DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: February 17, 2023
CBCA 7642
AMALGAMATED SERVICES, INC.,
Appellant,
v.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
John C. Dulske of Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC, San Antonio, TX, counsel for
Appellant.
Alexander C. Vincent and David C. Charin, Office of General Counsel, General
The case caption as the decision prints it. Every word is kept; the rule the Board draws around it is not text, so it is not repeated here.
Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges GOODMAN, SHERIDAN, and KULLBERG.
KULLBERG, Board Judge.
Appellant, Amalgamated Services, Inc. (ASI), appealed a contracting officer’s final decision (COFD) that denied ASI’s uncertified request for equitable adjustment (REA) in excess of $100,000. Respondent, the General Services Administration (GSA), requests that the Board dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. ASI, however, seeks a dismissal without prejudice. For the reasons stated below, the Board dismisses this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
On July 29, 2022, ASI submitted to the contracting officer (CO) its REA in the amount of $857,750 for increased costs under its contract for operation and maintenance services at GSA facilities in Aberdeen, Greenville, and Oxford, Mississippi. On November 1, 2022, the CO issued his COFD that denied the REA and advised ASI of its appeal rights. ASI appealed the COFD to the Board.
Discussion
At issue is whether the Board has jurisdiction to hear this appeal where ASI has appealed a COFD that denied an uncertified REA in excess of $100,000. The Board’s jurisdiction is pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7109 (2018). The CDA requires that for any claim in excess of $100,000, the contractor shall certify “that—(A) the claim is made in good faith; (B) the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of the contractor’s knowledge and belief; (C) the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the Federal Government is liable; and (D) the certifier is authorized to certify the claim on behalf of the contractor.” Id. § 7103(b)(1). While the CDA allows for the correction of a defective certification before entry of final judgment, the CDA makes no provision for correcting a contractor’s failure to certify its claim. Computer Integration & Programming Solutions Corp. v. Department of Justice, CBCA 6491, 19-1 BCA ¶ 37,364, at 181,688 (citing 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(3)).
Additionally, a CO’s issuance of a COFD for an uncertified REA in excess of $100,000 does not grant the Board jurisdiction. Gulf Tech Construction LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 7447, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,179, at 185,427. The Board, consequently, has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Although ASI seeks a dismissal without prejudice, the Board’s rules require that when it lacks jurisdiction, it will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction regardless of the parties’ position on jurisdiction or dismissal. Rule 12(b)(3) (48 CFR 6101.12(b)(3) (2021)).
Decision
The appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. H. Chuck Kullberg
H. CHUCK KULLBERG
Board Judge
We concur:
Allan H. Goodman
Board Judge
Patricia J. Sheridan
Board Judge
This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the Board's own document in Amalgamated Services, Inc., CBCA 7642. Nothing is summarized or reworded, and the sections run in the order the Board wrote them. What the page shows and the text does not repeat is the pagination furniture: the page numbers and the rules the Board draws around its caption and under its signatures. The signatures are set back into the columns the Board prints them in, each judge under the name he or she signed, and the typed copy of that name the page carries beneath each signature is not repeated.