KBAJ Enterprises, LLC t/d/b/a Home Again
Docket: ASBCA 60014
Decision date: 2016-11-22

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of -- ) 
) 
KBAJ Enterprises, LLC t/d/b/a Home Again ) 
) 
Under Contract No. SPE5EM-14-V-5503 ) 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 60014 
Mr. Joseph Dente 
General Manager, Member and 
Corporate Officer 
Daniel K. Poling, Esq. 
DLA Chief Trial Attorney 
John F. Basiak, Jr., Esq. 
Steven C. Herrera, Esq. 
J. Maxwell Carrion, Esq. 
Trial Attorneys 
DLA Troop Support 
Philadelphia, PA 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MELNICK ON 
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 
This appeal arises from an alleged deemed denial by the contracting officer (CO) 
of appellant's claim seeking payment for delivered items under a purchase order (PO). 
The government moves 
to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, or alternatively, for 
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Subsequent to the filing of the 
government's motion, the Board, sua sponte, directed the parties to brief whether a sum 
certain claim was submitted to a CO for a decision pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act 
of 1978 (CDA), 41 U:S.C. §§ 7101-7109. In response, the government contends that no 
proper claim was submitted to the CO. Because we conclude that a claim was not 
submitted to a CO, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 
FINDINGS OF FACT 
1. On 31 July 2014, Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Hardware 
(DLA or government), issued unilateral PO No. SPE5EM-14-V-5503 (PO 5503) to 
KBAJ Enterprises, LLC t/d/b/a Home Again 1 (KBAJ or appellant) for the delivery of 
1 The PO was issued to "KBAJ ENTERPRISES DBA." This appeal was filed by 
appellant's representative in the name of KBAJ Enterprises LLC. At the 
Board's direction, the parties clarified that the proper name of appellant in this 

500 weather-resistant neoprene rubber strips for a total price of $4,505 (R4, tab 3 
at 9-13 2; compl. ~ 4). The PO contemplated delivery of the quantities by 
10 November 2014 (R4, tab 3 at 13). 
2. Under block 6 of PO 5503, Ms. Sharon Sax is identified as the "Local 
Admin" (R4, tab 3 at 9). Ms. Sax was not the CO who issued the PO. 
3. On 17 September 2014, KBAJ received notice from DLA that 60 of the 500 
shipped items were accepted (comp I. ~ 31; gov't mot. at 3, ~ 16). Two days afterward, 
KBAJ received a partial payment of $540.60 for the accepted items without allegedly 
receiving any information as to why the other shipped items were not accepted (comp I. 
~~ 32-33; gov't mot. at 3, ~ 17). 
4. Between September 2014 and March 2015, KBAJ corresponded with various 
DLA personnel, including Ms. Sax and her supervisor Mr. Jonathan Hampton, who 
identified himself as a Branch Chief for the "Industrial Hardware/Post Award-FHCC" 
division, seeking an explanation as to why DLA withheld payment of $3,964.40, the 
balance corresponding to the 440 items under PO 5503 that DLA did not formally 
accept (R4, tab 4; app. supp. R4, tabs 3, 7). 
5. In a letter dated 21 April 2015 addressed to Ms. Sax, KBAJ stated in part: 
RE: CONTRACT NO. SPE5EM-14-V-5503 
Dear Sharon: 
You are listed as the local administrator of the 
above referenced contract. As you know from our past 
requests we have been attempting to resolve the alleged 
issues associated with this award. To date we have been 
ignored, stonewalled and simply not responded to with 
regard to our attempts to resolve the alleged problems. 
Therefore, pursuant to the terms and conditions of said 
contract we are hereby asking if you would agree to submit 
this matter to [Alternative Disputes Resolution (ADR)] for 
resolution. Please let us know your position on or before 
COB, Friday April 24, 2015. Ifwe do not hear from you 
appeal is "KBAJ Enterprises, LLC t/d/b/a Home Again" (see Bd. corr. gov't ltr. 
<ltd. 9 June 2016, ex. A). The caption in this appeal is modified accordingly. 
2 Citations to the Rule 4 file are to the consecutively-numbered pages unless otherwise 
indicated. 
2 

