Some projects require the contractor to begin performance immediately, with the urgency of the government requirement providing no time to establish terms, specifications, or prices. The government may enter into undefinitized contract actions (UCAs) or letter contracts for such projects. The contract clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.216.25 provides the process for the definitization of UCAs. Since UCAs permit performance without firmly established terms such as pricing, procuring agencies are expected to agree on the undefinitized contract terms in a timely manner after the commencement of performance. When the agency and the contractor cannot agree on a firm price, the FAR definitization clause allows the contracting officer (CO) to conclude negotiations and unilaterally determine a reasonable price. Notably, because the definitization clause expressly permits it, the CO’s unilateral establishment of pricing is considered an act of contract administration and not a government claim. Consequently, if the contractor does not agree with the CO’s unilaterally established price, it must file a claim with the CO before appealing that decision at a relevant Board of Contract Appeals (BCA) or the Court of Federal Claims (COFC).

Upon the issuance of a contracting officer's final decision (COFD), contractors have 90 days to file their notice of appeal before an appropriate Board of Contract Appeals (BCA). BCAs have consistently held the requirement to file an appeal within the 90-day appeal period as a non-waivable jurisdictional requirement. Thus, if the contractor fails to file their appeal within this 90-day appeal period, the BCA may not entertain the appeal as it lacks jurisdiction over it under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). Contractors must strictly follow the 90-day appeal deadline, which is not tolled even when the contractor inadvertently files their appeal at the wrong BCA. In certain situations, contractors may file their appeal after 90 days have passed since the original COFD issuance, provided they can demonstrate that the contracting officer (CO) reconsidered the final decision as a result of the parties' discussions during the appeal period. If government actions during the appeal period indicate that the contractor reasonably believed that the CO reconsidered her decision, the finality of the CO's decision may be vitiated or invalidated. Under such circumstances, the CO's vitiated final decision may not be reinstated, and the CO is required to issue a new final decision, restarting the 90-day appeal period under the CDA. However, because the parties often continue settlement discussions after the issuance of the COFD, it may not always be clear whether the CO reconsidered her final decision or if the COFD remained final.

The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) provides contractors with alternate forums to resolve claims relating to their federal contracts. After submitting their claim to the contracting officer (CO) and either receiving a denial or a deemed denial on their claim, contractors may appeal the CO’s final decision to either an appropriate Board of Contract Appeals (BCA) or the Court of Federal Claims (COFC). However, once the contractor elects one of the two dispute adjudicative forums and appeals the CO’s adverse decision after receiving notice of the available options, it may not then change forums. Also known as the election doctrine, this rule ensures that once the contractor chooses the forum in which to lodge its appeal under the CDA, it is bound by the election decision and may no longer pursue its appeal in the alternate forum. For the doctrine to apply, the contractor must make an informed, knowing, and voluntary decision to pursue the appeal in one of the two forums with jurisdiction. Once the action is filed in one forum, the other forum must dismiss any subsequently filed appeals concerning the same claim for lack of jurisdiction.