ASBCA 60626

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Excel Link Construction Company ) ASBCA No. 60419 ) Under Contract No. 000000-00-0-0000 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Jaweed Jan Chairman APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. Army Chief Trial Attorney CPT Harry M. Parent III, JA Trial Attorney OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WOODROW ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS Excel Link Construction Company (appellant) filed a notice of appeal on 15 January 2016, appealing its designation as "Not Eligible for installation Access" in the Joint Contingency Contracting System (JCCS). The JCCS is an internet-based application used by Expeditionary Contracting Command - Afghanistan for posting solicitations and proposals. The JCCS is part of a vendor vetting program for contractors seeking to do business with the U.S. Government in Afghanistan. The purpose of the vetting program is to "help identify and prevent insurgents, terrorists, militias, foreign intelligence and security services (FISS) and criminals from gaining access to U.S. and Coalition equipment, facilities, and personnel and using contracting proceeds to fund their operations." Afghan Premier Logistics, B-409971, 2014 CPD iJ 293 (Comp. Gen. Sept. 26, 2014). Mr. Jaweed Jan, appellant's chairman, seeks to have appellant registered in the JCCS in order to access installations in Afghanistan administered by U.S. Forces in Afghanistan. Appellant's notice of appeal provides no reference to either a solicitation or contract between appellant and the government. I On 5 February 2016, the government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and stay of proceedings. Appellant responded by email on 17 April 2016 and the government elected to not file a reply brief. The government seeks dismissal on the I grounds that the appeal does not involve a procurement contract subject to the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) and because appellant failed to submit a claim to the contracting officer. We hold that the Board lacks jurisdiction to entertain appellant's appeal of its  f denial of installation access on the grounds that appellant has failed demonstrate the Il existence of a contract within the Board's jurisdiction. DISCUSSION I The fundamental basis for the Board's jurisdiction under the CDA is the contractor's submission of a proper claim to the contracting officer for a final decision. 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a); CCIE & Co., ASBCA Nos. 58355, 59008, 14-1BCAii35,700 at 174,816. Because the CDA does not define the term "claim," we look to the definition in the FAR. See, e.g., Taj Al Safa Co., ASBCA No. 58349, 13 BCA ii 35,278 at 173,156. The FAR defines a "Claim," in relevant part, as follows: Claim means a written demand or written assertion by one of the contracting parties seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money in a sum certain, the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to the contract. I FAR 2.101. We determine whether a contractor's communication is a CDA claim on a case-by-case basis and apply a common sense analysis. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp., ASBCA No. 55126, 06-2 BCA ii 33,421at165,687. In determining whether a claim has been submitted, we may examine the totality of the correspondence between the parties. Vibration and Sound Solutions Ltd., ASBCA No. 56240, 09-2 BCA ii 34,257 at 169,270. In this appeal, appellant does not allege that it has submitted a claim to the contracting officer prior to filing this appeal. Although appellant repeatedly communicated with personnel within the Joint Expeditionary Contracting Command-Afghanistan regarding appellant's registration with the JCCS, these communications fall well short of being a claim.