Jump to content






REAs and Claims: Is There A Difference?

Posted by Vern Edwards, 23 August 2012 · 13,268 views

Despite the plain language of the FAR definition of claim and an overwhelming amount of case law, many contracting practitioners falsely believe that claims and requests for equitable adjustment (REA) under a contract clause are categorically different, that a contractor must submit an REA before it can submit a claim, and that there can’t be a claim until the parties have reached an impasse or are in dispute. Those beliefs are untrue. My objective in this blog entry is to explain why.

What Is a "claim"?

The Contract Disputes Act,
41 U.S.C. 7101 – 7109, does not define claim. The only official definition is in FAR 2.101, which defines "claim" as follows:

“Claim” means a written demand or written assertion by one of the contracting parties seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money in a sum certain, the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to the contract. However, a written demand or written assertion by the contractor seeking the payment of money exceeding $100,000 is not a claim under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 until certified as required by the Act. A voucher, invoice, or other routine request for payment that is not in dispute when submitted is not a claim. The submission may be converted to a claim, by written notice to the contracting officer as provided in 33.206(a), if it is disputed either as to liability or amount or is not acted upon in a reasonable time.


Reading that definition closely, we see that there are four sentences. The first sentence defines claim as: (1) a written demand or assertion, (2) by the prime contractor or the government, (3) seeking "relief" to which the contractor or the government believes it is entitled pursuant to the terms of a contract clause or due to breach of contract by the other party. (See Note 1.) In order to be a claim a contractor's request for contractual relief must have all of the elements stated in the first sentence.


The second sentence requires certification of claims for more than $100,000. (See Note 2.) A contractor request for more than $100,000 that is not certified is not a claim.

The third sentence says that routine requests for payment must be in dispute when submitted in order to be a claim. Thus, a request for payment upon completion of performance and acceptance of the work or a request for a progress payment is not a claim unless it was in dispute when submitted.

The fourth sentence says that a routine request for payment may be converted to a claim under certain circumstances.


We need to dig still deeper. First, the words "assertion" and "demand" in the first sentence are legal terms of art for requests for what one believes he or she is entitled to. See Blacks Law Dictionary 9th (2009). They should not be understood to mean that a contractor’s request must be strident, angry, or vehement, or be the product of strife or dispute.


Second, "sum certain" means a specific amount. There can be no equivocation using language such as “approximately,” “at least,” “in excess of,” “well over,” or “no less than.” However, the sum certain requirement can be met through the use of a formula that permits the amount to be determined mathematically. (See Note 3.)

Third, although the FAR definition does not say so, the CDA and the boards and courts require that in order to be a claim a contractor's request for relief must ask the CO for a decision on the matter. See 41 U.S.C. Sec. 7103( a ). The request need not be explicit, but may be implied from the context of the assertion or demand. See James M. Ellett Construction Co. v. United States, 93 F.3d 1537, 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1996); BLR Group of America, Inc. v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 9, 13 (2010).

Fourth, although the second sentence in the definition says that contractors must certify claims “seeking payment of money” in excess of $100,000, the CDA requires certification of any monetary claim in excess of $100,000, whether for immediate payment or price adjustment. See 41 U.S.C. 7103( b ).


Contracting practitioners must be able to recognize a claim when they see one.

The submission and receipt of a claim have four important legal consequences:

1. Interest begins to accrue when the CO receives a claim, but not when he receives a non-claim request for contractual relief. See FAR 33.208. (But see also Note 4.)

2. COs must make final decisions on claims within statutory deadlines, see FAR 33.211( c ), but they face no deadline for responding to non-claim requests for contractual relief.

3. Contractors cannot recover the costs of claim preparation and prosecution, but they can recover the costs of the preparation of non-claim requests for contractual relief. See FAR 31.205-33( b ) and 31.205-47( f )(1).

4. The jurisdiction of the boards of contract appeals and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to adjudicate a contractor's appeal under the CDA is predicated upon ( a ) the submission of a CDA "claim" and ( b ) issuance of a CO final decision. See Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy, 60 F.3d 1572, 1575 (Fed, Cir. 1995), and James M. Ellett Construction Co. Inc. v. United States, 93 F.3d 1537, 1541 - 42 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Unless a contractor has submitted a claim and the CO has issued a final decision, the boards and the Court of Federal Claims have no jurisdiction under the CDA. They have no jurisdiction under the CDA over non-claim submissions, not even if the CO mistakenly issued a final decision when none was required. See Agility Defense & Government Services, Inc. v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 366 (2012). In that case the contractor submitted a document that did not possess the required elements of a claim as defined in FAR 2.101. Nevertheless, the CO issued a "final decision." The contractor appealed the decision, but the court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because the contractor's submission did not have all of the elements of a claim as defined in FAR 2.101. The court said:

"For the above reasons, the Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate Agility's complaint. The Court makes this ruling with some reluctance, given the contracting officer's contribution to a confused set of circumstances."


Thus, acquisition practitioners must know when they are submitting or when they have received a claim. Claims are not always easy to recognize, however.

A claim need not be in any particular format or use any particular language.

The definition of claim specifies no format for a claim and does not require the use of specific words of terms, except for the claim certification. The courts and boards have consistently held over the course of many years that a claim need not be in any particular format or stated in any particular language.
A claim need not be labeled "Claim." See Contract Cleaning Maintenance, Inc. v. United States, 811 Fed. 2d 586, 592 (Fed. Cir. 1987):

We know of no requirement in the Disputes Act that a “claim” must be submitted in any particular form or use any particular wording. All that is required is that the contractor submit in writing to the contracting officer a clear and unequivocal statement that gives the contracting officer adequate notice of the basis and amount of the claim.”


See also SITCO General Trading and Contracting Co. v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 506, 508 (2009).

A submission need not include a cost breakdown or other supporting cost data in order to be a claim. See H.L. Smith, Inc. v. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy, 49 F.3d 1563, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1995):

“[N]either the CDA nor its implementing regulations, the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), requires submission of a detailed cost breakdown or other specific cost-related documentation with the claim.”


Thus, a claim could be a simple letter. See Transamerica Insurance Corp. v. United States, 973 F.2d 1572, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1992):

“This court will not require contractors to do more than to comply as fully and reasonably as possible with the statutory requirements of the CDA when this court has definitively stated that certain “magic words” need not be used and that the intent of the “claim” governs.”


A simple claim under $100,000 might be stated in a single sentence. See Cibinic, Nash & Nagle, Administration of Government Contracts 1264 (4th ed., 2006):

"As long as the contractor's assertion contains the minimum information necessary to inform the contracting officer of what is being claimed and the grounds of the claim, the contracting officer must act on the claim and deny it if the information is insufficient to approve it, Fred A. Arnold, Inc., ASBCA 27151, 83-3 BCA para. 17,517."


Thus, a request for relief without supporting data might be a claim, but without the supporting data it might not be sufficient to prove the contractor's entitlement to the relief sought.

In pointing these things out I am not suggesting that contractors submit undocumented claims. My only purpose is to show that a contractor's submission need not be thoroughly documented in order be a claim and thus trigger the legal consequences of submitting a claim. Best practice is, of course, to prepare claims carefully and document them as thoroughly as possible.

The content is what matters, not what you call it.

The determination of whether a contractor’s submission to a CO is or is not a claim does not depend on what the parties call it. The mere fact that a contractor calls its submission a claim will not make it a claim if it lacks any necessary element of a claim. And calling a submission an REA does not mean that it is not a claim if it possesses all of the necessary elements of a claim. Claims and REAs are not categorically different things. It is the content of a submission, not what the parties label it or call it, that determines whether it is a claim.

In Zafer Taahhut Insaat ve Ticaret A.S., ASBCA 56770, 11-2 BCA ¶ 34841 (2011), the government argued that a contractor’s REA was not a claim because the contractor used the word “request” instead of claim in its claim certification. The board rejected that argument:

“The government objects to Zafer's 1 August 2007 REA as the basis for our jurisdiction, alleging that the document is a preliminary request for equitable adjustment, and does not adhere to CDA certification requirements because 'request' is twice substituted for 'claim' and the authority of the certifier is not stated. We find that the REA is a cognizable claim, as it adequately informs the government of the basis and precise amount of the claim and that the use of the word 'request' in lieu of 'claim' is inconsequential.”


Request for reconsideration denied, Zafer Taahhut Insaat ve Ticaret A.S., ASBCA 56770, 12-1 BCA ¶ 34951 (2012). See also Saco Defense, Inc., ASBCA 44792, 93-3 BCA ¶ 26029:

“[T]he threshold question is whether that submission constituted a “claim” under the CDA. To that end, it does not matter if the submission is styled as a ‘claim,’ a ‘proposal,’ a ‘request for equitable adjustment,’ or something else. What matters is that the submission satisfies the definition of ‘claim’ prescribed in applicable implementing regulations and contract clauses, as interpreted by the Federal Circuit.”


What is an REA?

The CDA does not mention REAs. Although
the term REA appears in 31 places in the FAR System -- ten places in the FAR itself, the rest in seven agency FAR supplements -- the FAR does not define REA.

