ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACTAPPEALS Appeal of--
Zara Company Under ContractNo. CPCG4262170833 APPEARANCE FORTHEAPPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 58632

Mr. Ali Ahmad

Owner Raymond M. Saunders, Esq.

Army ChiefTrial Attorney CPT Michael E. Barnicle, JA

Trial Attorney OPINION BYADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MELNICK ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FORLACK OF JURISDICTION Appellant, Zara Company (Zara), filed a notice ofappeal withthis Board, attaching an unsigned document purporting to be a contract with the United States Army. The notice ofappeal 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 FORPURPOSES OF THE MOTION On 4 October 2012, Mr. Ali Ahmad ofZara sent an email to Contracting Officer Joan Wysoske, Chiefofthe Reachback Closeouts Office for the U.S. Army Contracting Command-Rock Island. The email states: "Ourrecords 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 ofthe 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 ofthe contract was attached. The accompanying documentpurports to be on Army letterhead and is titled "CONTRACTAGREEMENT." It has the number CPCG4262170833 and names Zara Company (Ali Ahmad) as the contractorto provide certain describedphotographic equipment for $10,405. The document contains a signature overMr. Ahmad's signature block. A signature block for CPT Lorie Huffwastyped in as the governmentrepresentative, butthe document is not signed byher. (R4, tab 6)
On 15 October 2012, Mr. Ahmad emailedMs. Wysoske stating that he was still waiting for an answer abouthis payment. Ms. Wysoske responded that day that her office did nothandle these types ofcontracts and that she could not pay onthe document provided. Mr. Ahmad inquired as to whetherproviding "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 whathe had and she would review it, but reiterated that her office did not have the file and did not handle these types ofcontracts. 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 ofno 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. ourrecords Foundthatthere is a residual payment dis is received onthis the contract. Please check and told me." Attached to the email was a document identical tothe 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 ofcontractwith Zara, that the purported contract arises from the Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP) and is not a procurement contract subjectto this Board'sjurisdiction, and because Zara did not submit a claim to the contracting officer. Zara did not file an opposition to the government's motion.
DECISION
Ourjurisdictionto 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 charterpermits us to entertain appeals "(b) pursuant to the provisions ofcontracts requiring the decision by the Secretary ofDefense orby a Secretary ofa Military Department ortheir duly authorized representative, or (c) pursuantto the provisions ofany directive whereby the Secretary ofDefense orthe Secretary ofa Military Department ortheir authorized representative has granted a right ofappeal not contained in the contract on any matter consistent with the contract appeals procedure." Armed Services Board of ContractAppeals Charter, 48 C.F.R. ch. 2 appx. A, pt. 1, 

### if 1 (2013). No suggestion has been made that the purported contracthere invokes these authorizations, nor is there any indication it would.

2by executive agencies for the procurement ofproperty (other than real property); services; construction, repair, or maintenance ofreal property; orthe disposal ofpersonal property. 41 U.S.C. 

### § 7102(a). Forpurposes ofthis decision, we assume without deciding thatthe government entered into a contract with Zarato procure the property described in the document provided by Zara with its notice ofappeal. Nevertheless, the appeal must still be dismissed. Underthe 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 LaelAl Sahab & Co., ASBCA No. 58346, 13 BCA

### if 35,394 at 173,658. A valid claim mustbe a written demand seeking as a matter ofright the payment ofmoney in a sum certain. Northrop Grumman ComputingSys., Inc. v. UnitedStates, 709 F.3d 1107, 1112 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Even ifone or more ofZara's various email messages to Ms. Wysoske could be construed to be a written demand seeking the payment ofmoney as a matter ofright, none ofthem 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 ofContract Appeals

# ~~ MARK A. MELNICK Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I concur

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals

2 Because we decide the threshold question ofwhether a claim has been filed by Zara, we do not reach the question ofwhether agreements under the CERP are within our jurisdiction.
3I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Opinion and Decision ofthe Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals in ASBCANo. 58632, Appeal ofZara Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter.
Dated:

4 JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals