Sayar Development Inc.

Material Facts

• The Army entered into a 2010 contract with SDI referred to as the D-2006 contract, which was an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract for material handling equipment.
• The Army entered into a second contract with SDI in 2011 referred to as the P-2062 contract.
• In its August 6, 2025 decision, the Board granted the government’s motion to dismiss ASBCA No. 63894 concerning alleged failure to order minimum quantities under the D-2006 contract for lack of a prior claim to the contracting officer.
• In the same decision, the Board denied the government’s motion to dismiss and alternative summary judgment motion as to ASBCA No. 63871, involving alleged unpaid amounts under the P-2062 contract.
• The Board also granted the government’s motion to dismiss ASBCA No. 64191, which alleged CPAR violations, misconduct, immigration and civil rights violations concerning the P-2062 contract, for failure to submit a claim to the contracting officer.
• The Board held in the prior decision that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain SDI’s challenge to the termination for default of the P-2062 contract in ASBCA No. 64227.
• SDI filed a 215-page motion for reconsideration, a 53-page reply, and numerous additional filings asserting 34 separate grounds for reversal and raising various new and ancillary allegations.
• Tab 23 is a February 16, 2013 letter to an Air Force contracting officer regarding option year two and the minimum order of Contract No. W90U42-10-D-2006 and includes the statement that SDI was asking for a written decision to be final and to process attached minimum granted orders invoices.
• SDI argued on reconsideration that Tab 23, together with certain invoices, constituted a contracting officer’s final decision demand for approximately $1.4 million on the 2010 D-2006 contract.
• The government contended that Tab 23 was not a claim for a sum certain, or alternatively, that any such claim exceeded $100,000, was uncertified, and there was no evidence it had been submitted to the contracting officer.
• There is no certification in the record for the Tab 23 monetary claim which SDI characterized as seeking $1.4 million.
• The Board previously explained that Board Rule 17 addresses dismissal or default for failure to prosecute or defend and that the Board has no rule regarding fraud referrals.

Parties

Appellant

Sayar Development Inc.

Respondent Agency

Department of the Army

Contracting Agency

Department of the Army

Contract Number

W90U42-11-P-2062