DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION:  June 7, 2007 
CBCA 560 
STEPHEN C. WINSLOW, 
Appellant, 
v. 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 
Respondent. 
Stephen C. Winslow, pro se, Martinsburg, WV.   
Judith A. Bonner, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, 
Philadelphia, PA, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges HYATT , McCANN , and SOMERS . 
McCANN , Board Judge. 
Stephen C. Winslow purchased a 1986 Chevrolet truck at a General Services 
Administration (GSA) auction.  Mr. Winslow appeals the GSA’s decision not to reimburse 
him for certain costs he allegedly incurred in the transaction. 
Findings of Fact 
On December 8, 2006, GSA conducted a vehicle auction.  Mr. Winslow was the 
highest bidder on a 1986 Chevrolet truck and won the award at the price of $381.  Appeal 
File, Exhibit 3. When Mr. Winslow attempted to take possession of the truck he noticed that 
the photographs which appeared on-line on the sale website did not depict the actual vehicle 

 
 
    
   
 
    
 
 
  
 
 
   
  
 
 
  
 
2 CBCA 560 
that was being sold.  Upon reviewing the situation, the contracting officer agreed that the 
vehicle had been misdescribed.  In her final decision, the contracting officer refunded 
appellant the purchase price of the vehicle but no additional costs.  Appeal File, Exhibit 14. 
Appellant seeks certain additional expenses.  In his claim letter to the contracting 
officer of December 18, 2006, he seeks recovery under either of the following two options: 
A.	 All money used in the purchase for the vehicle, fines, and any 
and all expenses incurred by the buyer is fully reimbursed to the 
buyer. 
B.	 The vehicle pictured in the auction, or a different vehicle of the
 
same quality, approved by the buyer, is delivered by GSA to
 
Century, West Virginia since the buyer made an attempt to
 
transport the vehicle back to there.
 
Appeal File, Exhibit 9. 
Respondent has moved to dismiss appellant’s first claim for relief. 
Discussion 
Appellant’s claim is being processed under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 
U.S.C. §§ 601-613.  Under the CDA, “[a]ll claims by a contractor against the Government 
relating to a contract shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the contracting officer for 
a decision.”  41 U.S.C. § 605(a).  Without a proper claim being submitted to the contracting 
officer and a decision on that claim, this Board lacks jurisdiction.  Sharman Co. v. United 
States, 2 F.3d 1564, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572, 1575 
(Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).  A claim is a written demand by a party “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.”  48 CFR 2.101 (2006); 
Reflectone, 60 F.3d at 1575-76. 
The appellant has requested alternative forms of relief. The first alternative, claiming 
costs incurred, fines, and penalties, does not meet the definition of a claim since it requests 

 
  
     
 
 
 
________________________ 
3 CBCA 560 
money, but not in an amount that is a sum certain.  Accordingly, this Board has no 
jurisdiction over the first alternative request for relief. 1 
Decision 
Respondent’s motion is granted.  The appeal is DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK 
OF JURISDICTION. 
R. ANTHONY McCANN 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
____________________________ _________________________ 
CATHERINE B. HYATT JERI K. SOMERS     
Board Judge Board Judge 
1 The Board notes that even if appellant had claimed a sum certain, recovery 
may not be possible as the Description Warranty clause and the Refund Amount clause in 
the contract appear to limit recovery in such cases to a refund of the purchase price.  Larry J. 
McKinney v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 16720, 05-2 BCA ¶ 33,119.