DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: January 14, 2016
CBCA 5064
PACIFIC COAST COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC.,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Respondent.
Daniel C. McAuliffe of Witcomb Law, P.C., Denver, CO, counsel for Appellant.
Denise A. McLane, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security,
Philadelphia, PA, counsel for Respondent.
Before Judges DANIELS (Chairman), HYATT, and SHERIDAN.
SHERIDAN, Board Judge.
Appellant, Pacific Coast Community Services, Inc. (PCCS), filed an appeal with the
Civilian Board of Contact Appeals asking the Board to award it $71,592.96 for additional
services that it alleges were provided under Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
contract HSHQW9-13-C-0001.  In response to a show cause order issued by the Board on
November 19, 2015, DHS has moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, while PCCS
asserts that the appeal should not be dismissed.  We grant DHS’ motion to dismiss.


CBCA 5064 2
Findings of Fact
On September 5, 2012, appellant entered into contract HSHQW9-13-C-0001 to provide
administrative support services to DHS’ Federal Protective Service (FPS) “in accordance
with the attached Performance Work Statement [PWS].”  The PWS set forth a schedule of
services by contract line item numbers (CLINs), quantities, items, unit prices, and amounts. 
The contract was for a base year, to run from October 1, 2012, through September 30, 2013
(fiscal year (FY) 2013), and for as many as four option years (FYs 2014 through 2016).  
On May 7, 2015, Christopher T. Flynn, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
PCCS, presented to the contracting officer a “white paper” setting forth PCCS’ position
about two disputes which appeared to be developing.  PCCS asserted that the contract only
required its contract employees to work a total of 1888 productive hours per month.  FPS had
earlier taken the position that a higher number of hours was required.  Also, there was a
disagreement as to the receptionist provided by PCCS “being available at all times,” and
PCCS explained its position on that issue.
On July 31, 2015, PCCS submitted to the contracting officer what it characterized as
its “NOTICE OF CONTRACT DISPUTE AND NOTICE OF WRITTEN DEMAND . . . for
the payment of money in a sum certain in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation
[FAR] Subpart 52.233-1, ‘Disputes.’”  The letter stated:
The total amount of the claim is [sic] ranges from $5000 to $25,000 per
contract year or to $200,000 if the disputed contract is terminated by the
Government.  This claim is based on the current best available estimate as
described in the attached Basis of PCCS Claim for Adjustment and may be
revised.  The Pro-forma Impact on Price per Contract Interpretation is attached
for illustrative purposes as the CO [contracting officer] has stated Example 3
is the preference of the Government.  PCCS is requesting a final decision on
its claim, or written notice of when a decision will be made, within 60-days.
PCCS attached “Enclosure 1:  Basis of PCCS Claim for Adjustment” to its July 31,
2015, submission.  Enclosure 1 set forth the applicable contract period by year, beginning
with the base year, and then proceeded to list the “claims” PCCS associated with each period. 
For option year one, in enclosure one, appellant states its claims as:
Claim 1: Health & Welfare increase of $0.10 was applied to 9440 hours (5
positions at 1888 hrs each) in lieu of 10400 hours of PCCS employee paid
hours.  FOY [for option year] 1 $96 cumulative contract not computed.

CBCA 5064 3
Claim 2: Extraordinary legal costs pertaining to Government’s direction to take
adverse action of PCCS employee while employee with a disability was on
disability leave.  $3500
For option year two, in enclosure one, appellant states its claims as:
Claim 1:  Health & Welfare increase of $0.21 was applied to 9440 hours (5
positions at 1888 hrs each) in lieu of 10400 hours of PCCS employee paid
hours.  FOY 1 $297.64 cumulative contract not computed.
Claim 2: Contract Year Amount was computed based on 1888 hours not 1896
hours as prescribed on Enclosure 4 Worksheet Employees Tab and then
utilized in computation on the Pricing Worksheet tab.  FOY 2 $1811.
Claim 3:   Extraordinary legal costs pertaining to Government’s position of not
recognizing Enclosure 4 (Pricing Work Sheet), the dispute.  [Cost]
Undetermined.
Claim 4: Reclaiming amounts deducted from Firm Fix priced Contract at
direction of CO.
For option year three, in enclosure one, appellant states its claims as: “Claim 1: Claim
of lost opportunity proceeds to non-profit agency, PCCS.  Estimated rounded [amount]:
$100,000.” 
The contracting officer responded to appellant’s notice of written demand:
1.  It appears that the subject dispute is a pre-emptive claim as the above
referenced contract has not been terminated.  In addition, it is the
government’s intent to exercise the next option period, period of performance
of 10/1/2015 - 9/31/2016.
2.  The subject dispute does not contain a sum certain in accordance with FAR
52.233-1, rather it contains a range of potential dollars.
. . . .
Based on the above, it is determined that this dispute is not a valid claim in
accordance with FAR 52.233-1.  

