DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: May 30, 2012 
CBCA 2589 
URS ENERGY & CONSTRUCTION, INC., 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, 
Respondent. 
Daniel R. Frost, Claire Y. Dossier, and Shawn Rodda of Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., 
Denver, CO, counsel for Appellant. 
Brady L. Jones, III, Sky M. Smith, and Kaniah Konkoly-Thege, Office of Legal 
Services, Environmental Management Consolidated Business Center, Department of Energy,
 
Cincinnati, OH, counsel for Respondent.
 
Before Board Judges SOMERS , HYATT , and SHERIDAN .
 
SOMERS , Board Judge.
 
URS Energy & Construction, Inc. (URS) seeks full payment of an invoice in the 
amount of $1,093,750 for attorney fees. The Department of Energy (DOE) has moved to 
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons explained below, we grant the 
motion and dismiss the appeal. 
Background 
In February 1995, URS awarded a subcontract to Ground Improvement Techniques 
(GIT) to perform a task assignment under a contract issued by DOE to URS through DOE’s 
Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project Office. In September 1995, URS 

       
             
               
         
             
             
  
          
               
  
             
                 
         
            
             
              
     
              
             
   
  
           
          
        
         
      
              
   
     
           
2 CBCA 2589 
terminated the subcontract with GIT for default. 1   DOE concurred with the termination and 
agreed to permit URS to subcontract for legal services for litigation arising from the 
termination. DOE initially agreed to the acquisition of legal services in an amount not to 
exceed $100,000. The parties entered into a litigation plan. 
URS then filed a lawsuit for damages pursuant to the termination for default clause 
of URS’s subcontract with GIT in the Colorado federal district court. GIT counter-claimed, 
alleging that URS had wrongfully terminated its subcontract and seeking compensation for 
contract work completed before the default termination date and for other costs. In 1996, a 
jury rendered its verdict in favor of GIT for wrongful termination, awarding GIT millions of 
dollars in damages. 
URS appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth 
Circuit. The Court reversed and remanded the case on the issue of damages. A second jury 
returned a verdict of $15.6 million in favor of GIT. 
Throughout the prior litigation, DOE paid invoices for legal fees resulting from the 
litigation. However, when URS requested approval under the litigation plan to appeal the 
second verdict to the Tenth Circuit, DOE denied approval. Nonetheless, URS filed an appeal 
and continued to incur attorney fees. 
On May 27, 2011, URS submitted an invoice for attorney fees in the amount of 
$1,093,750 to the contracting officer. The cover letter submitted with the voucher included 
the following: 
I certify that this invoice is correct and in accordance with the 
terms of the contract and that the costs incurred herein have 
been incurred, represent the payments made by the Contractor 
except as otherwise authorized in the payments provision of the 
contract, and properly reflect the work performed. 
The letter advised that payment for the voucher would be due in ten days. 
1 See URS Energy & Construction, Inc. v. Department of Energy, CBCA 2260, 
11-2 BCA ¶ 34,815, for details concerning the United States District Court litigation 
between URS and GIT, which resulted in the issuance of a surety bond (also known as a 
supersedeas bond).    

               
         
             
               
             
 
             
        
              
             
               
    
           
   
           
          
       
        
           
   
        
          
           
          
        
       
             
          
     
             
        
3 CBCA 2589 
When URS did not receive a response to the letter or payment of the voucher, URS 
filed an appeal with this Board on October 13, 2011. 
DOE has moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Originally, DOE 
asserted that URS had failed to certify its claim. URS responded, pointing out that the 
voucher did include a certification. Nonetheless, as a protective measure, URS submitted a 
revised certification. 
In DOE’s reply in support of its motion to dismiss, DOE amended its argument, 
arguing that the voucher could not be construed as a claim under the Contract Disputes Act 
(CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (West Supp. 2011), because the “claim” was not in dispute 
when URS submitted it to the contracting officer. URS disagrees, asserting that URS’s 
May 27, 2011, invoice qualified as a “claim” under Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton , 60 F.3d 1572, 
1575 (Fed. Cir. 1995). 
Discussion 
Under the CDA, contractors submitting monetary claims in excess of $100,000 are 
required to certify that: 
the claim is made in good faith; that the supporting data are 
accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief; 
that the amount requested accurately reflects the contract 
adjustment for which the Contractor believes the Government is 
liable; and that I am duly authorized to certify the claim on 
behalf of the Contractor. 
41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1). The statute also provides: 
A contracting officer is not obligated to render a final decision 
on a claim of more than $100,000 that is not certified in 
accordance with paragraph (1) if, within 60 days after receipt of 
the claim, the contracting officer notifies the contractor in 
writing of the reasons why any attempted certification is found 
to be defective. A defect in the certification of a claim does not 
deprive a court or an agency board [of contract appeals] of 
jurisdiction over the claim.  Prior to the entry of final judgment 
by a court or a decision by an agency board, the court or agency 
board shall require a defective certification to be corrected. 