"Request for equitable adjustment" is a term of art for just what the name indicates: (a ) a request ( b ) for an equitable adjustment to one or more contract terms. REAs are grounded on contract clauses that provide for such relief, such as the "Changes" clauses, FAR 52.243-1 through - 5; the "Differing Site Conditions" clause, FAR 52.236-2; and the "Government Property" clause, FAR 52.245-1.

Contractors doing business with the Department of Defense that submit non-claim REAs valued at more than the simplified acquisition threshold must certify them as required by DFARS 243.204-71 and 252.243-7002. The certification reads as follows:

“I certify that the request is made in good faith, and that the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.”


An REA valued at more than the simplified acquisition threshold that includes the REA certification, but not the claim certification, is an REA that is not a claim, because it lacks one of the necessary elements of a claim. If the same REA is certified as a claim, and has the other necessary elements of a claim, then it is an REA that is a claim.

What if a contractor includes both the REA certification and the claim certification? Assuming that the REA has all of the other necessary elements of a claim, it is an REA that is a claim, notwithstanding the inclusion of the REA certification. However, the dual certification might indicate some confusion on the part of the contractor and make its intentions unclear.

Bottom line: An REA is a claim if it has the required elements of a claim as defined in FAR 2.101. An REA that lacks any required element of a claim is not a claim.

An impasse or dispute is not necessary for an REA to be a claim.

Many contracting practitioners think that there must be an impasse in negotiations or that the parties must be in dispute before REAs can be claims. That is not true, as determined in the landmark decision Relectone, Inc. v. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy, 60 F.3d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir, 1995):

"[W]e hold that FAR 33.201 does not require that 'a written demand ... seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money in a sum certain' must already be in dispute when submitted to the CO to satisfy the definition of 'claim,'exceptwhere that demand or request is a 'voucher, invoice or other routine request for payment.' This interpretation, based on the plain language of the FAR, examines and reconciles the text of the entire regulation, not simply isolated sentences."


Reflectone is must reading for all practitioners. (At the time of that decision the definition of claim was in FAR 33.201. It has since been moved to FAR 2.101.)

See also Systems Development Corp. v. McHugh, Secretary of the Army, 658 F.3d 1341, 1346 - 47 (Fed. Cir. 2011):

"SDC contends that our precedent holds that a claim does not accrue until there is an impasse in negotiations between the contractor and the government. SDC, however, misapprehends our precedent. Impasse is not required for SDC's equitable adjustment claims to accrue.


In support of its impasse theory, SDC points to Rex Systems, Inc. v. Cohen, 224 F.3d 1367 (Fed.Cir.2000). In Rex Systems, we considered when a submission by a contractor to a CO meets the definition of a 'claim' for the purposes of the CDA. See also James M. Ellett Constr. Co. v. United States, 93 F.3d 1537 (Fed.Cir.1996). We acknowledged that not all contractor submissions to a CO are claims. Rex Sys., 224 F.3d. at 1372 ('[A]ny non-routine submission by a contractor meets the definition of a claim if it is: (1) a written demand; (2) seeking as a matter of right; (3) the payment of money in a sum certain.'). In this line of cases, we clarified that termination settlement proposals submitted under the termination for convenience clause of the FAR generally are not CDA claims. Under certain circumstances, however, a termination settlement proposal may ripen into a claim. Id. For example, as we explained in Ellett, a termination settlement proposal may ripen into a CDA claim when the parties' negotiations reach an impasse. 93 F.3d at 1543–44. Contrary to SDC's assertion, nothing in these cases addressed situations beyond termination settlement proposals. Indeed, we emphasized that the FAR “anticipate[s] the submission of claims independently of the termination settlement proposal.” Id. at 1548. We have never indicated that such independently submitted claims require an impasse.


* * *

SDC's equitable adjustment claims were wholly separate from its termination settlement proposal. Nothing precluded SDC from presenting them to a CO as soon as SDC knew of their basis as provided in the FAR."


An REA is not a "routine request for payment."

