The Pen is Mightier: Typewritten Signature Invalidates CDA Claim
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 01.05.17
In ABS Development Corp. (ASBCA Nov. 17, 2016), the Board dismissed for lack of jurisdiction certain contractor claims that had been “certified” by means of typewritten names in signature-font (rather than the acceptable handwritten or e-signatures) because a typewritten name “cannot be authenticated, and, therefore, is not a signature.” Because the CDA’s purpose is to bind contractors by means of a signed certificate that “cannot be easily disavowed by the purported author,” the Board held that typed signatures were jurisdictionally inadequate and could not be cured (via a substitute signature), a reminder to contractors that a critical element of litigating CDA claims is adherence to statutory requirements as well as the Board’s rules.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.10.26
In Appeal of Bahadir (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied the government’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, ruling in favor of the contractor on both key issues raised by the government. The case arises from a contract for construction work at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, under which Appellant alleged government-caused delay and filed certified prolongation claims using a “windows analysis” methodology. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that Appellant failed to state a sum certain for each of what the government characterized as 38 distinct claims, and separately that four claims had not been properly presented to the Contracting Officer.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.10.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.26
Missouri AG Sues Kansas City Over Race- and Sex-Based Contracting Program
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.06.26