   
             
                 
               
             
     
             
                
  
        
       
        
           
        
    
                  
          
                
             
            
  
        
           
             
           
            
           
           
             
       
              
              
4 CBCA 2589 
41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(3). 
Respondent has moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that URS failed to 
certify its claim. In response URS asserts that, not only did it certify its claim, but, assuming 
for the sake of argument that the certification is defective, the defect can be corrected. Thus, 
we must decide whether the purported certification is correctable under CDA § 7103(b)(3). 
URS’s purported certification fails to include certification language specified under 
41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1). Thus, according to Congress, to determine whether this certification 
is correctable, we look to see whether the defect is “technical” in nature, as in the following 
examples: 
certification with each document submitted as part of the claim 
when all claim documentation is not submitted simultaneously, 
missing certifications when two or more claims not requiring 
certification are deemed by the court or board to be a larger 
claim requiring certification, and certification by the wrong or 
incorrect representative of the contractor. 
If the defect is technical, it is correctable. On the other hand, if the certification is made with 
intentional, reckless, or negligent disregard for the applicable certification requirements, it 
is not correctable. H.R. Rep. No. 102-1006 at 28 (1992), reprinted in 1992 U.S. Code Cong. 
& Admin. News 3921, 3937; see Walashek Industrial & Marine, Inc. , ASBCA 52166, 00-1 
BCA ¶ 30,728; Keydata Systems, Inc. v. Department of Treasury , GSBCA 14281-TD, 97-2 
BCA ¶ 29,330. 
Consistent with such Congressional guidance, tribunals have examined various 
certifications, and have held that certification language can be intentionally or negligently 
defective. See Walashek , 00-1 BCA ¶ 30,728, at 151,790 (citing Production Corp ., ASBCA 
49122-812, 96-1 BCA ¶ 28,053, at 140,082 (1995)), reconsideration denied , 96-1 BCA 
¶ 28,181 (intentional, deliberate failure to use CDA language which contained “little that 
would identify them as certifications” was reckless and intentional disregard of the 
certification requirement and not correctable); Keydata , 97-2 BCA ¶ 29,330, at 145,824 
(certification that addressed only one prong and ignored the other three prongs of proper 
certification was negligent disregard for CDA requirement and not correctable); Sam Gray 
Enterprises, Inc. v. United States , 32 Fed. Cl. 526, 529 (1995) (statement that included “I 
acted in good faith” did not remotely resemble required CDA certification so as to permit 
correction). 

           
                 
                
                
           
              
           
            
                
       
                
             
            
               
              
              
             
      
              
      
            
             
              
   
            
 
___________________________ 
  
 
5 CBCA 2589 
Here, URS’s certification wholly omitted the first prong of the required certification, 
“the claim is made in good faith.” As to the second prong, “the supporting data are accurate 
and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief,” URS says only that “this invoice is 
correct and in accordance with the terms of the contract.” The third prong, “that the amount 
requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the Contractor believes the 
Government is liable,” is not present – instead, URS states that “the costs incurred herein 
have been incurred, represent payments made by the Contractor except as otherwise 
authorized in the payments provision of the contract, and properly reflect the work 
performed.” As with the first prong, the fourth prong, “I am duly authorized to certify the 
claim on behalf of the contractor,” is absent. 
URS was well aware of the correct language to be used to certify a claim under the 
CDA. In an earlier-filed case currently pending before the Board, CBCA 2260, URS 
submitted an invoice to the contracting officer and the contracting officer declined payment. 
On January 22, 2010 (more than one year before URS submitted the invoice at issue here) 
URS resubmitted that invoice as a certified claim, using the language required by the CDA. 
We find that URS’s failure to submit a certification that complies with the requirements of 
the CDA constitutes an intentional or negligent disregard of the CDA’s requirement, not an 
innocent mistake or inadvertence. Because URS has not made the certification required by 
the Act, or even a certification with a curable technical defect, we must grant respondent’s 
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 
Because we find that URS has failed to submit a curable or correctable certification, 
we need not decide, and, consequently do not opine, whether URS’s submission of the 
invoice meets the requirements of a claim under Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton , 60 F.3d 1572, 
1576 (1995) (en banc). 
Decision 
Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted. This matter is DISMISSED FOR LACK 
OF JURISDICTION . 
JERI KAYLENE SOMERS 
Board Judge 

6 CBCA 2589
 
We concur:
 
__________________________ ____________________________ 
CATHERINE B. HYATT PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN 
Board Judge Board Judge