• R.D. Lieberman,Consultant

Final Contracting Officer Decision on Claim Does Not Cure Lack of Certification

The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals reinforced the statutory and regulatory framework for claims over $100,000 that lack certification when submitted to the Contracting Officer. Such claims are not proper “claims” under the Contract Disputes Act, and may be dismissed by either a contracting officer or a Board or Court. Computer Integration & Prog. Sol. Corp., CBCA 6491, June 7, 2019. The issue was recently discussed in two recent blogs, “Defective Claim Certification or No Claim Certification” (Nov. 20, 2018) and “Correctible (Defective) Claim Certification (March 5, 2019. It is essential for contractors to understand that every claim over $100,000 must be certified to the Contracting Officer. Even if the certification requires correction, it can be corrected, but the total absence of a certification is fatal.

The Contract Disputes Act of 1978, codified at 41 U.S.C. § 7103 requires that all claims of more than $100,000 be certified, and meet other requirements as set forth below in the statute:

(b)CERTIFICATION OF CLAIMS.— (1)REQUIREMENT GENERALLY.—For claims of more than $100,000 made by a contractor, the contractor shall certify that— (A) the claim is made in good faith; (B) the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of the contractor’s knowledge and belief; (C) the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the Federal Government is liable; and (D) the certifier is authorized to certify the claim on behalf of the contractor. (2)WHO MAY EXECUTE CERTIFICATION.— The certification required by paragraph (1) may be executed by an individual authorized to bind the contractor with respect to the claim. (3)FAILURE TO CERTIFY OR DEFECTIVE CERTIFICATION.— A contracting officer is not obligated to render a final decision on a claim of more than $100,000 that is not certified in accordance with paragraph (1) if, within 60 days after receipt of the claim, the contracting officer notifies the contractor in writing of the reasons why any attempted certification was found to be defective. A defect in the certification of a claim does not deprive a court or an agency board of jurisdiction over the claim. Prior to the entry of a final judgment by a court or a decision by an agency board, the court or agency board shall require a defective certification to be corrected….

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) provides the specific language for contractors to use for their certification:

I certify that the claim is made in good faith; that the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief; that the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the Government is liable; and that I am duly authorized to certify the claim on behalf of the contractor.

FAR 33.207(c).The FAR also states that a “defective certification” means “a certificate which alters or otherwise deviates from the language in FAR 33.207(c) or which is not executed by a person authorized to bind the contractor with respect to the claim. Failure to certify shall not be deemed to be a defective certification.” FAR 33.201 (emphasis added).

In Computer Integration, the contractor sought to recover more than $100,000 in its claim. The contracting officer issued a decision denying the claim in part. However, the claim completely lacked certification—it did not even contain a defective certification. When the appeal came before the Civilian Board, it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, even though the contractor, upon making the appeal, provided a certification of its claim.

In dismissing the appeal, the board noted that the statute makes no “correction” available when no certification is provided to the contracting officer, and the “certification requirement rests on the contractor; [the fact] that the contracting officer [acted on the claim] and failed to specify that a certification was lacking does not create jurisdiction here.”

Takeaway. Always certify claims over $100,000 when submitting them to the contracting officer. If your certification is defective, you can correct it later. If the certification is not submitted to the contracting officer, it is not a “claim” under the Contract Disputes Act and will be dismissed.

For other helpful suggestions on government contracting, visit:

Richard D. Lieberman’s FAR Consulting & Training at https://www.richarddlieberman.com/, and Mistakes in Government Contracting at https://richarddlieberman.wixsite.com/mistakes.

5 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

"Pervasive Errors" In Source Selection

It is rare when the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) says that agency actions in its source selection for two different contractors showed “pervasive errors in the conduct of the competition a

The website of Richard Donald Lieberman, a government contracts consultant and retired attorney who is the author of both "The 100 Worst Mistakes in Government Contracting" (with Jason Morgan) and "The 100 Worst Government Mistakes in Government Contracting." Richard Lieberman concentrates on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) consulting and training, including  commercial item contracting (FAR Part 12), compliance with proposal requirements (FAR Part 15 negotiated procurement), sealed bidding (FAR Part 14), compliance with solicitation requirements, contract administration (FAR Part 42), contract modifications and changes (FAR Part 43), subcontracting and flowdown requirements (FAR Part 44), government property (FAR Part 45), quality assurance (FAR Part 46), obtaining invoiced payments owed to contractors,  and other compliance with the FAR. Mr.Lieberman is also involved in numerous community service activities.  See LinkedIn profile at https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-d-lieberman-3a25257a/.This website and blog are for educational and information purposes only.  Nothing posted on this website constitutes legal advice, which can only be obtained from a qualified attorney. Website Owner/Consultant does not engage in the practice of law and will not provide legal advice or legal services based on competence and standing in the law. Legal filings and other aspects of a legal practice must be performed by an appropriate attorney. Using this website does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Although the author strives to present accurate information, the information provided on this site is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date.  The views expressed on this blog are solely those of the author. FAR Consulting & Training, Bethesda, Maryland, Tel. 202-520-5780, rliebermanconsultant@gmail.com

Copyright © 2020 Richard D. Lieberman