In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 12-539 c
(Fii@d April 26, 2013)
DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE ) Motion to Dismiss for Lacl< of Subject-
SYSTEMS,INC., )Matter Jurisdiction, RCFC 12(b)(1);
Plaintiff, )Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41
v. ) U.S.C. §§ 7101~7109; Burden ofProof
)for Jurisdictional Facts Establishing
THE UNITED STATES, ) Submission of Claim to Contracting
Defendant. ) Officer.
ORDER
This matter comes before the court on defendant’ s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.
6). Defendant contends this court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff’ s Complaint (ECF
No. 1) brought pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. § 7101 etseq.
because plaintiff had not submitted a valid claim to the contracting officer (CO), a
jurisdictional requisite to CDA litigation in this forum. Upon analysis, it is concluded
that proof this jurisdictional requirement was satisfied is lacl