The eighth (and final) article in an eight-part series on cutting-edge tactics for Certified Claims under the Contract Disputes Act is now available (CDA). A key consideration for contractors looking to preserve positive cash flow while anticipating a slowdown or recession is that Certified Claims are the principal tool available to them.
It is the only way to recover losses brought on by modifications, delays, inefficiency, and other government-caused problems. Keep reading on as we explore the contractor Contract Disputes Act claims against the government in this series from a variety of angles.
While typically employed as a method for recovering time and expenses, Contract Disputes Act claims can also be made in response to several contract provisions that give remedies, and they can even be used to contest unfavorable CPARS performance ratings. Federal contractors are advised to consult official help desks for more details on CPARS performance details.
Here’s More Insight on Contract Disputes Act
A few standards and best practices apply regardless of the claim’s underlying justification or the precise relief demanded. Contractors must keep in mind these fundamental ideas throughout the Claim procedure and (if required) government litigation. Moreover, they should also know all the essential elements of CDA and its latest trends.
Appropriate notice and relevant documentation should be provided to all the stakeholders. Contractors should also act swiftly and deliberately to record government-directed contract changes and implications on projects. In actuality, giving the appropriate warning is not just a best practice but also a condition of recovery.
Contractors must be careful to continue working and record the extra time impacts and/or costs expended once a change or other impact occurs. In negotiating a change order with the government or, in the worst-case scenario, establishing damages before the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) or Board of Contract Appeals, you’ll need that documentation.
Requirements for Certification and Their Effects
The Contract Disputes Act contractors are required to sign a certification stating that claims above $100,000 (as well as some requests for equitable adjustments) were submitted in good faith and with accurate/complete supporting documentation. Although it is a step that must be completed, signing this certification is not merely a formality.
Once signed, the certification gives the government a crucial tool to fight against allegedly misleading allegations. To be clear, contractors shouldn’t see the certification as a barrier to making honest claims against the government or engaging in genuine litigation.
Instead, certifying the claim should serve as a helpful reminder that costs must be presented with reliable supporting evidence and documentation.
Choosing a Course of Action
A claim is not a guarantee that there will be a real disagreement with the government.
In many situations, the Contract Disputes Act and the government can (and ought to) negotiate reasonable compensation in good faith and with cooperation. However, if the government rejects the claim (completely or partially), it triggers a series of crucial choices that the contractor must make. Moreover, contractors should also know how to handle subcontractor pass pass-throughs under the CDA.
The contractor should consider the project’s overall context (are there any other claims?), the proper forum (COFC or Board), and whether faster procedures or other dispute resolution options have any advantages. Contractors should approach the process with the same rigor as a possibly more conventional judicial environment since claims that are brought before a Board or the Court must be proven in a hearing or trial.
By then, the legal justifications for entitlement had been established. The testifying witnesses’ credibility and the record’s evidence frequently determine the outcome (including experts). In that sense, when considering, putting together, and presenting a claim, considering the potential for litigation as an endgame can be beneficial.
Do you have the supporting paperwork and financial evidence necessary to persuade an impartial third party that you are entitled to the alleged contract adjustment? Such proactive contractors are more likely to submit thorough claims that are paid upfront, in addition to tending to prevail in the end.
