DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION:  November 3, 2010 
CBCA 2045 
WHITERIVER CONSTRUCTION, INC., 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
Respondent. 
Karen A. Palecek and Sharon Shively of Palecek & Palecek, PLLC, Scottsdale, AZ, 
counsel for Appellant. 
Sarah T. Zaffina and James L. Weiner, Office of the Solicitor, Department of the 
Interior, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges DANIELS  (Chairman), HYATT, and DRUMMOND. 
HYATT, Board Judge. 
Respondent, the Department of the Interior (DOI), has moved to dismiss this appeal 
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The basis for respondent’s motion is that appellant’s 
claim was not certified. Appellant, Whiteriver Construction, Inc. (Whiteriver), agrees that 
it did not certify its claim and does not contest the motion. Whiteriver further states that it 
intends to cure this jurisdictional defect and requests that the dismissal be without prejudice 
to its ability to reinstate within 180 days. 

   
       
      
        
         
    
    
      
      
    
     
     
      
       
       
     
     
       
     
 
       
       
   
    
2 CBCA 2045 
Background 
DOI awarded contract number CMN00070001, for highway construction at the 
Navajo Indian Reservation in White Cone, Arizona. The contract was for construction 
services, specifically grading, draining, and paving 1.43 kilometers of roadway. DOI 
conducted a final inspection of the construction work on October 23, 2008. The work was 
deemed to have been satisfactorily completed and final acceptance of all work occurred on 
December 3, 2008. 
The contract included the Disputes clause set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR) clause 52.233-1, 48 CFR 52.233-1 (2007). 
On January 19, 2009, Whiteriver submitted documents to support additional costs it 
believed the Government owed it under the contract. The agency performed an audit and 
concluded that an “as-built” modification should be issued. On December 7, 2009, the 
contracting officer informed Whiteriver that DOI would make a final payment of $99,874.06 
for the work performed on the contract. On December 11, 2009, Whiteriver wrote a letter 
to DOI seeking further explanation about the audit and expressing the hope that once the 
parties could agree on a methodology for calculating the final payment they could negotiate 
a mutually acceptable final payment amount. This letter did not state a sum certain that 
Whiteriver was seeking, nor did it include a certification of any claim. 
The contracting officer responded to Whiteriver’s December 11, 2009, letter in a 
letter dated March 18, 2010, in which the audit findings were detailed and an explanation 
was provided for how the contracting officer determined the final payment amount. The 
contracting officer adjusted the amount to be paid, increasing it to $107,478.62, and then 
advised that this was the “final Contracting Officer’s decision.”  
On June 15, 2010, Whiteriver appealed the contracting officer’s decision to the 
Board, claiming entitlement to the amount of $342,483. 
Discussion 
The Contract Disputes Act (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) (2006). The CDA also provides in 
pertinent part: 
For claims of more than $100,000, the contractor shall certify 
that the claim is made in good faith, that the supporting data are 

    
  
 
      
        
     
              
            
          
  
 
             
                 
               
              
            
                 
               
               
           
            
               
               
              
               
              
              
             
              
             
    
3 CBCA 2045 
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 certifier is duly authorized to certify the 
claim on behalf of the contractor. 
Id.§ 605(c)(1). For claims in excess of $100,000, then, proper certification of the claim is 
a jurisdictional prerequisite to the tribunal’s exercise of jurisdiction. 
E.g., Newport News 
Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. v. Garrett , 6 F.3d 1547, 1552-53 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Kenan 
Construction Co. v. Department of State , CBCA 807, 08-1 BCA ¶ 33,797; Hemmer-IRS 
Limited Partnership v. General Services Administration , GSBCA 16134, 04-1 BCA ¶ 
32,509. 
Both parties correctly recognize that the events leading to the filing of the appeal do 
not suffice to vest the Board with jurisdiction. The correspondence submitted by Whiteriver 
was more in the nature of an attempt to negotiate with respect to the amounts due than a 
request for a contracting officer’s decision. It is far from clear that the contractor was 
asserting a specific claim or seeking a contracting officer’s decision at that juncture. The 
contracting officer’s attempt to issue a “final decision” cannot confer jurisdiction on the 
Board. As the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has stated: “Unless the contractor 
has submitted a properly certified claim to the contracting officer, there is no valid claim, the 
denial of which is an appealable decision of the contracting officer.” Ball, Ball & Brosamer, 
Inc. v. United States , 878 F.2d 1426, 1428 (Fed. Cir. 1989). 
Because we have no jurisdiction over this appeal, Whiteriver’s right to pursue its 
claim remains in force so long as it follows the prescribed rules for invoking our jurisdiction. 
This case is similar to the appeal addressed in Pixl, Inc. v. Department of the Treasury , 
CBCA 1448 (Mar. 5, 2009), in which both parties recognized the Board had no jurisdiction 
over an uncertified claim and agreed to return to the drawing board with the submission of 
a certified claim. Since the contracting officer had no authority to waive the jurisdictional 
requirement for the submission of a certified claim, and the decision issued was in essence 
a nullity, Whiteriver is not precluded from submitting a properly certified claim for decision 
and appealing any denial of that claim. Tarheel Specialties, Inc. v. Department of Homeland 
Security , CBCA 1159, 09-1 BCA ¶ 34,120; K Satellite v. Department of Agriculture, CBCA 
14, 07-1 BCA ¶ 33,547. 

       
      
__________________________________ 
_________________________________ _________________________________ 
4 CBCA 2045 
Decision 
In the absence of a properly certified claim, the Board lacks jurisdiction to entertain 
this appeal. Respondent’s motion is granted. The appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF 
JURISDICTION. 
CATHERINE B. HYATT 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
STEPHEN M. DANIELS JEROME M. DRUMMOND 
Board Judge Board Judge