ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of -- ) 

) 

ABS Development Corporation ) 

) 

) 

Under Contract No. W912GB-10-C-0047 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 60022, 60023, 60201 

60202,60203,60204 

60205 

Thomas R. Krider, Esq. 

Ashley J. Sherwood, Esq. 

Howard W. Roth III, Esq. 

Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker LLP 

Seattle, WA 

Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq. 

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

Brett R. Howard, Esq. 

Nancy Van Noortwijk-Sommer, Esq. 

Paul Cheverie, Esq. 

Engineer Trial Attorneys 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Europe 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL ON THE 

GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 

The government moves to dismiss these consolidated appeals for lack of 

jurisdiction because, the government says, appellant did not properly certify its claims. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 

Contract 

On 30 September 2010, the government and appellant, ABS Development 

Corporation, entered into the contract referenced above for construction work at a 

shipyard in Haifa, Israel, for $26,956,562 (R4, tab 6 at 321, 324). The contract recited 

that "[t]his procurement is restricted to United States firms only" (R4, tab 21 at 2). 

ABS's president, Dan Gueron, signed the contract on behalf of ABS (id. at 321). On 

19 September 2010, in response to concerns expressed by the government, ABS had 

revised its bid proposal to make (as reflected in a revised organizational chart) all 

project managers ABS employees, who would report to the Chief Executive Officer of 

ABS (R4, tab 23 at 3190-91). Other ABS employees, as well as employees of 

"Ashtrom Group," would report to those ABS project managers (id. at 3191). The 
revised proposal represented that ABS was a United States subsidiary of Ashtrom 

Group (id. at 3192). 

ASBCA Nos. 60022 and 60023 

On 9 March 2015, the contracting officer received from the email address 

"GilGueron@Ashtrom.co.il" a claim ostensibly from ABS for $10,403,693 "regarding 

the unjustified effective disallowance of a large group ... of third country 

nationals ... hired by [ABS]" (R4, tab 3 at 49, 54). On 16 March 2015, the contracting 

officer received from the same email address a claim, also ostensibly from ABS, for 

$4,836,240 regarding "material delays" (R4, tab 2 at 45-46). The claims include the 

certification language required by the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. 

§ 7103(b )( 1 ), for claims of more than $100,000 (R4, tab 2 at 48, tab 3 at 56). The 

certifications are signed by Gil Gueron, who is listed as "Director" (id.). The 

contracting officer has not acted on the claims, and on 5 June 2015, ABS appealed 

their deemed denial. We docketed the "material delays" appeal as ASBCA No. 60022, 

and the "disallowance" appeal as ASBCA No. 60023. 

ASBCA Nos. 60201-60205 

In July 2015, ABS presented to the contracting officer five claims: (1) for 

$304,038 "regarding partitions over 3 m height & doorsills demolishing in 

Hangar H20" (R4, tab 11 at 3060); (2) for $139,063 "regarding additional steel 

cladding and insulation works ... for the extension of hangar H5" (R4, tab 13 at 3073); 

(3) for $129 ,622 "regarding Hydraulic system for gate BD51 in Hangar H6" (R4, 

tab 15 at 3094); (4) for $1,654,387 "regarding additional HVAC works [for] Building 

B16" (R4, tab 17 at 3126); and (5) for $514,359 "regarding additional construction and 

HV AC works ... for Building H-5" (R4, tab 19 at 3152). 

The claims include the CDA's certification language (R4, tab 11 at 3063, 

tab 13 at 3075, tab 15 at 3096, tab 17 at 3129, tab 19 at 3154). On the "Name and 

Signature" lines of the certifications is typed "Y ossi Carmely ," in what appears to be 

Times New Roman font; above that is typed "YO»VCa.v~," in Lucida Handwriting 

font, or something simiiar (id.). Y ossi Carmely is listed on the certifications as 

"Project Manager" (id.). 

The contracting officer has not acted on those claims. On 21 September 2015, 

ABS appealed the deemed denials of the "Hangar H20," "Hangar H5," "Hangar H6," 

"Building B 16," and "additional HV AC works for Building H-5" claims. We 

docketed those appeals as ASBCA Nos. 60201, 60202, 60203, 60204, and 60205, 

respectively. 

2 
Motion to Dismiss 

The government has moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. With 

respect to ASBCA Nos. 60022 and 60023, the government says that Gil Gueron lacked 

the authority to certify claims. In response, ABS has provided the declaration of its 

president, Dan Gueron (who the government concedes is authorized to certify claims 

(app. opp'n at 6-7)) that "[i]n his role as Director of ABS, Gil Gueron was at all times 

relevant to these appeals, and still is, duly authorized to act on behalf of, and to bind, 

ABS with regard to all matters related to [the contract work], including submitting and 

certifying the claims submitted for these appeals" (decl. of Dan Gueron at 1, ~ 3). 

Attached to that declaration are Delaware state annual franchise tax reports listing 

Gil Gueron as one of ABS's directors (id., ex. 1). 

The government also moved to dismiss ASBCA Nos. 60201 through 60205 on the 

basis that the underlying claims were not signed by anyone, because the electronically 

typed "signatures" ofYossi Carmely are not signatures at i;tll. In response, ABS argues 

that those "electronic signatures" are sufficient to bind it. Alternatively, ABS provides 

"wet ink" signatures of Mr. Carmely on ABS's July 2015 certifications in question for 

the claims in ASBCA Nos. 60201, 60202, 60203, 60204, and 60205 (app. opp'n at 11, 

exs. 1-5). 

