Bagram Eagle Construction and Logistic Company

CourtArmed Services Board of Contract Appeals
DecidedMay 13, 2022
DocketASBCA No. 62997
StatusPublished

This text of Bagram Eagle Construction and Logistic Company (Bagram Eagle Construction and Logistic Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bagram Eagle Construction and Logistic Company, (asbca 2022).

Opinion

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of - ) ) Bagram Eagle Construction and Logistic ) ASBCA No. 62997 Company ) ) Under Contract No. 000000-00-0-0000 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Mohammad Agul CEO

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Scott N. Flesch, Esq. Army Chief Trial Attorney MAJ Michael R. Tregle, Jr., JA Trial Attorney

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL ON GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

The government moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, saying that appellant is not a contractor within the meaning of the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (gov’t mot. at 3). It is the responsibility of appellant to establish the Board’s jurisdiction. Hellenic Air Force, ASBCA No. 60802, 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,821 at 179,457. Pursuant to the CDA, 41 U.S.C. § 7105(e)(1)(A), the Board “has jurisdiction to decide any appeal from a decision of a contracting officer of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, the Department of the Air Force, or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration relative to a contract made by that department or agency.” Although to establish Board jurisdiction under this provision an appellant need only make a non-frivolous allegation of the existence of a contract with the government, Siemens Gov’t Techs., Inc., ASBCA No. 62806, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,924 at 184,185, appellant says in its notice of appeal only that it had a contract with a company based in the United States by the name of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. Because appellant does not even allege that it had a contract with the government, appellant fails to establish the Board’s jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Dated: May 13, 2022

TIMOTHY P. MCILMAIL Administrative Judge Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals

I concur I concur

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD OWEN C. WILSON Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Vice Chairman Armed Services Board Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals 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. 62997, Appeal of Bagram Eagle Construction and Logistic Company, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS Recorder, Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 7101-7109
41 U.S.C. § 7101-7109
Agency boards
41 U.S.C. § 7105(e)(1)(A)
§ 7101
41 U.S.C. § 7101

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bagram Eagle Construction and Logistic Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bagram-eagle-construction-and-logistic-company-asbca-2022.