Name Redacted, ASBCA No. 62777

Contract No. W56KJD-13-P-0079 (firm-fixed-price) awarded Nov. 2, 2012 for gravel delivery to FOB Warrior, Afghanistan.
On Aug. 2, 2016 appellant submitted an uncertified claim; the contracting officer issued a final decision on Oct. 3, 2016. Appellant’s prior appeal (ASBCA No. 60841) was dismissed without prejudice because the claim exceeded $100,000 and was not certified.
Oct. 21, 2020 appellant emailed the Board asserting it had submitted a certified claim multiple times; the Board sought clarification and asked the government to provide current CO contact information.
Nov. 3, 2020 the CO advised he had reviewed the 2016 (unsigned) submission and that his decision would not change, but that appellant could resubmit a signed certified claim if it wished.
Jan. 5, 2021 appellant emailed the Board attaching the 2016 CO decision and requested Board review; the Board docketed the appeal on Jan. 11, 2021.
The government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, asserting no cognizable claim had been submitted to a contracting officer since 2016; the Board found no evidence of a new certified claim and dismissed the appeal. The Board also noted the appeal would be untimely if based on the 2016 decision.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction: Was a valid claim (and, if >$100k, a certified claim) submitted to a CO?	Appellant contended a certified claim had been sent multiple times and sought review of the CO decision.	No cognizable claim was submitted after the 2016 uncertified claim; prior dismissal required resubmission and certification for claims over $100,000.	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: record contains no evidence of a properly submitted claim to the CO.
Timeliness: Is the appeal timely under the CDA 90‑day rule?	Appellant relied on the 2016 CO decision and asserted prior submissions.	Even if the 2016 claim were valid, the appeal filed in 2021 is well beyond the 90‑day deadline.	Even assuming a valid 2016 claim, the appeal would be untimely and subject to dismissal.

Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (pro se or limited‑English litigant receives some leeway, but not excused from meeting jurisdictional requirements).
Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 (1979) (issue preclusion/collateral estoppel binds subsequent proceedings when an issue was actually and necessarily decided).
Cosmic Construction Co. v. United States, 697 F.2d 1389 (1982) (CDA appeal timeliness: appeal must be brought within statutory period after CO final decision).