by that date we will take you[ r] lack of response as a 
refusal to submit the matter to [ADR]. 
Finally, if you are not going to agree to [ADR], then 
please provide us with your written decision as to why you 
are refusing to pay the balance due and owning [sic] under 
this award. We require your decision so that the same can 
be submitted with our claim we intend on filing with the 
Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals. If we do not 
receive your decision by COB, Friday April 24, 2015, we 
will notify the Board that no decision 
was received from 
despite our requests for the same. 
We regret we have to take these actions but the 
failure of all offices and employees of the DLA to respond 
in a professional manner to our prior requests have left us 
with no choice. We look forward to your response. Please 
note that by a copy of this request we are notifying some of 
the other individuals of our demands. 
(R4, tab 6) Mr. Hampton and other individuals were copied on the letter (id.). KBAJ 
did not identify any of the individuals as a CO. KBAJ's complaint alleges this 
correspondence is its "final demand letter" (comp I. ~ 4 7). 
6. In a response to, among other things, a 10 March 2016 letter from KBAJ 
allegedly addressed to DLA's Small Business Office, CO Jayne Manco's (CO Manco's) 
22 April 2015 letter informed KBAJ that the contracting office had requested 
traceability documentation for PO 5503 and other POs issued to KBAJ. CO Manco 
communicated that acceptance of delivered items would not occur prior to receipt of 
sufficient documentation evidencing that the items furnished met technical requirements 
under the respective POs. (R4, tab 8 at 23) 
7. In a letter dated 24 April 2015, CO Manco denied KBAJ's request to 
proceed under ADR in PO 5503 and other POs (R4, tab 10). The letter does not 
mention or reference KBAJ's 21 April 2015 letter. 
8. In response to CO Manco's 22 April letter, KBAJ, in a letter dated 
24 April 2015, complained that CO Manco and the contracting office "have been and 
continue to target our business because we have disclosed to you on many occasions 
the issues associated with [the POs issued to KBAJ]" (R4, tab 12 at 29). The letter 
specifically expressed dissatisfaction with CO Manco's handling of matters, including 
3 

but not limited to, alleged failures to provide timely and adequate responses to KBAJ's 
requests for documentation and the CO's recusal (id. at 29-30). 
9. On 28 May 2015, KBAJ filed its notice of appeal to this Board, appealing 
"the Deemed Denial of the Contracting Officers, JONATHAN HAMPTON and 
SHARON SAX" of its request for a written decision. 
DECISION 
DLA filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that there is no enforceable 
contract between the parties, or alternatively, KBAJ's complaint fails to state a claim 
upon which relief can be granted. Subsequent to DLA's motion, the Board issued an 
order directing the parties to address whether KBAJ submitted a sum certain claim to 
the CO for a decision in this appeal (Bd. corr., order dtd. 1 July 2016). KBAJ did not 
submit a response. In its response, DLA asserted that KBAJ' s 21 April 2015 letter did 
not constitute a CDA claim because it "did not contain sufficient detail to notify the 
contracting officer of the factual allegations upon which this appeal is premised" (see 
Bd. corr., gov't ltr. dtd. 28 July 2016). DLA argues that the 21 April letter did not 
assert a demand for payment nor invoke the CDA disputes process, and CO Manco's 
24 April 2015 letter was not a final decision (id.). 
As the proponent of our jurisdiction, KBAJ bears the burden to establish 
jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. CCIE & Co., ASBCA Nos. 58355, 
59008, 14-1BCAii35,700 at 174,816. "The facts supportingjurisdiction are subject to 
our fact-finding upon a review of the record." Id. A contractor's submission of a 
proper claim to a CO for a decision is a jurisdictional prerequisite for the Board to 
entertain an appeal under the CDA. 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a); CCIE & Co., 14-1 BCA 
ii 35, 700 at 174,816. 
The CDA does not define the term "claim"; however, FAR 2.101 defines a claim, 
in relevant part, 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." A claim is 
not required to be submitted in any particular form or use any particular wording, but 
must provide to the CO adequate notice of the basis and amount of the claim and request 
a final decision. M Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323, 1328 
(Fed. Cir. 2010). The 
claim must also be submitted to a CO. To satisfy the submission 
requirement, a contractor can either 
submit its claim directly to a CO or "to its primary 
contact [with the government] with a request for a final decision of the contracting officer 
and a reasonable expectation that such a request will be honored, and the primary contact 
in fact timely delivers the claim to the contracting officer." Neal & Co., Inc. v. United 
States, 945 F.2d 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Gardner Zemke Co., ASBCA 
No. 51499, 98-2 BCA ii 29,997. 
4 

KBAJ's notice of appeal did not attach nor indicate a specific document that 
serves as its claim in this appeal. Although KBAJ failed to respond to our order, its 
complaint characterizes its 21 April 2015 letter as a "final demand letter" (finding 5). 
We presume that KBAJ attempts to appeal from an alleged CO's deemed denial of this 
letter. On its face, the 21 April letter is specifically addressed to Ms. Sax, who is 
identified by KBAJ as a local administrator and is also identified as a "Local Admin" 
under PO 5503 (findings 2, 5). The letter also copied Mr. Hampton who is identified 
as a "Branch Chief' in prior correspondence (finding ~ 4 ). KBAJ' s notice of appeal to 
the Board alleges that Ms. Sax and Mr. Hampton are COs, but a review of the record 
does not substantiate that allegation. Therefore, we are unable to conclude that the 
21 April letter was submitted directly to a CO for jurisdictional purposes. 
We next determine whether KBAJ meets the CDA's submission requirement by 
sending a proper claim to a primary contact. Pursuant to Neal, the requirement may be 
met by submitting a claim to the primary contact "with 
a request for a final decision of 
the contracting officer and a reasonable expectation that such a request will be 
honored." 945 F.2d at 388. While the 21 April letter does expressly request a decision 
from Ms. Sax, even if we were to assume she is a primary contact and the letter 
otherwise meets the requirements of the FAR definition of a claim, the evidence fails 
to establish that KBAJ intended and reasonably expected a decision from a CO. We 
can reasonably infer that, based on statements made in KBAJ's 24 April letter to 
CO Manco, KBAJ was aware that CO Manco was the cognizant CO on matters related 
to PO 5503 and other POs, going so far as requesting 
her recusal (finding 8). Even 
with this knowledge, KBAJ elected to submit its 21 April letter directly to Ms. Sax. 
See Bruce E. Zoeller, ASBCA No. 55654, 07-1 BCA ~ 33,581 at 166,347 (appellant 
was aware of the CO's identity under the lease, and submitted a claim seeking "a Chief 
Accountable Officer's decision" that failed to establish a submission of a claim to a 
CO under the CDA). Under these circumstances, we conclude that KBAJ intended to 
resolve its dispute with Ms. Sax, or in other words, someone other than the cognizant 
CO at the time. See D.L. Braughler Co. v. West, 127 F.3d 1476, 1481-82 (Fed. Cir. 
1997) (letter styled as a claim with a certification and submitted to the resident 
engineer, who was an authorized representative of the CO, did not meet submission 
requirement because letter sought to resolve matter directly with resident engineer). 
Therefore, KBAJ has failed to prove that it has satisfied the CDA's submission 
requirement. We lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. 3 
3 Because we determine that KBAJ' s failure to submit a claim to a CO for a decision 
deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, we need not address alternative 
grounds for dismissal raised in DLA's motion. 
5 

CONCLUSION 
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice to the 
contractor's submission of a claim to a CO. 
Dated: 22 November 2016 
I concur 
~#= MARK N. STEMPLER 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
MARK A. MELNICK 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
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. 60014, Appeal ofKBAJ 
Enterprises, LLC t/d/b/a Home Again, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
6 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals