PSBCA No. 7113

DISMISSAL

On July 15, 2025, the Board convened a telephone conference with the parties. Joshua Daughtery represented Appellant, and Maria Yousuf, Esq., represented the Postal Service.
The Board and the parties addressed the Postal Service’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. BAM Dart had appealed to the Board because the contracting officer erroneously characterized the Postal Service’s termination on notice as a final decision and provided the appeal rights found in final decisions. A termination on notice is a contract action, not a final decision. Shawn G. Logan, PSBCA No. 6507, 14-1 BCA ¶ 35,609. Without a monetary claim submitted to the contracting officer, the Board has no jurisdiction over a challenge to a termination on notice. 41 U.S.C. §§ 7103-04; see also Logan, 14-1 BCA ¶ 35,609.
BAM Dart conceded that it has not filed a monetary claim with the contracting officer. The Board therefore does not have jurisdiction.
The Board’s lack of jurisdiction in this appeal does not bar BAM Dart from pursuing a monetary claim. BAM Dart may submit a monetary claim to the contracting officer, and if the contracting officer denies the claim or does not timely respond, BAM Dart may file another appeal. BAM Dart may wish to review the Contract Disputes Act, found in sections 7101-09 of title 41 of the United States Code; the Board’s Rules of Practice, found in part 955 of title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and a guide published by the American Bar Association, Section of Public Contract Law titled “Practicing before the Federal Boards of Contract Appeals.”

The Postal Service’s motion is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.