THIS OPINION WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER SEAL AND IS BEING
PUBLICLY RELEASED IN REDACTED FORM ON APRIL 16, 2021
MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED: March 17, 2021
CBCA 6895
WIDESCOPE CONSULTING AND CONTRACTING SERVICES,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
George E. Stewart and Hal J. Perloff of Husch Blackwell LLP, Washington, DC,
counsel for Appellant.
Tami S. Hagberg and Terrius D. Greene, Office of the General Counsel, Department
of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Judges KULLBERG, SULLIVAN (presiding), and O’ROURKE.
Opinion for the Board by Board Judge O’ROURKE. Board Judge SULLIVAN concurs.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) executed a contract with
Widescope Consulting and Contracting Services (Widescope) to provide project
management support to the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). After the contract
ended, Widescope filed a claim under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–
7109 (2018), seeking payment of its last two invoices on the contract. Widescope appealed
to the Board the asserted deemed denial of that claim.


REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 6895 2
HHS has moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on two bases. One, HHS
argues that, because Widescope filed its appeal before the date established for the issuance
of the final decision, Widescope’s claim is premature. Two, the contracting officer
concluded that Widescope was “unable to support aspects” of its claim and that inability was
evidence of “misrepresentation of fact or fraud on the part of” Widescope. Because of this
suspected fraud, the contracting officer determined that he had no authority to issue a
decision. Without a contracting officer’s decision on its claim, HHS asserts that the Board
lacks jurisdiction over Widescope’s appeal. Because there are factual differences between
this appeal and a prior Board decision upon which HHS relies, we deny HHS’s motion.
Background
I. Contract Terms and Final Invoices
In August 2018, HHS executed a contract with Widescope to provide subject matter
expertise and project management support for a project for DISA. Appellant’s Opposition
to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit A at 1-2. The contract term was for one year,
with the option for a second year. Id. Widescope was to be paid a firm-fixed price of $1.2
million for work in accordance with the technical requirements of the performance of work
statement. Id. at 3.
In July 2019, HHS notified Widescope that the option year would not be exercised on
the contract. Appellant’s Brief, Exhibit C, ¶ 6. Following this notice, Widescope submitted
two invoices to HHS, one dated July 1, 2019, and the other dated July 29, 2019, both in the
amount of $269,885.58. Id., Exhibit I.
II. Claim Submission
By letter dated June 5, 2020, Widescope submitted a claim seeking payment of its two
invoices, in an amount totaling $539,771.16. Notice of Appeal, Claim at 1-2. In addition,
Widescope sought Prompt Payment Act interest in the amount of $10,400.06. Id.
Widescope provided the required certification of its claim. Id.
In an email dated July 23, 2020, counsel for HHS acknowledged receipt of the claim
and advised that the contracting officer would issue a decision by August 4 (sixty days from
receipt of the claim) or provide a date by which a decision would be issued. Appellant’s
Brief, Exhibit M. In a subsequent email dated August 4, 2020, counsel advised that the
contracting officer would issue a decision “no later than September 18, 2020.”Id. Counsel
noted that the contracting organization “has been working to substantiate the receipt and
acceptance of goods and services associated” with the contract.Id. Counsel recited the

REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 6895 3
security requirements of the contract and requested, on behalf of the contracting organization,
that “Widescope submit additional documentation to support its claim.”Id. Widescope
provided additional documents in response to this request on August 7 and 10. Respondent’s
Brief, Exhibit 3 at 5-8.
On August 7, 2020, Widescope filed its appeal with the Board, noting that the
contracting officer had not issued a decision on its claim and that Widescope considered its
claim to be deemed denied. Notice of Appeal.
III. Contracting Officer’s Determination and HHS’ Motion
The contracting officer reviewed the claim and other material submitted by
Widescope and concluded that there was a misrepresentation of fact or fraud on the claim.
Respondent’s Motion, Exhibit 1, ¶ 20. Having reached this conclusion, the contracting
officer determined that he was “without authority to decide the claim and that the claim
therefore must be Id.
¶ 21. The contracting officer, thereafter, on
September 10, 2020, notified Widescope that “a decision would not be forthcoming on its
claim Id. ¶¶ 22, 23. HHS filed its motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on September 14, 2020.
In its reply brief, HHS advises that, on October 19, 2020, the
 Respondent’s Reply Brief at 4 n.1. On October 21, 2020,
Appellant’s Sur-Reply Brief at 2-3.
 the contracting officer, as the
designee for the Assistant Secretary for Administration, notified Widescope on October 22,
2020, that he “lacks the authority to act on Widescope’s claim in accordance with FAR
33.210(b) for the same reasons stated in his September 10 referral notice.”Id. In light of the
contracting officer’s determination, no decision was issued on Widescope’s claim.


REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 6895 4
In its motion, HHS maintains that the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal
because the contracting officer did not issue a final decision on Widescope’s claim. HHS
argues that without a contracting officer’s final decision, Widescope’s claim is premature and
fails to meet the CDA’s requirements for a finding of jurisdiction.
Discussion
I. Widescope’s Appeal is not Premature
When provided with a claim for more than $100,000, the contracting officer has sixty
days to issue a decision or notify the contractor when a decision will be issued. 41 U.S.C.
§ 7103(f)(2). An appeal filed before the date the contracting officer’s decision is due is
premature and the Board will dismiss it on this basis, particularly if the time for the
contracting officer to issue the decision has not run.Primestar Construction v. Department
of Homeland Security, CBCA 5510, 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,612 (2016). However, “a premature
appeal to the Board can ripen into maturity if the premature appeal is still pending when the
contracting officer actually issues a decision or when the contracting officer’s deadline for
issuing the decision expires.”Id. (citing TRW, Inc ., ASBCA 51172, et al., 99-2 BCA
¶ 30,407. Such a circumstance occurs when, as here, the contracting officer has announced
that he will not issue a decision. TRW, Inc. In this circumstance, “no useful purpose would
be served by dismissing the appeal as premature and requiring appellant to refile.”R.W.
Electronics Corp., ASBCA 46592, et al., 95-1 BCA ¶ 27,327 (1994).
Widescope filed its appeal prior to the date that the contracting officer set to issue the
decision on Widescope’s claim. But, when the agency extended the deadline for its decision
by another forty-five days, sixty days from the date of Widescope’s claim submission had
already elapsed. Subsequently, the contracting officer stated twice that no decision would
be issued. Because no useful purpose would be served by dismissing the appeal as premature
given the contracting officer twice stated refusal to issue a decision, we do not dismiss
Widescope’s appeal as premature.
II. The Contracting Officer had Authority to Issue a Decision
“[A] final decision by a [contracting officer] on a ‘claim’ is a prerequisite for Board
jurisdiction.”Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc). The
contracting officer’s decision can be either an actual decision or “deemed denial” of the
claim. 41 U.S.C. § 7103(f). If the contracting officer lacks authority to issue a decision, the
contracting officer’s decision cannot confer jurisdiction on the Board.Case, Inc. v. United
States, 88 F.3d 1004, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Moreover, “when a contracting officer lacks

REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 6895 5
authority to issue a final decision on a claim, there cannot be a valid deemed denial of the
claim so as to confer CDA jurisdiction.”Id.
The contracting officer asserted that he lacked authority to issue a decision pursuant
to 48 CFR 33.210(b) (2020) (FAR 33.210(b)). FAR 33.210 provides the contracting officer
with authority “to decide or resolve all claims arising under or relating to a contract subject
to the [CDA].” However, that “authority to decide or resolve claims does not extend to—
(a) A claim or dispute for penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or
regulation that another Federal agency is specifically authorized to administer,
settle, or determine; or,
(b) The settlement, compromise, payment or adjustment of any claim
involving fraud.
FAR 33.210. HHS relies upon our decision in Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC v.
Department of Energy, CBCA 5287, 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,749, in which we interpreted this FAR
provision to eliminate the authority of the contracting officer to issue a decision on a claim
involving fraud. The Board held, “[a] contracting officer’s final decision denying a claim
based on suspected fraud is not valid, as the contracting officer lacks the authority to decide
a claim when fraud is suspected.”Id. Based upon this lack of authority, the Board found
that it lacked jurisdiction over the deemed denial of a claim.
This case is factually distinguishable from our decision in Savannah River. In that
case, at the time the jurisdictional motion was presented, the Department of Justice (DOJ)
had already filed a fraud action in district court. Here,
 The contracting officer, as expressed in his letter of
September 10th, and reiterated in his October 22nd, letter, has only a suspicion of fraud on
the claim. Under the circumstances here, mere suspicion is insufficient to defeat a finding
of jurisdiction. See ESA South, Inc., ASBCA 62242, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,647 (rejecting agency’s
claim that contracting officer’s suspicion of fraud could divest the Board of jurisdiction
(citing Todd Shipyards Corp., ASBCA 31092, 88-1 BCA ¶ 20,509, and PROTEC GmbH,
ASBCA 61161, et al., 18-1 BCA ¶ 37,010)).
For these reasons, we find that the contracting officer has not been divested of the
authority to issue a decision on the claim, and because he could have decided it, the appeal
is properly before us on the basis of a deemed denial.


REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 6895 6
Decision
HHS’s motion isDENIED.
Kathleen J. O’Rourke
KATHLEEN J. O’ROURKE
Board Judge
I concur:
H. Chuck Kullberg
H. CHUCK KULLBERG
Board Judge
SULLIVAN, Board Judge, concurring.
I concur in the result. Because I find that the Board’s prior decision inSavannah
River is controlling but incorrectly decided, I write separately.
The facts of Savannah River do not provide a basis for distinguishing that decision
from the present appeal. 1 The contractor submitted a claim, seeking a decision on the
allowability of costs that had been withheld based upon a specific provision of the contract.
Prior to submission of the claim, the Department of Justice (DOJ) notified the contractor that
a False Claims Act suit would be filed and, after the claim was submitted, filed that suit. In
a letter, the contracting officer notified the contractor that the costs that were the subject of
its claim were referred to the agency’s inspector general and DOJ, pursuant to FAR 33.209,
“because our office suspected the costs were fraudulent.” Then, citing FAR 33.210(b), the
contracting officer stated, “I have no authority to take action on the above claim.” The
contractor appealed to the Board on the basis that its claim had been “deemed denied.”
Respondent, the Department of Energy, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction,
1 The distinguishing facts identified in the panel opinion would factor into the
Board’s consideration of a motion to stay the appeal pending a fraud investigation.See, e.g.,
TDC Management Corp., DOT CAB 1802, 88-1 BCA ¶ 20,242 (1987).

REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 6895 7
asserting that there had been no contracting officer decision or deemed denial, thereby
depriving the Board of jurisdiction over the appeal.
The Board determined that “[a] contracting officer’s final decision denying a claim
based on suspected fraud is not valid, as the contracting officer lacks the authority to decide
a claim when fraud is suspected.” We further held that “the contracting officer complied
with the regulation and did not issue a final decision, as he did not have the authority to issue
a final decision. Instead, as required by regulation, he referred it [to] the agency official
responsible for investigating the fraud.” Relying uponCase, Inc. v. United States, 88 F.3d
1004, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1996), and a series of cases involving 28 U.S.C. § 516, the Board also
determined that the decision could not be deemed denied because the contracting officer was
“divested of authority to issue a final decision.” Without a decision or a deemed denial, the
Board determined it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
This holding—that a contracting officer lacks authority pursuant to FAR 33.210(b)
to issue a decision on a claim involving fraud—is incorrect based upon the requirements of
the CDA. While the scope of a contracting officer’s authority is limited on claims involving
fraud, it is incorrect to hold that the contracting officer can take no action, thereby allowing
claims to stall for an indeterminate period with no action before the agency.
Requirements of the CDA
A contracting officer is required to issue a written decision on a claim submitted by
a contractor. 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(3), (d). In the decision, the contracting officer “shall state
the reasons for the decision reached” and inform the contractor of its appeal rights.Id.
§ 7103(e). The contracting officer is not required to make specific findings of fact. Id. For
claims for amounts greater than $100,000, the contracting officer shall, within sixty days of
receipt, issue a decision or notify the contractor when a decision will be issued. Id.
§ 7103(f)(2). If the contracting officer fails to issue the decision within the required time
period, it will be “deemed the decision by the contracting officer denying the claim” and the
contractor may proceed to appeal the decision. Id. § 7103(f)(5).
The CDA contains four limits on the requirement that the contracting officer issue a
decision when the claim involves fraud, three of which are relevant to this analysis.2 First,
the requirement that the contracting officer issue a decision does not apply to “a claim or
dispute for penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation that another Federal
2 The fourth limitation is the requirement that claims be submitted within six
years of accrual does not apply to a “claim by the Federal Government against a contractor
that is based on a claim by the contractor involving fraud.” 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(4)(B).

REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 6895 8
agency is specifically authorized to administer, settle, or determine.” 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(5).
This limitation is for claims that arise pursuant to statutes such as the False Claims Act,
which DOJ has sole authority to administer. Second, if it is determined that the contractor’s
claim is based upon misrepresentations of fact or fraud, the Federal Government may recover
the amounts determined to be unsupported. Id. § 7103(c)(2). DOJ is charged with bringing
claims based upon this provision. Martin J. Simko Construction, Inc. v. United States, 852
F.2d 540, 545 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Third, and most relevant, the requirement to issue a decision
does not authorize an agency head to “settle, compromise, pay, or otherwise adjust any claim
involving fraud.”Id. § 7103(c)(1). An agency head is different from the contracting officer.
Joseph Morton Co. v. United States, 757 F.2d 1273, 1280-81 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
None of these provisions eliminates the obligation of the contracting officer to issue
a decision on a claim, even if it involves fraud. Pursuant to § 7103(c)(1), the limitations on
an agency head to not “settle, compromise, pay, or otherwise adjust a claim involving fraud,”
do not include “decide” or “deny.”See Hardrives, Inc. , IBCA 2511, et al., 91-2 BCA
¶ 23,769 (“such denials of contractor’s claims do not constitute settling, compromising,
paying, or otherwise adjusting any claim involving fraud”);see also International Oil
Trading Co., ASBCA 57491, et al., 13 BCA ¶ 35,393 (distinction between actions to settle,
compromise, pay, or otherwise adjust a claim and a decision denying a claim). Moreover,
Congress did not include “decide” and “deny” in this list, although those terms are used in
other parts of the same provision. Based upon this absence, we may conclude that Congress
did not intend that the agency was to be precluded from denying a claim or issuing a
decision, although that decision may simply be a denial. See Joseph Morton Co., 757 F.2d
at 1280-81 (use of different terms within the provisions of the CDA indicates that the terms
have different meanings). If Congress, in drafting this provision, wanted to preclude all
action by an agency or a contracting officer once the agency suspected fraud on a claim, it
simply could have said so in the statute. See Hardrives (noting that the CDA does not
eliminate the jurisdiction of the boards of contract appeals when a claim involves fraud). The
CDA does not contain such a limitation.
The analysis of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit inBath Iron
Works Corp. v. United States, 20 F.3d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1994), is instructive. In that case, the
agency was precluded from granting the claim based upon a statutory provision that barred
the payment of any claim that arose more than eighteen months before it was submitted.Id.
at 1571. The Government asserted on appeal that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, arguing
that, because the contracting officer could not grant the relief requested due to statutory
limitations, the contracting officer could not issue a decision.Id. at 1578. The Court rejected
the argument:

REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 6895 9
The fact that the [contracting officer] was statutorily required to deny the
untimely claim does not mean that the [contracting officer] did not make a
decision. It merely means he made a negative decision denying the claim. We
note that the government cites no authority whatsoever supporting its assertion
that in order to constitute a “decision” under the CDA, the [contracting officer]
must have authority to grant a claim.
Id. at 1579. The Court drew a distinction between the statutory limitation at issue and
28 U.S.C. §§ 516–520, which gives DOJ exclusive authority over a matter once a claim is
in litigation and eliminates the contracting officer’s authority to issue a decision.Id. “No
analogous statutory provision in this case which divests the [contracting officer] of authority
to decide the claim merely because he may be statutorily required to deny it. . . . The fact that
the [contracting officer] may have been required by [statute] to deny the claim does not mean
that he did not decide it.”Id. This analysis applies in this case. Although a contracting
officer may not be able to grant or otherwise settle a claim involving fraud, the CDA does
not eliminate the contracting officer’s obligation to issue a decision.
Requirements of FAR 33.210
Turning to the regulation at issue, FAR 33.210 provides the contracting officer with
authority “to decide or resolve all claims arising under or relating to a contract subject to the
[CDA].” However, that authority does not extend to—
(a) A claim or dispute for penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or
regulation that another Federal agency is specifically authorized to administer,
settle, or determine; or,
(b) The settlement, compromise, payment or adjustment of any claim
involving fraud.
FAR 33.210. Paragraph b was promulgated in its current form in 1986, “to emphasize the
limitations on the contracting officer’s authority in the settlement of claims involving fraud.”
51 Fed. Reg. 36970, 36972 (Oct. 16, 1986).3
The phrases “authority to decide” and “any claim involving fraud” do suggest a
prohibition on issuing any decision. However, such a limitation would conflict with the
3 The original version of FAR 33.210(b) promulgated in the initial version of the
FAR read: “A claim involving fraud.” 48 Fed. Reg. 42102, 42350 (Sept. 19, 1983).

REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 6895 10
CDA requirement that a contracting officer issue a decision on all claims submitted. In the
face of such a conflict, the FAR provision cannot stand.See Burnside-Ott Aviation Training
Center v. Dalton, 107 F.3d 854, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1997);Rig Masters, Inc. v. United States, 42
Fed. Cl. 369, 372-73 (1998). Alternatively, the FAR clause can be read narrowly to
eliminate a contracting officer’s ability to issue a decision that does anything more than deny
a claim involving fraud (i.e., settles, compromises, pays, or otherwise adjusts a claim). Such
an interpretation reconciles the FAR clause with the CDA requirement that the contracting
officer issue a decision on a properly presented claim.
In addition to creating a conflict between the CDA and the FAR, the reasoning in
Savannah River creates the possibility that a contracting officer will never act upon a claim,
an untenable result, given the administrative review mechanism of the CDA. If a contracting
officer suspects fraud, he or she is required to refer the matter to DOJ or investigative
authorities within the agency, as was done by the contracting officers in both this case and
Savannah River. FAR 33.209. But, what happens if that investigation never proceeds or, as
happened in this case, the investigative body within the agency sends the matter back to the
contracting organization? Under the rationale in Savannah River, the contracting officer
remains unable to issue a decision because the contracting officer still suspects that the claim
involves fraud. Nothing in the CDA suggests that Congress intended such a result.
Cases relied upon in Savannah River
In deciding Savannah River, we relied upon Court of Federal Claims decisions that
do not support our holding. Medina Construction, Ltd. v. United States , 43 Fed. Cl. 537
(1999), involves a strange procedural history and is properly limited to its facts. As for
Newtech Research Systems LLC v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 193 (2011), we relied upon a
portion of the decision that is dicta. In Newtech, the court found that FAR 33.210 did not
apply to the facts presented.
Jurisdiction of the boards of contract appeals to decide appeals of claims involving fraud
The presence of suspected fraud in a claim does not deprive the Board of jurisdiction
to hear an appeal. See, e.g., Fidelity Construction Co., DOT CAB 1113, et al., 80-2 BCA
¶ 14,819. Instead, the boards have found jurisdiction to decide the non-fraud aspects of
claims presented while the fraud claims were decided by another tribunal:
The resolution of rights under the contract and the determination of whether
or not fraud exists in the preparation of the claim for equitable adjustment are
two different matters, vested by law in different tribunals, and with ample
safeguards to preclude any unjust enrichment by a contractor.

REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 6895 11
Id. This approach is rooted in the legislative history of the CDA, which described dual tracks
for such claims—fraud claims would be decided in a court of competent jurisdiction, while
the non-fraud aspects of the claims would proceed before the boards:
If such [fraud] cases do arise and are thus handled in the courts, other parts of
the claim not associated with possible fraud or misrepresentation of fact will
continue on in the agency board or in the Court of Claims where the claim
originated.
S. Rep. No. 95-1118, at 20 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5235, 5254. It simply
does not make sense that the boards would have jurisdiction to consider appeals on claims
involving fraud if the contracting officer is without authority to decide the claims underlying
those appeals, the predicate for the Board’s jurisdiction.
Based upon this analysis, I would hold that the Board has jurisdiction on the basis of
a deemed denial of Widescope’s claim. The contracting officer had an obligation to issue
a decision on the claim, despite the suspicion that it involved fraud, and the contracting
officer had the authority to deny the claim.
Marian E. Sullivan
MARIAN E. SULLIVAN
Board Judge