DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION:  July 15, 2010 
CBCA 1876 
G & R SERVICE COMPANY, INC., 
Appellant, 
v. 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 
Respondent. 
L. Tom Gay, CFO of G & R Service Company, Inc., Evans, GA, appearing for 
Appellant. 
Rebecca A. Saroyan, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, 
San Francisco, CA, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges HYATT , GOODMAN , and McCANN . 
McCANN , Board Judge. 
Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that 
appellant has not filed a proper claim.  We grant the motion. 
Background 
On September 25, 2008, the parties entered into contract GS-09P-08-KS-M-0082, 
wherein appellant was to “[i]nstall GSA-furnished Circuit breakers and ancillary work in 
accordance with the solicitation documents and line item description.”  Appeal File, Exhibit 
1 at 3.  The work was to be accomplished at two sites in the San Francisco Bay area.  Id . 

     
  
 
    
 
        
  
   
   
     
 
 
  
 
  
 
     
   
         
2 CBCA 1876 
Appellant commenced work. In December of 2009, appellant submitted a claim letter 
dated December 3, 2009.  Appeal File, Exhibit 22.  In the claim, appellant requests 
compensation, inter alia , for defective drawings and specifications, changes to the contract, 
and failure by respondent to timely provide clearances.  The claim is broken into three parts. 
In part one appellant requests “[c]ompensation not to exceed $15,000. . . .” In part two it 
requests “[c]onsideration not to exceed $10,000. . . .”  In part three it requests [c]onsideration 
not to exceed $10,000. . . .”  
GSA responded to appellant’s claim letter on December 18, 2009, with a letter 
requesting that supporting documentation be submitted by appellant, including a detailed cost 
accounting.  Appeal File, Exhibit 23. By letter dated December 31, 2009, appellant informed 
GSA that it was refusing to provide the information requested.  Appeal File, Exhibit 24.  On 
February 2, 2010, sixty days after filing its claim, appellant filed a notice of appeal with the 
Board on the basis that respondent had failed to issue a decision within the time allotted. 
Appeal File, Exhibit 27. 
Discussion 
This claim arises under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 601­
613 (2006). Under the CDA, “[a]ll claims by a contractor against the Government relating 
to a contract must be in writing and shall be submitted to the contracting officer for a 
decision.”  41 U.S.C. § 605 (a).  Without a proper claim being submitted to the contracting 
officer and a decision on that claim, this Board lacks jurisdiction.  Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 
60 F.3d 1572, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ( en banc ); Sharman Co. v. United States , 2 F.3d 1564, 
1569 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 
Under the Disputes clause of the contract, a claim is defined 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. . . .”  Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 12; see also Reflectone , 60 F.3d 
at 1575-76 (a claim is a written demand by a party “seeking as a matter of right the payment 
of money in a sum certain”).  Although appellant argues that its claim letter has set forth sum 
certain amounts, that argument lacks merit.  A not to exceed amount is undefined, and not 
an amount in a sum certain.  Appellant’s claim contains three separate parts in “not to 
exceed” amounts, and the sum of those parts is also not a sum certain.  Sandoval Plumbing 
Repair, Inc. , ASBCA 54640, 05-2 BCA ¶ 33,072 (modifying phrases like “no less than,” “not 
less than,” and “in excess of” do not qualifiy as a sum certain); Van Elk, Ltd. , ASBCA 45311, 
93-3 BCA ¶ 25,995 (an approximate amount does not constitute a sum certain).  Since 
appellant’s claim does not request a sum certain, it is not a valid claim. Accordingly, this 
Board lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. 

  
__________________________________ 
___________________________________ ___________________________________ 
3 CBCA 1876 
Decision 
Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK 
OF JURISDICTION . 
R. ANTHONY McCANN 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
CATHERINE B. HYATT ALLAN H. GOODMAN 
Board Judge Board Judge