Naseem Al-Oula Company
Docket: ASBCA 61321, ASBCA 61322, ASBCA 61323
Decision date: 2019-12-20

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of -- ) 
) 
Naseem Al-Oula Company ) 
) 
) 
Under Contract No. W56KGZ-16-D-8012 ) 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 61321, 61322, 61323 
61324,61325,61326 
Ms. Shireen Jaffar Fadhil 
Owner 
Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 
Army Chief Trial Attorney 
CPT Brian C. Habib, JA 
Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE YOUNGER 
ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK 
OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 
In these six consolidated appeals, a contractor seeks a total of $16,900 for damage 
to six vehicles leased by the U.S. Army in Iraq. The Army moves to dismiss for lack of 
subject matter jurisdiction, contending that appellant failed to specify a sum certain, to 
assert a demand as a matter of right, and to request a contracting officer's final decision. 
Appellant responds with a factual argument, insisting that the damage to the vehicles was 
caused by intentional or negligent acts by the Army. We grant the motion and dismiss 
the appeals. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 
1. By date of October 6, 2015, the U.S. Army Contracting Command awarded 
Contract No. W56KGZ-16-D-8012, an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contract to 
appellant for the delivery of a variety of vehicles, including large up-armored SUV s, for 
use by Air Force personnel in Iraq. The contract had a total estimated value of 
$12,000,000. (R4, tab 1 at 1-17) 
2. Thereafter, by date of January 26, 2016, the contracting officer issued a 
delivery order to appellant requiring it to deliver 14 of the up-armored SUV s for the use 
of the Air Force from February 5, 2016 to February 4, 2017, with an option for one 
additional year (through February 5, 2018). (R4, tab 2 at 1, 3-7) 
3. The basis for appellant's purported claim is damage to the windshields and 
windows of six of the vehicles covered under this contract (R4, tabs 23, 36). The record 

includes accident and damage reports for each of the damaged vehicles; one is dated 
October 21, 2016, and the remaining five range in date from April 9 to April 1 7, 2017. 
Each of the reports identifies the relevant vehicle by its vehicle identification number 
(VIN) and license plate number, and includes photographs of the purported damage. (R4, 
tabs 3, 6-8, 15-16) 
4. In addition to those six accident and damage reports, the record includes 
documents that appear to show estimates of repair costs for each vehicle, with dates that 
correspond to the dates identified on the accident and damage reports. These apparent 
"estimates" appear on invoice-type forms from three different companies - appellant, 
Superstar, and Barakat - for a total of three forms per vehicle. (R4, tabs 4-5, 9-14, 17-20, 
24-35) 
5. While the forms from appellant and Superstar are titled "estimations," it is 
unclear what the documents from Barakat are intended to show. They appear in the record 
in both English and in an untranslated format. The VIN and license plate numbers appear 
in English on the untranslated versions 1 but the dollar figures do not. (R4, tabs 24-35) 
6. The English versions of the Barakat documents are not titled "estimation" or 
"estimate." Instead, they indicate they are receipts, that the vehicles were repaired, and 
that the customer paid cash. (Id. at tabs 30-35) The untranslated versions include, in 
English, the phrase "received this vehicle repaired in accordanco[sic]" (id. at tabs 24-29). 
7. Appellant first notified the Army of the vehicle damage by email dated 
April 14, 2017 (R4, tab 23 at 1). A copy of that email was not included in the Army's 
Rule 4 file and there is no indication in the record that the Army responded to it. 
8. Approximately one month later, in an email dated May 19, 2017, appellant's 
project manager contacted Major Jay Parker, a Contract Support Plans and Operations 
officer, regarding the damaged vehicles (R4, tab 36). In that email, appellant stated: 
For this contract we have some damage cases ... caused by 
the end user I'm here [sic] submitting here these cases one by 
one with our and thirty [sic] parties estimations and accident 
reports, please let me know when any more information 
required. 
(Id. at 1) The email contained no further narrative beyond the paragraph recited above. 
1 For ASBCA No. 61325, although the untranslated Barakat document submitted to the 
contracting officer does not include the plate number and the VIN is off by one 
letter (R4, tab 41 at 5), the Army's motion appears to concede that it was for the 
vehicle with license plate number 299272 (gov't mot. at 7). 
2 

