DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: October 15, 2018
CBCA 6259
VETERANS CONTRACTING, INC.,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent.
Scott R. Sylkatis of Sylkatis Law, LLC, Amherst, OH, counsel for Appellant.
Hank W. Askins III, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs,
Charleston, SC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Judges HYATT, VERGILIO, and SHERIDAN.
SHERIDAN, Board Judge.
On June 4, 2018, VCI sent a request for equitable adjustment (REA) in an email
message to VA seeking “39 days of lost work due to shutdowns for noise/odors/VA
personnel being in town and due to infill material not being available for the excessive
[material] that was removed.” The email attachments contained some proposed costing
information, but it is unclear the amount VCI sought.
On September 26, 2018, VCI submitted a notice of appeal requesting the Board award
appellant $157,701.51. On September 27, 2018, the Board issued an order to show cause
directing VCI to address whether the REA constituted a proper claim and was appropriately
certified pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (2012) (CDA). A
telephone conference was conducted on October 4, 2018, between the parties’ counsel and


CBCA 6259 2
the Board to discuss jurisdictional elements pertinent to this appeal. During that conference
call, the appellant indicated that the REA had not been certified. Following the conference
call, the parties jointly moved that the appeal be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because
appellant failed to certify its claim.
Discussion
The Board derives its jurisdiction to consider contract disputes from the CDA which
provides that “each claim by a contractor against the Federal Government relating to a
contract [shall be in writing and] shall be submitted to the contracting officer for a decision.”
41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(1). The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines “claim” as “a
written demand or written assertion by one of the contracting parties seeking, as a matter of
right, the payment in a sum certain, the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or
other relief arising under or relating to this contract.” 48 CFR 52.233-1(c) (2018).
Interpreting the CDA and FAR, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has established
that for jurisdictional purposes, a CDA claim exists for a nonroutine contract adjustment if
there is: (1) a written demand, (2) seeking, as a matter of right, (3) the payment of money in
a sum certain. Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).
Certification of a claim of more than $100,000 is a jurisdictional prerequisite. Fidelity
Construction Co. v. United States, 700 F.2d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
VCI’s REA cannot be deemed a CDA claim because it fails to satisfy several
jurisdictional prerequisites. Based on the material submitted with the notice of appeal, VCI’s
REA did not make clear it sought a contracting officer’s final decision, did not contain a sum
certain, and was not certified.
Decision
The appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
Patricia J. Sheridan
PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN
Board Judge

CBCA 6259 3
We concur:
Catherine B. Hyatt Joseph A. Vergilio
CATHERINE B. HYATT JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
Board Judge Board Judge