from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals in Nos. 5942,
5943, 5944, 5945, 5946, Administrative Judge Jonathan D.
Zischkau, Administrative Judge Catherine B. Hyatt,
Administrative Judge Jeri Kaylene Somers.
Jonathan David Shaffer, Smith, Pachter, McWhorter, PLC,
Vienna, VA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Armani
Vadiee; Todd Matthew Garland, Zachary David Prince, Tysons
Geoffrey Martin Long, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by Joseph H. Hunt,
Robert Edward Kirschman, Jr., Patricia M. McCarthy.
Moore, Schall, and Taranto, Circuit Judges.
Global, LLC (DAI), formerly known as Development
Alternatives, Inc., appeals a decision by the Civilian Board
of Contract Appeals (Board) dismissing DAI's five appeals
for lack of jurisdiction. See Developmental Alts., Inc.
v. Agency for Int'l Dev., CBCA No. 5942, CBCA 5943,
CBCA 5944, CBCA 5945, CBCA 5946, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37147.
Because the Board has jurisdiction to consider DAI's
appeals, we reverse and remand.
2006 to 2010, the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) awarded DAI five contracts for
developmental services in Afghanistan. DAI subcontracted with
a private security company, ERSM (Afghanistan) Limited, d/b/a
Edinburgh International (EI). EI employed over 1, 000
individuals to provide DAI with security services. On April
1, 2011, Afghanistan imposed a nearly $2 million fine on EI
based on the size and composition of EI's private
security workforce. EI paid the fine and allocated a portion
of the expense to each of DAI's five contracts.
10, 2017, DAI submitted a cover letter and EI's five
claims to USAID, seeking reimbursement for the fine.
DAI's cover letter characterized itself as a
certification. Along with each claim, DAI also included
EI's certification stating that the claim was made in
good faith. On July 10, 2017, USAID's contracting officer
sent DAI a letter stating that she would provide a decision
on the claims by August 24, 2017. On July 19, 2017, 70 days
after DAI submitted its claims, the contracting officer sent
a second letter informing DAI that the submission did not
contain a contractor certification.
November 20, 2017, DAI filed five notices of appeal with the
Board. The Board dismissed DAI's claims on September 27,
2018, for lack of jurisdiction based on DAI's failure to
certify the claims. The Board stated that DAI's May 10,
2017 certification bears no resemblance to the required
statutory language. The Board also stated that only technical
errors are correctable, and that DAI made its certification
with reckless disregard for the certification requirements.
It concluded that nontechnical mistakes in the certification
and DAI's recklessness rendered DAI's purported
certification unsalvageable. DAI appeals. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(10).
review a contract board's decision on a question of law
de novo. Agility Logistics Servs. Co. KSC v. Mattis,
887 F.3d 1143, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Whether a contract
board has jurisdiction over an appeal is such a question.
government contractor seeking payment on a government
contract must submit a claim to the contracting officer. 41
U.S.C. § 7103(a)(1). When the claim is for more than
$100, 000, an ...