ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of--

Zara Company 

Under Contract No. CPCG4262170833 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 58632 

Mr. Ali Ahmad 

Owner 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

CPT Michael E. Barnicle, JA 

Trial Attorney 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MELNICK ON THE GOVERNMENT'S 

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 

Appellant, Zara Company (Zara), filed a notice of appeal with this Board, 

attaching an unsigned document purporting to be a contract with the United States Army. 

The notice of appeal claims that Zara is entitled to a "residual payment." The 

government has moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The motion is 

granted. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 

On 4 October 2012, Mr. Ali Ahmad of Zara sent an email to Contracting Officer 

Joan Wysoske, Chief of the Reachback Closeouts Office for the U.S. Army Contracting 

Command-Rock Island. The email states: "Our records indicate that we have a payment 

did not receive the contract CPCG4262170833. Please check and told me." (R4, tabs 5, 

10) Mr. Ahmad essentially repeated that message in emails dated 5, 6, and 7 October 

2012. On 10 October 2012, Ms. Wysoske responded, stating that she did not recognize 

the contract number and asked for a copy of the contract which she would use to research 

it. (R4, tab 7) 

On 11 October 2012, Mr. Ahmad sent an email to Ms. Wysoske stating that a copy 

of the contract was attached. The accompanying document purports to be on Army 

letterhead and is titled "CONTRACT AGREEMENT." It has the number 

CPCG4262170833 and names Zara Company (Ali Ahmad) as the contractor to provide 

certain described photographic equipment for $10,405. The document contains a 

signature over Mr. Ahmad's signature block. A signature block for CPT Lorie Huff was 
typed in as the government representative, but the document is not signed by her. (R4, 

tab 6) 

On 15 October 2012, Mr. Ahmad emailed Ms. Wysoske stating that he was still 

waiting for an answer about his payment. Ms. Wysoske responded that day that her 

office did not handle these types of contracts and that she could not pay on the document 

provided. Mr. Ahmad inquired as to whether providing "the appeal number" would be 

enough to provide information about the contract. He also stated he had a "bill of 

delivery." Ms. Wysoske replied that Mr. Ahmad could send what he had and she would 

review it, but reiterated that her office did not have the file and did not handle these types 

of contracts. On 16 October 2012, Mr. Ahmad emailed Ms. Wysoske "to tell you this 

appeal NO. W91GFB-06-Q-2204. before the contract award. I hope to be assistant to 

you and help me." He repeated that message on 18 October 2012. On 19 October 2012, 

Ms. Wysoske responded that Mr. Ahmad had sent a solicitation number that was of no 

assistance. She stated she was sorry, but could not find anything on the contract and 

could not help him. (R4, tab 7) 

On 22 April 2013, the Board received an email from Mr. Ahmad stating: "Our 

company was awarded the contract CPCG4262170833. our records Found that there is a 

residual payment dis is received on this the contract. Please check and told me." 

Attached to the email was a document identical to the one provided to Ms. Wysoske on 

11 October 2012. The Board docketed the email as an appeal. The government has 

moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that it is not in privity of contract with Zara, 

that the purported contract arises from the Commanders' Emergency Response Program 

(CERP) and is not a procurement contract subject to this Board's jurisdiction, and 

because Zara did not submit a claim to the contracting officer. Zara did not file an 

opposition to the government's motion. 

DECISION 

Our jurisdiction to decide an appeal is typically governed by the Contract Disputes 

Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. § 7101-7109. 1 The CDA applies to express or implied contracts 

1 In addition to appeals under the CDA, our charter permits us to entertain appeals 

"(b) pursuant to the provisions of contracts requiring the decision by the Secretary 

of Defense or by a Secretary of a Military Department or their duly authorized 

representative, or ( c) pursuant to the provisions of any directive whereby the 

Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a Military Department or their authorized 

representative has granted a right of appeal not contained in the contract on any 

matter consistent with the contract appeals procedure." Armed Services Board of 

Contract Appeals Charter, 48 C.F.R. ch. 2 appx. A, pt. 1, if 1 (2013). No 

suggestion has been made that the purported contract here invokes these 

authorizations, nor is there any indication it would. 

2 
by executive agencies for the procurement of property (other than real property); 

services; construction, repair, or maintenance of real property; or the disposal of personal 

property. 41 U.S.C. § 7102(a). For purposes of this decision, we assume without 

deciding that the government entered into a contract with Zara to procure the property 

described in the document provided by Zara with its notice of appeal. Nevertheless, the 

appeal must still be dismissed. 

Under the CDA, to pursue an appeal a contractor must have submitted a claim to a 

contracting officer for decision or a deemed denial. 41 U.S.C. § 7103; see also Lael Al 

Sahab & Co., ASBCA No. 58346, 13 BCA if 35,394 at 173,658. A valid claim must be a 

written demand seeking as a matter of right the payment of money in a sum certain. 

Northrop Grumman Computing Sys., Inc. v. United States, 709 F.3d 1107, 1112 (Fed. 

Cir. 2013 ). Even if one or more of Zara's various email messages to Ms. Wysoske could 

be construed to be a written demand seeking the payment of money as a matter of right, 

none of them specify a sum certain. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. 2 

CONCLUSION 

The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

Dated: 23 April 2014 

I concur 

~(pj4· Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

~~ MARK A. MELNICK 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I concur 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

2 Because we decide the threshold question of whether a claim has been filed by Zara, we 

do not reach the question of whether agreements under the CERP are within our 

jurisdiction. 

3 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58632, Appeal of Zara 

Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

4 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals