This is the eighth (and last) of an eight-part series addressing cutting-edge strategies for Certified Claims under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). Certified Claims are the primary avenue available to government contractors to recover damages due to changes, delays, inefficiencies, and other government-caused issues – a particularly important point for contractors seeking to maintain positive cashflow while facing the prospect of an economic slowdown or recession.
You can check out previous posts starting here.
In this series, I’ve covered contractor CDA Claims against the government from several perspectives. While primarily used as a mechanism for recovering time and costs, CDA Claims can arise under a variety of remedy granting contract clauses – and even be used to challenge negative CPARS performance evaluations.
Regardless of the underlying basis for the Claim or the specific relief sought, there are certain best practices that apply across the board. Contractors should be mindful of these core principles throughout the Claim process and (if necessary) litigation against the government.
Proper Notice and Supporting Documentation
Contractors should take prompt and purposeful action to document government-directed contract changes and government-caused project impacts. In fact, proper notice is not just a best practice – is an express requirement for recovery.
After a change or other impact arises, contractors must take care to continue to perform and document the...
Over the last year, beyond traditional healthcare and federal procurement matters, the government has pursued federal False Claims Act (FCA) investigations and enforcement across high-risk areas, i...