The ASBCA dismissed two counts from the contractor's complaint because they raised new claims never presented to the contracting officer—a jurisdictional prerequisite under the Contract Disputes Act.
VESEQU LLC, ASBCA No. 64468
- Background - The Defense Logistics Agency awarded VESEQU a contract to provide web-based subscriptions for DLA Strategic Materials. DLA issued a stop-work order in October 2025, then partially terminated the contract for convenience in November 2025. VESEQU submitted a request for equitable adjustment seeking $70,930.80 in costs—expressly stating the request included "no profit." After converting the REA into a CDA claim, VESEQU appealed the contracting officer's denial. In its complaint to the ASBCA, however, VESEQU added two new counts: one alleging constructive change based on subscription agreement issues, and another alleging bad faith termination with a demand for lost profits. DLA moved to dismiss both counts for lack of jurisdiction.
- New Factual Grounds Equal New Claims - Count II failed because it raised entirely different facts than those presented in the original claim. The appeal alleged that DLA prohibited the execution of the required subscription agreements—a theory never mentioned to the contracting officer. Under the CDA, contractors must give contracting officers "an ample pre-suit opportunity" to rule on claims with knowledge of the substantive issues raised. Here, the subscription agreement theory was completely new. The Board struck Count II for asserting materially different grounds than those in the certified claim.
- Different Remedies Demand Different Claims - Count IV alleged bad-faith termination based on DLA's immediate reacquisition of the terminated subscriptions. While this theory related to fairness concerns VESEQU raised in its original claim, Count IV sought lost profits—a fundamentally different remedy. The contractor's claim expressly stated it included "no profit." The ASBCA held that claims seeking different types of remedies—such as expectation damages versus consequential damages—constitute separate claims.
The contractor is represented by Jason Shadburn of VESEQU LLC. The government is represented by Steven M. Sosko and Rachel M. Noble of the Defense Logistics Agency.