## Facts

- A construction contractor sought an equitable adjustment for increased costs allegedly caused by government-related problems and changes under a Corps of Engineers contract.
- The contractor submitted a written request for additional compensation to the contracting officer.
- The government contended the submission did not satisfy Contract Disputes Act (CDA) requirements for a “claim,” including certification for claims above the statutory threshold.
- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Board of Contract Appeals dismissed or denied the appeal on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction due to alleged claim and/or certification deficiencies.
- The contractor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the contractor’s written submission to the contracting officer constituted a valid “claim” under the CDA.
2. Whether a defective certification on a claim exceeding the statutory threshold defeats tribunal jurisdiction or may be corrected.
3. Whether the Board erred by disposing of the appeal on jurisdictional grounds rather than reaching the merits.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s jurisdictional disposition and remanded.
- The court held the contractor’s submission qualified as a CDA “claim” because it was a written demand asserting entitlement as a matter of right and seeking a contracting officer decision.
- The court held that a defective certification does not defeat jurisdiction when some form of certification was attempted; such defects are curable.
- The court distinguished defective certification from a total absence of certification, which can prevent jurisdiction for claims above the statutory threshold.

## Legal Principles

- A CDA “claim” exists when a contractor makes a written demand to the contracting officer seeking, as a matter of right, payment of a sum certain or other contract relief and requesting a decision; labels and formal wording are not dispositive.
- For CDA claims above the statutory threshold, certification is required, but certification serves to deter frivolous or inflated claims and to encourage accurate submissions.
- A total absence of certification for a large claim may bar jurisdiction, but a defective or technically flawed certification is correctable and does not, by itself, deprive a board or court of authority to decide the dispute.
- The CDA should be applied to allow adjudication of contract disputes on the merits rather than denying review based on minor technical defects.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that the contractor’s submission was a valid CDA claim and that attempted but defective certification is a curable defect that does not eliminate jurisdiction, requiring remand for further proceedings on the merits after addressing any certification deficiencies.


J.L. Malone & Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 879 F.2d 841 (Fed. Cir. 1989)