CBCA 8430

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: September 17, 2025 CBCA 8430 BLANCHARD’S CONTRACTING LLC, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Quentin W. Blanchard, President of Blanchard’s Contracting LLC, Dumfries, VA, appearing for Appellant. Alexander C. Vincent, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC; and Anne C. McDermott, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Philadelphia, PA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges VERGILIO, KANG, and NEWSOM. Opinion for the Board by Board Judge NEWSOM. Board Judge VERGILIO concurs. NEWSOM, Board Judge. Appellant, Blanchard’s Contracting, LLC (Blanchard’s), alleges that the General Services Administration (GSA) failed to pay for work that Blanchard’s performed on multiple construction contracts awarded between 2012 and 2018. GSA moves to dismiss on the grounds that Blanchard’s never submitted a claim to the contracting officer as required by the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7109 (2018), and that there has been no contracting officer’s decision on a claim. Alternatively, GSA argues that if CBCA 8430 2 Blanchard’s is found to have submitted a CDA claim to the contracting officer, the “claim” was untimely, as it was submitted after the expiration of the statute of limitations. We grant the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that appellant did not submit a claim to the contracting officer. Background For purposes of ruling on respondent’s motion to dismiss, we assume the facts alleged by Blanchard’s to be true and draw reasonable inferences in Blanchard’s favor.1 Blanchard’s contends that, between 2012 and 2018, GSA awarded it numerous contracts to perform construction work, which the company fully performed. Notice of Appeal at 1. Blanchard’s alleges that it never received payment for its work. Id. at 1-2. Instead, it asserts that GSA payments that were intended for Blanchard’s were improperly diverted to an entity called Sagacious Financial LLC (Sagacious). Id. at 2. Blanchard’s contends that GSA owes it $47,000,000 in contract payments plus approximately $11,750,000 in interest. Id. at 7. Blanchard’s neither included a CDA claim nor identified one in its May 7, 2025, notice of appeal. In response to the Board’s inquiry as to whether Blanchard’s submitted a claim to the contracting officer, Blanchard’s identified a document dated April 21, 2025, as its claim. Respondent’s Notice of Filing of Appellant’s Pre-Appeal Documents (May 13, 2025) attaching an April 28, 2025, email from appellant to GSA attaching a six-page document dated April 21, 2025 (“CDA claim”); see also Appellant’s Validation of Claim (May 14, 2025) at 4; Appellant’s Declaration (May 16, 2025) at 1. The alleged CDA claim was addressed to “Contracting Officer, U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), Public Buildings Service/Office of Acquisition” but does not identify by name any contracting officer or any other recipient. It bears the address of the GSA headquarters building at 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC, but includes no specific office. Blanchard’s April 28, 2025, email to GSA, attaching the “CDA claim,” was directed to the GSA “General Counsel.” Several individuals were copied, but there is no allegation nor evidence that any of them were contracting officers responsible for Blanchard’s contracts. 1 Appellant did not file a complaint in this appeal but did file many other documents setting forth its factual and legal contentions. Pursuant to Rule 6(a) (48 CFR 6101.6(a) (2024)), we deem those submissions and their attachments collectively to constitute the appellant’s complaint. CBCA 8430 3 There is also no indication why appellant copied those individuals; their selection appears random. Discussion This Board’s jurisdiction over contract disputes is defined, and constrained, by the CDA. Section 7103 provides that “[e]ach claim by a contractor against the Federal Government relating to a contract shall be submitted to the contracting officer for a decision.” 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(1). Only after the contracting officer issues a decision on the claim, or after the contracting officer is deemed to have denied the claim in circumstances set forth in section 7103(f)(5), may the contractor appeal the decision to an agency board. Id. §§ 7104(a), 7105.