9. MAJ Parker responded by email of the same date, advising appellant to "submit 
all claims through the [contracting officer's representative]." He also ordered a 
subordinate to "consolidate claim data, verify the US Government had a part in the 
damages and provide documentation to the contracting officer or contracting specialist." 
(R4, tab 37 at 1) 
10. Appellant's May 19 email, included, as attachments, the accident and damage 
report, the estimates from appellant and Superstar, and the untranslated version of the 
Barakat document corresponding to the vehicle at issue in ASBCA No. 61321. Later that 
same day, appellant sent a series of follow-up emails to MAJ Parker which forwarded the 
accident and damage reports and estimates from appellant and Superstar, along with the 
Barakat documents, for the four vehicles at issue in ASBCA Nos. 61322 through 61325. 
Only the untranslated versions of the Barakat documents were provided with these emails, 
and aside from a signature block, the only text contained in these emails was "Case#3," 
"Case#4," "Case#5," "Case#6," and Case#?." (R4, tabs 36-41) 
11. The following table identifies the dollar value shown on the documents 
appellant provided to the Army on May 19, 2017, by ASBCA number, license plate 
number, and company: 
ASBCANo. Plate No. Appellant Superstar Barakat R4 tabs 
61321 171821 $4,900 $5,200 untranslated 36 
61322 181938 3,950 4,400 untranslated 38 
61323 316875 1,150 1,300 untranslated 39 
61324 181589 2,900 3,500 untranslated 40 
61325 299272 2,900 3,200 untranslated 41 
12. Although English versions of the Barakat documents were not provided in 
appellant's May 19, 2017 emails, their dollar value is listed below: 
ASBCANo. Plate No. Barakat Amount R4 tabs 
(Enidish version) 
61321 171821 $5,300 30 
61322 181938 4,500 33 
61323 316875 1,250 31 
61324 181589 3,200 32 
61325 299272 3,500 34 
13. None of the emails appellant sent to MAJ Parker included any reference to or 
documentation for the vehicle involved in ASBCA No. 61326 (license plate number 
183445) (R4, tabs 36, 3 8-41 ). The information for that vehicle does appear elsewhere in 
the record, however, and consists of an accident and damage report and estimates of 
$1,100 (appellant), $1,200 (Superstar), and an English and non-English version of the 
3 

Barakat document (English- $1,200) (R4, tabs 16, 19-20, 28, 35). There is nothing in 
the record explaining how the information for this vehicle came to be in the Army's 
possession. 2 
14. We find that, in the aforementioned emails (see SOF ,, 8-13), appellant did 
not assert a demand as a matter of right, or any demand whatsoever. Instead, appellant 
simply submitted the aforementioned emails to the contracting officer and asked to be 
advised if more information were required (see SOF ,, 8, 10). Appellant did not 
explicitly cite any statutory provision or contract clause as the basis of claimed 
entitlement in any of the aforementioned emails. We further find that appellant did not 
request a contracting officer's final decision in any of the aforementioned emails. 
15. The record contains an unsworn statement from the contracting officer's 
representative dated June 1, 2017. He denied government responsibility for the damage 
to the vehicles and asserted that it resulted from normal wear and tear. (R4, tab 21) The 
record also includes an email from a product specialist supervisor speculating that 
improper window installation may have played a role in the vehicle damage (R4, tab 22). 
16. By date of August 12, 2017, the contracting officer rendered her final decision. 
She listed the VINs for six vehicles, but did not assign separate dollar figures to them, 
stating only that appellant had submitted "six (6) claims for a total of $16,900 for the repair 
of windshields and windows on the leased vehicles." (R4, tab 23) Finding that the damage 
resulted from wear and tear (and possibly vehicle defect), for which the Army was not 
responsible, she denied the claims. As prescribed by regulation, the contracting officer also 
advised appellant of its appeal rights to this Board or to the Court of Federal Claims. (Id.) 
17. By date of September 11, 2017, appellant filed its notice of appeal, which 
identified the "controversy amount" as $16,900 and enclosed the contracting officer's 
decision and the accident and damage reports for all six vehicles. We docketed and 
consolidated the claims as ASBCA Nos. 61321 through 61326. 
18. On November 16, 2017, the appellant filed its complaint, which was dated a 
month earlier, on October 16, 2017. Appellant alleged that it claimed "$16,900 for six 
vehicles as a compensation for armored window and front windshield damaged during 
operation, the claims were denied by the COR" and argued that the Army had made 
partial payment for similar damage on an unrelated vehicle. The complaint was 
accompanied by photographs and documentary evidence regarding the damage to the six 
2 The Army states in its motion that "[ s ]ometime later, appellant apparently provided 
documents for" the vehicle with plate number 183445, but that ~'the government 
has not yet located a copy of the transmitting email" (gov't mot. at 7). Appellant's 
opposition to the government's motion was silent on this issue. 
4 

