DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: November 15, 2012 
CBCA 2802 
KK&L ADMINISTRATION INC., 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
Respondent. 
Kevin E. Clyde, President of Grand Rental Center, Inc., Panaca, NV, appearing for 
Appellant. 
G. Kevin Jones, Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Salt Lake City, 
UT, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges SOMERS, HYATT, and KULLBERG. 
SOMERS, Board Judge. 
The Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR or the Government) 
awarded to KK&L Administration Inc. (KK&L) a contract for the rental of equipment for 
use at a jobsite located at Cedar View Reservoir, approximately nineteen miles northwest of 
Neola, Utah. The same equipment was already on site as a result of a previous contract 
between Grand Rental Center, Inc. and the Government. KK&L hired Grand Rental Center 
as its subcontractor. The equipment included what is referred to as a 725 Rock Truck.  
The Government used the equipment until October 28, 2010. On that date, the 
Government returned the equipment to the place at which it had been originally delivered to 
the Government. The Government notified KK&L that the equipment was ready to be taken 

 
  
   
   
 
  
 
  
     
 
  
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
    
 
 
 
2 CBCA 2802 
off the job site. Several government employees inspected the rock truck at the time that the 
contract was completed, and also when it was ready to be picked up. No one apparently 
observed any damage to the tires of the rock truck. One tire, however, did appear to be low, 
and a government employee put air into that tire.  
KK&L did not remove the equipment until November 11, 2010, two weeks after 
receiving notification that the equipment could be removed. Upon removal, KK&L took the 
truck to Wheeler Machinery Company in Vernal, Utah, where the tire was dismounted and 
replaced at a cost of $4311.87.  
Two months after KK&L picked up the truck, it notified the Government that the 
truck had been returned with a “tire flat, the result of a rock cut in the sidewall.” KK&L 
asked the Government for compensation in the amount of $4311.87. 
The Government rejected KK&L’s request for payment. However, the Government 
offered to pay KK&L a portion of the amount claimed: 
After speaking with our employees we found that the tire didn’t have a torn out 
sidewall and was inflated when we left the equipment for pickup; however, the 
equipment was not picked up for several weeks after it was called off rent. In 
the case that a slow leak completely deflated the tire before it was picked up 
and the weight of the machine on the rim cut through the tire, we are offering 
$641 which is what it would have cost to fix a slow leak at the jobsite.  
James Bleak of KK&L rejected this offer in an e-mail message to a BOR contract 
specialist, dated November 16, 2011, stating that “we are not in agreement with your decision 
and request an arbitration hearing. I would also like to assign all collection rights to this bill 
to Grand Rental and would like you to forward me the applicable paperwork to do so.” The 
Government did not send KK&L any paperwork. Instead, the BOR contracting officer 
treated this action as a request for a contracting officer’s final decision and denied KK&L’s 
claim on January 4, 2012.  
Meanwhile, Kevin E. Clyde, the president of Grand Rental Center, sent a series of 
e-mail messages and letters directly to the agency, seeking compensation for the damage to 
the truck. The agency did not respond to him because “he is the subcontractor.” On March 
29, 2012, Mr. Clyde, purporting to be KK&L’s authorized representative, appealed the 
contracting officer’s final decision to the Board. 
In conjunction with the filing of its answer, the Government has moved to dismiss this 
appeal, asserting that the KK&L representative who filed the appeal is actually the president 

 
 
    
 
    
   
   
   
   
 
 
    
  
  
  
  
 
3 CBCA 2802 
of the subcontractor and a subcontractor may not directly sue the Government under the 
Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (Supp. IV 2011). Alternatively, the 
Government argues that the contractor has “not met the burden of proof to recover.”  
Based upon a review of the record, there is no evidence that an authorized 
representative of the prime contractor signed the notice of appeal as required by the Board’s 
rules. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  
Discussion 
The Contract Disputes Act permits a “contractor” to appeal a contracting officer’s 
decision to the appropriate board of contract appeals. 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101, 7103(a). “The 
term ‘contractor’ means a party to a Federal Government contract other than the Federal 
Government.” Id. § 7101(7). Here, the contractor involved in this contract is KK&L. Grand 
Rental Center is the subcontractor. 
Appellant seeks to establish standing to maintain the appeal by submitting a document 
in opposition to the motion to dismiss. The document is an e-mail message, written in letter 
format and dated January 2, 2012, that claims to appoint Mr. Clyde to represent KK&L in 
this matter.  The document states:  
January 2, 2012 
Dear Mr. Kevin Clyde, 
I write this letter appointing you to represent KK&L Administration, Inc., in 
the CBCA 2802 Appeal. You have been involved in this project since day one 
and have represented us since we started the Contract. Your knowledge of the 
job, equipment, and times has made this project go well, and with this 
knowledge will help the case regarding the report of the tire. 
Sincerely, 
 
James Bleak
 
KK&L

Operation Manager

Because this is an e-mail message, it is not signed.  
In its reply, the Government argues that this e-mail message does not satisfy the 
provision of the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7102, that limits contract claims against 

 
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
   
   
   
     
  
 
     
   
   
  
 
   
 
 
______________________________ 
      
 
4 CBCA 2802 
the Government to prime contractors. It notes first that the document is not signed or 
notarized. In addition, the document references a docket number (CBCA 2802) that had not 
yet been assigned at the time the message was purportedly written. Although the e-mail 
message is dated January 2, 2012, the appeal was not docketed until April 3, 2012. Finally, 
the Government provides evidence that the “properties” of this document indicate that it was 
created on September 10, 2012, and was last saved not by the contractor, KK&L, but by the 
subcontractor, Grand Rental Center.
1 
We agree that the document submitted by appellant is of questionable validity. 
However, even if we assume for the sake of argument that appellant had authorized 
Mr. Clyde to represent KK&L in this matter, the notice of appeal is still defective.    
The Board’s Rules of Procedure specify who may submit an appeal before the Board. 
A notice of appeal must be in writing and “shall be signed by the appellant or by the 
appellant’s attorney or authorized representative.” Rule 2(a)(1)(i) (48 CFR 6101.2(a)(1)(i) 
(2011)). The Rules also provide that an appellant that is “a corporation, trust, or association 
may appear [before the Board] by one of its officers.” Rule 5(a)(1). Taken together, a clear 
principle emerges: if the appellant is a corporation, one of its officers may be designated an 
“authorized representative” permitted to file appeals with the Board. 
Thus, only an “authorized representative” of the corporate entity KK&L, meaning a 
corporate officer or an attorney representing KK&L, is permitted to sign the notice of appeal 
under the Board’s rules. KK&L has presented no evidence to show that Mr. Clyde had been 
appointed to be an officer of KK&L. KK&L may not designate a non-corporate officer who 
is not an attorney to represent it before us on this matter.  
Decision 
In light of the defective notice of appeal, we do not possess jurisdiction to entertain 
this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. 
JERI KAYLENE SOMERS 
Board Judge 
1 The timing of the submission of this e-mail message, in response to the 
Government’s motion to dismiss, raises additional questions of credibility.  

 
_______________________________ ______________________________ 
 
5 CBCA 2802 
We concur: 
CATHERINE B. HYATT HAROLD C. KULLBERG 
Board Judge Board Judge