DECISION 

ASBCA Nos. 60022 and 60023 

A claim of more than $100,000 must be accompanied by a signed certification 

by an individual authorized to bind the contractor with respect to the claim, but a 

certification without such authority is a correctable defect that does not deprive the 

Board of jurisdiction to entertain an appeal involving the claim. Bell Helicopter 

Textron, Inc. & The Boeing Co., ASBCA No. 59561, 15-1 BCA ~ 36, 111 at 176,293 

(addressing 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b) and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 33.207. 

The certification may be executed by any person authorized to bind the contractor with 

respect to the claim. FAR 33.207(e). 

We possess jurisdiction to entertain ASBCA Nos. 60022 and 60023 because the 

claims underlying those appeals are accompanied by signed certifications; the question is 

whether those certifications need correction. The government challenges Gil Gueron's 

authority to certify the claims because, the government says, Gil Gueron is an employee 

of Ashtrom, not ABS, and that ABS promised, before it was awarded the contract, that 

only ABS employees would manage the project work. The government insists (we gather 

because the procurement could only have been awarded to a United States firm) that 

"[ w ]hat the Government wants, and is entitled to get, is that these claims be certified by 

someone who is an actual employee of the prime contactor, ABS" (reply 6-7). 

3 
We find no such entitlement. FAR 33.207(e) provides that "[t]he certification 

may be executed by any person authorized to bind the contractor with respect to the 

claim" (emphasis added); there is no further requirement that the person also be an 

employee of the contractor. Here, ABS's president has declared that the person who 

certified the claims was, and still is, "duly authorized to act on behalf of, and to bind, 

ABS with regard to all matters related to" the contract work. We find that declaration 

credible, and that Gil Gueron is authorized to certify the claims. Cf Bell Helicopter, 

15-1 BCA ii 36, 111 at 176,293 (citing with approval Sade/mi Joint Venture v. Dalton, 

5 F .3d 510, 513 (Fed. Cir. 1993), and parenthetically explaining that the Sa/demi court 

relied on affidavits to conclude that certifier had authority). Whether ABS broke a 

promise to the government by having Gil Gueron and not some other person certify the 

claims does not mean that he is not "authorized to bind the contractor with respect to 

the claim[s]." For all purposes of the claim certification requirement, ABS is bound to 

those claims. Their certifications are not defective, and need no correction. 

ASBCA Nos. 60201, 60202, 60203, 60204, and 60205 

We do not possess jurisdiction to entertain ASBCA Nos. 60201, 60202, 60203, 

60204, and 60205. The Board cannot entertain an appeal involving a claim of more 

than $100,000 unless the claim was the subject of a signed certification. See 

Teknocraft, Inc., ASBCA No. 55438, 08-1BCAii33,846 at 167,504. An unsigned 

certification is a defect that cannot be corrected. Id. at 167,504-05. 

A signature is a discrete, verifiable symbol that is sufficiently distinguishable to 

authenticate that the certification was issued with the purported author's knowledge 

and consent or to establish his intent to certify, and, therefore, cannot be easily 

disavowed by the purported author. See Teknocraft, 08-1BCAii33,846 at 167,504-05 

(addressing FAR 2.101). Here we are not confronted with an issue of "electronic 

signatures"; rather, we are confronted with several typewritings of a name (presumably 

typewritten by electronic means), purporting to be signatures. However, a typewritten 

name, even one typewritten in Lucida Handwriting font, cannot be authenticated, and, 

therefore, is not a signature. Cf id. (typewritten "//signed//" not a signature because it 

cannot be authenticated). That is, anyone can type a person's name; there is no way to 

tell who did so from the typewriting itself. See id. 

The claim certifications purportedly executed by Y ossi Carmely in ASBCA 

Nos. 60201, 60202, 60203, 60204, and 60205 are not signed; rather, the name 

"Y ossi Carmely" is typed twice on each certification, once in what appears to be Times 

New Roman font, and a second time, above the first, in Lucida Handwriting font, or 

something similar. Anyone could have typed those names, even the ones in "Lucida 

Handwriting"; there is no way to authenticate any of them. Y ossi Carmely could easily 

disavow them, regardless of whether he does, or ever would, disavow them. Because the 

4 
certifications are unsigned, and because that is not a correctable defect, we lack jurisdiction 

to entertain ASBCA Nos. 60201, 60202, 60203, 60204, and 60205, and dismiss them. 

Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to address the government's alternative argument that 

the purported certifications of the claims underlying ASBCA Nos. 60202 and 60204 refer 

not to those claims, but to other claims entirely. In addition, because the unsigned 

certifications are not a correctable defect, we find it unnecessary to consider the "wet ink" 

certifications that ABS provided in response to the motions to dismiss. 

CONCLUSION 

We have considered the parties' other arguments, but because of this decision, 

need not address them.* The motion is granted with respect to ASBCA Nos. 60201, 

60202, 60203, 60204, and 60205, which are dismissed. Otherwise, the motion is denied. 

Dated: 17 November 2016 

~~ .--~MCILIL Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

4~~ JAJ~---~rrr// MARK N. STEMPLE~ RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

* In particular, nothing in the government's 28 October 2016 filing alters our decision. 

5 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 60022, 60023, 60201, 

60202, 60203, 60204, 60205, Appeals of ABS Development Corporation, rendered in 

conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

6 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals