|About the Book|
THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of 36 U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret and apply provisions of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. The selection of decisions spans from 2005 to the date of publication.The [ContractMoreTHIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of 36 U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret and apply provisions of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. The selection of decisions spans from 2005 to the date of publication.The [Contract Disputes Act of 1978] grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over actions brought on claims within twelve months of a contracting officers final decision. James M. Ellett Constr. Co. v. United States, 93 F.3d 1537, 1541 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing 41 U.S.C. § 609(a)). Jurisdiction requires both that a claim meeting certain requirements have been submitted to the relevant contracting officer and that the contracting officer have issued a final decision on that claim. Id. at 1541-42. K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v. US, (Fed. Cir. 2015).Since 1994, the CDA has also required that all claims related to government contracts be submitted to a contracting officer within six years of the accrual of the claim. [Citations omitted.] Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. US, 764 F. 3d 51 (DC Cir. 2014).Written demand for a sum certainA claim is 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 the contract. Reflectone, 60 F.3d at 1575 (quoting regulation then codified at 48 C.F.R. § 33.201- current version at 48 C.F.R. § 52.233-1). A claim need not be submitted in any particular form or use any particular wording . . . [, but it must provide] a clear and unequivocal statement that gives the contracting officer adequate notice of the basis and amount of the claim. Contract Cleaning Maint., Inc. v. United States, 811 F.2d 586, 592 (Fed. Cir. 1987). A contracting officers final decision on a claim may either be written, 41 U.S.C. § 605(a), or implied from [a]ny failure by the contracting officer to issue a decision on a contract claim within the period required, id. § 605(c)(5). K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v. US, ibid.The Contract Disputes Act requires that an authorized corporate official certify that the claim is made in good faith, that the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief, [and] that the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the government is liable. 41 U.S.C. § 605(c)(1) (2006) (recodified at 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1)(A)-(D)). Under the antifraud provision of the CDA, 41 U.S.C. § 604 (2006) (recodified at 41 U.S.C. § 7103(c)(2)),[i]f a contractor is unable to support any part of his claim and it is determined that such inability is attributable to misrepresentation of fact or fraud on the part of the contractor, he shall be liable to the Government for an amount equal to such unsupported part of the claim.Veridyne Corp. v. US, 758 F. 3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014).. . .