U.S. Code » Title 41 » Subtitle Subtitle III— Contract Disputes › Chapter CHAPTER 71— CONTRACT DISPUTES

41 U.S.C. § 7101

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 41 CasesGoogle Scholar
In this chapter:(1)Administrator.—The term “Administrator” means the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy appointed pursuant to section 1102 of this title.(2)Agency board or agency board of contract appeals.—The term “agency board” or “agency board of contract appeals” means—(A) the Armed Services Board;(B) the Civilian Board;(C) the board of contract appeals of the Tennessee Valley Authority; or(D) the Postal Service Board established under section 7105(d)(1) of this title.(3)Agency head.—The term “agency head” means the head and any assistant head of an executive agency. The term may include the chief official of a principal division of an executive agency if the head of the executive agency so designates that chief official.(4)Armed services board.—The term “Armed Services Board” means the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals established under section 7105(a)(1) of this title.(5)Civilian board.—The term “Civilian Board” means the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals established under section 7105(b)(1) of this title.(6)Contracting officer.—The term “contracting officer”—(A) means an individual who, by appointment in accordance with applicable regulations, has the authority to make and administer contracts and to make determinations and findings with respect to contracts; and(B) includes an authorized representative of the contracting officer, acting within the limits of the representative’s authority.(7)Contractor.—The term “contractor” means a party to a Federal Government contract other than the Federal Government.(8)Executive agency.—The term “executive agency” means—(A) an executive department as defined in section 101 of title 5;(B) a military department as defined in section 102 of title 5;(C) an independent establishment as defined in section 104 of title 5, except that the term does not include the Government Accountability Office; and(D) a wholly owned Government corporation as defined in section 9101(3) of title 31.(9)Misrepresentation of fact.—The term “misrepresentation of fact” means a false statement of substantive fact, or conduct that leads to a belief of a substantive fact material to proper understanding of the matter in hand, made with intent to deceive or mislead.(Pub. L. 111–350, § 3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3816.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised

Section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

7101

41:601.

Pub. L. 95–563, § 2, Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2383; Pub. L. 104–106, div. D, title XLIII, § 4322(b)(5), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 677; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title VIII, § 847(d)(1), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3393.

In paragraph (8)(C), the words “Government Accountability Office” are substituted for “General Accounting Office” because of section 8(b) of the GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–271, 118 Stat. 814, 31 U.S.C. 702 note).

In paragraph (8)(D), the words “section 9101(3) of title 31” are substituted for “section 846 of title 31” because of section 4(b) of Public Law 97–258 (31 U.S.C. note prec. 101).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 237 cases (109 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · leading case: Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 750 (2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 750 (2016). “In 1988, Congress amended the ISDA to apply the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), 41 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq., to disputes arising under the ISDA.”
Rda Constr. Corp. v. United States, 132 Fed. Cl. 732 (Fed. Cl. 2017). · cites it 5× “” 41 U.S.C. § 7101 (9); see also Commercial Contractors, Inc.”
Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States, 728 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “Procedural History KBR brought this suit pursuant to the Contract Dis- putes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7101 , et seq., alleging that the Army had unreasonably withheld money from KBR when it challenged approximately $41 million in costs and markups associated with the Camp Anaconda…”
Ecc Int'l Constructors, LLC v. Sec'y of the Army, 79 F.4th 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “at 876, we consider whether the FAR require- ment to state a sum certain in bringing a claim under the CDA, 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7109, is indeed jurisdictional.”
United Aeronautical Corp. v. Usaf, 80 F.4th 1017 (9th Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “See 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7109. Second, it waives sovereign immunity over actions “arising under” that administrative system and vests exclusive jurisdiction over such claims in only two venues: (1) the Court of Federal Claims, 28 U.”
East Coast Repair v. United States, 16 F.4th 87 (4th Cir. 2021). “The district court based its conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction on Section 7104(b) of the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101 , et seq. That provision states that a contractor “may” — after first raising a claim with the designated “contracting officer” —…”
Gennadiy Nekrilov v. City of Jersey City, 45 F.4th 662 (3rd Cir. 2022). “, 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–09. Plus, the Contracts Clause prevents states from “impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”
The Boeing Co. v. United States, 968 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “The CAS statute expressly provides that judicial reso- lution of disputes over “contract price adjustment[s]” shall take place under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–09. 41 U.S.C. § 1502 (a).”
The Minesen Co. v. McHugh, 671 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “First, according to the Fund, the decision of the ASBCA was not rendered under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”), 41 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq., such that the Fed- eral Circuit lacks statutory jurisdiction over this case.”
Sharp Elec. Corp. v. Army, 707 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “Under the CDA, codified at 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101– 7109, and its implementing regulations, the FAR, a contractor’s claim must be submitted in writing to the appropriate federal CO for a final decision.”
Commonwealth of Ky. v. Joseph R. Biden, 57 F.4th 545 (6th Cir. 2023). “In a single footnote, the government counters that, at least for damages attributable to modifications of existing contracts, the plaintiffs could obtain monetary relief under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq. Even if that were true, the loss of new or renewed…”
Atterbury v. United States Marshals Serv., 805 F.3d 398 (2d Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “The defendants urge us to affirm the district court on the grounds that the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (“CDA”), 41 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq., affords Atterbury an alternative process for protecting his rights that precludes the recognition of a Bivens claim at the first step of…”
Show all 237 citing cases →
— 41 U.S.C. § 7101(9) — 1 case
Grand Acadian, Inc. v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 447 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
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.