ASBCA Says Contractor’s CDA Claim is Defective
ASBCA rejects a contractor/joint venture's claim for lack of jurisdiction because it did comply with Contract Disputes Act ("CDA"). Specifically, the CDA requires that: (1) the contractor must submit the demand in writing to the CO, (2) the contractor must submit the demand as a matter of right, and (3) the demand must contain a sum certain. In the PHA-JMR case, the ASBCA held that the contractor’s CDA claim did not meet the CDA requirements because it requested "at least $173,831.00" for extended overhead. The ASBCA held that this is not a “sum certain” as required by the CDA. The ASBCA also held that the person signing the claim did not have the authority under the joint venture agreement to do so. The ASBCA dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and recommended that the contractor resubmit a proper claim to the Contracting Officer and to “to pay particular attention to who is signing claims and certifications, and in what capacity they are signing.” Good advice.
