DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE:  May 13, 2015
CBCA 4703
BON SECOUR MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent.
John M. Manfredonia, William E. Thomas, and James Petersen of Manfredonia Law
Offices, LLC, Cresskill, NJ, counsel for Appellant.
Jennifer Hedge, Office of Regional Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs,
Pittsburgh, PA, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges POLLACK, GOODMAN, and SULLIVAN.
SULLIVAN, Board Judge.
On April 16, 2015, appellant, Bon Secour Management, LLC (Bon Secour), filed a
notice of appeal from a contracting officer’s decision issued by respondent, Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA), on January 20, 2015.  Bon Secour stated in its notice that its appeal
was a protective appeal and that the contracting officer’s decision was issued in error in
response to a change order request, rather than in response to a claim submitted pursuant to
the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a) (2012).  To its notice of appeal, Bon
Secour attached the contracting officer’s decision and the change order request, which
appears to be a letter from another firm, Westmoreland Electric, Inc., to the project manager
for appellant, with a “change order cost proposal” in the amount of $4650.  


CBCA 4703 2
On May 4, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal without
prejudice.  According to the motion, VA agreed to withdraw the contracting officer’s
decision, “which shall be deemed null and void.”  The parties also agreed that “[a]ppellant
may subsequently submit a claim regarding the subject matter of said decision in accordance
with the Contract Disputes Act.”  
The Board grants the parties’ joint motion.  For the Board to possess jurisdiction to
entertain an appeal for monetary relief, the contractor must first have submitted a claim to
the contracting officer identifying the basis of the request, seeking payment of a sum certain,
and requesting, either expressly or implicitly, a decision of the contracting officer.  Red Gold,
Inc. v. Department of Agriculture, CBCA 2259, 12-1 BCA ¶ 34,921, at 171,721 (2011). 
Upon review of the material submitted with the notice of appeal, it is clear that the contractor
did not submit a claim pursuant to the CDA because the materials submitted do not seek a
decision from the contracting officer.  41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(1).  Instead, the materials describe
a “proposal” for which the prices would be valid for thirty days.  Because this submission
was not a claim, the Board does not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal of the contracting
officer’s final decision.  Safe Haven Enterprises, LLC v. Department of State, CBCA 3871,
et al., 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,928, at 175,603; George Hyman Construction, Co., VABCA 3078,
90-1 BCA ¶ 22,551, at 113,192 (1989); Custer Lumber Co., AGBCA 84-138-1, 84-1 BCA
¶ 17,222, at 85,750.  
Decision
Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  As noted by
the parties, appellant may appeal a decision of the contracting officer on a future claim,
should appellant submit one, subject to the requirements of the CDA.     
___________________________
MARIAN E. SULLIVAN
Board Judge
We concur:
____________________________ ___________________________
HOWARD A. POLLACK ALLAN H. GOODMAN
Board Judge Board Judge