vehicles at issue in these appeals, along with the estimates on appellant's company form, 
which total $16,900. 
DISCUSSION 
In moving to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, the Army advances three 
major contentions. First, the Army urges that appellant "failed to specify a sum certain" 
(gov't mot. at 9). Second, the Army insists that appellant "failed to assert any demand, 
much less one as a matter of right" (id. at 10). Third, the Army urges that the appeal 
should also be dismissed because appellant failed to request a contracting officer's final 
decision (id at 11.). 
Appellant opposes the Army's motion in an undated letter, which the Board 
received on February 21, 2018. In its opposition, appellant disputed the Army's position 
regarding the cause of the damage (see SOF 116), stating as follows: 
The contracting officer did not give us a chance to talk about 
negotiation and his final was to submit appeal upon his 
decision, and here we can accept negotiation to get a part of 
this amount if the government would like to submit a 
suggestion, the important thing for us is not to lose the all 
[sic] amount. 
(App. opp'n at 2) Appellant also stated that "we would like to appear here the total 
amount of the cases submitted," and provided a table that lists dollar figures that 
correspond to the six estimates in the record on appellant's company form. That table 
identifies the sum of those figures as $16,900. (Id.) 
We begin by stating the well-settled principles that govern our analysis of 
jurisdictional questions. Appellant bears the burden of establishing the Board's 
jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. CCIE & Co., ASBCA Nos. 58355, 
59008, 14-1BCA135,700 at 174,816. "The facts supporting jurisdiction are subject to 
our fact-finding upon a review of the record." Id. (internal citations omitted). Under the 
Contract Disputes Act (CDA), our jurisdiction depends upon the contractor's submission 
of a claim to the contracting officer. Government Services Corp., ASBCA No. 60367, 
16-1BCA136,411 at 177,537; see 41 U.S.C. 7103(a)(l). The Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR) defines "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 the 
contract." FAR 2.101. While a claim need not be submitted in any particular form or use 
any particular wording, it still must provide adequate notice of the basis and the amount 
of the claim. Contract Cleaning Maintenance, Inc. v. United States, 811 F.2d 586, 592 
(Fed. Cir. 1987). In determining whether the contractor's submission qualifies as a 
claim, we apply "a common sense analysis on a case-by-case basis, examining the totality 
5 

of the correspondence between the parties." Rover Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 60703, 17-1 
BCA ,i 36,682 at 178,614 (citations omitted). 
The Army's argument focuses upon appellant's May 19, 2017 emails to 
MAJ Parker and the documentation those emails forwarded, and appellant does not 
dispute that those emails constitute its purported claim. Those emails are the only 
evidence in the record of any actual communications between the parties related to the six 
vehicles involved in these appeals. 
After careful consideration of the record and the parties' motion papers, we 
conclude that we lack jurisdiction over these appeals. 
First, we agree with the Army that appellant failed to submit a claim in a sum 
certain, which is required by the CDA. Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp., ASBCA No. 55126, 
06-2 BCA ,i 33,421 at 165,687. While it is true that if a claim amount can be calculated 
with reasonable effort, a contractor's submission is sufficient to satisfy the sum certain 
requirement, see Madison Lawrence, Inc., ASBCA No. 56551, 09-2 BCA ,i 34,235 
at 169,207, appellant did not submit anything to the contracting officer that meets that 
standard. 
Appellant's initial email from May 19, 2017, indicated it was submitting what it 
described as "our and thirty [sic] party estimations" for the cost of repairs to the vehicles 
(SOF ,i 8). Neither that email nor the subsequent ones identify a specific dollar amount 
being sought for any of the vehicles, either individually or in total (SOF ,i 10). The 
attached estimates from appellant and Superstar quoted different dollar figures for five of 
the vehicles, the Barakat documents were untranslated but contain no dollar figures, and 
nothing was submitted for the sixth vehicle (SOF ,i,i 10-13). On the basis of these 
submissions, it is impossible to identify a sum certain for jurisdictional purposes for any of 
these appeals. See Southwest Marine, Inc., ASBCA No. 39472, 91- 3 BCA ,i 24,126 
at 120,744. 
In Southwest Marine, the contractor submitted a request for equitable adjustment 
to the contracting officer that proposed three alternative quantifications resulting in three 
different dollar figures, but requested reimbursement only for the lowest figure. 
(Id. at 120,743) The contractor subsequently requested a final decision on its request for 
equitable adjustment but for the lowest figure only, and provided a certification for that 
claim three months later. Id. at 120,743-44. After the government failed to issue a 
decision, the contractor appealed, and in its complaint, sought recovery for the lowest 
amount included in its request for equitable adjustment and claim. (Id. at 120,744) The 
complaint also included, however, alternative prayers for relief seeking higher dollar 
figures that were calculated using the alternative quantifications described in its request. 
(Id) We held that we had jurisdiction over the lowest figure only because a '"pick one' 
claim is not a claim for a sum certain, and is not a claim under the contract and under the 
CDA." (Id.) 
6 

