48 C.F.R. § 33.207

33.207 Contractor certification.

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

(a) Contractors shall provide the certification specified in paragraph (c) of this section when submitting any claim exceeding $100,000.

(b) The certification requirement does not apply to issues in controversy that have not been submitted as all or part of a claim.

(c) The certification shall state 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.

(d) The aggregate amount of both increased and decreased costs shall be used in determining when the dollar thresholds requiring certification are met (see example in 15.403-4(a)(1)(iii) regarding certified cost or pricing data).

(e) The certification may be executed by any person authorized to bind the contractor with respect to the claim.

(f) A defective certification shall not deprive a court or an agency BCA of jurisdiction over that claim. Prior to the entry of a final judgment by a court or a decision by an agency BCA, however, the court or agency BCA shall require a defective certification to be corrected.

[59 FR 11381, Mar. 10, 1994, as amended at 60 FR 48218, 48230, Sept. 18, 1995; 62 FR 51271, Sept. 30, 1997; 63 FR 58595, Oct. 30, 1998; 75 FR 53149, Aug. 30, 2010; 79 FR 24212, Apr. 29, 2014]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2023 · leading case: Westech Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins., 20 Cl. Ct. 745 (Ct. Cl. 1990).
Westech Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins., 20 Cl. Ct. 745 (Ct. Cl. 1990). · cites it 7× “2d at 1426-29 (chief cost engineer could not validly certify under 48 C.F.R. § 33.207 (c)(2) (1988)); W.H. Moseley Co.”
Aleman Food Servs., Inc. v. United States, 24 Cl. Ct. 345 (Ct. Cl. 1991). · cites it 11× “The implementing regulation, 48 C.F.R. § 33.207 (1990), defines two categories of people who are entitled to certify a claim on behalf of a corporate contractor.”
Fischbach & Moore Int'l Corp. v. Warren M. Christopher, Sec'y of State, 987 F.2d 759 (Fed. Cir. 1993). · cites it 6× “§ 605 (c)(1) (1988), and (2) the certifier was not qualified under either prong of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 C.F.R. § 33.207 (c)(2)(i) & (ii) (1991).”
Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Lawrence H. Garrett, Iii, Sec'y of the Navy, 6 F.3d 1547 (Fed. Cir. 1994). · cites it 3× “207(e)(2), 48 C.F.R. § 33.207 (c)(2) (1991). Because under the FAR, the NNS official who signed the certification was unqualified to do so, we affirm.”
M.A. Mortenson Co. v. United States, 29 Fed. Cl. 82 (Fed. Cl. 1993). · cites it 11× “The implementing regulation defines two limited cat *90 egories of individuals who can legally certify a claim on behalf of a corporate contractor.”
The United States v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., 927 F.2d 575 (Fed. Cir. 1991). · cites it 2× “207(c)(2), 48 C.F.R. § 33.207 (c)(2) (1989) (the regulation).”
Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. United States, 20 Cl. Ct. 407 (Ct. Cl. 1990). · cites it 4× “The relevant statutory provision requires: For claims of more than $50,000, the contractor shall certify that the claim is made in good faith, that the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of his knowledge, and that the amount requested accurately reflects the…”
Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Sean C. O'keefe, Acting Sec'y of the Navy, 986 F.2d 486 (Fed. Cir. 1993). · cites it 3× “38323 , 91-2 BCA ¶ 23,904 (March 21, 1991), the ASBCA granted the government's motion to dismiss Ingalls' appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because a proper official had not certified Ingalls' claim to the contracting officer, pursuant to Contract Disputes Act (CDA)…”
CW Gov't Travel, Inc. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 559 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “§ 605 (c)(1); 48 C.F.R. §§ 33.207 (a) and 52.233-1(d)(2)(I); see also Alliant Techsystems, 178 F.”
Shirley Constr. Corp. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 686 (Ct. Cl. 1991). · cites it 9× “Munford, who signed the certification for plaintiff’s claim, was not an appropriate person to certify such claim under 48 C.F.R. § 33.207 (c)(2) (1990). Plaintiff filed its reply and defendant responded.”
Gulf Grp. Gen. Enter. Co. W.l.l., Plaintiff, v. United States, Defendant, 114 Fed. Cl. 258 (Fed. Cl. 2013). · cites it 2× “See 48 C.F.R. § 33.207 (2005). 64 . Saud Al Tawash appears to have erroneously indicated that he signed the Standard Form included in plaintiff's latrine Claim and Settlement Offer in 2004, rather than 2005.”
Tiger Nat. Gas, Inc. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 287 (Fed. Cl. 2004). · cites it 2× “§ 605 (c)(1) or 48 C.F.R. § 33.207 . Its claim was required to be made "in writing” but did not need to be "executed by [a] person duly authorized to bind the contractor with respect to the claim” as required for a certified claim.”
— 48 C.F.R. § 33.207(c)(2) — 1 case
Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. United States, 20 Cl. Ct. 407 (Ct. Cl. 1990). “The relevant statutory provision requires: For claims of more than $50,000, the contractor shall certify that the claim is made in good faith, that the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of his knowledge, and that the amount requested accurately reflects the…”
— 48 C.F.R. § 33.207(c)(2)(i) — 2 cases
Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. United States, 20 Cl. Ct. 407 (Ct. Cl. 1990). “The relevant statutory provision requires: For claims of more than $50,000, the contractor shall certify that the claim is made in good faith, that the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of his knowledge, and that the amount requested accurately reflects the…”
— 48 C.F.R. § 33.207(c)(2)(ii) — 1 case
Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. United States, 20 Cl. Ct. 407 (Ct. Cl. 1990). “The relevant statutory provision requires: For claims of more than $50,000, the contractor shall certify that the claim is made in good faith, that the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of his knowledge, and that the amount requested accurately reflects the…”
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.