Name Redacted

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL ON THE
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
The government moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because,
the government says, appellant, 	, never submitted a
properly certified claim to a contracting officer requesting a final decision pursuant to
the Contracts Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (CDA) (gov’t mot. at 1).
response to the motion does not address the government’s position (app. resp.
at 1).
STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION
On February 24, 2016, the government contracted with 	for work
including repair and replacement of interior plumbing systems and ceramic tile at the
Afghan Air Force Base at Hamid Karzai International Airport, Kabul, Afghanistan
(R4, tab 3 at 1, 59 ¶ 1). On December 12, 2019, 	submitted what it called
an “REA” (presumably, a Request for Equitable Adjustment) seeking, we find,
Appeal of - 	)
)
) 	ASBCA No. 62870
)
Under Contract No. W5J9JE-16-P-0011 	)
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 	Mr.
Director
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 	Michael P. Goodman, Esq.
Engineer Chief Trial Attorney
Kathryn G. Morris, Esq.
James D. Stephens, Esq.
Engineer Trial Attorneys
U.S. Army Engineer District, Middle East
Winchester, VA

2
$104,390∗ (R4, tab 29 at 1, 5, 9, 14). No certification of any kind accompanies that
request (see id.).
DECISION
has the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction by a
preponderance of the evidence. Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d
746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The CDA provides that each “claim by a contractor against
the Federal Government relating to a contract shall be submitted to the contracting
officer for a decision.” Andrews Contracting Servs., LLC, ASBCA No. 60808, 17-1
BCA ¶ 36,766 at 179,168 (citing 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(l)). The linchpin of the Board’s
jurisdiction over a contractor claim is the contractor’s submission of a proper claim to
the contracting officer for a decision. Id. Although the CDA does not define the term
“claim,” the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) define a “claim” as “a written
demand or written assertion by one of the contracting parties seeking, as a matter of
right, the payment of money in a sum certain, the adjustment or interpretation of
contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to the contract.” FAR 2.101. In
addition, a claim exceeding $100,000 must be certified in accordance with 41 U.S.C.
§ 7103(b). We determine whether a contractor’s submission is a CDA claim on a
case-by-case basis, applying a common sense analysis. Andrews Contracting, 17-1
BCA ¶ 36,766 at 179,168. 	point us to nothing in the record that constitutes
a proper, certified CDA claim conferring upon us jurisdiction to entertain
request for more than $100,000, nor do we see anything in the uncertified,
December 12, 2019 REA that confers upon us that jurisdiction. Consequently, the
motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
The motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
Dated: September 14, 2021
(Signatures Continued)
∗ $23,530 + $1,900 + $78,960 = $104,390. In a document dated September 26, 2016,
but filed with the Board on April 10, 2021, 	“look[s] to get the
amount of 103430 USD” from this appeal.
TIMOTHY P. MCILMAIL
Administrative Judge
Armed Services Board
of Contract Appeals

3
I concur
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD
Administrative Judge
Acting Chairman
Armed Services Board
of Contract Appeals
I concur
OWEN C. WILSON
Administrative Judge
Vice Chairman
Armed Services Board
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. 62870, Appeal of
, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.
Dated: September 16, 2021
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS
Recorder, Armed Services
Board of Contract Appeals