KBAJ Enterprises, LLC t/b/d/a Home Again, ASBCA No. 60222

DLA issued Purchase Order No. SPE5E8-14-M-4256 to KBAJ Enterprises, LLC t/d/b/a Home Again for 5,000 hexagon nut packs; KBAJ shipped and received a partial payment of $5,300.
Contracting Officer (CO) Matheu C. Wilson requested traceability documentation; KBAJ refused to provide docs until paid and copied CO Jayne Manco on communications.
On 21 April 2015 KBAJ sent a letter to Sharon Sax (identified in the PO as "Local Admin") requesting ADR or, if ADR refused, a written decision explaining nonpayment and stating the decision would be included in a claim to the ASBCA.
CO Manco (not copied on the 21 April letter) responded separately on 24 April 2015 denying ADR; KBAJ later appealed to the ASBCA claiming a deemed denial by CO Sharon Sax.
The Board considered whether KBAJ submitted a valid claim to a CO (or to a primary contact with reasonable expectation of CO decision) as required by the Contract Disputes Act and FAR.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether KBAJ submitted a valid CDA claim to a CO	The 21 April 2015 letter requesting payment or ADR and a written decision constituted a claim / final demand	The letter was addressed to the Local Admin (Sax), not a CO; KBAJ failed to present a claim to a CO	Held: No — the 21 April letter was not a submission to a CO and did not satisfy CDA claim requirements
Whether submission to a "primary contact" met CDA submission requirement under Neal	KBAJ implicitly argues submission to Sax (primary contact) could suffice	DLA: KBAJ knew identities of COs (Wilson, Manco) and nevertheless sought resolution with Sax, so no reasonable expectation a CO decision would follow	Held: No — KBAJ did not reasonably expect or pursue a CO decision via the 21 April letter
Whether CO Manco’s 24 April letter constituted a final decision invoking the CDA disputes process	KBAJ implied a deemed denial by Sax; sought Board review	DLA: Manco’s ADR denial was contract administration and not a CDA final decision on a monetary claim	Held: The 24 April letter did not cure submission defect and did not create Board jurisdiction
Jurisdiction of the ASBCA over the appeal	KBAJ: appeal from deemed denial of CO Sax	DLA: lack of claim submission deprives Board of jurisdiction	Held: Board lacks jurisdiction; appeal dismissed

M Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (claim must notify CO of basis and amount and request a final decision)
Neal & Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 385 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (submission to primary contact suffices only if contractor reasonably expects CO will issue decision and contact forwards it)
D.L. Braughler Co. v. West, 127 F.3d 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attempt to resolve matter with a non-CO official does not satisfy CDA submission requirement)