DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: February 3, 2011 
CBCA 2233 
HILLCREST AIRCRAFT COMPANY, 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 
Respondent. 
Leslie H. Wiesenfelder of Dow Lohnes PLLC, Washington, DC, counsel for 
Appellant. 
Heather M. Self, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Agriculture, 
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges BORWICK , GOODMAN , and DRUMMOND . 
BORWICK , Board Judge. 
This is an appeal from a contracting officer’s decision on an uncertified claim in 
excess of $100,000. The contracting officer’s decision on an uncertified claim is a nullity 
and may not serve as a basis for Board jurisdiction. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry 
Dock Co. v. Garrett , 6 F.3d 1547, 1552-53 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Whiteriver Construction, Inc. 
v. Department of the Interior , CBCA 2045, 10-2 BCA ¶ 34,582, at 170,487; 41 U.S.C. 
§ 7103(b)(1), (f)(2) as codified by Pub. L. No. 111-350, 124 Stat. 3677, 3816 (2011) . 
On January 31, 2010, the parties submitted a purported Hamilton stipulation to 
cure jurisdictional defects. See United States v. Hamilton Enterprises , 711 F.2d 1038 
(Fed. Cir. 1983); Lockheed Martin Tactical Defense Systems v. Department of Commerce , 

 
            
              
            
               
          
              
   
             
              
          
                
               
                 
            
             
            
   
       
 
____________________________  
                           
                           
 
______________________________ ____________________________ 
    
              
              
           
2 CBCA 2233 
GSBCA 14450-COM, 98-1 BCA ¶ 29,717. A Hamilton stipulation requires the appellant 
to first submit to the contracting officer a certified claim comprising the “exact facts and 
legal arguments” as those of the previously submitted uncertified claim, i.e. a certified 
claim that is factually and legally identical to the uncertified claim, and then to enter into 
the appropriate stipulation with respondent. Lockheed Martin Tactical Defense Systems , 
98-1 BCA at 147,358; Carothers & Carothers Co. , Eng. BCA 4739, 88-3 BCA ¶ 21,161, 
at 106,815. 
In this case, the certified claim that was submitted to the contracting officer was 
not based on the “exact facts” in the uncertified claim that was previously submitted. 
Instead, the certified claim contained two additional “post-decision” invoices that served 
as a basis for increased quantum. Consequently the certified claim is a new claim, not a 
claim that is factually identical to the uncertified claim. The parties state that the new 
claim is based on the same set of operative facts and does not change the substance of the 
claim. However, the requirement that the newly certified claim comprise the “exact 
facts” as the uncertified claim forecloses a certified claim that is “similar to” or 
“substantively the same as” the uncertified claim from meeting the requirements of a 
Hamilton stipulation. 
Decision 
This appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
1 
ANTHONY S. BORWICK 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
ALLAN H. GOODMAN JEROME M. DRUMMOND 
1 The contracting officer must now issue a decision on the certified new claim, 41 
U.S.C. § 7103(d), with the contractor filing any subsequent appeal from that decision at this 
Board or at the United States Court of Federal Claims. 

 
  
3 CBCA 2233 
Board Judge Board Judge