Anaconda Construction Company, ASBCA No. 60905

The Army awarded Contract No. W91B4N-12-P-5086 to Anaconda Construction Company (ACC) to operate a burn pit at Bagram Airfield.
Contract was terminated for convenience effective October 15, 2013; CO directed ACC to submit any settlement proposal by November 15, 2013.
On October 24, 2013 ACC submitted a certified claim for $160,000 for two loaders destroyed by fire; CO issued a final decision on October 28 denying payment and advised a 90-day appeal period.
ACC submitted a settlement proposal (November) seeking $272,900 total (including $160,000 for the loaders) but did not certify the revised proposal; CO issued a November 26 final decision excluding the loaders (because already decided) and denying remaining costs, again advising a 90-day appeal period.
ACC filed a notice of appeal with the ASBCA on November 7, 2016—more than 90 days after both final decisions.
Government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on (1) failure to timely appeal the certified October claim and (2) lack of certification for the >$100,000 November revised settlement proposal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ASBCA has jurisdiction over the October 28 CO final decision denying the certified $160,000 claim	ACC did not dispute untimeliness but contended CO told it to file within 30 days (arguing misnotice)	Government: ACC failed to file notice of appeal within the CDA 90-day period	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — appeal untimely; CO correctly advised 90-day period, so no tolling
Whether the November 26 decision on ACC’s revised settlement proposal is appealable	ACC seeks recovery via the settlement submission	Government: Revised proposal >$100,000 was not certified and thus not a claim under the CDA	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — revised proposal not certified so not a claim; even if it were, ACC failed to appeal within 90 days
Whether inaccurate CO advice could toll the 90-day appeal period	ACC asserted CO told it 30 days to appeal (implying detrimental reliance)	Government: CO accurately advised of 90 days in both final decisions	Court: No tolling — CO correctly stated 90-day period, so ACC’s reliance on a 30-day rule fails
Whether failure to certify a >$100,000 submission deprives the Board of jurisdiction	ACC argued settlement process and submissions should permit relief	Government: Certification is jurisdictional for claims >$100,000 under the CDA/FAR	Court: Certification requirement is jurisdictional; absence of certification bars ASBCA jurisdiction

Cosmic Constr. Co. v. United States, 697 F.2d 1389 (Fed. Cir. 1982) (contractor must timely file appeal from CO final decision under CDA to preserve board jurisdiction)
Decker & Co. v. West, 76 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (CO misstatement of appeal rights can toll appeal period if contractor detrimentally relies on it)