DISMISSED  FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: July 23, 2013
 
CBCA 3426
EHR DOCTORS, INC.,
Appellant,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
Richard Braman, Vice President of EHR Doctors, Inc., Pompano Beach, FL,
appearing for Appellant.
Lucinda E. Davis and Dorothy M. Guy, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security
Administration, Baltimore, MD, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges BORWICK, VERGILIO, and STEEL.
BORWICK, Board Judge.
The Social Security Administration (SSA or respondent) has submitted a motion to
dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction because appellant failed to submit a certified
claim to the contracting officer as required by the Contract Disputes Act (CDA).  Appellant
has moved the Board to accept correction of an alleged defective certification or
alternatively to suspend proceedings.  We deny appellant’s motion, and because we lack
jurisdiction over this appeal, we grant respondent’s motion to dismiss.

CBCA 3426 2
Background
Appellant and respondent entered into a contract on September 18, 2009, for the
authorized release of medical information through integration with the Nationwide Health
Information Network (NHIN).  On March 11, 2013, respondent’s Office of Acquisitions &
Grants (OA&G), through Ms. Jackie Foster, notified appellant via email that the contract
was in the process of being closed out.  Ms. Foster is an auditor with the OA&G, not the
contracting officer.  The email message requested appellant to “complete the attached
Certification as to any outstanding claims against the contract.”  The hard copy of the close-
out document, also signed by Ms. Foster, did not use the term “certification,” but requested
appellant to “inform [respondent] of any outstanding invoices or claims against this contract
within [seven] days.  After we receive your reply, we will proceed with contract closeout.” 
The close-out document had two options for appellant to check: (1) a box followed
by the statement:  “There are no outstanding claims,” and (2) a box followed by the
statement: “The following claims/invoices are outstanding.”  Appellant sent the document
back to Ms. Foster with the second box checked and with the accompanying statement:  
The original contract awarded was in the amount of $1,000,000.  SSA forcibly
made a $250,000 modification to the contract with no justification and under
threat of termination.  [Appellant] accepted [the] modification under duress. 
Contractor seeks to recover $250,000 from SSA.  
This form was not accompanied by a contractor statement that one would recognize as a
certification or attempted certification required by the CDA.  
  On June 20, 2013, having heard nothing from respondent, appellant sent an email
message to Ms. Foster, stating that it would “wait to file” if it received a response to its
“settlement offer” of $250,000 by the close of business the next day, and referenced the
purported claim appellant had earlier sent to Ms. Foster.  Appellant stated that it reserved
the right to “add additional claims to this claim if we cannot reach a settlement when we file
with the CBCA [Civilian Board of Contract Appeals] or the Court of Federal Claims.”
The contracting officer, Ms. Syreeta Gay,  replied on the same day that respondent
would not enter into settlement negotiations with appellant.  She noted that appellant and
respondent had entered into a bi-lateral modification, that the contract between the parties
was concluded, and that all payments due under the contract had been made.  She did not
style her reply as a contracting officer’s decision on a contractor-submitted claim.  On
June 25, appellant submitted a notice of appeal to the Board.  

CBCA 3426 3
On June 27, 2013, the Board issued an order asking whether appellant had submitted
a certified claim to the contracting officer or whether the contracting officer had issued a
decision on a certified claim.  Appellant then submitted its motion to “accept correction of
a defective certification.”  The Board requested respondent to reply to appellant’s motion,
which resulted in respondent’s submitting its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.  
Discussion
The CDA provides in pertinent part:
(a) Claims generally. -- 
(1) SUBMISSION OF CONTRACTOR’S CLAIMS TO
CONTRACTING OFFICER. --
Each claim by a contractor against the Federal Government
relating to a contract shall be submitted to the contracting
officer for a decision. 
(2) Contractor’s claims in writing. -- Each claim by a contractor
against the Federal Government relating to a contract shall be
in writing. 
. . . . 
(b) CERTIFICATION OF CLAIMS. -- 
(1) Requirement generally. -- 
For claims of more than $100,000 made by a contractor, the
contractor shall certify that -- 
(A) the claim is made in good faith; 
(B) the supporting data are accurate and complete
to the best of the contractor's knowledge and
belief; 

CBCA 3426 4
(C) the amount requested accurately reflects the
contract adjustment for which the contractor
believes the Federal Government is liable; and
 (D) the certifier is authorized to certify the claim
on behalf of the contractor. 
. . . . 
(3) FAILURE TO CERTIFY OR DEFECTIVE
CERTIFICATION. – A contracting officer is not obligated to
render a final decision on a claim of more than $100,000 that is
not certified in accordance with paragraph (1) if, within 60 days
after receipt of the claim, the contracting officer notifies the
contractor in writing of the reasons why any attempted
certification was found to be defective.  A defect in the
certification of a claim does not deprive a court or an agency
board of jurisdiction over the claim.  Prior to the entry of a final
judgment by a court or a decision by an agency board, the court
or agency board shall require a defective certification to be
corrected. 
41 U.S.C. § 7103 (Supp. IV 2011).  Contractor certification of claims exceeding $100,000
is a “jurisdictional prerequisite for initiating an appeal.”  41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1); United
States v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 933 F.2d 996, 998 (Fed. Cir. 1991);
Whiteriver Construction, Inc. v. Department of the Interior, CBCA 2045, 10-2 BCA
¶ 34,582, at 170,487; Hemmer - IRS Limited Partnership v. General Services
Administration, GSBCA 16134, 04-1 BCA ¶ 32,509, at 160,814.  In this matter, appellant
submitted an uncertified claim exceeding $100,000 to respondent’s auditor instead of
submitting a certified claim to the contracting officer.  Appellant’s submission was not in
compliance with 41 U.S.C. § 7103, and any contracting officer’s decision on that submission
would have been a nullity.  Newport News Shipbuilding, 933 F.2d at 998; W. H. Moseley Co. 
v. United States, 677 F.2d 850, 852 (Ct. Cl. 1982).  It is not surprising, therefore, that the
contracting officer did not issue a decision on appellant’s purported claim.  
Appellant’s attempt at correcting what it views as a defective certification is
unavailing for this docketed matter.  The CDA provision allowing correction of a defective
certification of a claim does not apply to a failure to submit and to certify the claim and thus

CBCA 3426 5
is of no assistance to appellant.  48 CFR 33.201(2012)1; B & M Cillessen Construction Co.
v. Department of Health and Human Services, CBCA 931, 08-1 BCA ¶ 33,753, at 167,084
(2007); Hemmer, 04-1 BCA at 160,814; Golub-Wegco Kansas City I, LLC v. General
Services Administration, GSBCA 15387, 01-2 BCA ¶ 31,553, at 155,844; Lockheed Martin
Tactical Defense Systems v. Department of Commerce, GSBCA 14450-COM, 98-1 BCA
¶ 29,717; see also Keydata Systems, Inc. v. Department of the Treasury, GSBCA 14281-TD,
97-2 BCA ¶ 29,330.2
Decision
Appellant’s motion for correction of defective certification is DENIED and
respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED.  The appeal is
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
________________________________
ANTHONY S. BORWICK
Board Judge
We concur:
_______________________________ _________________________________
CANDIDA S. STEEL JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
Board Judge Board Judge
1 That provision of the Federal Acquisition Regulation provides in pertinent part that
“[F]ailure to certify shall not be deemed to be a defective certification.”
2 The Board understands that subsequent to the filing of this appeal, appellant has
submitted a certified claim to the contracting officer for consideration.  That submission
does not apply to this appeal.