Here, appellant did not even "pick one" of the three amounts for each of the 
vehicles - until it submitted its opposition to the Army's motion to dismiss, when it 
provided a table with dollar figures corresponding to the six estimates on appellant's 
company form and identifying the sum of those figures as $16,900 (app. opp'n at 2). 
While this is the same amount appellant indicated it was seeking in its notice of appeal 
and complaint (SOF ,-i,-i 17-18), "our jurisdiction is determined by 'the adequacy or 
sufficiency of the submission to the contracting officer,"' not by what is contained in 
submissions to the Board. See Government Services Corp., 16-1 BCA ,-i 36,411 
at 177,537 (quoting Hibbits Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 35224, 88-1BCA120,505 
at 103,673). Appellant has not established that it ever communicated that specific figure 
( or its component parts) to the contracting officer as the sum certain for which it wished 
to be reimbursed. 
The fact that the contracting officer identified the claim amount as $16,900 does 
not change our decision. The record does not explain how she arrived at that figure, and 
speculation cannot be a substitute for appellant's obligation to meet its burden of proof. 
Moreover, our review of a contracting officer's decision is de novo, and her findings of 
fact are neither entitled to deference nor binding upon the Board. See LeBolo-Watts 
Constructors 01 JV, LLC, ASBCA Nos. 59738, 59909, 19-1BCA137,301 at 181,453; 
41 U.S.C. § 7103(e). 
Second, on this record we cannot say that appellant has satisfied the requirement 
that its purported claim assert a demand as a matter of right, a well-established 
requirement for a valid claim under the Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7103. See ERKA Construction 
Co., Ltd., ASBCA No. 57618, 12-2 BCA ,-r 35,129 at 172,473; FAR 2.101. A demand 
"as a matter of right" must "specifically assert entitlement to the relief sought ... [ and] 
must be a demand for something due or believed to be due[.]" Alliant Techsystems, Inc. 
v. United States, 178 F.3d 1260, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 
In its May 19, 2017 emails, appellant did not make a demand or even an explicit 
request for payment; nor did it cite a statutory provision or contract clause or otherwise 
assert legal entitlement to payment. Appellant simply announced that "[f]or this contract 
we have some damage cases caused by the end user. I'm here submitting here [sic] these 
cases one by one with our thirty [sic] parties estimations and accident reports .... " 
(SOF ,-i 14) None of these statements may be fairly characterized as a demand as a matter 
of right. 
Third, appellant has also failed to establish that its purported claim satisfies the 
jurisdictional requirement that claims submitted to the contracting officer include a 
request for a final decision. See M Marapakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 
609 F. 3d 1323, 1327-28 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Although a request for a contracting officer's 
final decision can be implied rather than explicit, see James M Ellett Constr. Co. v. 
United States, 93 F.3d 1537, 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1996), there is nothing in the record that 
7 

approaches such a request (SOF 118-13). 
CONCLUSION 
The Army's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted. 
The appeals are dismissed. 
Dated: December 20, 2019 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
YOUNGER 
trati Judge 
· es 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 Nos. 61321, 61322, 61323, 
61324, 61325 and 61326, Appeals ofNaseem Al-Oula Company, rendered in 
conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
8 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals