The Pen is Mightier: Typewritten Signature Invalidates CDA Claim
Client Alert | 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 | 4 min read | 08.20.25
FAR Council Issues Rewrites to FAR Parts 8 and 12
On August 14, 2025, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) issued draft revisions to FAR Part 8 and FAR Part 12 (as well as to FAR Parts 4 and 40). These are the latest rewrites under the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) initiative pursuant to Executive Order 14275, “Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement,” which we previously reported on here.
Client Alert | 15 min read | 08.20.25
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.19.25
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.19.25
Forged Faces, Real Liability: Deepfake Laws Take Effect in Washington State and Pennsylvania