DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION:  April 28, 2026
CBCA 8696
AOC CONNECT, LLC,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Respondent.
William Reynolds, Chief Executive Officer of AOC Connect, LLC, Ashburn, VA,
appearing for Appellant.
William B. Blake, Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Herndon, VA,
counsel for Respondent.
Before Judges BEARDSLEY (Chair), O’ROURKE, and VOLK.
BEARDSLEY, Board Judge.
Appellant, AOC Connect, LLC (AOC), filed an appeal at the Board to dispute the
Department of the Interior’s (DOI) failure to pay costs incurred as a result of a DOI-issued
stop work order and to resolve other billing disputes that arose from April through July 2025. 
DOI filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  We grant DOI’s motion
and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.


CBCA 8696 2
Background1
DOI awarded task order 140D0420F0537 for voice communication services to AOC. 
On February 19, 2025, DOI issued a stop work order to AOC that was in place until
March 20, 2025.  The next day, March 21, 2025, AOC invoiced for costs incurred under three
contract line items (CLINs) (the three March CLINs) as a result of the stop work order.  In
May 2025, AOC requested an equitable adjustment for eight CLINs, including $458,619.21
for the three March CLINs, related to the stop work order.  On June 5, 2025, DOI responded
to AOC’s request for equitable adjustment (the June 5 letter) and directed AOC to submit,
by no later than June 30, 2025, a written request identifying the authority and factual support
for the requested costs of the three March CLINs.  DOI indicated that the requests for costs
for the other five CLINs were time-barred.
On June 30, 2025, AOC responded by email (the June 30 email) to DOI’s June 5 letter
stating:
Attached is our support for the 3 CLINS.  The first layer of support is the
transition plan that both AOC and the Government agreed to execute the
expediated [sic] schedule off of.  The government specifically signed off on
the transition plan that included BOTs and site surveys.  In the bulk orders the
complex site survey was checked yes or the local site was identified during
install as requiring multiple trips due to lack of data on the government side.
I will have to try and condense the files supporting the specific orders as they
keep getting pushed back.  My IT guys are condensing them as we speak.
AOC filed its notice of appeal to the Board on October 17, 2025.  That same day and
separately from the notice of appeal, AOC filed the June 30 email and identified this email
as its claim upon which the appeal is based.2  DOI, in its motion, indicated that it understood
1 For purposes of ruling on DOI’s motion to dismiss, we assume the facts in
DOI’s motion to be true because AOC did not oppose the motion or challenge the facts set
forth in the motion, despite having the opportunity to do so.  We also consider the documents
submitted by AOC separately from the notice of appeal to be part of the initial pleadings in
this appeal and look to those documents for additional facts relevant to deciding the motion.
2 AOC submitted this document in the Board’s electronic docketing system
(EDS) and chose the docket entry title:  Complaint or Amended Complaint.  In the comment
section of EDS, AOC stated, “Email claim following up on Response by the contracting
officer in regards to [stop work order].”

CBCA 8696 3
the June 30 email to be AOC’s “claim” upon which its appeal is based.  Also filed with the
June 30 email is a document from AOC’s chief executive officer to the contracting officer
summarizing AOC’s “position on each CLIN, allowing us to align and move toward
resolution efficiently,” a document titled “Appendix to Transition Plan” and the June 5 letter
from the contracting officer responding to AOC’s request for equitable adjustment.  It is not
clear if these documents were originally attached to the June 30 email, although the transition
plan is referenced in that email.
AOC also submitted to the Board, separately from the notice of appeal and the June
30 email submission, a July 16, 2025, email that AOC identifies as the contracting officer’s
final decision.3  The email states, “It is not clear what the data submission is for.  As such,
the Government is denying whatever the submission is for as an appropriate[4] submission for
the GN0001 and the CW CLINs due to insufficient supporting information and explanation.” 
Confusingly, though, AOC’s notice of appeal states that it “appeals the final decision of the
contracting officer dated July 19, 2025.”  However, no such document is attached to the
notice of appeal or provided in the record.
DOI filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that
AOC’s claim underlying this appeal was not certified, and stating that without a proper
certified claim, the contracting officer was unable to render a final decision as required by
the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (2024).
Discussion
“[E]ven though ‘the parties may not, by stipulation, confer jurisdiction where none
exists’ or eliminate it where it does, ‘they may, . . . by stipulation, agree to facts which in
themselves constitute a basis for jurisdiction’ or which establish a lack thereof.”  5 Stones
Intelligence, Inc. v. Department of Justice, CBCA 8423, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,824, at 188,878
(quoting Bar-Ray Products, Inc., ASBCA 3065, 58-1 BCA ¶ 1618, at 5928); see also
Johnson & Hayward, GSBCA 10373-P, 1989 WL 138827 (Nov. 14, 1989); Benton Corp.,
ASBCA 28277, 83-2 BCA ¶ 16,757, at 83,322-23).  Here, the parties, in effect, have
stipulated that the June 30 email is the written claim on which this appeal is based.  In
3 AOC submitted this document in EDS and chose the docket entry title: 
“Other - Additional Information from contracting officer.”  In the comment section of EDS,
AOC stated, “This is the denial of our request for payment related to the stop work order.”
4 From the context of the quote, the contracting officer likely meant to say
“inappropriate” instead of “appropriate.”  

CBCA 8696 4
deciding whether we have jurisdiction, we must determine if the June 30 email is a claim that
meets the requirements of the CDA such that it can provide the basis for our jurisdiction.
Pursuant to the CDA, for the Board to have jurisdiction to hear this appeal, AOC had
to submit a written claim to the contracting officer and the contracting officer had to deny
the claim before the appeal was filed.  41 U.S.C. § 7103.  AOC’s June 30 email claim was 
not a proper claim on which the contracting officer could render a final decision for two
reasons – AOC did not explicitly or implicitly request a final decision in its claim, and AOC
did not certify its claim.
“‘The CDA . . . requires that a claim indicate to the contracting officer that the
contractor is requesting a final decision,’ although this request need not be explicit.” 
Primestar Construction v. Department of Homeland Security, CBCA 5510, 17-1
BCA ¶ 36,612, at 178,329 (2016) (quoting M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States,
609 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).  The request for a final decision can be implicit if
“objectively, the document’s content and the context surrounding the document’s submission
put the contracting officer on notice that the document is a claim requesting a final decision.” 
Zafer Construction Co. v. United States, 40 F.4th 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
Looking at the June 30 email, and the attachments provided with the email submission
to the Board, AOC does not explicitly or implicitly request a final decision.  Instead, AOC
seems to be providing some, and promising to provide more, support for the three March
CLINs for which AOC had requested an equitable adjustment.  In the email, AOC referred
to “support for the 3 CLINS” and the “transition plan” as the “first layer of support.”  AOC
also indicated that its “IT guys” were trying to “condense the files supporting the specific
orders.”  The attachments further suggest that AOC was attempting to provide requested
support to DOI for the three March CLINs in advance of further discussions.  AOC stated
in one of the attached but undated documents, “Ahead of our upcoming meeting, I wanted
to share some context to help us have a productive and solutions-focused discussion.  Below
is a summary of AOC Connect’s position on each CLIN, allowing us to align and move
toward resolution efficiently.”  The other documents attached are the transition plan,
referenced in the email, and the June 5 letter from the contracting officer asking for
additional support for the three March CLINs by June 30.  Read together from an objective
standpoint, we see no explicit or implicit request for a final decision.
A claim that seeks in excess of $100,000 must be certified.  41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1);
see Alan E. Fricke Memorials, Inc. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 8242, 24-1
BCA ¶ 38,711, at 188,209 (citing DAI Global, LLC v. Administrator of the United States
Agency for International Development, 945 F.3d 1196, 1198 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).  Here, the
June 30 email does not state the claimed amount, but it is possible to determine, from the

CBCA 8696 5
contracting officer’s June 5 letter response filed as part of the June 30 email claim
submission, that AOC sought a total of $458,619.21 for the three March CLINs.  Gulf Tech
Construction LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 7447, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,179, at
185,426 (quoting PHI Applied Physical Sciences, Inc., ASBCA 56581, et al., 13 BCA
¶ 35,308, at 173,337) (The unstated amount of a claim can be determined if “‘readily
calculable by simple arithmetic from the attachments’ to the claim.”).  AOC, therefore,
claimed over $100,000 in costs owed as a result of the stop work order.
Failure to certify a claim in excess of $100,000 is a “jurisdictional defect.”  5 Stones
Intelligence, 25-1 BCA at 188,878 (citing NEDA of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. General Services
Administration, CBCA 6793, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,611, at 182,563).
“A defect in the certification of a claim does not deprive a [board] of
jurisdiction over the claim” so long as it is corrected.  41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(3). 
But the “complete failure to provide a certification at all may not be deemed
a defective certification.”  Medina Construction, Ltd. v. United States, 43
Fed. Cl. 537, 547 (1999).  Without a certification present at all, the Board
lacks jurisdiction over the claim.  Gulf Tech Construction LLC v. Department
of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 7447, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,179, at 185,428.
Fricke Memorials, 24-1 BCA at 188,209; see 48 CFR 33.201 (2024) (“Failure to certify shall
not be deemed to be a defective certification.”).  AOC did not certify the June 30 email
claim, and we, therefore, do not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
The fact that, according to AOC, the contracting officer issued a final decision in
response to its claim does not create Board jurisdiction.  It is questionable as to whether the
July 16 email was a contracting officer’s final decision, but even if it was, a contracting
officer’s issuance of a final decision for an uncertified claim in excess of $100,000 does not
result in the Board having jurisdiction over the appeal of that claim and final decision.  Gulf
Tech, 22-1 BCA at 185,427.  “[T]he CDA ‘denies the contracting officer the authority to
issue a decision’ on a contractor’s request for monetary compensation ‘until a contract
“claim” in writing has been properly submitted to him for a decision.’”  Id. (quoting Paragon
Energy Corp. v. United States, 645 F.2d 966, 971 (Ct. Cl. 1981)).  Here, the claim was not
properly submitted to the contracting officer – the claim was not certified and did not
implicitly or explicitly ask for a final decision.  Consequently, the Board has no jurisdiction
to hear this appeal, and the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
AOC did not respond to the motion to dismiss this appeal; however, AOC had
previously asked to withdraw its appeal without prejudice to refiling should the matter
remain unresolved.  A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is by definition without prejudice. 

CBCA 8696 6
Fricke Memorials, 24-1 BCA at 188,209 (citing Wheeler v. United States, 11 F.3d 156,
159-60 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
Decision
This appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
    Erica S. Beardsley          
ERICA S. BEARDSLEY
Board Judge
We concur:
   Kathleen J. O’Rourke          Daniel B. Volk               
KATHLEEN J. O’ROURKE DANIEL B. VOLK
Board Judge Board Judge