Government Contract Disputes Attorney

The Contract Disputes Act is the primary statute outlining how government contractors resolve disputes with the U.S. government with respect to federal contracts. To bring a valid CDA claim, government contractors  must:

• Submit a written demand to the relevant contracting officer.
• Assert a claim as a matter of right (for money, contract interpretation, or other relief).

For CDA claims over $100,000, a written certification with a formal statement must be included with the following criteria:

• The certification must be signed by an authorized official.
• The statement must confirm that:
  • The claim is made in good faith.
  • The supporting data is accurate and complete to the best of the contractor’s knowledge and belief.
  • The amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment the contractor believes the government owes.
  • The person signing is authorized to certify the claim on behalf of the contractor.
• These requirements are set out in FAR 33.207 and FAR 52.233-1 (see Acquisition.GOV: acquisition.gov/far/52.233-1).
• Proper certification helps ensure a solid factual basis for the claim and reduces the risk of delays or rejection.

Claims generally must be filed within six years of accrual, except in very specific circumstances. The contracting officer must be given a clear statement of the basis and amount of the claim and must issue a final decision before the dispute can proceed to the Court of Federal Claims in the United States.

If you think you need the help of a government contract disputes attorney, we're here for you.

The Contract Disputes Act covers most disputes arising from federal  procurement, including:

• Property and service contracts
• Construction and real property-related contracts
• Other federal contracts entered into by executive federal agencies

Not all contracts are covered (for example, some Tennessee Valley Authority agreements and certain foreign contracts under applicable law).

Under the CDA, contractors may challenge a contract award decision or later disputes by:

• Appealing to an agency board of contract appeals, such as the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals or the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals; or
• Filing in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in the United States.

Covered claims include:

• Monetary claims for payment, cost reimbursement, or interest.
• Nonmonetary claims seeking changes in terms, schedule, or other contract performance obligations.
• Requests for Equitable Adjustment (REA) when government actions or changes increase cost or delay performance.

The Contract Disputes Act applies to both express and implied contracts with the federal government.

The CDA generally does not cover:

• Certain Breach of Contract situations arising after full performance.
• Personal injury or property damage claims.
• Contracts entered before November 1, 1978.
• Disputes based solely on broad government policy or regulation, outside specific contract performance issues.

In those cases, other applicable law or forums may prevail.

Regulatory compliance with CDA procedures is critical:

• If a contractor does not first present the claim to the contracting officer,federal courts may lack jurisdiction.
• If a required certification is missing or defective, the contracting officer may refuse to issue a final decision.
• Fraud or misrepresentation can bar recovery and trigger separate liability.

Because the CDA provides the exclusive framework for many government contract disputes, failure to follow it can severely limit available remedies against the federal government.

Under the Contract Disputes Act, damages aim to put the contractor in the position it would have occupied absent the breach or improper government action. In practice, this means:

• The claim must clearly state the relief sought.
• Any increasing adjustments in amount must be grounded in facts already presented to the contracting officer.
• A dollar figure can sometimes be inferred from records and other information technology if the narrative and data are clear.

Courts in the United States cross-check whether the claim before the contracting officer and the claim before the court rest on the same operative facts and legal theory.

Under the Contract Disputes Act:

• Monetary claims are demands for specific dollar amounts, called a "sum certain." They must give the contracting officer enough detail to evaluate the amount, and large claims must be certified.
• Nonmonetary claims seek interpretations or changes to terms without specifying a sum, but must still clearly set out the legal and contractual basis.

Courts will look at the substance of the claim. If “nonmonetary” relief would necessarily result in payment by the federal government, the claim may be treated as monetary for CDA purposes.

The contracting officer is central to the CDA process. Under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR):

• The contracting officer administers the contract, evaluates claims, and issues written decisions.
• They must review facts, consult specialists as needed, and follow FAR procedures for any government claim against a contractor.
• The date of their final decision starts the clock for appeals.

Because CDA jurisdiction hinges on the contracting officer’s decision, federal contractors must direct their initial government contract disputes to this official.

The Contract Disputes Act and the Federal Acquisition Regulation allow the federal government to terminate a contract for its own convenience. In that event:

• The contractor is typically converted from a fixed-price posture to a cost-reimbursement posture.
• The contractor can recover allowable costs, reasonable profit on work performed, and certain settlement expenses.

Claims arising from termination for convenience must still be submitted in writing to the contracting officer within the CDA’s time limits.

When do contract law disputes arise?

• Often when parties disagree about how to interpret or fulfill contract terms.

Key case examples

• Zapata Hermanos Sucesores v. Hearthside Baking Co.

  • Compared U.S. and French contract law on attorneys’ fee shifting.
  • Court found differences came mainly from procedural rules, not core contract principles.
  • Shows how jurisdictional procedures can affect contract outcomes.

• Seifert v. United States Home Corp.

  • Addressed when a dispute is “directly linked” to the contract’s subject matter.
  • Determined when a dispute is eligible for arbitration.
  • Highlights the need to understand arbitration triggers in contracts.

• Standard Tallow Corp. v. KIL-Management A/S

  • Involved conflicting arbitration clauses (London vs. New York).
  • Court had to reconcile where arbitration should occur.
  • Illustrates why arbitration provisions must be clear and consistent.

Big-picture takeaway

• Contract disputes frequently arise from:
  • Differing interpretations of terms
  • Overlapping or conflicting dispute resolution clauses
• Careful drafting, precision, and foresight in contract language are essential to reduce ambiguity and prevent costly litigation.

The CDA provides a structured path for government contract disputes involving the U.S. government:

• Step one is always submission of a written claim to the contracting officer.
• Step two, if needed, is appeal to a board (such as the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals or Civilian Board of Contract Appeals) or to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

These bodies, along with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and other applicable law, provide the framework for resolving disputes under the Contract Disputes Act.

The statute of limitations for filing a CDA claim is critical to note. Generally, a contractor must submit their claim to the contracting officer within six years of its accrual. However, there's an exception for contracts awarded before October 1, 1995, where the six-year limit might not apply. Exceptions may exist depending on the specific circumstances, so consulting with a lawyer familiar with government contracts is advisable.