on the nature of the communication between the CO and the contractor. Am. Red Ball Int., Inc. v. United States, 79 Fed.Cl. 474, 480 (2007). In this case, Plaintiff argues that the CO’s May 8, 2009 decision to terminate the January 25, 2009 Contract was a final decision of Plaintiffs May 5, 2009 CDA claim. PL Resp. at 21. Neither party, however, provided the CO’s termination letter to the court for review. Consequently, the court cannot determine if that letter may serve as a final decision under the CDA. In any event, Plaintiffs claim for lost profits, damages, and other fees alleged to be due, because of the alleged bad faith termination, is a separate and distinct claim from the Government’s termination for convenience. Armour of Am. v. United States, 69 Fed.Cl. 587, 590, 591 (2006) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, because Plaintiff failed to file
holding that jurisdiction over an appeal of a contracting officers decision is lacking unless the contractors claim is first presented to the contracting officer and that officer renders a final decision on the claim  holding that jurisdiction over an appeal of a contracting officers decision is lacking unless the contractors claim is first presented to the contracting officer and that officer renders a final decision on the claim holding that the united states court of federal claims does not have jurisdiction over a new claim or a claim of different scope that was not previously presented and certified to the contracting officer for decision holding that court had jurisdiction over common law counts related to fca claim even though not presented to contracting officer holding that when breach of contract claims present different factual and legal issues than a claim for improper default termination those claims must be separately presented and certified to a contracting officer under the cda