Betance Enterprises, Inc., ASBCA No. 62819, 62820, 62821, 62822

The Army awarded a single-award IDIQ contract to Betance Enterprises, Inc. (BEI) and issued four task orders (Nos. 52, 32, 34, 35) for roof repair/replacement at Fort Carson.
June–August 2018 hailstorms allegedly damaged BEI’s work under those task orders.
On December 11, 2020 BEI submitted four separate claims (each exceeding $100,000) seeking repair costs for the hail damage; each claim included an Exhibit E certification form but no actual signature—only the text "[Signature block]".
The government moved to dismiss the appeals for failure to state a claim; the Board raised jurisdiction sua sponte because each claim exceeded $100,000 and thus required certification under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA).
The Board concluded the unsigned certifications were not signed ‘‘discrete verifiable marks’’ and therefore were not valid CDA certifications; because certification is a jurisdictional prerequisite, the Board dismissed the appeals without prejudice and denied the government’s motion as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BEI’s claims satisfied the CDA certification requirement	BEI argued the certification language was attached and the omission of a signature was a curable defect; offered to sign if requested	Government argued certifications were defective/absent and insufficient to confer jurisdiction	Held: Certifications were unsigned and thus ineffective; certification is a jurisdictional prerequisite, so Board lacked jurisdiction
Whether omission of a signature is a curable defect under FAR/Board precedent	BEI relied on FAR 33.207(f) and precedent allowing correction of some certification defects	Government relied on FAR 33.201 definition distinguishing a defective certification from a failure to certify	Held: FAR 33.201 treats failure to certify (no signature) as not a "defective certification" and therefore not curable; omission cannot be remedied here
Whether the Board should entertain the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim	BEI implicitly argued merits should be reached if certification cured	Government sought dismissal on merits; Board noted motion type is sometimes entertained under Rule 7(a)	Held: The Board did not decide the merits because it must first assure jurisdiction; lacking proper certification, it dismissed the appeals without prejudice

Hambsch v. United States, 857 F.2d 763 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (courts/boards must assure and may raise jurisdictional defects sua sponte)
Ball, Ball & Brosamer, Inc. v. United States, 878 F.2d 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (CDA certification is a jurisdictional prerequisite)