DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION:  April 3, 2007 
CBCA 14 
K SATELLITE, 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 
Respondent. 
Reed R. Braithwaite of Ascione, Heideman & McKay, LLC, St. George, UT, counsel 
for Appellant. 
Mark R. Simpson, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Agriculture, 
Atlanta, GA, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges HYATT, POLLACK, and SOMERS. 
POLLACK, Board Judge. 
This appeal is from a final contracting officer’s decision dated December 3, 2005, 
issued by the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (FS), Southern Region, Atlanta, 
Georgia. The decision responded to a claim, dated November 16, 2005, from K Satellite 
(appellant) of Kanab, Utah, where K Satellite sought compensation of $247,121.25 for 
emergency services provided during Hurricane Katrina.  The Department of Agriculture 
Board of Contract Appeals (AGBCA) docketed the matter as AGBCA No. 2006-134-1 on 
February 15, 2006.  As a result of board consolidation, the matter has been renumbered as 
CBCA 14.  
In summary, the facts surrounding the dispute and appeal are as follows.  K Satellite 
seeks compensation for work it performed during Hurricane Katrina. Many of the facts, 

   
  
 
     
     
       
 
 
  
 
 
    
  
  
   
   
  
 
  
   
 
2 CBCA 14 
such as specific dates, what work was performed, which agencies and officials were 
involved, and what if any, contract instruments were used, are confusing, given the limited 
record before the board.  What appears clear is that at some point K Satellite, acting on 
direction from either the FS or the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 
reported to the National Guard Armory in Jackson, Mississippi. There it met first with a FS 
official and then was turned over to a FEMA representative.  It further appears that K 
Satellite performed work, either for the FS, FEMA, or the General Services Administration 
(GSA), but no specific contract instrument or order has been identified, although several 
have been referenced.  At least one resource number, given to K Satellite, appears to have 
also been  assigned to another company.  
It has been agreed that while in Mississippi, K Satellite did perform some work for 
the FS for which it was paid.  That work is not in dispute.  In that instance, the FS has 
reported that it had the paper work and back-up necessary to make payment appropriate.  In 
contrast, this appeal seeks compensation for services for which no agency will take 
responsibility and for which K Satellite, at least for now, cannot produce a verifiable 
contract number or instrument.  K Satellite has indicated that it thought it had a contract with 
the FS and as such submitted its claim to the FS.  The FS contracting officer (CO), in issuing 
the decision from which appellant appeals, explains her decision in part, stating: 
My rationale for this decision is that without a correct resource order number, 
pre-use inspection, shift tickets, invoice, post use inspection, or any 
government official willing to verify your dispatch, travel or period of 
performance, I have no basis which allows me to approve payment of this 
claim. 
Soon after the matter was docketed, the AGBCA held a telephone conference with 
Ms. Karen Glazier, owner of K Satellite; the CO; and FS counsel.  In that conference of 
March 17, 2006, it became clear that a number of agencies may have been involved in the 
claimed work.  FS counsel agreed to contact those agencies to see if it could be determined 
which agency, if any, had a contract with K Satellite or had authorized specific work.  Also 
during that board conference, counsel for the FS pointed out that appellant had not certified 
the claim.  The board and parties discussed that and the Board pointed out that the appeal 
would have to be dismissed and a new claim certified and submitted to the appropriate 
government official.  The board, however, opted to hold the matter open until a new claim 
was filed and a new decision issued, as it was expected that the claim would be filed with 
the FS and the new matter docketed at the board (or otherwise the board would be notified 
that appellant planned to file at the Court of Federal Claims). 

      
   
 
 
  
 
     
  
       
   
  
   
 
3 CBCA 14 
In June 2006, K Satellite submitted a certified claim to the FS and also submitted the 
same claim to FEMA.  In August 2006, appellant notified the board that FEMA and the FS 
each had declined to issue a final decision. At the time of the June letter, the sixty days 
needed for appealing a deemed denial had not yet passed.  On August 18, the board received 
a letter from the FS that it did not intend to issue a decision.  The board thereafter held the 
matter in abeyance, waiting for appellant to either file at the board or advise the board 
otherwise.  
After not hearing from appellant, the Board issued a letter dated January 18, 2007, 
where it advised both parties of its intention to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction due 
to a failure to certify the initial claim.  That letter sparked a letter dated February 21, 2007, 
from Reed R. Braithwaite, Esq., who indicated that he had been retained as counsel by 
appellant.  He requested a conference. The Board thereafter held a conference on March 15, 
2007, and at that time the Board  reviewed what had transpired to that point. The Board then 
told the parties that it would be issuing the dismissal in short order and further advised the 
parties that since the dismissal was based on a lack of a certified claim, the dismissal would 
not impact the ability of appellant to proceed at the Board or the Court of Federal Claims 
with respect to the certified claims it has now filed. 
Discussion 
The appeal from the CO’s decision of December 3, 2005, was in response to a claim 
for $247,121.25, which had not been certified.   Although a defective certification may be 
corrected, a failure to certify may not.  There is no dispute that the contractor failed to certify 
its claim.  Certification requirements concern the Board’s subject matter jurisdiction and as 
such cannot be waived.  That proposition is well settled.  See Hemmer-IRS Limited 
Partnership v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 16134, 04-1 BCA ¶ 32,509. 

4 CBCA 14 
Decision 
The appeal is DISMISSED for LACK OF JURISDICTION.
 
___________________________ 
HOWARD A. POLLACK 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
_____________________________ ____________________________ 
CATHERINE B. HYATT JERI K. SOMERS 
Board Judge Board Judge