DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: July 17, 2009 
CBCA 1089 
V.I.C. ENTERPRISES, INC.,
                                                                           Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
                                                                                               Respondent. 
Victor S. Carlson, President of V.I.C. Enterprises, Inc., Willow, AK, appearing for 
Appellant. 
Glen Woodworth, Office of Regional Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, 
Anchorage, AK; and Anna Maddan, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Veterans 
Affairs, Palm Desert, CA, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges STERN , VERGILIO , and SHERIDAN . 
SHERIDAN , Board Judge. 
By order dated February 3, 2009, the Board raised the question of whether it had 
jurisdiction to decide CBCA 1089.  The parties were ordered to show cause why the appeal 
should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  Appellant proffered its letter of May 21, 
2006, as proof that a claim was submitted to the contracting officer.  The May 21 letter in 
which appellant seeks $546,000 does not contain certification language.  The Board finds 
that it is without jurisdiction because a certified claim had not been submitted to the 
contracting officer. 

   
   
  
 
  
    
   
  
 
 
     
    
  
     
   
       
2 CBCA 1089 
Background 
Respondent, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), awarded appellant, V.I.C. 
Enterprises, Inc. (VIC), on May 26, 2000, contract number V910P-0103-00, for the 
performance of burials at the Fort Richardson National Cemetery.  The contract had a base 
year of June 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001, with four option years.  Respondent exercised the 
options each of the four years, extending the contract to March 31, 2005.  Sometime after 
exercising the last option year, the VA determined the requirements of the National Cemetery 
had changed and the agency desired to do the contract work in-house.  The VA terminated 
the contract for its convenience on August 23, 2004, to be effective August 31, 2004.  The 
VA also informed VIC of its right to submit a convenience termination settlement proposal. 
On September 16, 2004, VIC offered to settle the matter for $55,000, supplementing 
the offer with invoices. The VA audited the invoices and determined on January 21, 2005, 
that VIC was entitled to payment of $26,347.40.   On February 7, 2005, VIC acknowledged 
receipt of the “partial payment” but wrote that it had not been paid in full.  
VIC alleged via a May 21, 2006, letter, that its losses had grown and that it had 
incurred $546,000 in “costs” due to the nature and timing of the termination.  The VA 
indicated a willingness to review any termination costs VIC had incurred, but stated it was 
unable to do so because VIC had not provided documentation to support the expenses it was 
requesting. 
The Board received VIC’s notice of appeal on February 26, 2008, and docketed it as 
CBCA 1089.  On February 3, 2009, the Board raised the question of whether it had 
jurisdiction over this matter and ordered the parties to show cause why the appeal should not 
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  The Board noted that it appeared that a certified claim 
had never been sent to the contracting officer.  
Appellant proffered its letter of May 21, 2006, as the sole proof that it had submitted 
a claim to the contracting officer; however, the May 21 letter did not contain any certification 
language.  
Appellant submitted a certified claim to the VA on March 1, 2009, in the amount of 
$546,000. The contracting officer denied the claim on March 10, 2009. This decision was 
then appealed, and the case was docketed as CBCA 1598.  
Discussion 

  
         
      
           
 
 
 
  
     
 
      
   
       
                                                       
3 CBCA 1089 
The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) requires that a contractor make its claim in writing, 
submit it to the contracting officer, and provide a certification of the claim if it is for more 
than $100,000. 41 U.S.C. § 605 (2006). 1 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.  Fidelity Construction Co. v. United States , 700 F.2d 1379, 
1384 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also W.M. Schlosser Co. v. United States , 705 F.2d 1336 (Fed. 
Cir. 1983).  Lack of a proper certification deprives the Board of jurisdiction to proceed on 
the claim.  Tecom, Inc. v. United States , 732 F.2d 935, 937 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.M. Schlosser 
Co. , 705 F.2d at 1338-39.  Submission of a certification after an appeal has been filed has 
no legal bearing on the Board’s jurisdiction, and it cannot serve to cure a lack of jurisdiction. 
B & M Cillessen Construction Co. v. Department of Health & Human Services , CBCA 931, 
08-1 BCA ¶ 33,753, at 167,083 (2007); Aylward Enterprises, Inc. v. General Services 
Administration, GSBCA 16649, 06-2 BCA ¶ 33,298, at 165,128.   The Board finds that 
appellant has failed to meet the jurisdictional prerequisite of submitting a certified claim to 
the contracting officer. 
Decision 
CBCA 1089 is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION .  CBCA 1598 
remains on the Board’s docket. 
PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
1 The CDA requires that “all claims by a contractor against the government 
relating to a contract shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the contracting officer 
for a decision.” 41 U.S.C. § 605(a).  Additionally, “[f]or claims of more than $100,000, 
the contractor shall certify that the claim is made in good faith, that the supporting data 
are accurate and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief, that the amount 
requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the 
government is liable, and that the person certifying is duly authorized to certify the claim 
on behalf of the contractor.”  Id. § 605(c)(1). 

                                                                                                                   
4 CBCA 1089
 
JAMES L. STERN JOSEPH A. VERGILIO 
Board Judge Board Judge