DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION:  February 17, 2023
CBCA 7642
AMALGAMATED SERVICES, INC.,
Appellant,
v.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
John C. Dulske of Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC, San Antonio, TX, counsel for
Appellant.
Alexander C. Vincent and David C. Charin, Office of General Counsel, General
Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges GOODMAN, SHERIDAN, and KULLBERG.
KULLBERG, Board Judge.
Appellant, Amalgamated Services, Inc. (ASI), appealed a contracting officer’s final
decision (COFD) that denied ASI’s uncertified request for equitable adjustment (REA) in
excess of $100,000.  Respondent, the General Services Administration (GSA), requests that
the Board dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  ASI, however, seeks a dismissal
without prejudice.  For the reasons stated below, the Board dismisses this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.


CBCA 7642 2
Background
On July 29, 2022, ASI submitted to the contracting officer (CO) its REA in the
amount of $857,750 for increased costs under its contract for operation and maintenance
services at GSA facilities in Aberdeen, Greenville, and Oxford, Mississippi.  On
November 1, 2022, the CO issued his COFD that denied the REA and advised ASI of its
appeal rights.  ASI appealed the COFD to the Board.
Discussion
At issue is whether the Board has jurisdiction to hear this appeal where ASI has
appealed a COFD that denied an uncertified REA in excess of $100,000.  The Board’s
jurisdiction is pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7109 (2018). 
The CDA requires that for any claim in excess of $100,000, the contractor shall certify
“that—(A) the claim is made in good faith; (B) the supporting data are accurate and complete
to the best of the contractor’s knowledge and belief; (C) the amount requested accurately
reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the Federal Government
is liable; and (D) the certifier is authorized to certify the claim on behalf of the contractor.” 
Id. § 7103(b)(1).  While the CDA allows for the correction of a defective certification before
entry of final judgment, the CDA makes no provision for correcting a contractor’s failure to
certify its claim.  Computer Integration & Programming Solutions Corp. v. Department of
Justice, CBCA 6491, 19-1 BCA ¶ 37,364, at 181,688 (citing 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(3)). 
Additionally, a CO’s issuance of a COFD for an uncertified REA in excess of $100,000 does
not grant the Board jurisdiction.  Gulf Tech Construction LLC v. Department of Veterans
Affairs, CBCA 7447, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,179, at 185,427.  The Board, consequently, has no
jurisdiction to hear this appeal.  Although ASI seeks a dismissal without prejudice, the
Board’s rules require that when it lacks jurisdiction, it will dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction regardless of the parties’ position on jurisdiction or dismissal.  Rule 12(b)(3) (48
CFR 6101.12(b)(3) (2021)).
Decision
The appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
    H. Chuck Kullberg         
H. CHUCK KULLBERG
Board Judge

CBCA 7642 3
We concur:
    Allan H. Goodman            Patricia J. Sheridan     
ALLAN H. GOODMAN PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN
Board Judge Board Judge