Equine Architectural Products, Inc.
Docket: ASBCA 59743
Decision date: 2015-06-04

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of -- ) 
) 
Equine Architectural Products, Inc. ) 
) 
Under Contract No. W91ZLK-12-P-0037 ) 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 59743 
Donald J. Walsh, Esq. 
Offit Kurman, P.A. 
Owings Mills, MD 
Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 
Army Chief Trial Attorney 
MAJ Cameron R. Edlefsen, JA 
Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE DELMAN ON THE GOVERNMENT'S 
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 
The Department of the Army (government) has moved to dismiss this appeal for 
lack of jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109, 
contending that Equine Architectural Products, Inc. (EAP or appellant) has failed to 
submit a claim in a sum certain to the contracting officer (CO). EAP has filed in 
opposition to the motion. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 
1. In February 2012, the government awarded Contract No. W91ZLK-12-P-0037 
to EAP for the demolition and removal of railroad and related facilities at Aberdeen 
Proving Ground (APG), Maryland 
(comp I., ex A). 
2. By Modification No. P00002 dated 25 July 2012, the government issued a 
Stop-Work Order to appellant in accordance with FAR 52.242-15 (AUG 1989) (compl., 
ex. A). According to appellant, approximately 51 days later the government notified 
appellant that the contract was being terminated for convenience ( compl. ~ 15). 1 
By cover letter dated 21December2012, appellant submitted a termination proposal to 
the government (compl., ex. B). The record is unclear as to the disposition of this 
termination proposal. 
1 The Board is unable to locate the contract modification that terminated the contract 
for convenience in the government's Rule 4 file. 

3. By letter to the government dated 7 January 2014, appellant stated as 
follows: 
Please accept this letter as an official claim under the 
above contract pursuant to the [CDA]. 
This claim is for return to Equine of all property which 
existed within that 15 foot area, including the 14 miles of 
rail, at the time of that mobilization. Much of this 
equipment is noted per drawings titled APG: North Rail 
Lines dated March 27, 2012. By the direct language of the 
contract, title to this property passed to Equine at the time 
of contracting. This claim is for possession and return of 
all such property which now belongs to Equine and which 
it has been prevented from removing by the government. 
Appellant's claim letter concluded as follows: 
I certify that I have reviewed this claim and that it is made 
in good faith, the supporting data is accurate and complete 
to the best of my knowledge and belief, that the property 
requested is accurately reflected in the contract under 
which Equine believes the Government is liable; and that I 
am duly authorized to certify this claim on behalf of 
Equine. 
(Compl., ex. C at 1-2) Appellant did not provide any "sum certain" in its claim letter, 
nor did it reference any other document 
that contained a "sum certain." 
4. In the ensuing weeks, the parties discussed the quantum of appellant's 
"claim." By email to the government dated 28 January 2014, appellant's counsel 
advised as follows: 
Thanks for the update. I also had my client put 
together ~ list of what he knew was on the tracks based on 
his observations and conversations. Attached is a listing of 
materials and equipment within the 15' footprint that my 
client pieced together based on those observations and 
conversations. It does not currently include buildings or 
structures within that footprint nor does it include property 
on the rails in the Edgewood Arsenal Area since Equine 
2 

was not given any maps and or the opportunity to do a 
detailed site survey. Based on this limited area, we believe 
the scrap in this area totals approximately $6,986,832.00. 
(Gov't reply, ex. 1) Appellant did not certify this amount. 
5. By letter to the government dated 7 May 2014, captioned "FOR 
SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY," appellant's counsel stated: 
[I]f the Garrison is not willing to release the property to 
Equine as contracted, we feel that the total claims 
presented by Equine consist of the following costs and 
expenses: 
- Value of the rail, ties and ballasts - $2,220,000; 
- Value of the equipment within the 15 foot radius to 
the rail - $4,400,000; 
- The carrying cost of equipment Equine purchased for 
this project which has been sitting idle since the stop 
work notice was issued but had to remain ready and 
available to remove Equine's equipment from the base 
once released - $1,300,000; 
If the above values are not computed at 2012 prices, the 
damages will also include the decreased value of the 
scrap because of the Government's delay - $1,300,000; 
and 
- the legal costs in preparing and resolving the claims - $50,000. 
We estimate that the total value of these costs and impacts 
is $9,250,000.00. 
(Compl., ex. D) Appellant did not certify this amount. 
6. Having failed to receive a CO's decision, appellant, on or about 
12 December 2014, filed a notice of appeal to this Board on a "deemed denial" basis, 
stating that its total losses exceeded $10,000,000.00. 
7. By letter to EAP dated 15 December 2014, the CO denied appellant's claim 
dated 7 January 2014, referencing a property list provided by appellant with an 
estimated total scrap value of $6,986,832.00 (comp I., ex. E). 
3 

DECISION 
Under the CDA, a prerequisite to our jurisdiction over a contractor claim is the 
submission of the claim for decision to the CO and either the issuance of a decision 
denying the claim in whole or in part, or the failure to issue a decision within a 
reasonable time as defined by the CDA, 41 U.S.C. § 7103(t). 
The CDA does not define "claim", but the FAR does. Insofar as is pertinent 
here, FAR 2.101 provides as follows: 
Claim means 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. However, a 
written demand or written assertion by the contractor 
seeking the payment of money exceeding $100,000 is not a 
claim under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 until 
certified as required by the Act. 
In accordance with this definition, it is well settled that for purposes of our 
jurisdiction a contractor's monetary claim must be submitted to the CO in a "sum 
certain." Northrop Grumman Computing Systems, Inc. v. United States, 709 F .3d 
1107, 1112 (Fed. Cir. 2013). We believe that appellant's claim is essentially a 
monetary claim. Therefore, appellant was required to submit its claim to the CO in a 
sum certain. 
Appellant's letter of 7 January 2014, which it expressly identified as its "claim," 
did not contain a "sum certain," nor did it refer to any document asserting a sum 
certain, nor did it describe its monetary claim with such particularity as to enable the 
CO to easily compute a sum certain (SOF ir 3). We believe that appellant failed to 
submit its claim letter dated 7 January 2014 in a sum certain as required by law, and 
hence we have no jurisdiction over this appeal based on this submission alone. 
Appellant suggests that we go beyond the confines of the 7 January 2014 letter 
and view other communications to the government to determine whether appellant 
submitted a proper claim under the CDA. Appellant's subsequent email to the 
government, dated 28 January 2014, asserted a value of the scrap in a limited area in 
the approximate amount of $6,986,832.00 (SOF ir 4). Appellant's letter to the 
government dated 7 May 2014, which appellant states represents the total value of its 
claim, was in the amount of $9,250,000.00 (SOF ir 5). 
4 

Assuming, arguendo, that EAP's subsequent quantification of7 May 2014 
constitutes a legally sufficient "sum certain," it nevertheless runs afoul of the CD A's 
certification requirement. Under the CDA, a monetary claim in excess of $100,000 
must be certified, 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(l). Appellant's monetary claim of7 May 2014, 
based on appellant's later submissions, is in excess of $100,000. However, appellant 
failed to provide any certification of the monetary amount it requested. 2 We are 
without jurisdiction over the appeal for this reason. 
CONCLUSION 
For reasons stated, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction over this 
appeal. We dismiss ASBCA No. 59743 without prejudice to appellant's submission of 
a properly certified claim to the CO. 
Dated: 
4 June 2015 
I 
concur 
MARK N. STEMPLER 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
/ / 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
2 See 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(l)(C), requiring that a contractor's certification provide that 
"the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which 
the contractor believes the Federal Government is liable" (emphasis added). 
5 

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. 59743, Appeal of Equine 
Architectural Products, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
6 
JEFFREYD. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals