Military Aircraft Parts, ASBCA No. 60739

DLA awarded a contract to Military Aircraft Parts (MAP) on Aug. 9, 2011, which included a FAR first-article testing clause requiring government testing and a CO decision within 120 days.
MAP’s first-article submission was disapproved on Oct. 2, 2012; CO invited resubmission but MAP did not timely resubmit or provide a resubmittal schedule.
CO issued a ten-day cure notice on Feb. 21, 2013; MAP replied in March 2013 preferring contract cancellation but offering to resubmit a sample within 60 days if required.
On Apr. 2, 2013, the CO issued Modification P00001 partially terminating the contract for default and included a final decision with standard appeal language advising a 90‑day deadline to appeal to the ASBCA or 12 months to sue in the Court of Federal Claims.
MAP filed an appeal with the ASBCA on Aug. 15, 2016 — more than three years after the Apr. 2, 2013 final decision; MAP argued the CO’s appeal language was defective because it did not warn that MAP could not proceed pro se in the Court of Federal Claims, and that it relied on that when deciding not to file with the ASBCA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ASBCA has jurisdiction over an appeal filed more than 90 days after receipt of a CO final decision	MAP: CO’s appeal language was defective because it failed to advise MAP that it could not proceed pro se in the Court of Federal Claims, causing MAP to rely and miss the 90‑day ASBCA deadline	DLA: The CO’s final decision contained the required FAR/CDA appeal language; there is no requirement to explain Court of Federal Claims procedural rules; 90‑day statutory deadline applies	Held: Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as untimely; CO’s appeal language was proper and MAP’s reliance on Court of Federal Claims procedural rules is irrelevant

Cosmic Construction Co. v. United States, 697 F.2d 1389 (Fed. Cir. 1982) (establishes that boards lack jurisdiction over appeals filed after statutory 90‑day CDA filing period)