DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: March 15, 2016
CBCA 5193
MOSS CARD CONSULTING, INC.,
Appellant,
v.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
Carol Moss, President of Moss Card Consulting, Inc., Cleveland, OH, appearing for
Appellant.
Michael J. Noble, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration,
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Judges GOODMAN, SHERIDAN, and SULLIVAN. 
SHERIDAN, Board Judge.
Appellant, Moss Card Consulting, Inc. (Moss), filed an appeal with the Civilian Board
of Contact Appeals asking the Board to award it $5000 under General Services
Administration (GSA) contract GS-35F-0541T.  In response to a show cause order issued by
the Board on February 17, 2016, the parties have jointly moved to Board to dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.


CBCA 5193 2
Findings of Fact
In appears from the correspondence submitted with the notice of docketing that
sometime in 2012 Moss asked GSA contracting officer (CO) Gary Davis to modify schedule
contract GS-35F-0541T.  Mr. Davis informed Moss that the contract had expired and denied
the request to modify.  On January 19, 2016, Moss filed a notice of appeal with the CBCA
which stated:
On behalf of Moss Card Consulting Inc., I would like to request the guaranteed
minimum per our cancelled GSA contract no. GS-35F-0541T, schedule 70 SIN
132-51.  On December 2012 our contract was suspended by contracting officer
Gary Davis due to our sales falling below the required $25,000.00 sales.  On
February 3, 2015 our eOffer was rejected and our contract was officially
cancelled.  To date we have received no funds for the two SIN or the schedule
70 per our contract.  We are officially requesting that you release a total of
$5000.00 for the guaranteed minimum under our contract clause.
Please accept Moss Card Consulting, Inc. formal request for funds due us
under this contract.
The Board docketed the matter as CBCA 5193.
On March 9, 2016, a telephone conference was conducted between the parties’
representatives and the Board to discuss the jurisdictional elements pertinent to this appeal. 
During that conference call the parties agreed that the matter had not yet been presented to
the contracting officer for a final decision.  Following the conference call, the parties jointly
moved that the appeal be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Discussion
The Board derives its jurisdiction to consider contract disputes from the Contract
Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (2012).  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 Federal
Acquisition Regulation (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 a sum certain, the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or

CBCA 5193 3
other relief arising under or relating to” th[e] contract.”  48 CFR 52.233-1(c) (2015).  “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. 
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.  Based upon our review of the correspondence submitted with the notice of
appeal, Moss has not submitted a claim to the contracting officer and, therefore, its appeal
must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Decision
The appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
                                                             
PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN
Board Judge
We concur:
                                                                                                                          
ALLAN H. GOODMAN MARIAN E. SULLIVAN
Board Judge Board Judge