ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of--
Strobe Data, Inc. 
Under Contract No. FA8224-10-C-0028 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 60123 
Kevin A. Rosenfield, Esq. 
Mark G. Jackson, Esq. 
Jackson Rosenfield LLP 
Seattle, WA 
Col Matthew J. Mulbarger, USAF 
Air Force Chief Trial Attorney 
Alexis Bernstein, Esq. 
Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE DELMAN 
The Board sua sponte raised the issue whether the monetary claim of Strobe 
Data, Inc. (appellant) to the contracting officer (CO) was asserted in a "sum certain" 
for 
purposes of our jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. 
§ § 7101- 7109. In a novel reversal of roles, appellant contends that its claim was not 
asserted in a sum certain; that the Board is without jurisdiction; and that its appeal 
should be dismissed without prejudice. The Department of the Air Force (AF or 
government) opposes a dismissal without prejudice on jurisdictional grounds, 
contending that appellant's claim was asserted in a sum certain and the Board should 
retain jurisdiction. For reasons stated below, we conclude we do not have jurisdiction 
over this appeal. 
STATEMENT OF 
FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 
1. On 5 January 2010, the government awarded the subject contract to 
appellant to provide two Kestrel DXPs rack-mounted systems, plus system integration 
and testing for a firm-fixed price of $98,238 (R4, tab 3). The government sought these 
components as a possible replacement for an obsolescent computer in its F-16 test 
stations, known as the "Avionics Intermediate Stations" or AIS. 
2. It is undisputed that appellant timely shipped the units 
to the government; 
that the government accepted the units; and paid appellant the full contract price (R4, 

tab 6).1 However, appellant was of the view that the AF improperly tested the units, 
with the result that the units were ultimately disqualified by the government from 
replacing the obsolescent computer in the F-16 test station (see claim letter below). 
3. By letter dated 15 May 2015, appellant submitted a lengthy certified claim to 
the CO reciting the background of the dispute; describing the nature of the improper 
testing and other AF failures. Appellant asserted that the government's conduct was a 
breach of its duty of good faith and fair dealing. (R4, tab 8) 
4. Appellant's letter asserted a monetary claim for damages. Insofar as 
pertinent, the letter stated as follows: 
Performance of this improper test, as well as other acts 
identified herein, constituted a breach of the Government's 
duty of good faith and fair dealing, and caused Strobe to 
incur an estimated $30,000,000 in damages . 
.. . As a result, Strobe lost the opportunity to sell a 
minimum of 200 Kestrel QXP systems, based on the 
Government's own estimates (and likely more, given the 
importance of the HPlOOO A900 to the AIS for the C-5A, 
A-10, F-14, and the F-16). As each 
Kestrel had a profit 
margin of$150,000, Strobe's lost profits from the F-16 
market alone amount to $30,000,000. [Footnote omitted] 
IV. CONCLUSION 
... As such, Strobe's damages are, at a minimum, 
$30,000,000. Should you need any further clarification or 
documentation, please do not hesitate to contact me. 
[Emphasis added] 
(R4, tab 8 at 1, 7, 9) 
1 Appellant alleges in its complaint that at the government's request, it agreed to 
replace the 2 DXPs with 2 QXPs, appellant's fastest computer, at no additional 
charge to the government (comp!. if 32). The government did not specifically 
admit or deny this allegation in its answer. We need not make any findings on 
this matter for purposes of this decision on jurisdiction. 
2 

5. By memorandum to appellant dated 13 July 2015, the CO denied appellant's 
purported claim. The CO concluded, in part, as follows: 
For the reasons outlined above, the Air Force denies Strobe 
Data's claim that the Air Force owes a minimum of 
$30,000,000 in damages, a contractual relationship existed 
regarding testing of the Kestrel, and that the Air Force 
possessed foreknowledge of test failures. 
(R4, tab 10 at 3) 
6. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal to this Board, which was docketed 
as ASBCA No. 60123. 
DECISION 
Our jurisdiction under the CDA is predicated upon the filing of a claim by one 
of the contracting parties, 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a). The CDA does not define "claim," but 
the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) does so. FAR 2.101 states in pertinent part 
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. [Emphasis added] 
The specific issue before us is whether appellant's claim letter to the CO, dated 
15 May 2015, asserts a claim in a "sum certain" in accordance with this definition. If 
it does not, appellant has not asserted a proper claim, and we do not have jurisdiction. 
Appellant's claim letter seeks damages in the "minimum" amount of 
$30,000,000. We have held that a contractor's quantification of claim amounts 
through the use of qualifying language such as "a minimum of $1,957,236.84" does 
not assert a claim in a sum certain. Daniel S. Sinclair, Callan E. Sinclair and Cayman 
C. Sinclair, ASBCA No. 56768 et al., 12-2 BCA ~ 35,105 at 172,383; see also 
Sandoval Plumbing Repair, Inc., ASBCA No. 54640, 05-2 BCA ~ 33,072 ("no less 
than" claim amount is not a sum certain). 
3 

The government acknowledges this qualifying language, but argues that it is 
countermanded by a simple, mathematical calculation in the claim letter that results in 
a sum certain, i.e., the number of units appellant expected to sell to the AF, 200, 
multiplied by the claimed profit per unit, $150,000, resulting in a "sum certain" 
amount of$30,000,000 (gov't br. at 2). The government misreads appellant's claim 
letter. The letter does not state that appellant expected to sell 
200 units to the 
government; rather, the letter states that appellant "lost the opportunity to sell a 
minimum of200 [units], based on the Government's own estimates (and likely 
more ... )" (SOF ~ 4). The number upon which the government relies to compute a sum 
certain is itself uncertain. The government's position is without merit. 
The government argues however that appellant's complaint before the Board 
"contains no equivocation - it states in 'sum certain' terms that [appellant's] damages 
amount to $30,000,000" (gov't br. at 3). This statement, albeit true, has no bearing on 
the jurisdictional issue. The law requires that appellant's claim to the CO be asserted 
in a sum certain, not its complaint before 
the Board. 
The government attacks appellant's claim for addressing potential lost 
opportunities on programs other than the F-16 program, contending that appellant 
had no basis, contractual or otherwise, to make such assertions (gov't br. at 1). The 
government's argument addresses the merits of appellant's monetary claim. Whether 
appellant's claim is speculative, or otherwise unsupported by its contract is not before 
us. Our task is to evaluate appellant's claim, as asserted, to determine whether it 
complies with the claim definition in the FAR. We believe it does not. The 
government's additional suggestion that appellant may not challenge the Board's 
jurisdiction of its own claim is also incorrect. See Universal Canvas, Inc. v. Stone, 
975 F.2d 847, 850 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (a jurisdictional limitation "does not run only in 
favor of the government"). 
We have considered all the government's other arguments, but they are 
unpersuasive. Appellant's reference in its claim letter to the sale of a "minimum" of 
200 units and "likely more," when multiplied by its claimed expected profit rate of 
$150,000 per unit, is perfectly consistent with its conclusion that its damages were a 
"minimum" of $30,000,000. In accordance with the FAR definition and our case law, 
we conclude appellant's request for damages using this type of qualifying language 
was not asserted in a sum certain. 
4 

CONCLUSION 
Appellant has not asserted a proper claim under the CDA and we dismiss for 
lack of jurisdiction. 
Dated: 5 January 2016 
I concur 
~/ 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
\~~--
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
MARK A. MELNICK 
Administrative Judge 
Acting 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. 60123, Appeal of Strobe 
Data, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
5 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals