DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: April 17, 2009 
CBCA 1159 
TARHEEL SPECIALTIES, INC., 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 
Respondent. 
Richard D. Lieberman and Gabriel D. Soll of McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, P.C., 
Washington, DC, counsel for Appellant. 
Michael J. Davidson, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, counsel for 
Respondent. 
Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), STERN , and WALTERS. 
WALTERS, Board Judge. 
The Board presently has before it three consolidated appeals filed by the appellant, 
Tarheel Specialties, Inc. (Tarheel), CBCA 1041, 1159, and 1403.  The respondent, the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has filed a motion to dismiss the second of these 
appeals (CBCA 1159) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes 
Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613 (2006) (CDA).  For the reasons explained below, we grant 
respondent’s motion and dismiss that appeal. 

 
 
   
      
   
     
 
 
    
 
  
 
    
   
 
2 CBCA 1159 
Factual Background 
The appeals all relate to task orders issued by DHS under a General Services 
Administration (GSA) schedule contract for the provision of guard services, contract no. 
GS-07F-0152N.  By letter dated December 4, 2007, Tarheel submitted a claim to the DHS 
contracting officer in the total amount of $1,015,314.46 for “vacation/holiday/training pay,” 
which it certified pursuant to the CDA.  This total was broken down in the following chart 
contained within the claim letter, which Tarheel has provided as Attachment A to 
Appellant’s Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss : 
Company Training Vacation/Holiday Totals 
Amount Amount 
Tarheel Specialties, Inc.   $162,358.21  $ 162,358.21 
Lone Wolf Investigation  $472,860.51  $ 472,860.51 
Allied Protection Service $146,989.37  $136,612.02  $ 283,601.39 
Kelly’s Professional  $ 39,144.48  $ 14,643.23  $ 53,787.71 
Security Enforcement 
Authority  $ 26,111.13  $ 9,037.33  $ 35,148.46 
Totals        $847,463.70  $160,292.58      $1,007,756.28 
GSA Funding Fee (0.75%)  $ 7,558.18 
Total Due      $1,015,314.46 
Although amounts were included for vacation/holiday pay for three of Tarheel’s 
subcontractors, Allied Protection Service, Kelly’s Professional, and Security Enforcement 
Authority, no amount whatsoever for vacation/holiday pay was sought in that claim for 
either Tarheel (the prime contractor) or for another of its subcontractors, Lone Wolf 
Investigation.  Tarheel asserts that it did not include anything for itself at that time because 
“the exact amounts were not available on the date of the initial claim.” Appellant’s 
Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss at 2.  
The DHS contracting officer rendered a partial final decision on that certified claim 
by letter dated January 10, 2008, denying the amount sought for subcontractor 

 
      
 
      
   
  
     
 
   
 
     
  
 
  
 
 
     
  
3 CBCA 1159 
vacation/holiday pay, a total of $161,494.77, including the related GSA funding fee.  The 
balance of the claim was to be handled separately.  On January 18, 2008, Tarheel appealed 
that (partial) decision to this Board, and the appeal was docketed as CBCA 1041. 
Thereafter, at the parties’ joint request, the Board issued an order suspending proceedings 
to permit them to engage in alternative dispute resolution (ADR). 
In connection with the parties’ ADR efforts and “at the Government’s request,” 
Tarheel sent DHS two email messages, dated March 5, 2008, and March 6, 2008, seeking 
a total of $546,849.18 (inclusive of the GSA funding fee) for its own vacation and holiday 
pay and requesting a contracting officer’s decision. On March 19, 2008, Tarheel’s president 
wrote a follow-up letter to the contracting officer regarding this “cost proposal” and 
requested the issuance of a contract “modification” for the $546,849.18. No separate CDA 
claim certification was submitted by Tarheel with respect to either the email messages or the 
March 19, 2008, letter. By letter to Tarheel dated March 20, 2008, the contracting officer 
denied in its entirety the request for $546,849.18, stating that such denial was “the final 
decision of the Contracting Officer.”  Thereafter, by letter dated April 24, 2008, Tarheel 
appealed that denial to the Board.  The appeal was docketed as CBCA 1159 and was 
consolidated with CBCA 1041.
1 
Discussion
 DHS now seeks to have CBCA 1159 dismissed by the Board for lack of subject 
matter jurisdiction under the CDA.  It argues that the $546,849.18 claim involved, one that 
obviously exceeded $100,000 in amount, was not properly certified as a claim under the 
CDA and thus could not have been the subject of either a contracting officer’s decision or 
a Board appeal. Citing to our decision in Medtek, Inc. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 
CBCA 1153, 08-2 BCA ¶ 33,929, it maintains that the March 20, 2008, “final decision” is 
to be considered a “nullity.” We agree. 
In our recent decision in Wheeler Logging, Inc. v. Department of Agriculture, CBCA 
97, 08-2 BCA ¶ 33,984, we grappled with the requirements for claim certification and noted 
that “the courts and boards of contract appeals have permitted amendments or changes to 
claims [including a change in legal theory for recovery] without recertification and 
resubmission to the contracting officer . . . as long as the claim continues to arise from the 
same operative facts and requests essentially the same relief.”  Id. at 168,089 (citing Scott 
1 A third appeal, CBCA 1403, likewise was consolidated with the other two Tarheel 
appeals and, until recently, all three consolidated appeals were the subject of ADR 
proceedings.  The instant motion to dismiss raises no issue regarding CBCA 1403. 

 
  
 
 
  
   
 
  
    
  
 
 
  
        
    
      
       
4 CBCA 1159 
Timber Co. v. United States, 333 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).  Here, Tarheel posits 
correctly that the amount being sought under CBCA 1159 for its own vacation and holiday 
pay arises from the same operative facts as had been put forth in its certified claim of 
December 4, 2007, that had given rise to the initial appeal, CBCA 1041.  Indeed, it dubs that 
earlier claim the “underlying claim.” 
The question that needs to be resolved, however, is whether the additional relief 
sought in March 2008 is “essentially the same relief” Tarheel had been seeking in its 
December 2007 claim or whether the later request represented a new claim.  On the one 
hand, the December 2007 claim characterized itself as a “claim . . . for 
vacation/holiday/training pay pursuant to task orders issued by the Department of Homeland 
Security – Federal Protective Service . . . .” Certainly, Tarheel’s March 2008 claim for its 
own vacation and holiday pay would fit within that earlier claim characterization. 
Nevertheless, the claim and supporting documentation Tarheel presented to the contracting 
officer in December 2007 for analysis and decision sought no relief whatsoever for itself for 
either vacation or holiday pay, but only pursued relief on behalf of three subcontractors for 
those claim elements.   Neither the amounts put forth in December 2007 for vacation and 
holiday pay nor the supporting data Tarheel certified at that time as accurate and complete 
contained anything related to the relief later sought for itself in March 2008. 
Furthermore, Tarheel has not shown that information regarding its own vacation and 
holiday pay costs would not have been available to it in December 2007 or otherwise 
capable of reasonable estimation, see Wheeler Logging, 08-2 BCA at 168,089-90, but 
merely rationalizes now its unexplained omission of any claim for its own vacation and 
holiday pay based on alleged lack of “exact amounts.” Appellant’s Opposition to 
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss at 2.  Although a contractor “may increase the amount of 
his claim . . . [it] may not raise any new claims not presented and certified to the contracting 
officer.”  Santa Fe Engineers, Inc. v. United States , 818 F.2d 856, 858 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 
Here, we view the March 2008 claim as a new claim and one that required a separate CDA 
certification. Absent such a certification, the Board has no jurisdiction to hear or resolve the 
claim under the CDA.  
Since the March 20, 2008, decision is to be considered a “nullity,” Tarheel is not 
precluded from resubmitting for a contracting officer’s decision a properly certified claim 
for its own vacation and holiday pay and from appealing any denial of that claim to this 
Board. 

_______________________________ 
_______________________________ _______________________________ 
5 CBCA 1159 
Decision 
For the above reasons, we grant respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Accordingly, CBCA 
1159 hereby is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION . 
RICHARD C. WALTERS 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
STEPHEN M. DANIELS JAMES L. STERN 
Board Judge Board Judge