Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and amount of a claim and (2) a request for a final decision.” M. Maropakis Carpentry, 609 F.3d 1323, 1328 (Fed.Cir.2010). When a claim seeks more than $100,000, it must be certified in accordance with 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1), but a defective certification may be corrected during the pendency of a suit in this court, id. § 7103(b)(3). “Claim” should be broadly construed. Todd Constr., 656 F.3d at 1311. There is “no requirement in the [CDA] that a ‘claim’ must be submitted in any particular form or use any particular wording.” Contract Cleaning Maint., Inc. v. United States, 811 F.2d 586, 592 (Fed.Cir.1987); see Transamerica Ins. Corp. v. United States, 973 F.2d 1572, 1579 (Fed.Cir.1992), overruled on other grounds by Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the contracting officer effectively made a final decision on the government claim for set off by declining to pay the contractor the balance due on the contract (B) holding that a contractor must provide the contracting officer with adequate notice of the basis and amount of the claim (C) holding that the tucker act gives the united states court of federal claims jurisdiction over cda claims only when a decision of the contracting officer has been issued under section 6 of the cda  (D) holding that submissions qualified as cda claims when the contractor asserted in writing and with sufficient specificity a right to additional compensation and the contractor communicated his desire for a contracting officer decision (E) recognizing that because subcontractor was not a contractor as defined in the cda there was no cda jurisdiction to consider its direct appeal
Output (English): holding that a contractor must provide the contracting officer with adequate notice of the basis and amount of the claim