1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Curing Claim Certification Defects No Longer Limited to Technical Defects

Curing Claim Certification Defects No Longer Limited to Technical Defects

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.08.20

In DAI Global, LLC, FKA Development Alternatives, Inc. v. U.S. (Dec. 27, 2019), the Federal Circuit reversed the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals’s dismissal of five defectively-certified claims for lack of jurisdiction. The Board had dismissed the claims because their certification bore no resemblance to the required statutory language, thereby rendering the claims unsalvageable. On appeal, the Federal Circuit focused on the plain language of the Contract Disputes Act in holding “that § 7103(b)(3) does not limit [certification] defects to those that are technical in nature nor does it limit a contractor’s right to correct a defect if the initial certification was made with ‘intentional, reckless, or negligent disregard for the applicable certification requirements.’” Although contractors should continue to be diligent in properly certifying their claims when appropriate, this decision eliminates the distinction between defective and technically-defective certifications for the purpose of perfecting jurisdiction.

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.15.26

GAO Indicates Reasonable Conflict of Interest Investigation Must Include Inquiry of Involved Firm

The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent decision in Viderity Inc.—Costs, B-424422.5, Sept. 1, 2026, offers useful insight into what constitutes a legally sufficient conflict of interest investigation. The decision arose in an unusual procedural posture: Viderity initially protested, alleging that an agency evaluator had a personal conflict of interest. After the agency took corrective action, Viderity filed a cost entitlement claim requesting that GAO direct the agency to reimburse Viderity’s protest costs. In evaluating that claim, GAO assessed whether Viderity’s underlying protest ground was “clearly meritorious.”...