A Certified Claim is a contractor claim under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) that includes the certification required for claims exceeding $100,000. The certification confirms several important points about the claim, including that it is made in good faith, that supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of the contractor’s knowledge and belief, and that the amount requested reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the Federal Government is liable.
Certification does not establish that the contractor is entitled to payment. It is a procedural requirement for covered claims and places formal responsibility on the contractor for the representations accompanying the submission. The contracting officer must still evaluate the facts, contract terms, requested relief, and supporting documentation before deciding the claim.
The concept is closely connected with FAR Subpart 33.2 and the Contract Disputes Act. It becomes especially important when an unresolved contract administration issue develops into a formal monetary claim above the statutory certification threshold.
When Does a Contractor Claim Require Certification?
Certification is generally required when a contractor submits a claim against the Federal Government exceeding $100,000. The threshold applies to the amount of the claim, so contractors need to determine both whether their submission qualifies as a claim and whether its monetary value triggers the certification requirement.
A claim is generally a written demand or 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. A monetary contractor claim above $100,000 therefore normally requires CDA certification before the contracting officer can issue a final decision on the merits.
The distinction between a claim and an ordinary request for payment matters. Routine invoices and other requests for payment that are not in dispute when submitted generally are not claims. If such a request becomes disputed as to liability or amount, it may later be converted into a claim by complying with the applicable requirements.
Contractors commonly encounter potential claims in situations involving:
- additional costs caused by alleged government changes;
- delays or disruptions attributed to government action;
- disputed interpretations of specifications or contract clauses;
- requests for additional compensation following changed performance requirements;
- disagreements over payment or reimbursement;
- constructive changes for which no formal modification was issued;
- other monetary disputes arising under or relating to contract performance.
A contractor should not add a certification automatically to every request submitted to a contracting officer. The first question is whether the document is intended to operate as a formal CDA claim. The second is whether the amount exceeds the certification threshold.
Nonmonetary claims can also arise under federal contracts, such as requests for interpretation of contract terms. The $100,000 certification requirement is particularly relevant to contractor monetary claims, and the nature of the relief requested should be examined before deciding what procedural requirements apply.
What Must the Certification State?
The Contract Disputes Act establishes specific representations that must accompany a contractor claim exceeding $100,000. FAR 33.207 implements these certification requirements and provides the language used for covered claims.
Through the certification, the contractor represents that:
- the claim is made in good faith;
- the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of the contractor’s knowledge and belief;
- the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the Government is liable;
- the person certifying the claim is authorized to certify it on behalf of the contractor.
Each statement serves a distinct purpose. Good faith addresses the legitimacy of the contractor’s assertion, while the statement concerning supporting data addresses the reliability of the information used to support the claim. The amount certification connects the monetary demand to the adjustment the contractor actually believes is due.
Authority to certify is equally important. FAR 33.207 provides that certification may be executed by an individual authorized to bind the contractor with respect to the claim. Companies should therefore confirm authority internally rather than treating the certification as a routine administrative signature.
Certification should also be distinguished from the evidence supporting entitlement and quantum. Signing the certification does not replace the need to demonstrate why the Government is contractually responsible or how the requested amount was calculated.
A contracting officer reviewing a substantial claim may need schedules, invoices, labor records, subcontractor documentation, cost calculations, correspondence, technical records, and other evidence. The exact documentation depends on the dispute rather than on the certification requirement itself.
Certified Claim, REA, and Routine Payment Request
Federal contractors sometimes use the terms claim and Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA) as though they describe the same submission. They can arise from the same underlying contract event, but they do not necessarily serve the same procedural purpose.
An REA is commonly used to request an adjustment while the parties are attempting to resolve an issue through contract administration and negotiation. A CDA claim is a formal demand seeking relief as a matter of right and requesting a contracting officer’s decision.
