ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of -- ) 
) 
Kirlin Builders, LLC ) 
) 
Under Contract No. W912DY-12-D-0012 ) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 61901 . 
Douglas L. Patin, Esq. 
Lee-Ann C. Brown, Esq. 
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP 
Washington, DC 
Michael P. Goodman, Esq. 
Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 
Michael L. Graves, Jr., Esq. 
Engineer Trial Attorney 
U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center 
Huntsville, AL 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MELNICK 
DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS 
The government seeks dismissal of this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It 
contends that, after appealing here, Kirlin Builders LLC (Kirlin) could not correct its 
certification of a Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA) to the certification 
requirements of the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-09. The motion 
is denied. 
Kirlin submitted an ~A to the government pursuing costs arising upon its 
contract to repair and renew a chiller plant (R4, tabs 5, 78). Kirlin later sent the 
government an REA certification as required by 10 U.S.C. § 2410(a) and Defense 
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DF ARS) 252.243-7002 (R4, tab 80). 
Those provisions (with an inapplicable exception) require a contractor pursuing an 
REA to certify "that the request is made in good faith, and that the supporting data are 
accurate and complete to the best of [his or her] knowledge and belief." 
DF ARS 252.243- 7002(b ). These are two of the four elements also necessary to the 
certification ofa claim submitted under the CDA, 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(l)(A)-(B). The 
others are that the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for 
which the contractor believes the government is liable, and the certifier is authorized to 
certify the claim on behalf of the contractor. 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(l)(C)-(D). 
Eventually, Kirlin sought a contracting officer's final decision upon its REA, which 
was denied (R4, tabs 3, 101). Kirlin then appealed to this Board. Thereafter, Kirlin 

submitted a full CDA certification, signed by its vice president, containing all of the 
elements required by 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(l) (app. supp. R4, tab 15). 
In seeking dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, the government contends that 
Kirlin's request for a final decision upon its REA failed to qualify as a CDA claim 
because it did not include a complete CDA certification.* The Board's jurisdiction 
under the CDA to entertain a contractor appeal is dependent upon the submission of a 
proper claim, which includes the§ 7103(b) certification when, as here, the claim 
exceeds $100,000. Hejran Hejrat Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 930 F.3d 1354, 
1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TTF, LLC, ASBCA No. 59511, 15-1 BCA ,r 35,883 
at 175,433. Central to this inquiry is the language codified at§ 7103(b)(3), which 
states that "[a] defect in the certification of a claim does not deprive ... an agency 
board of jurisdiction over the claim." But, "[p ]rior to the entry of ... a decision," the 
Board "shall require a defective certification to be corrected." In contrast, the 
complete absence of a certification cannot be corrected and is fatal to the Board's 
jurisdiction. EsoodAl Blad Co., ASBCA No. 58425, 14-1 BCA ,r 35,572 at 174,331 
(citing New Iraq Ahd Co., ASBCA 58800, 14-1 BCA ,r 35,479). 
Kirlin argues that the certification it provided after it appealed properly 
corrected its REA certification to comply with the CDA. The government seeks us to 
disregard our holding supporting Kirlin's position, Air Services, Inc., ASBCA 
No. 59843, 15-1 BCA ,r 36,146 at 176,425-27 (finding an REA does not reflect the 
complete absence of a CDA certification because it provides the government with two 
of the required CDA certification elements and is therefore correctable under 
§ 7103(b)(3)). It prefers an earlier, non-binding decision by the United States Court of 
Federal Claims ruling the opposite. Agility Def & Gov 't Servs., Inc. v. United States, 
103 Fed. Cl. 366, 369 (2012) (concluding an REA certification cannot be corrected to 
a CDA certification because it is not intended to be a CDA certification; a CDA 
certification must be separately submitted). 
The government's request is pointless because the court of appeals has ruled 
against its position. In Hejran Hejrat, the contractor provided the government with a 
sworn affidavit stating its REA was true to the best of its knowledge. The Board 
dismissed the contractor's appeal from the REA's denial on the ground that the REA 
had not sought a final decision as required by the CDA. Incidentally, the Board 
recognized that, though facially inadequate to meet the CDA requirements, the sworn 
affidavit accompanying the REA tracked the REA certification elements sufficiently to 
be remediable under the CDA prior to a final resolution of the appeal. Hejran Hejrat 
Co., ASBCA No. 61234, 18-1 BCA ,r 37,039 at 180,322-23. After reversing the Board 
on the final decision matter, the court of appeals noted that the government had agreed 
* Aside from its certification argument, the government does not otherwise dispute that 
the request for a final decision upon the REA qualifies as a CDA claim. 
2 

that the contractor's limited REA certification could be cured. Prompted by the 
government's concession, the court of appeals ordered that, on remand, the Board 
could require correction of the REA certification to comply with the CDA standards. 
Hejran Hejrat, 930 F.3d at 1359. Hejran Hejrat dictates rejection of the government's 
argument. 
The motion to dismiss is denied. 
Dated: December 4, 2019 
I concur 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
MARK A. MELNICK 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
C~----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. 61901, Appeal of Kirlin 
Builders, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
PAULLAK. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals