Elham Ahmadi Construction Company, ASBCA No. 61031

Contract W5KA4N-11-C-0009 awarded 20 Oct 2010 for construction work in Afghanistan; 45-day performance period; ~AFN12,095,945.76 (~$246,265).
Contracting officer issued Modification P00001 (effective 13 Nov 2010) terminating the contract for default and included FAR-mandated final-decision/appeal rights.
Appellant (Elham Ahmadi Construction Co.) sent emails to the contracting officer on 22 Nov and 7 Dec 2010 asserting performance and seeking “about $71,500.”
Appellant filed a notice of appeal with the ASBCA on 27 Jan 2017, ~6 years after the termination; failed to respond to multiple Board orders to show it had submitted a proper CDA claim to the CO before appeal.
The CO issued a final decision dated 24 Apr 2017 rejecting appellant’s $71,500 claim as untimely and stating appellant did not timely appeal the 13 Nov 2010 termination; appellant never timely appealed that final decision to the Board.
The Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction: (1) appeal of termination was untimely (not within 90 days), and (2) the compensation claim email lacked a required sum certain, so no timely CDA claim to the CO was shown.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Board has jurisdiction to review propriety of the termination for default	The termination was improper; appellant seeks review	Termination was a CO final decision in Nov 2010; no timely appeal to the Board within 90 days	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — appellant filed notice ~6 years later, beyond statutory 90-day appeal window
Whether appellant submitted a timely CDA claim to the contracting officer for $71,500 before appealing	Appellant’s Dec. 7, 2010 email sought about $71,500 for performed work, constituting a claim	Email did not meet FAR/contract definition of a claim (no sum certain); CO and gov’t say it wasn’t a proper written claim	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — email not a sum-certain claim; appellant failed to prove a prior CO claim was filed
Whether appellant’s pro se, foreign status excuses failure to meet jurisdictional prerequisites	Appellant is pro se and non-U.S.; limited English and unfamiliarity with U.S. contracting law	Jurisdictional rules are mandatory; status does not excuse noncompliance	Not excused; jurisdictional prerequisites must be satisfied
Whether Board should dismiss for failure to prosecute under Rule 17	N/A (appellant’s noncompliance supports dismissal)	Government noted appellant’s failures to respond	Board chose to resolve jurisdiction first; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction (Rule 17 alternative noted)

Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 828 F.2d 759 (Fed. Cir.) (termination for default is appealable as CO final decision)
Rejlectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir.) (FAR definition of "claim" requires a written demand for a sum certain)
Renda Marine, Inc. v. United States, 509 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir.) (statutory appeal deadlines to boards are jurisdictional and cannot be extended)
Cosmic Constr. Co. v. United States, 697 F.2d 1389 (Fed. Cir.) (timely appeal is prerequisite to judicial review)