1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |"A Claim By Any Other Name": Jurisdiction Over Certified Supplement to Termination Proposal

"A Claim By Any Other Name": Jurisdiction Over Certified Supplement to Termination Proposal

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.23.21

In Globe Trailer Manufacturing, Inc., ASBCA No. 62594 (Jan. 28, 2021), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (the Board) addressed whether a contractor’s certified supplement to a termination settlement proposal (TSP) constitutes a claim under the Contract Disputes Act. After termination, the contractor submitted a TSP that included costs of constructive changes. During the ensuing TSP negotiations, the contractor provided government counsel with a supplement to the TSP that included supporting documentation, calculations, and a CDA certificate pertaining to the constructive change allegation. The contractor subsequently appealed, as a deemed denial, the TSP and supplement to the Board. The government moved to dismiss, alleging that (1) the TSP had not yet ripened into a valid claim, and (2) the supplement to the TSP was not a valid claim because (a) it was provided to government counsel instead of the contracting officer, and (b) did not make a demand in a single document. 

The Board dismissed the TSP as unripe, since there was insufficient evidence that the parties had reached impasse in TSP negotiations, but it held that the TSP supplement was a valid claim that was properly appealed as a deemed denial. The Board held that the contractor’s supplemental email and attachments met the jurisdictional requirements of a valid claim, and it reaffirmed the rule that submitting a claim to government counsel, instead of the contracting officer, does not invalidate the claim. 

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights