DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: December 20, 2017
CBCA 5940
 
PROS CLEANERS, 
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Respondent.
Bruce Webber, President of Pros Cleaners, Kenner, LA, appearing for Appellant.  
Nathaniel Greeson and Hillary J. Freund, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, counsel for
Respondent.
Before Board Judges SHERIDAN, ZISCHKAU, and SULLIVAN.
SULLIVAN, Board Judge. 
On November 20, 2017, Pros Cleaners filed its appeal of its request to the contracting
officer for a decision on its claim for $600,000.  To its appeal, Pros Cleaners attached its
claim to the contracting officer, dated October 13, 2017.  Pros Cleaners did not include in its
notice of appeal any evidence that it had certified its claim to the contracting officer.

CBCA 5940  2
On November 27, 2017, the Board ordered appellant, Pros Cleaners, to show cause
by December 4, 2017, why its appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  Pros
Cleaners did not respond to the Board’s order.  
The Board’s jurisdiction to entertain contract disputes derives from the Contract
Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (2012), which requires as a prerequisite to
review by the Board that the contractor, if it is seeking the payment of money from the
Government, have submitted a claim to the Government.  Id. § 7103.  If the amount claimed
is greater than $100,000, the CDA further requires that the claim be certified.  41 U.S.C.
§ 7103(b).  “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.”  B&M Cillessen Construction Co. v. Department of Health &
Human Services, CBCA 931, 08-1 BCA ¶ 33,753, at 167,084 (2007).  “The submission of
an uncertified claim, for purposes of the CDA, is, in effect, a legal nullity . . . .”  Fidelity
Construction Co. v. United States, 700 F.2d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1983).  “Although a
defective certification may be corrected, a failure to certify may not.”  B&M Cillessen, 08-1
BCA at 167,084 (quoting K Satellite v. Department of Agriculture, CBCA 14, 07-1 BCA
¶ 33,547, at 166,154).  The CDA further requires that a contractor appeal only after either the
contracting officer has issued a decision or sixty days have passed since the date the certified
claim was submitted for decision without notice from the contracting officer of the time
within which the decision will be issued.  41 U.S.C. § 7103(f); BES Design/Build, LLC v.
Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 5529, 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,640. 
Based upon the material submitted with the notice of appeal, Pros Cleaners did not
certify its claim to the contracting officer and did not wait the required sixty days to file its
appeal.  The Board lacks jurisdiction to consider its appeal.1  
1
This appeal is the second appeal filed recently by Pros Cleaners that the Board has
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  The ABA Public Contract Law Manual, Practicing Before
the Federal Boards of Contract Appeals, contains valuable information on how to process
appeals before the CBCA.  The manual may be found on the Board’s website (cbca.gov) by
first clicking on “How to File,” next clicking on “Filing Cases,” and finally clicking on
“American Bar Association Manual.”  

CBCA 5940  3
Decision
The appeal is  DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
_________________________________
MARIAN E. SULLIVAN
Board Judge
We concur:
_________________________________ _________________________________
PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN JONATHAN D. ZISCHKAU
Board Judge Board Judge