DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: March 24, 2016
CBCA 5119
RICHTER DEVELOPMENTS, LTD.,
Appellant,
v.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
Scott Silver of Silver & Garvett, P.A., Miami, FL, counsel for Appellant.
Jay Bernstein, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration,
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Judges SHERIDAN, KULLBERG, and LESTER. 
SHERIDAN, Board Judge.
Appellant, Richter Developments, Ltd. (Richter), filed an appeal with the Civilian
Board of Contact Appeals asking the Board to award it $198,233.42 under General Services
Administration (GSA) lease contract GS-04P-LFL64198.  On March 21, 2016, the parties
jointly moved the Board to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because appellant failed
to certify its claim.


CBCA 5119 2
Findings of Fact
On August 10, 2015, Richter sent an email message to GSA with a request for an
equitable adjustment (REA) of $198,233.42 for delay damages and other losses due to
alleged changes to the scope of a project to lease warehouse and office space in Miami,
Florida.  The REA was not certified.  
The contracting officer issued a final decision denying the REA on October 8, 2015. 
On December 18, 2015, appellant filed a notice of appeal at the Board, where the matter was
docketed as CBCA 5119.
On March 9, 2016, a telephone conference was conducted between the parties’
representatives and the Board to discuss jurisdictional elements pertinent to this appeal. 
During that conference call the parties agreed that Richter’s submission to the contracting
officer had not been certified.  Following the conference call, the parties jointly moved that
the appeal be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Discussion
The Board derives its jurisdiction to consider contract disputes from the Contract
Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (2012).  The CDA 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.”  Id. § 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) (2015).  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).  
The CDA also requires that:
For claims of more than $100,000 made by a contractor, the contractor shall
certify that –
(A) the claim is made in good faith;

CBCA 5119 3
(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.
41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1); see also 48 CFR 33.207(c).  
Certification of a claim of more than $100,000 is not only a statutory requirement, but
also a jurisdictional prerequisite for review of a contracting officer’s decision before this
Board.  Fidelity Construction Co. v. United States, 700 F.2d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see
also W.M. Schlosser Co. v. United States, 705 F.2d 1336, 1337-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Essex
Electro Engineers, Inc. v. United States, 702 F.2d 998, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 1983).  Although a
defective certification may be corrected, K Satellite v. Department of Agriculture, CBCA 14,
07-1 BCA ¶ 33,547, at 166,154, the complete absence of any certification deprives this Board
of jurisdiction.  B & M Cillessen Construction Co. v. Department of Health & Human
Services, CBCA 931, 08-1 BCA ¶ 33,753, at 167,084 (2007).  Furthermore, certification after
an appeal has been filed has no legal bearing on the Board’s jurisdiction and cannot serve to
cure a lack of jurisdiction.  Id. at 167,085.
Finally, neither can a contracting officer’s final decision issued on an uncertified
“claim” over $100,000 confer jurisdiction.  Without a presentation of a proper claim, in this
case, one that is certified, no decision is possible and any action taken by the contracting
officer is a nullity.  See D.L. Braughler Co. v. West, 127 F.3d 1476, 1480-81 (Fed. Cir.
1997); Skelly & Loy v. United States, 685 F.2d 414 (Ct. Cl. 1982); Paragon Energy Corp.
v. United States, 645 F.2d 966 (Ct. Cl. 1981).
Based upon the parties’ representations and our review of the correspondence
submitted with the notice of appeal, Richter did not certify its submission to the contracting
officer, and, therefore, its appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

CBCA 5119 4
Decision
The appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
                                                             
PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN
Board Judge
We concur:
                                                                                                                          
H. CHUCK KULLBERG HAROLD D. LESTER, JR.
Board Judge Board Judge