KBAJ Enterprises, LLC t/d/b/a Home Again, ASBCA No. 60014

DLA issued PO No. SPE5EM-14-V-5503 to KBAJ for 500 neoprene strips; price $4,505; partial acceptance/payment for 60 items and partial payment of $540.60. 440 items unpaid (approx. $3,964.40).
KBAJ corresponded with DLA personnel (including Sharon Sax, identified on the PO as "Local Admin," and Jonathan Hampton, a branch chief) seeking explanation and payment.
On April 21, 2015 KBAJ sent a letter to Ms. Sax calling it a "final demand letter" and asking for ADR or a written decision; it copied Mr. Hampton and others but did not identify a contracting officer.
Contracting Officer Jayne Manco sent a 22 April 2015 letter requesting traceability documentation and on 24 April 2015 denied KBAJ's ADR request. KBAJ then complained about Manco in a 24 April letter.
KBAJ filed an appeal (May 28, 2015) alleging deemed denial by COs Sax and Hampton. The Board ordered briefing on whether KBAJ submitted a sum-certain claim to a contracting officer under the CDA. KBAJ did not respond to that order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether KBAJ submitted a proper CDA claim to a contracting officer	KBAJ treated its 21 Apr 2015 letter as a "final demand" and appeals from a deemed denial	DLA: the letter lacked required detail, did not demand a sum certain payment to a CO, and was not submitted to a CO	Board: 21 Apr letter was not submitted to a CO; jurisdictional prerequisite not met; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether submission to a "primary contact" (Ms. Sax) satisfied CDA submission requirement under Neal	KBAJ sent the letter to its primary DLA contact and expected a decision	DLA: KBAJ knew CO Manco was the cognizant CO and thus could not reasonably expect a CO decision from Sax	Board: Neal standard not met — KBAJ did not reasonably expect a CO decision from Sax; submission to primary contact failed to satisfy CDA
Whether any government response (e.g., CO Manco’s letters) constituted a final decision rescuing jurisdiction	Implied: KBAJ treated lack of response as denial and cited government letters in the record	DLA: CO Manco’s 24 Apr letter denied ADR but was not a final decision on the disputed payment; issue not properly presented	Board: Because KBAJ failed to submit a claim to a CO, Board did not reach or rely on alternative arguments about final decision status

M Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (a claim must give the contracting officer adequate notice of the basis and amount and request a final decision)
Neal & Co., Inc. v. United States, 945 F.2d 385 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (claim may be submitted to a primary contact if there is a request for a final CO decision and a reasonable expectation it will be honored)
D.L. Braughler Co. v. West, 127 F.3d 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (a submission to an authorized representative that seeks to resolve the matter directly with that representative does not satisfy the CDA submission requirement)