisdiction to

consider

this

appeal

under

the

CDA....

1'

The

fact

that

the

government

(DoD,

Army,

Department

of

State,

etc.)

paid

the

wages

and

salaries

of

the

government

personnel

while

they

worked

in

support

of

the

CPA

(including

Administrator

Bremer)

is

entirely

consistent

with

it

making

a

contribution

of

those

wages

and

salaries

in

its

role

as

a

coalition

partner.

MAC

I,

10-2

BCA^f

34,591

at

170,517-18,

170,520

(citations

omitted).

Further

operating

against

the

existence

of

jurisdiction

over

MAC's

claim

for

PPA

interest

is

the

requirement

that

a dispute

under

the

PPA

must

be

asserted

in

a

claim

under

the

CDA.

31

U.S.C.

§

3907;

Randolph

and

Co.,

ASBCA

No.

52953

et

al,

03-1

BCA

1

32,080

at

158,586.

As

we

quoted

above

and

discussed

at

length

in

MAC

I,

the

CDA

is

not

applicable

to

the

contract

between

the

CPA

and

MAC

nor,

by

extension,

the

DOs

issued

under

that

contract.

MAC

I,

10-2

BCA

134,591

at

170,515-18.

We

have

previously

held

that

extensive

involvement

by

the

U.S.

government

in

the

form

of

personnel,

contract

forms,

oversight

and

even

funding

is

insufficient

to

establish

CDA

jurisdiction

where

the

government

was

not a

party

to

the

contract.

See,

e.g.,

CDK

Contracting

Co.,

ASBCA

No.

44997,

93-3

BCA

126,068.

As

the

Court

of

Federal

Claims

held

recently,

and

specifically

as

it

relates

to

CPA

contracts

and

U.S.

government

support

of

the

CPA:

[E]ven

extensive

involvement

by

the

United

States

in

administering

the..

.contract

cannot

overcome

the lack

of

privity

of

contract

between

the

[contractor]

and

[the

government]....

Even

extensive,

de

facto

control

of

the contract

cannot

create

a

contract

where

no

privity

exists.

Laudes

Corp.

v.

United

States,

86

Fed.

Cl.

152,

165

(2009).

MAC

I,

10-2

BCA

134,591

at

170,516.

CONCLUSION

For

the

foregoing

reasons,

we

do

not

have

jurisdiction

to

decide

the

merits

of

the

remainder

of

ASBCA

No. 56355

and

grant

the

government's

motion

to

dismiss

for

lack

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction.

Dated:

23

April

2013

D'lANA

S.EfrCKINSON

Administrative

Judge

Armed

Services

Board

of

Contract

Appeals

I

concur

I

concur

MARK

N.

STEMPLER

Administrative

Judge

Acting

Chairman

Armed

Services

Board

of

Contract

Appeals

JA^SK-SELMAN

Administrative

Judge

Acting

Vice

Chairman

Armed

Services

Board

of

Contract

Appeals

I

certify

that

the

foregoing

is

a

true

copy

of

the

Opinion

and

Decision

of

the

Armed

Services

Board

of

Contract

Appeals

in

ASBCA

No.

56355,

Appeal

of

MAC

International

FZE,

rendered

in

conformance

with

the

Board's

Charter.

Dated:

JEFFREY

D.

GARDIN

Recorder,

Armed

Services

Board

of

Contract

Appeals

10