Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) stated in Dawco Construction, Inc. v. United States, the CDA “simply identifies the person to whom the dispute is to be ‘submitted’ for a final decision” and that, “once a claim is made, the parties must ‘commit’ the claim to the contracting officer and ‘yield’ to his authority to make a final decision.” 930 F.2d 872, 880 (Fed.Cir.1991) (emphasis added), overruled in part on other grounds by Reflectone, Inc., 60 F.3d at 1579. With these principles in mind, the court addresses whether Kemron submitted a “claim” to the contracting officer such that it satisfied the jurisdictional prerequisites to asserting a CDA claim for nonmonetary relief. Record Steel & Constr., Inc. v. United States, 62 Fed.Cl. 508, 520 (2004) (<HOLDING>); see also Todd Constr., L.P., 85 Fed.Cl. at 42 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the statute incorporated all the rights and obligations of the contract emphasis added (B) holding that an application is  pending from the time it is first filed  emphasis added (C) holding that a federal court has jurisdiction over the question of whether truck was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the accident emphasis added (D) holding that a litigant did not waive a claim because it was the appellee in the intermediate appellate court emphasis added (E) holding that the court possesses jurisdiction to review contractor performance evaluations if the pertinent requirements of the cda are met  emphasis added
Output (English): holding that a litigant did not waive a claim because it was the appellee in the intermediate appellate court emphasis added