48 C.F.R. § 33.201

33.201 Definitions.

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this subpart—

Accrual of a claim means the date when all events, that fix the alleged liability of either the Government or the contractor and permit assertion of the claim, were known or should have been known. For liability to be fixed, some injury must have occurred. However, monetary damages need not have been incurred.

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) means any type of procedure or combination of procedures voluntarily used to resolve issues in controversy. These procedures may include, but are not limited to, conciliation, facilitation, mediation, fact-finding, minitrials, arbitration, and use of ombudsmen.

Defective certification means a certificate which alters or otherwise deviates from the language in 33.207(c) or which is not executed by a person authorized to bind the contractor with respect to the claim. Failure to certify shall not be deemed to be a defective certification.

Issue in controversy means a material disagreement between the Government and the contractor that (1) may result in a claim or (2) is all or part of an existing claim.

Misrepresentation of fact means a false statement of substantive fact, or any conduct which leads to the belief of a substantive fact material to proper understanding of the matter in hand, made with intent to deceive or mislead.

[48 FR 42349, Sept. 19, 1983. Redesignated and amended at 50 FR 2270, Jan. 15, 1985; 56 FR 67417, Dec. 30, 1991; 59 FR 11381, Mar. 10, 1994; 60 FR 48230, Sept. 18, 1995; 63 FR 58594, Oct. 30, 1998; 66 FR 2132, Jan. 10, 2001; 67 FR 43514, June 27, 2002; 79 FR 24212, Apr. 29, 2014]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 124 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Scan-Tech Sec., L.P. v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 326 (Fed. Cl. 2000).
Scan-Tech Sec., L.P. v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 326 (Fed. Cl. 2000). · cites it 8× “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.”
M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “" 48 C.F.R. § 33.201 . While a CDA claim need not be submitted in any particular form or use any particular wording, it must contain "a clear and unequivocal statement that gives the contracting officer adequate notice of the basis and amount of the claim.”
James M. Ellett Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States, 93 F.3d 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “48 C.F.R. § 33.201 (1995); Reflectone, 60 F.”
Alliant Techsystems, Inc., Global Env't Solutions Bus. Div. v. United States, Defendant-Cross, 178 F.3d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “48 C.F.R. § 33.201 . The government does not dispute that the September 11 letter was a written demand seeking adjustment or interpretation of a contract term, ie.”
K-Con Bldg. Sys., Inc. v. United States, 778 F.3d 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “3d at 1575 (quoting regulation then codified at 48 C.F.R. § 33.201 ; current version at 48 C.”
Laguna Constr. Co. v. Def., 828 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “1995) (citing 48 C.F.R. § 33.201 (1994)). At oral argument, Laguna asserted that the government is seeking a reduction in the amount owed, which is a monetary award, or alternatively, a change in contract terms.”
Heyl & Patterson, Inc. v. Sean C. O'keefe, Acting Sec'y of the Navy, 986 F.2d 480 (Fed. Cir. 1993). · cites it 3× “During oral argument, the government for the first time raised an alternative theory in support of the Board's rejection of the November 21, 1989 claim.”
H. Lawrence Garrett, Iii, Sec'y of the Navy v. Gen. Elec. Co., 987 F.2d 747 (Fed. Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “” 48 C.F.R. § 33.201 (1991). The GE contracts contained this definition.”
Hamza v. United States, 31 Fed. Cl. 315 (Fed. Cl. 1994). · cites it 3× “” 48 C.F.R. § 33.201 (1991). The CDA also requires that claims of more than $50,000 be certified.”
Alliant Techsystems Inc. v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 566 (Fed. Cl. 2007). · cites it 3× “at 17 (quoting 48 C.F.R. § 33.201 (1997)). 20 The first problem with plaintiffs argument is that the definition of “claim” provided in the FAR is for purposes of those regulations concerning government contracts for the acquisition of supplies and services.”
Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. Murphy, 823 F.3d 622 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “48 C.F.R. § 33.201 . Precedent elaborates that whether and when a CDA claim accrued is determined in accordance with the FAR, the conditions of the contract, and the facts of the particular case.”
Elec. Boat Corp. v. Sec'y of the Navy, 958 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “” See 48 CFR § 33.201 . Although “monetary damages need not have been incurred,” “[f]or liability to be fixed, some injury must have occurred.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.