The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals recently ruled on a case involving VESEQU LLC, a company that provides web-based subscriptions and publications. The court dismissed two of VESEQU's claims against the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) due to lack of jurisdiction. This decision impacts how contractors can present claims related to government contracts and establishes important guidelines for future disputes.
VESEQU LLC, based in Los Angeles, California, entered into a contract with DLA for the acquisition of various web-based subscriptions, including Bloomberg Professional Service and Platts Metal Daily. The contract was awarded on June 17, 2025, under Contract No. SP8000-25-C-0005. However, the relationship between VESEQU and DLA soured when a stop work order was issued on October 27, 2025, halting work on the subscriptions. Following this, VESEQU submitted a request for an equitable adjustment, claiming costs incurred due to the stop work order.
On November 17, 2025, DLA partially terminated the contract for convenience, which led VESEQU to convert its request for an equitable adjustment into a formal claim. VESEQU's claim was denied by the contracting officer on February 20, 2026, prompting the company to appeal to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. In its appeal, VESEQU alleged four counts against DLA, including claims of bad faith termination and government-caused impasse.
The court, led by Administrative Judge James R. Sweet, ruled on the government's motion to dismiss two of VESEQU's claims, specifically Counts II and IV. The court found that these claims raised new issues that had not been presented to the contracting officer prior to the appeal. The ruling stated, "We do not possess jurisdiction over new claims that a contractor did not present to the CO." This ruling emphasized the importance of presenting all relevant claims to the contracting officer before escalating the matter to the Board.
Count II of VESEQU's complaint asserted that the DLA had prohibited the execution of subscription agreements, which was not included in the original claim. The court determined that this constituted a new claim, stating that the factual basis of Count II was materially different from the original claim. Similarly, Count IV sought lost profits as a remedy, which had not been requested in the original claim. The court noted, "Count IV seeks a different type of remedy than the Claim sought," leading to the dismissal of that count as well.
The court's decision to strike Counts II and IV was made without prejudice, meaning that VESEQU could potentially refile these claims in the future if they are properly presented. The ruling underscores the necessity for contractors to clearly outline all claims and remedies in their submissions to contracting officers to ensure jurisdiction is maintained.
This ruling has significant implications for contractors working with government entities. It reinforces the procedural requirements for filing claims and highlights the importance of thoroughness in documentation. The decision may also influence how contractors approach their claims in the future, ensuring they adhere to the jurisdictional prerequisites set by the Board.
Moving forward, VESEQU LLC has the option to appeal the decision or to revise its claims in accordance with the court's ruling. The case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in government contracts and the critical nature of following proper procedures to protect one's interests.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or additional appeals. However, the outcome of this case could set a precedent for how similar disputes are handled in the future, especially regarding the jurisdictional requirements for claims against government contracts.