ASBCA 59737

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Petition of -- ) ) Anwar Alsabah Company ) ASBCA No. 59737-957 ) Under Contract No. CERPUSDS9000097 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE PETITIONER: Mr. Samir Homodi Owner APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. Army Chief Trial Attorney CPT M. Aaron Lee, JA Trial Attorney OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE STEMPLER Pursuant to Board Rule l(a)(5), Anwar Alsabah Company (Anwar) petitions the Board to direct the contracting officer to issue a decision on its request for payment. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction because Anwar has failed to establish that it submitted a properly certified claim to the contracting officer as required under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109. STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE PETITION 1. By email dated 12 December 2014, Anwar filed the instant petition, stating: "I have ask payment or final decision but the [contracting officer] in Closout [sic] did not write a decision. Please I want a decision contracting Officer." Anwar attached multiple documents, including a purported "MEMORUNDOM [sic] OF AGREEMENT" between Anwar and the government for the purchase of seven vehicles for the Provincial Council Chairman of Wasit Province, Iraq, and a 3 September 2010 invoice seeking payment of $791,000 for the provision of said vehicles. Anwar' s email to the Board also forwarded a series of December 2014 email communications between Anwar and Ms. Amy Samberg, a contract specialist at the Army Contracting Command, Reachback Closeout Division in Rock Island, Illinois. Anwar's initial submission to the Board did not include a certification pursuant to the CDA, 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b). 1 2. By order dated 16 December 2014, the Board directed the government to either show cause why an order directing the contracting officer to issue a final decision should not be issued or to indicate when a decision would be issued. 1 The Board has not been advised that petitioner is alleging that the Board has jurisdiction of this matter under any bases other than the CDA.  3. The government responded by letter dated 6 January 2015, requesting that it not be ordered to issue a contracting officer's final decision in this matter. The government first maintained that the purported contract appeared to be a Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP) agreement. The government asserted, without citation or argument, that the CERP agreement is not a procurement contract under the CDA, and thus no final decision was required. The government further questioned the authenticity of the purported agreement, and argued that petitioner is not a contractor as defined in the CDA because no contract was awarded. 4. By order dated 8 January 2015, the Board informed petitioner that the Board's authority to direct a contracting officer to issue a decision on a contractor's claim derives from section 7103(±)(4) of the CDA, and directed petitioner to provide such evidence as is necessary to support the assertion that a proper claim was submitted pursuant to the CDA. 5. In response to the Board's 8 January 2015 order, Anwar submitted multiple documents by email on 19 January 2015. In addition to documents it had previously submitted with its 12 December 2014 petition, Anwar' s 19 January 2015 submission included a 3 December 2014 CDA claim certification that cited "Contract no. CERPUSDS9000097." 6. In a 23 January 2015 order, the Board informed petitioner that it was unclear from the record which document or documents were petitioner's claim, whether the 3 December 2014 certification related to any particular claim, and whether the certification or any claim was submitted to a contracting officer. The Board therefore directed petitioner to "provide (1) a copy of the claim documents that it submitted to the contracting officer, including any certification; (2) evidence that the claim and any certification were actually submitted to a contracting officer; and (3) evidence of the date of claim submittal." 7. Anwar responded by letter dated 27 January 2015, stating that it had submitted its invoice and a copy of the alleged contract to Ms. Samberg on 11 December 2014, and further stating that "[t]his was the pay claim." Anwar also submitted a copy of the 11 December 2014 email correspondence between it and Ms. Samberg that indicated that two documents were attached thereto. 8.