1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |REA or Claim? Substance Over Form

REA or Claim? Substance Over Form

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.31.19

On July 17, 2019, the Federal Circuit addressed when a request for equitable adjustment (REA) constitutes a claim for purposes of CDA jurisdiction. The contractor, Hejran Hejrat Co. (HHL), submitted to the contracting officer (CO) a document entitled “Request for Equitable Adjustment,” with a sworn statement by a director of the company, requesting compensation and that the submission be “treated as a[n] REA.” The CO denied the request through a “Government’s final determination.” The ASBCA held that it lacked jurisdiction because the self-described REA was not a “claim.” The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that “there was a request for a final decision by a [CO] and a final decision by the [CO].” The Court rejected the Government’s arguments, focusing on the substance-over-form analysis: (1) a claim does not need “magic words,” so an REA can be a claim if it satisfies all of the claim requirements, and (2) even though REA did not request a CO’s final decision, the submission was sworn and requested the CO to “provide specific amounts of compensation for each alleged ground.” Thus, the Court held that the REA had the necessary formality to constitute a claim. Contractors must remain vigilant regarding the collateral consequences of these jurisdictional decisions, such as when the contractor’s 90-day appeal deadline begins to run for appealing the CO’s denial of the “REA” (claim) to the Board (or 1-year to COFC). 

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