Contract Claims 101: REAs vs. Claims vs. Appeals

What is a contract claim? How do I handle an issue with the government’s administration of my contract? Who do I contact when a project falls behind schedule, but it wasn’t my fault? These are common and critical questions that come up for government contractors—especially over the past year, in light of the Trump Administration’s sweeping changes to the federal acquisition landscape, an unprecedented federal government shutdown, and uncertainty surrounding award funding.

In the coming months, PilieroMazza’s REAs, Claims, and Appeals Group will publish a series of blogs entitled “Contract Claims 101” to help educate businesses on the ins-and-outs of equitable adjustments, claims, and appeals in the federal contracting space. Contractors will learn the claims and appeals processes, tools to prevent disputes from spiraling into costly litigation, and tips to maximize recovery. In this first blog, we introduce federal contractors to the basics of a request for equitable adjustment (REA), claim, and appeal, as well as procedural options.

Background

When faced with government-imposed costs, changes, or delays to a contract, federal contractors should consider submitting an REA and/or a claim under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) to recover lost time and/or money. Your first step in contemplating an REA or claim should be to engage legal counsel, as they will be best suited to determine the right approach for your scenario. There may be risks your counsel can identify at the outset in order to ultimately help you mitigate or avoid the same, additional damages you should seek that you may not have considered, or legal arguments you may inadvertently waive because you were not aware of them. The government is preparing for litigation the minute you submit your REA or claim, so you should be too. To make the most of your first call with counsel, it is helpful to understand the purpose, pros, and cons of each contract dispute method:

1. Requests for Equitable Adjustment

A request for equitable adjustment is exactly what it sounds like—a contractor’s request for an adjustment (in the form of time, payment, or terms) to a contract to remedy a loss incurred due to unforeseen or unintended circumstances outside of the contractor’s control. For instance, a contractor may seek an REA following a government-issued modification of the contract, or government-caused delay impacting contract performance.

The process for submitting an REA is largely informal, especially when compared to the claims submission process. Put simply, an REA is a written demand that must reflect the equitable adjustment sought under one or more contract terms and explain how the adjustment is due to the government’s actions. Once prepared, the REA may be submitted directly to the contracting officer, who will either make a decision denying (or partially denying) the request, or commence negotiations with the contractor to pay or resolve the request. The REA process is not yet adversarial between a contractor and the government. It is meant to be a negotiation process that gets both parties to a reasonable result. To that end, it is well-established that attorney’s fees in preparing an REA can be recoverable. The government may request that a contractor remove these fees during the REA negotiation process, but we recommend including them at the outset.

As for timing, REAs can generally be submitted at any time during contract performance. The two exceptions are:

1. where the statute of limitations for a claim (six years, as described in the following section) is close, in which case a contractor may be prudent to skip an REA and go straight to submitting a claim, and
2. where the contract contains language dictating a deadline for submission. For example, if a contract includes FAR 52.243-4, Changes, and the contracting officer issues a change order, then the contractor has 30 days from receipt of the change order to assert its right to an REA. If an REA is denied, the REA may be revised and resubmitted in a continued attempt to recover time and/or costs informally. However, the contracting officer is not required to respond by any specific deadline, which may hinder a contractor’s timely recovery.

2. Claims

Instead of an REA, or after the government denies or partially-denies an REA, a contractor may opt to submit a claim pursuant to the CDA. A claim is a more formal path to recover time and/or costs following government-caused contract changes, with additional requirements and processes as compared to an REA. A CDA claim has a few basic requirements:

1. it must be in writing,
2. it must request a written decision from the contracting officer,
3. it must explain the nexus between the change and the specific requested relief,
4. it must be submitted within six years of accrual, and
5. if the claim exceeds $100,000, it must be certified.

The six-year statute of limitations provides contractors with more time to determine whether to submit a claim—even where a contractor already submitted an REA, it can decide to convert its REA into a CDA claim later on, so long as it is within the applicable six-year period.

Under the CDA, a contracting officer has 60 days from receipt of a claim to issue a contracting officer’s final decision (COFD). If a contracting officer fails to issue a timely COFD, it may be considered a “deemed denial,” paving the way for the contractor to initiate the appeal process. However, contracting officers are permitted to (and often do) request extensions beyond the 60-day mark where they can show that additional time is reasonably necessary.

Due to recent executive orders and administrative changes, there was an influx in contract administration disputes, naturally resulting in an increase in contractors seeking compensation and/or changes to their contracts. Submitting a formal CDA claim as early as possible is generally advisable, as it allows contractors to clearly document their concerns and preserve claims for additional payment or time.

3. Appeals

Whether in the form of a deemed denial or a written decision, a COFD opens the door for a contractor to appeal its claim if it does not agree with the government’s decision. There are two primary venues for a COFD appeal: (a) the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) or (b) one of the primary Boards of Contract Appeals (Boards). While a contractor is free to appeal to either COFC or the Boards, once a contractor chooses a forum for appeal, it may not change forums.

A contractor must notice its appeal to COFC within one year of receiving its COFD. However, more commonly, a contractor will appeal its COFD to either the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) or the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), depending on its government customer. A contractor has 90 days from the date it receives its COFD to appeal to one of the Boards. While the timeline to appeal to the Boards is significantly shorter than that at COFC, this is largely because the Boards aim to move faster than traditional federal courts and have emphasized its goal is to mitigate the great costs and timeline associated with federal court litigation. The procedures at the Boards may be especially beneficial for contractors seeking a lower cost and less adversarial forum for appeal. For more information about the Boards, please reference our webinar and blog series about Board appeals.

In December 2025, PilieroMazza attorneys posted a blog breaking down the annual reports published by CBCA and ASBCA, recapping critical contract dispute trends that each forum saw in Fiscal Year 2025. In sum, both CBCA and ASBCA are seeing an increase in cases docketed, indicating that contractors are increasingly interested in challenging their COFDs and attempting to recover at the Boards. As noted in the blog, outcomes at both CBCA and ASBCA rely heavily on claim quality, strategy, and execution—so contractors are advised to consult with an attorney to discuss appeal options and preparations.

Our next blog in this series will examine common legal theories used in REAs, claims, and appeals, which will equip contractors with an understanding of how to build a strong argument to support their request for recovery. Should you have questions regarding REAs, claims, appeals, or any other government contract dispute, please contact Lauren Brier,  Kelly Kirchgasser, Abigail “Abby” Finan, Josie Farinelli, or another member of PilieroMazza’s REAs, Claims, and Appeals or Government Contracts practice groups.