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.

The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) requires that a contractor present its claim to the contracting officer (CO) before an appeal or suit may be properly filed on that claim. This presentment requirement can be characterized as the linchpin of the contract appeals process under the CDA and is also the last clear chance for the government and the contractor to avoid appeals litigation. Once the contractor submits its claim to the CO, the CDA requires the CO to issue his final decision within 60 days of receiving the claim if the claimed amount is less than $100,000. For certified claims over $100,000, the CO must either issue his final decision within 60 days or notify the contractor within 60 days of the time within which a final decision will be issued. The CDA also requires that the CO issue the final decision within a reasonable time, accounting for factors such as the size and complexity of the claim and the adequacy of information provided by the contractor in support of its claim. In the event of an undue delay by the CO in issuing a final decision, the contractor may request the appeals adjudicative forum to exercise its discretion and direct the CO to issue a decision within a specified period. If the CO fails to issue a decision within that period, the contractor’s claim may be “deemed denied” and considered appealable under the CDA.

A federal contract interpretation claim may involve requests for the meaning of contractual words, determination of the manner in which the contractor must undertake performance or supply of missing terms. Since the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) does not define a claim, adjudicative forums look to the definition of a claim provided in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The 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 money in a sum certain, the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to the contract. Thus, the FAR definition of a claim includes non-monetary claims such as for the adjustment and interpretation of contract terms and claims for other relief. However, even claims for contract interpretation may have significant monetary consequences. Since the CDA requires certification of contractor claims over $100,000, contractors may consider certifying such contract interpretation claims to avoid potential dismissals for lack of certification in subsequent appeals. Including certifications can be particularly beneficial when a contractor has already incurred costs related to the claim at the time of submission, as such claims are often monetary claims disguised as interpretation claims.