A Contract Disputes Act (CDA) claim meets the mandatory “sum certain” requirement when the contractor has submitted to the contracting officer (CO) a clear and unequivocal statement that gives the CO adequate notice of the basis and amount of the claim. While the CDA provides no definition of a claim, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 2.101 defines a government contract “claim” as a written demand or assertion by a contracting party seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money in a “sum certain.” This “sum certain” requirement contained within the FAR definition of a claim was considered jurisdictional until the Federal Circuit’s relatively recent decision in ECC International, LLC v. Secretary of the Army, 79 F.4th 1364 (2023). In the much publicized ECC decision, the Federal Circuit held that the “sum certain” requirement was not a jurisdictional prerequisite for a CDA claim but a mandatory claim-processing rule that claimants must follow. Since parties may raise jurisdictional issues at any time during appeals litigation, the ECC decision has practically limited the government’s “sum certain” challenges to motions for dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, brought at the outset of the appeals litigation.

A claim under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) must first be presented to and denied by the contracting officer (CO) before it can be appealed to a Board of Contract Appeals (BCA) or the Court of Federal Claims (COFC). Adjudicative forums have consistently held the CDA’s presentment requirement to be jurisdictional. That is, for a BCA or the COFC to exercise jurisdiction over a CDA appeal, the underlying claim must first have been presented to the CO for a final decision. Contractors may satisfy the presentment requirement by submitting the claim to the CO in accordance with the requirements of the CDA. While the CDA does not require the claim to be submitted in a particular form, it must typically provide a clear and unequivocal statement that gives the CO adequate notice of the basis and amount of the claim. The CO must then issue a final decision on the claim. The contractor may appeal the CO’s final decision at a BCA or the COFC within 90 days or 12 months, respectively.

In Avant Assessment v. U.S., No. 20-1185C, a decision issued on May 7, 2024, the COFC dismissed an appeal from a CDA claim for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the contractor failed to first present its claim to the CO. The appeal was part of a long-running litigation relating to contracts first issued by the U.S. Army in 2011 for foreign language testing materials to assess the proficiency of military linguists. The Army terminated the contracts for default in 2013, but following a successful appeal at the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), the default termination was converted into a termination for the government’s convenience. Following the successful convenience conversions, the contractor submitted termination settlement proposals to the CO, which were denied. After the CO’s denial, the contractor again appealed the CO’s final decision to the ASBCA. Notably, during the discovery phase in the second round of ASBCA litigation, the contractor learned that the government had not only retained the rejected testing materials but also “used” them by transferring them to a third party. Therefore, the contractor demanded payment for the rejected test materials. The contractor alleged that the Army had constructively accepted the rejected testing materials by retaining and using them after rejection. Alternatively, the contractor argued that the Army improperly rejected the testing materials. The ASBCA dismissed a large portion of the contractor’s claim for lack of jurisdiction since the contractor’s constructive acceptance claims had not first been first presented to the CO.

While the Contract Disputes Act provides no definition of a claim, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 2.101 defines a claim as a written demand or assertion by one of the contracting parties seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of a sum certain arising under or relating to the contract. The FAR further provides that a routine request for payment that is not in dispute when submitted is not a claim. However, such submissions may be converted to a claim by written notice to the contracting officer as provided in FAR § 33.206(a) if it is disputed as to the liability or amount or is not acted upon in a reasonable time. Finally, the FAR requires claims over $100,000 to be certified. To assess whether a submission is a CDA claim rather than a request for equitable adjustment (REA), contractors may typically look to three objective criteria:

1. The submission meets the definition of a “claim”
2. The submission includes a CDA certification
3. The contractor must request a final decision from the contracting officer

Despite these objective criteria, it may not always be clear when an REA is converted into a “claim,” the denial or deemed denial of which can be appealed to a Board of Contract Appeals or the Court of Federal Claims (COFC). On August 29, 2024, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) in ASBCA No. 63197 issued a decision on a government’s motion to dismiss for the contractor’s failure to convert an REA into a CDA claim. The underlying contract for medical coding services was issued by the Army in January 2018 using the government-provided browser-based Application Virtualization Hosting Environment (AVHE) for the United States Medical Command. Almost two years later, on November 18, 2019, the contractor submitted a “Request for Price Modification” seeking various cost adjustments. The pertinent portion of the request sought costs for lost production due to the government-imposed downtime for the AVHE system. In February 2021, the contractor provided supporting material to validate downtime costs in response to a government request for additional information. In July 2021, the contractor submitted a revised request for price modification labeled “Request for Equitable Adjustment,” seeking payment for downtime costs in the amount of $615,199 categorized as an unexpected loss.

The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) requires contracting officers (COs) to issue their final decision on contractor claims in writing and mail or otherwise furnish the decision to the contractor. To be legally valid, the CO’s final decision must adhere to specific content requirements. For instance, 41 U.S.C. § 7103(e) requires the CO’s final decision to state the reasons for the decision and inform the contractor of its appeal rights. The appeals rights notice should include language substantially similar to the notice provided in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 33.211(a)(4)(v). The CO is not required to include specific findings of fact in the final decision, and if included, such facts are not binding in a subsequent appeal. Notably, the FAR further expands upon the content requirements for the final decision. FAR § 33.211(a)(4) requires the final decision to include a description of the claim along with references to the relevant contract terms. The CO must also explain the factual areas of agreement and disagreement, and provide a statement of the decision along with a supporting rationale. However, despite the requirements to provide a supporting rationale, the CO’s final decision need not necessarily be voluminous. On appeal, dispute adjudicative forums rarely find that the final decision is legally defective due to a lack of sufficient rationale.