October 11, 2016

ANGELA M. STINE v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE   

PSBCA Nos. 6607, 6608

APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANT:         
Angela M. Stine

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:     
Steven C. Hough, Esq.
United States Postal Service Law Department 

OPINION OF THE BOARD
ON RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

The United States Postal Service moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because Angela M. Stine has not submitted a claim to the contracting officer for decision.  We grant the Motion to Dismiss.

FINDINGS OF FACT¹

1. Ms. Stine delivered mail in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida for the Postal Service under Contract HCR 320B2 (AF 1).  The contract term was from April 1, 2009, to March 31, 2015 (AF 9 at 48).
2. The contract provided that “[t]his contract may be renewed by mutual agreement of the parties.”  (AF 1 at 45, Clause B-78, Renewal Clause (March 2006)).  Beginning in early November 2014, the parties commenced discussions regarding the terms and conditions of a possible contract renewal starting April 1, 2015 (AF 11, 13, 14).
3. The discussions did not result in an agreement on the terms for renewal and on March 27, 2015, the Postal Service informed Ms. Stine of its decision not to renew the contract (AF 18, 19, 20).
4. On April 3, 2015, Ms. Stine followed an applicable contract clause and appealed the decision not to renew her contract to the next higher contracting authority (AF 1 at 34, Clause 2.2, Appeals to Next Higher Contracting Authority; AF 19).
5. On April 23, 2015, the next higher contracting authority denied Ms. Stine’s appeal and explained that the work would be performed by a Postal Service employee (AF 23).
6. The contract included the Claims and Disputesclause (March 2006).  The clause defines a claim.
   
   “Claim,” as used in this clause, means a written demand or written assertion by one of the contracting parties seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money in a sum certain, the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to this contract.
   (AF 1 at 41).  The record does not include a claim submitted by Ms. Stine to the contracting officer for decision.
7. On July 29, 2015, Ms. Stine filed an appeal to this Board of the next higher contracting authority’s decision (PSBCA No. 6607 “Denial from CO”; PSBCA No. 6608 Notice of Appeal).²

DECISION

In her complaint, Ms. Stine seeks (1) $5,052 for damages, (2) $115.37 per day for each day the contract was not renewed (which Ms. Stine calculated as $41,473.83 as of March 24, 2015), and (3) reinstatement of her contract.

Ms. Stine seeks monetary damages in two parts of her complaint.  However, the record does not include a monetary claim submitted to the contracting officer for decision.  The Postal Service argues that the Board does not have jurisdiction as a result and asks us to dismiss the case.  See Rules of Practice, 39 C.F.R. § 955.6(a); see also Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(1).  The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) provides the basis for the Board’s jurisdiction in this case.  41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (2012).  “As a prerequisite for the Board’s jurisdiction, the CDA requires a contractor to present a valid claim over which the contracting officer has rendered a final decision.”  Parsons Global Servs. Inc. v. McHugh, 677 F.3d 1166, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  “Each claim by a contractor against the Federal Government relating to a contract shall be in writing” and “shall be submitted to the contracting officer for decision.”  41 U.S.C. § 7103(a).  “Absent this ‘claim,’ no ‘decision’ is possible and, hence, no basis for jurisdiction” before this Board exists.  Paragon Energy Corp. v. United States, 645 F.2d 966, 971 (Ct. Cl. 1981); see alsoMurray v. United States Postal Service, PSBCA No. 6603, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,237. 

Because the CDA does not define “claim” we look to the contract language.³  See The General Store, PSBCA No. 3951, 89-1 BCA ¶ 29,573; CPS Mech. Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 760, 762 n.1 (2004).  The contract between the Postal Service and Ms. Stine includes the definition of a claim.  This definition requires that the claim “demand the payment of money in a sum certain, the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to the contract.”  (Finding 6).  Because the record does not include a monetary claim or a contracting officer’s decision on the claim, we lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Postal Service also moves to dismiss because Ms. Stine seeks relief which we cannot grant – specifically an order requiring contract renewal.  See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6).  We have long held that this Board has no authority to order the Postal Service to renew a contract.  Terry L. Bradley, PSBCA No. 5103, 05-2 BCA ¶ 32,996; Tab Distributors, Inc., PSBCA No. 3134, 99-1 BCA ¶ 30,110.

ORDER

The Postal Service’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.  The appeal is dismissed without prejudice.  Ms. Stine may submit to the contracting officer for decision a claim in a sum certain.

Peter F. Ponzter
Administrative Judge
Board Member

I concur:
Gary E. Shapiro
Administrative Judge
Chairman

Alan R. Caramella
Administrative Judge
Board Member