DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION:  June 29, 2026
CBCA 8931
FOUR LLC,
Appellant,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
Daniel Strouse and Sam Van Kopp of Cordatis LLP, Arlington, VA, counsel for
Appellant.
Emily E. Warner, Office of the General Counsel, Office of Personnel Management,
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges LESTER, SULLIVAN, and RUSSELL.
RUSSELL, Board Judge.
Appellant, Four LLC, requests that the Board dismiss this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction without prejudice.  For reasons stated below, we grant appellant’s request and
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
On June 16, 2026, appellant filed a notice of appeal, attaching its claim to the
contracting officer (CO), dated May 20, 2026, through which it sought damages of $967,000
for an alleged breach of contract relating to appellant’s provision of hosting and licensing


CBCA 8931 2
services.  The notice references—but does not attach—a purported March 9, 2026,
contracting officer’s final decision (COFD), which inexplicably predates the May 20, 2026,
claim.  Instead of attaching the COFD, appellant attached certain emails to its notice. 
Pertinent here, in one email, dated May 21, 2026, the CO stated that she would issue
a final decision by August 31, 2026, and, in another, dated June 4, 2026, the CO denied
appellant’s request to supplement its claim.  Additionally, other emails seem to reference
other claims or versions of claims that were submitted to the agency, rather than the May 20
claim.  For example, one email, dated March 31, 2026, from appellant to respondent agency,
indicated that a claim was attached to the email.  However, this March 31 email (possibly
attaching a claim) also predates the claim dated May 20, 2026, that was submitted with
appellant’s notice before the Board.
After filing its notice of appeal, appellant consulted with the respondent agency which
took the position that the agency’s email communications did not constitute a final agency
decision under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7109 (2024). 
Appellant agreed and moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice.
Discussion
Although the parties agree that we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, the Board
must make its own determination on jurisdictional questions, regardless of the parties’
positions on jurisdiction or dismissal.  Rule 12(b)(3) (48 CFR 6101.12(b)(3) (published in
eCFR)).  In this instance, we agree with appellant that dismissal is warranted.
Pursuant to the CDA, the Board may not exercise jurisdiction over an appeal through
which a contractor seeks monetary relief unless, before the appeal was filed, the contractor
submitted a claim to the contracting officer and the contracting officer issued a final decision
denying that claim (either in writing or through a “deemed denial”).  41 U.S.C. § 7103.  Here,
appellant submitted its claim to the CO on May 20, 2026.  By statute, “the contracting officer
has sixty days from receipt of a certified claim over $100,000 to either ‘issue a decision’ or
‘notify the contractor of the time within which a decision will be issued.’”  Agbayani
Construction Corp. v. Department of Commerce, CBCA 5534, 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,582, at
178,188 (quoting 41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(2)).  Unless the CO actually issues a final decision, the
contractor must wait until the sixty-day period for the CO’s issuance of a decision (or
notification of a new deadline for a decision) has passed before filing an appeal, at which
point, if the CO has not issued a written decision, the contractor can appeal the “deemed
denial” of its claim.  Id. at 178,189 (citing Fire Security Systems, Inc. v. General Services
Administration, GSBCA 12350, 93-3 BCA ¶ 26,047).  If a contractor files a CDA appeal
prematurely, the Board lacks jurisdiction to entertain it.  Id.

CBCA 8931 3
The CO here has not yet issued a final decision on the May 20 claim, and the sixty-day
deadline for the CO to issue a decision (or to set a new date for a decision) has not expired. 
Without a contracting officer’s final decision, either in writing or through a “deemed denial,”
we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal.  Relevant here, a dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction—that is, one not on the merits of a case—is by definition without prejudice. 
Wheeler v. United States, 11 F.3d 156, 159-60 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Decision
The appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
   Beverly M. Russell          
BEVERLY M. RUSSELL
Board Judge
We concur:
    Harold D. Lester, Jr.          Marian E. Sullivan         
HAROLD D. LESTER, JR. MARIAN E. SULLIVAN
Board Judge Board Judge