• R.D. Lieberman,Consultant

No Magic Words or Form Are Needed for a Claim

In an interesting reversal, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded an Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA” or “Board”) case dealing with the acceptable wording and format of a claim under the Contract Disputes Act. Hejran Hejrat Co., Ltd, v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 930 F. 3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2019). See Hejran Hejrat Co, Ltd, ASBCA No. 61234, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37039 for the Board Decision. Although the ASBCA dismissed the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction because the contractor never explicitly asked for a final decision of the contracting officer, the Federal Circuit held that, notwithstanding the lack of an explicit request for the final decision, and notwithstanding the fact that the “claim” was styled as an “REA” (request for equitable adjustment), it still qualified as a claim under the Contract Disputes Act.


Hejran had a contract to provide transportation services in Afghanistan and advised the contracting officer that it had incurred additional costs as a result of delays and changes in the contract price by the government. The contractor made several preliminary submissions of invoices requesting additional compensation, and finally, on March 5, 2015, submitted a document entitled “Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA)” including a (defective) certification of the amount requested. On March 26, 2017, in what the contracting officer stated was the “final determination in this matter,” the claim was denied. Upon appeal, the Board concluded it did not have jurisdiction because the contractor never requested a final contracting officer’s decision.


The Court noted that in order to constitute a claim, a contractor must request a final decision by a contracting officer, however there are no magic words or special form needed to make the submission a “claim.” Hejran’s March 5th submission was a written demand, seeking as a matter of right, the payment of money in a sum certain, and the specific grounds for that payment.


The Government’s arguments and the Court’s holdings were as follows:


1) Hejran’s March 5th submission is styled as an REA not as a Claim.

Court: Our cases show that an REA, that satisfies all the requirements for a claim, is a claim. This was a claim.

2) Hejran’s March 5th submission fails to include any language requesting a final decision.

Court: Our caselaw recognizes that a claim need not be submitted in any particular form or use any particular wording, as long as it contains a clear and unequivocal statement that gives the contracting officer adequate notice of the basis and amount of the claim.

3) Hejran’s March 5th submission stated that its submissions did not constitute a request for a final decision.

Court: Although earlier submissions did not contain such a request, the March 5th submission provided a sworn certification of its claim, and the contracting officer had issued a “final determination” in the matter, and could not retroactively deny it was a claim

The Court concluded that the March 5th submission was a request for a final decision of the contracting officer, and the contracting officer’s subsequent denial of that submission was a final decision on a claim. The Board erred when it concluded there was no jurisdiction to consider the appeal.


Finally, the Board noted that the March 5th submission contained a certification, but not a proper certification. However, a defect in the certification does not deprive a court or board of jurisdiction over the claim, and the defective certification shall be required to be corrected prior to final judgment.


Takeaways: 1) Be careful when identifying an REA or a Claim. If you intend a document to be an REA, so state. If you intend it to be a claim that warrants a final decision by the CO, you should style it as a “Claim pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act.” Of course you should also state that you request a final contracting officer’s decision.

2) Even if you do not style your claim properly, if it contains all of the elements necessary, and even if it doesn’t contain “magic words” or a typical claim format, the Federal Circuit will construe it to be a claim.


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

4 views

Recent Posts

See All

Course of Dealing

A “course of dealing” is a “sequence of previous conduct between the parties to an agreement which is fairly to be regarded as establishing a common basis of understanding for interpreting their expre

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