According to the definition of claim in FAR 2.101, the only thing that has to be in dispute in order to be a claim is a “[a] voucher, invoice, or other routine request for payment,” and REAs are not routine requests for payment. That was settled by the Federal Circuit 17 years ago, in the landmark decision Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.2d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1995):

“[A]n REA is anything but a ‘routine request for payment.’ It is a remedy payable only when unforeseen or unintended circumstances, such as government modification of the contract, differing site conditions, defective or late-delivered government property or issuance of a stop work order, cause an increase in contract performance costs. Pacific Architects and Eng'rs Inc. v. United States, 491 F.2d 734, 739, 203 Ct.Cl. 499 (1974). A demand for compensation for unforeseen or unintended circumstances cannot be characterized as “routine.” The Supreme Court has confirmed the non-routine nature of an REA by equating it with assertion of a breach of contract. Crown Coat Front Co. v. United States, 386 U.S. 503, 511, 87 S.Ct. 1177, 1181, 18 L.Ed.2d 256 (1967) (‘With respect to claims arising under the typical government contract, the contractor has agreed in effect to convert what otherwise might be claims for breach of contract into claims for equitable adjustment.’). Thus, an REA provides an example of a written demand for payment as a matter of right which is not ‘a routine request for payment’ and, therefore, it satisfies the FAR definition of ‘claim’ whether or not the government's liability for or the amount of the REA was already disputed before submission of the REA to the CO.”


Some contracting practitioners think that REAs are routine because "they happen all the time." Indeed, they are common in some contracting offices. However, the boards and courts do not interpret "routine" on the basis of frequency, but on the basis of the nature of the cause. See Parsons Global Services, Inc., ex rel. Odell International, Inc. v. McHugh, Secretary of the Army, 677 F.3d 1166, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2012):

"The distinction between a routine and non-routine request for payment is a factual one, dependent on the circumstances in which the requested costs arose. A routine request is one incurred and submitted ‘in accordance with the expected or scheduled progression of contract performance.’ Ellett Constr., 93 F.3d at 1542–43. Such requests are ‘made under the contract, not outside it’ and include invoices, vouchers, progress payments, and other requests for costs under the contract's terms. Reflectone, 60 F.3d at 1577. By contrast, a non-routine request is one ‘seeking compensation because of unforeseen or unintended circumstances.’ Ellett Constr., 93 F.3d at 1543; Reflectone, 60 F.3d at 1577. Such requests include requests for equitable adjustments for costs incurred from “government modification of the contract, differing site conditions, defective or late-delivered government property or issuance of a stop work order” and other government-ordered changes, Reflectone, 60 F.3d at 1577; for damages resulting from the government's termination for convenience and termination settlement proposals that have reached an impasse, Ellett Constr., 93 F.3d at 1542–43; for compensation for additional work not contemplated by the contract but demanded by the government, Scan–Tech Sec., L.P. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 326, 333 (2000); for the return of contractor property in the government's possession, J & E Salvage Co. v. United States, 37 Fed.Cl. 256, 261 n. 4 (1997), aff'd, 152 F.3d 945 (1998) (table); and for damages stemming from the government's breach of contract or cardinal change to the contract, Ky. Bridge & Dam, Inc. v. United States, 42 Fed.Cl. 501, 518–19 (1998). A common thread among these examples is the presence of some unexpected or unforeseen action on the government's part that ties it to the demanded costs."


So why the persistent belief in the need for a dispute? It may due to the fact that claims are addressed in FAR clause 52.233-1, "Disputes." The reasoning goes that since claims are discussed in the Disputes clause if follows that there has to be a dispute in order for there to be a claim. Not so. The Disputes clause prescribes the procedure for submitting and processing claims and issuing CO final decisions. The clause does not state that a dispute must precede the submission of a claim, nor does anything in the CDA or in FAR Subpart 33.2, "Disputes."

FAR 33.204, "Policy," might be another reason for the mistaken belief in the need for a dispute. It states, in pertinent part, “Reasonable efforts should be made to resolve controversies prior to the submission of a claim.”

That’s the government’s policy, and it makes good sense from the government's perspective. It is designed to avoid the accrual of interest by encouraging settlement before the contractor submits a claim, on which interest accrues. However, the government’s policy in no way restricts what contractors can do. It does not require that contractors submit non-claim REAs before they submit claims. The CDA requires only that contractors believe they have a right to what they want in order to submit claims. Contractors do not have to first submit a non-claim REA and then wait while the government takes its own sweet time to evaluate the submission and to make repeated requests for more information before getting down to business.


To avoid confusion about claims and REAs, read the definition of claim.

Some of my students express shock and disbelief when I tell them that an REA can be a claim. "Are you saying that all of those REAs we get are claims and have to be treated like claims?" No, I'm not saying that. Here is what I'm saying:
First, when COs receive contractor requests for relief they should use the FAR 2.101 definition of claim as a checklist. No matter what the contractor calls it, a contractor’s request should be treated as a claim if it has all of the elements of a claim as defined in FAR 2.101. If it lacks any element of a claim it need not be treated as a claim.

