## Facts

- Reflectone, Inc. contracted with the U.S. Navy, which was to provide technical data for certain aircraft components.
- Reflectone asserted the Navy provided defective or late data, disrupting performance and increasing costs.
- On June 1, 1990, Reflectone submitted a detailed Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA) to the contracting officer seeking additional compensation in a sum certain as a matter of right.
- The contracting officer issued a final decision denying the requested adjustment.
- Reflectone appealed the final decision to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA).
- The ASBCA dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, concluding the REA was not a Contract Disputes Act (CDA) “claim” because no dispute existed before the REA was submitted, relying on Dawco Construction, Inc. v. United States.

## Issues

1. Whether FAR 33.201 requires a preexisting dispute before a contractor’s non-routine written demand for payment of a sum certain “as a matter of right” qualifies as a CDA claim.
2. Whether Reflectone’s REA satisfied FAR 33.201’s definition of “claim,” thereby invoking ASBCA jurisdiction following the contracting officer’s final decision.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed the ASBCA’s jurisdictional dismissal and remanded.
- The court held that a contractor’s non-routine written demand seeking, as a matter of right, payment of money in a sum certain is a CDA claim under FAR 33.201 even if no dispute existed at the time of submission.
- The court held Reflectone’s June 1, 1990 REA met the FAR definition of a claim and supported ASBCA jurisdiction once the contracting officer issued a final decision.
- The court overruled Dawco to the extent it imposed a preexisting dispute requirement for non-routine submissions.

## Legal Principles

- Under FAR 33.201, a “claim” includes a written demand or assertion seeking, as a matter of right, payment of money in a sum certain, contract interpretation or adjustment, or other contract-related relief.
- FAR 33.201’s dispute requirement applies only to “routine requests for payment” (e.g., vouchers or invoices) that are not in dispute when submitted; such routine requests become claims only if later disputed or not acted upon within a reasonable time.
- A request for equitable adjustment is generally non-routine and can qualify as a claim upon submission if it meets the FAR elements (written demand, matter of right, and sum certain for monetary relief).
- Adding a dispute requirement for non-routine demands is inconsistent with the FAR text and undermines CDA procedures tied to claim submission and the contracting officer’s decision.

## Conclusion

The en banc Federal Circuit held that a contractor’s non-routine written demand for a sum certain “as a matter of right” is a CDA claim under FAR 33.201 without any preexisting dispute, reinstating ASBCA jurisdiction over Reflectone’s appeal and rejecting contrary precedent requiring an antecedent dispute for non-routine submissions.


Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)