DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION:  June 26, 2008 
CBCA 1096 
BOB MINOR dba BOB MINOR IRRIGATION PARTS & SERVICE, 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 
Respondent. 
Bob Minor, President of Bob Minor Irrigation Parts & Service, Salmon, ID, 
appearing for Appellant. 
Heather R. Hinton-Taylor, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Agriculture, 
Ogden, UT, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges DeGRAFF , VERGILIO , and STEEL . 
STEEL , Board Judge. 
Bob Minor Irrigation Parts & Service entered into an emergency equipment rental 
agreement (EERA) with the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service (FS) for weed 
washing units.  Appellant filed a claim with the contracting officer for personal injury due 
to alleged discrimination because the FS ordered a weed washing unit from another 
contractor.  The contracting officer denied appellant’s claim for $32,156 and appellant timely 
appealed to this Board. The Government moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the 
Board lacks jurisdiction over this matter because the EERA was not a contract.  Oral 
argument was held by telephone so that Mr. Minor could respond to the motion. 

 
    
   
      
 
   
      
          
 
 
      
 
 
 
   
         2 C B C A  1 0 9 6
Findings of Fact 
On May 14, 2007, the FS entered into EERAs with appellant and others for weed 
washing units.  Appeal File, Exhibits A, D. The EERAs set the daily rate that would be paid 
and provisions that would apply if the FS ordered such equipment and the party accepted the 
order.  Id.  Appellant’s EERA covered the time period from May 31, 2007, through June 1, 
2009.   Id. , Exhibit A.  Appellant filed his claim for personal injury (i.e., breach damages) 
because the FS on some occasions did not order from appellant, but on some occasions 
ordered non-conforming equipment from a competitor.  Complaint ¶ 4. 
The EERA in question states as the preamble to the agreement: 
Since the equipment needs of the Government and availability of Contractor’s 
equipment during an emergency cannot be determined in advance, it is 
mutually agreed that, upon request of the Government, the Contractor shall 
furnish the equipment listed herein to the extent the Contractor is willing and 
able at the time of order. 
Appeal File, Exhibit A at 3. 
Discussion 
Appellant brings this action pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 
§§ 601-613, as amended. The Government argues that the agreement reached by appellant 
and the FS is not an express or implied contract, such that the Board lacks jurisdiction over 
this matter. The Board’s jurisdiction to hear this appeal is a threshold inquiry that must be 
resolved before proceeding to the merits of an action.   If the Board does not have jurisdiction 
over the subject matter of this claim, the appeal must be dismissed. 
The Government’s argument is correct.  EERAs such as the one at issue lack the 
essential elements of a legally binding contract, and thus are “written instruments of 
understanding that contain clauses that will apply to future contracts, but are themselves not 
contracts.”  Petersen Equipment , AGBCA 94-163-1, et. al. , 95-2 BCA ¶ 27,676. 
Neither the Government nor appellant has made a binding commitment to either 
request or furnish the emergency equipment.  It is “axiomatic that a valid contract cannot be 
based upon the illusory promise of one party, much less illusory promises of both parties.” 
Ridge Runner Forestry v. Veneman, 287 F.3d 1058, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2002).  Without binding 

 
 
____________________________ 
         3 C B C A  1 0 9 6
commitments, there is no contract between appellant and the Government.  Without a 
contract, this Board has no jurisdiction to hear the matter.   
Decision 
The Government’s motion to dismiss is granted.  The appeal is DISMISSED FOR 
LACK OF JURISDICTION. 
CANDIDA S. STEEL 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
_________________________ ____________________________ 
MARTHA H. DEGRAFF JOSEPH A. VERGILIO 
Board Judge Board Judge