The distinction should be based on the actual submission and its purpose rather than only its title. Calling a document an “REA” does not necessarily prevent it from being treated as a claim if it otherwise satisfies the applicable requirements, and labeling a document a “claim” does not cure missing elements.
| Submission | Typical Purpose | CDA Certification Over $100,000 | Contracting Officer Final Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Routine Invoice | Request payment for accepted performance | Generally no | Not normally requested |
| Request for Equitable Adjustment | Seek negotiated contract adjustment | Not automatically the CDA claim certification | Not necessarily |
| CDA Claim of $100,000 or Less | Formally seek relief as a matter of right | No CDA certification required | Yes |
| CDA Claim Over $100,000 | Formally seek relief as a matter of right | Yes | Yes |
A contractor may begin with an REA and later submit a certified claim if negotiations do not resolve the matter. When that occurs, the company should deliberately prepare the claim as a formal disputes document rather than simply attaching certification language to the earlier request.
The transition can require revisions to the amount, factual narrative, legal basis, supporting records, and requested relief. The claim should clearly communicate what the contractor wants the contracting officer to decide.
This distinction also affects timing and strategy. An REA may support continued negotiation, while a formal CDA claim starts a process that can lead to a Contracting Officer’s Final Decision and, if necessary, an appeal.
Defective Certification and Missing Certification
A problem with certification does not always have the same consequence. Federal contract disputes law distinguishes between a defective certification and the complete absence of required certification.
A defective certification may contain an error in wording, execution, or authorization while still representing an attempt to certify the claim. Under the CDA and FAR framework, certain defective certifications can be corrected before entry of a final judgment or decision.
The complete absence of required certification presents a different issue. A contractor submitting a claim over $100,000 without the required certification should not assume that the omission can be ignored simply because the underlying factual and monetary support is strong.
This makes pre-submission review important. Before sending a covered claim, the contractor should confirm:
- that the submission qualifies as the claim the company intends to pursue;
- that the monetary amount is stated clearly and supported by the calculation;
- that the required CDA certification is included when the claim exceeds $100,000;
- that the person executing the certification has appropriate authority;
- that supporting records are consistent with the certified amount;
- that the submission requests the necessary contracting officer action.
The certification amount should also align with the actual claim. A contractor should avoid unexplained differences between the amount stated in the demand, the supporting calculations, and the amount represented through certification.
Claims can evolve as contractors investigate costs or receive additional information. If the amount or basis changes materially, the company should evaluate whether the change affects certification or other procedural requirements rather than assuming the original submission covers every later adjustment.
Certification errors can consume time in a dispute that may already have developed over months or years of contract performance. A careful procedural review before submission is usually far easier than addressing uncertainty after the claim has reached the contracting officer or an appeal forum.
From Certified Claim to Contracting Officer Decision
Submission of a certified claim does not produce an immediate entitlement to payment. It gives the contracting officer a formal claim to evaluate under the Contract Disputes Act and applicable FAR procedures.
For certified claims over $100,000, the contracting officer generally must, within 60 days of receipt, either issue a decision or notify the contractor of the date by which a decision will be issued. The time selected for the decision should account for factors such as the size and complexity of the claim and the adequacy of the supporting information.
During review, the contracting officer may examine both entitlement and quantum. Entitlement concerns whether the contract and underlying facts provide a basis for relief. Quantum concerns the amount of money or adjustment properly associated with that relief.
This distinction can expose weaknesses in claims that focus heavily on cost calculations while providing limited support for government liability. A detailed spreadsheet showing $500,000 of additional cost does not by itself establish that the Government is contractually responsible for paying that amount.
The reverse problem is also possible. A contractor may present a persuasive explanation of a government-caused change but fail to maintain records showing how the event affected labor, materials, subcontractors, schedules, or other costs.
For that reason, development of a significant certified claim often requires coordination across contract administration, project management, finance, legal, and technical personnel. The strongest submission connects the contract requirement, disputed event, resulting impact, and requested amount through a consistent evidentiary record.
A Certified Claim therefore represents a specific stage in the federal contract disputes process. Its defining feature is not simply that a contractor is requesting additional money, but that a qualifying claim above the applicable CDA threshold carries a formal certification concerning the good faith, supporting data, claimed amount, and authority of the certifier.
If the contracting officer denies the claim in whole or in part, the contractor can then evaluate the appeal rights provided under the Contract Disputes Act. At that point, the contents of the claim, its certification, supporting evidence, and the contracting officer’s decision become part of a much more formal dispute record.