CBCA 5064 4
As she did not consider appellant’s notice to be a claim, the contracting officer did not
provide the appeal language set forth in the contract’s Disputes clause and in the FAR.
On November 10, 2015, appellant’s attorney filed a notice of appeal at the Board and
the matter was docketed as CBCA 5064.  The notice of appeal stated:
The agency has been unreasonable with regard to the following contract
administration issues:
(i)  Improper direction on employee work hours;
(ii)  Denial of any makeup time for late commute arrivals;
(iii)  Degraded annual performance appraisal by the contracting officer
resulting from contract dispute and agency adverse employment action;
(iv)  Placing Pacific at risk by discharging Pacific employees;
(v)  Denial of other contract or added contracting opportunities because of the
contract dispute;
(vi)  Working Pacific employees at a higher rated non-contracted position for
an extended period of time without compensation;
(vii)  Changing of work scope with [sic] credible negotiations of fairness;
(viii)  Interference with the contractor in training adequate back up staff;
(ix)  Interference with the contractor by denying routine site visits to Pacific
employee desks; and 
(x)  Intimidating Pacific in an attempt to have Pacific discharge an employee.
. . .  The estimate of the amount of money in controversy is approximately
$71,592.96.  This amount is based upon the schedule of services in the subject
contract that was delineated by quantity, unit, unit price and total amount.  The
agency has insisted that Pacific provide additional services and Pacific has
been performing at the agency’s newly adjusted schedule without a contract
modification.
On November 19, 2015, the Board ordered the parties to show cause why this appeal
should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
In response to the Board’s order to show cause, respondent moves to dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that “appellant failed to request a sum certain in
connection with its dispute.”  Appellant disagrees, asserting:
The appellant has genuine issues of contract interpretation, administration, and
value it has not been able to resolve with the Government.  Its dispute and

CBCA 5064 5
claim are not “pre-emptive” as the contracting officer believes.  The appellant
is trying to get the Government to understand that the Proposal Pricing
Worksheet is the basis of the dollar value of the contract.  The Government
disagrees and therefore there are genuine contractual issues to be resolved by
the Civilian Board.
Discussion
The Board derives its jurisdiction to hear and decide contract disputes between
government contractors and civilian executive agencies from the Contract Disputes Act, 41
U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (2012) (CDA).  For the Board to have jurisdiction over a dispute not
involving a government claim, the CDA requires a contractor to submit a written claim to the
contracting officer for a final decision.  41 U.S.C. § 7103(a).  
The CDA does not define “claim,” so the Board looks to the definition provided in
the FAR.  See ePlus Technology, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, CBCA 2573,
12-2 BCA ¶ 35,114, at 172,434 (citing Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572, 1575 (Fed.
Cir. 1995) (en banc)).  The FAR defines a “claim” as “a written demand or written assertion
by one of the contracting parties seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money in sum
certain, the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or
relating to the contract.”  48 CFR 52.233-1(c).  “The ‘claim need not be submitted in any
particular form or use any particular wording,’ but ‘must contain a clear and unequivocal
statement that gives the contracting officer adequate notice of the basis and amount of the
claim.’”  Corrections Corp. of America v. Department of Homeland Security, CBCA 2647,
15-1 BCA ¶ 35,971, at 175,741-42 (citing M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States,
609 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).  The intent of the communication governs, and the
Board must use a common sense analysis to determine whether the contractor communicated
its desire for a contracting officer’s decision.  Kevin J. LeMay v. General Services
Administration, GSBCA 16093, 03-2 BCA ¶ 32,345, at 160,041; see also ePlus Technology,
12-2 BCA at 172,434. 
We look to the contractor’s submissions made pre-appeal to the contracting officer
to determine whether PCCS has filed a CDA claim.  In this matter, PCCS’ submissions to
the contracting officer failed to state a sum certain, and its allegations were confusing.  It is
clear from the May 7 and July 31 letters that PCCS had raised some contract interpretation
issues with the FPS, but had not yet clearly distilled those issues into a claim seeking a sum
certain.  For what appears to be the primary issue, the number of hours a PCCS employee
was required to work per month, PCCS failed to seek a sum certain.  

CBCA 5064 6
The notice of appeal statement that the “estimate of the amount of money in
controversy is approximately $71,592.96” failed to clarify the matter and in any event this
amount was not submitted to the contracting officer, a pre-appeal jurisdictional requirement
under the CDA.  Further, it is impossible to ascertain from the notice to which of the ten
allegations the $71,592.96 pertains.  Various other issues were mentioned in correspondence
but it is unclear whether appellant was attempting to pursue those issues through this appeal. 
In particular, it is not apparent what matters of contract interpretation the contractor wanted
the contracting officer to decide.
It is incumbent upon a contractor to submit to the contracting officer a claim that
contains a clear and unequivocal statement that gives adequate notice of the basis and amount
of the claim.  PCCS’ claim wholly failed to provide the contracting officer a clear statement
of basis and amount of the claim.  Therefore, PCCS’ appeal must be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
Decision
The appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
                                                             
PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN
Board Judge
We concur:
                                                                                                  
STEPHEN M. DANIELS CATHERINE B. HYATT
Board Judge Board Judge