did not assert any untimeliness defense until well after this litigation had already begun. According to TRG, the defense was not raised until D.C. Water’s April 21, 2010 motion for partial summary judgment, over a year after D.C. Water filed its initial answer in this action. We disagree with the Superior Court’s conclusion that the thirty-day window for claims in 21 DCMR § 5346.3 necessarily bars TRG’s recovery on these damages. Instead, we hold that the protection of filing deadlines, like 21 DCMR § 5346.3, can be waived if not timely asserted. In several eases, federal courts charged with interpreting government contracts have reached this same conclusion. See Mega Const. Co. Inc. v. United States, 29 Fed.Cl. 396, 444 (1993); H.H.O. Co. v. United States, 12 Cl.Ct. 147, 160 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Copco Steel & Eng’g Co. v. United States, 169
holding that a contractor must provide the contracting officer with adequate notice of the basis and amount of 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 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 in regards to an untimely claim that the contracting officer may be deemed to have waived untimeliness by considering the claim on the merits 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