Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): a declaratory judgment that GSA’s additional tenant improvements in excess of the Tenant Improvement Allowance of $10,820,800: (1) was a breach of the September 2, 2005 Lease generally; and (2) constituted a cardinal change of the September 2, 2005 Lease that Plaintiff is not obligated to perform. Compl. ¶¶ 55-62. In 1992, the Tucker Act was amended to clarify that the United States Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction extended to “judgment upon any claim by or against ... a contractor arising under section 10(a)(1) of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, including ... other nonmonetary disputes on which a decision of the contracting officer has been issued under section 6 of [the CDA].” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2); see also Garrett v. General Elec. Co., 987 F.2d 747, 750-51 (Fed.Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, although the court has 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that this amendment provided the united states court of federal claims with jurisdiction over a nonmonetary substitute for monetary relief (B) holding that the tucker act grants the united states court of federal claims jurisdiction to grant nonmonetary relief in connection with contractor claims including claims requesting an interpretation of contract terms (C) holding that because it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the united states court of international trade the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over a matter that was protested or protestable (D) holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute (E) holding that the united states court of federal claims lacks jurisdiction over claims sounding in tort including fraud
Output (English): holding that because it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the united states court of international trade the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over a matter that was protested or protestable