Second, some inexperienced contractors may not understand that "claim" is an officially defined term with legal implications. If for any reason a CO is not sure about a contractor’s intention the CO should ask the contractor. If the contractor says that it meant to submit a claim, and if the submission lacks any element of a claim, then the CO should tell the contractor so it can correct its submission. The CO should explain the implications with respect to preparation costs if the contractor says it intended to submit a claim. If an REA has the elements of a claim, but the contractor says that it did not intend to submit a claim, the CO should ask for confirmation in writing.

Finally, contractors should check the definition of claim when submitting REAs and make sure that they understand what they are submitting -- either an REA that is not a claim or an REA that is a claim -- and the consequences of submitting it. They should make their intentions clear to COs. A warning: If your intention as a contractor is to submit a claim, then make sure that you get it right. Prepare the claim document well and document it fully. That improves the chances of a successful settlement. The government will not hesitate to challenge board or court jurisdiction over the slightest flaw in your submittal. If they succeed it will result in a significant loss of time and money. If your claim is significant, hire an attorney who knows the rules to assist in its preparation.

Every year we see board and court decisions in which one of the parties disputed the tribunal's jurisdiction on the ground that an REA was not a claim. The government does so to force the parties back to the negotiating table and avoid interest. Contractors do so to retain their entitlement to submission preparation costs. Such litigation is a needless and avoidable waste of money and time.

Knowledge, clear communication, good faith, and good will can prevent misunderstandings and needless jurisdictional litigation. But knowledge must come first.
---------------------------------------------------
Note 1: Relief, as used in the context of the CDA, is a legal term of art that means "The redress or benefit, esp., equitable in nature, ... that a party seeks in court." Black's Law Dictionary, 9th ed. (2009). According to FAR 33.213( a ), a claim for relief` "arising under a contract" is a claim that can be resolved under a contract clause other than the Disputes clause, FAR 52.233-1. A claim for relief "relating to a contract" is a claim for which no contract clause except for the Disputes clause provides for the relief sought. It is a breach of contract claim.

Note 2:

The certification for claims in excess of $100,000 is stated in FAR 33.207 as follows:


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.


The dollar value of a claim for certification purposes is the absolute value of increases and decreases. See FAR 33.207( d ).


Note 3: Professor Ralph C. Nash, Jr. discusses the sum certain requirement in the August 2012 edition of The Nash & Cibinic Report: “Contract Disputes Act claims: the 'sum certain' requirement." 26 N&CR para. 41.

Note 4: FAR 33.208(a) says that interest begins to accrue when the CO receives the claim or when payment otherwise would be due, whichever is later. The FAR is wrong. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has thrice ruled that there is a single “red letter date” for the accrual of interest, and that is the date that the CO receives the claim. Furthermore, interest on a claim can accrue even before the contractor incurs any cost. See Richlin Security Service Co. v. United States, 437 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (rehearing and rehearing en banc denied); Caldera v. J.S. Alberici Construction Co., 153 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1998); and Servidone Construction Corp. v. United States, 931 F.2d 860 (Fed. Cir. 1991).]




Readers should know that I edited this entry several times since I first posted it on Saturday morning, August 25. I apologize for any inconvenience.
  • Report
Great Explanation ....as always.

I am guilty of saying a REA is not a claim until we have a dispute, this post will help me explain.

A claim always seemed like a dirty word when working with a contractor. I like to keep the negotiations in the problem solving mode and felt like the term claim indicated we were at an impasse.

I guess I will look more positivily on the term claim as an opportunity to discuss an issue......rather then a you'll be hearing from my lawyer next.
  • Report
That's the way to look at it. A claim need not be seen as an in-your-face, see-you-in-court attack. It is simply the exercise of a contractual right.
  • Report
Very informative! Thanks for taking the time and effort to write this! I espeically like the explanation and definitions of the types of "relief" and until this blog I always seem confused about "arising under a contract" versus "relating to a contract". The training I received was not clear on this distinction and attorneys I worked with were not clear on the distinction either. However there seems to be much confusion out there on this whole topic as evidenced by the many board and court cases you cite so I don't feel to bad about not being clear on the types of relief.

I also agree that clear communication is needed. I hope new members to the community take the time to read and think about this entry and perhaps keep it for futire reference.
  • Report
We have often subbed for prime contractors that are reluctant to file a routine claim for fear of offending a CO (and these days sometimes it does offend a CO, but not usually) - to the extent that we have crafted a subcontract clause to address the problem.
  • Report

Tags

    April 2014

    S M T W T F S
      12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223 24 2526
    27282930   

    1 user(s) viewing

    0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

    1 user(s) viewing

    0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users