ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of -- ) 
) 
L3 Technologies, Inc. ) 
) 
Under Contract No. FA8620-06-G-4002 et al. ) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 61812 
Karen L. Manos, Esq. 
Erin N. Rankin, Esq. 
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 
Washington, DC 
Arthur M. Taylor, Esq. 
DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 
Robert L. Duecaster, Esq. 
Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CLARKE 
In this decision we consider our jurisdiction in ASBCA No. 61812.* The 
government initially filed a motion to dismiss due to the fact that the contracting 
officer (CO) withdrew the underlying contracting officer's final decision (COFD) 
which asserted a government claim. After briefing the issue, the Board, sua sponte, 
raised the jurisdictional question regarding whether the government's claim stated an 
amount in a sum certain. For the reasons stated below, we dismiss the appeal for lack 
of jurisdiction. 
DISCUSSION 
On June 28. 2018. the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) 
CO Felecia Sousa issued a COFD and demand for payment to L-3 Communications 
Integrated Systems L.P ., a subsidiary of L3 Technologies, Inc. (L3) (notice of appeal, 
tab 3). The appeal of this COFD was docketed as ASBCA No. 61812. On January 23. 
2019. CO Sousa "withdrew" this COFD. On February 1, 2019, DCMA moved the Board 
to dismiss ASBCA No. 61812 without prejudice based on its withdrawal. On February 5, 
2019, L3 filed its opposition to DCMA's motion to dismiss ASBCA No. 61812. On 
February 17, 2019, DCMA filed its reply to L3's opposition. On February 19, 2019, L3 
filed its surreply in opposition to DCMA' s motion to dismiss. 
As will become clear we need not deal with the parties' arguments other than to say 
that L3 is correct in its position that the unilateral withdrawal of a COFD does not divest 
* ASBCA No. 61812 is one of five consolidated appeals. 

the Board of jurisdiction. However, as we were dealing with DCMA's motion, we noticed 
a problem with the COFD that was also recognized by the parties. CO Sousa's COFD 
presented three distinct amounts demanded by DCMA, $292,634, $297,677 and $572,318. 
The question became was this a sum certain? The jurisdictional requirement for a sum 
certain applies to government claims as we have here. See Exe/is, Inc., ASBCA No. 60131, 
16-1 BCA ~ 36,485 at 177,781. There is no way to reconcile the three amounts stated in the 
COFD through simple mathematical analysis or any other analysis. Neither party argues 
that CO Sousa's final decision states a sum certain. It is undisputed that the CDA, as 
implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 2.101 ( defining "claim"), requires a 
sum certain to support jurisdiction. We hold that because CO Sousa's COFD demands three 
distinct amounts, it fails to state a sum certain. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction. 
CONCLUSION 
For the reasons stated above we dismiss ASBCA No. 61812 without prejudice 
for lack of jurisdiction. 
Dated: March 19, 2019 
I concur 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
2 
Administr tive Judge 
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. 61812, Appeal ofL3 
Technologies, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals