a contractor may bring an action directly on the claim in the United States Court of Federal Claims, notwithstanding any contract provision, regulation, or rule of law to the contrary. 41 U.S.C. § 609(a)(1) (effective to Jan. 3, 2011). 17 . On January 4, 201!, 41 U.S.C. § 602 was renumbered 41 U.S.C. § 7102. 18 . The Government also argues the court should dismiss Count 1 of the Plaintiffs’ Complaints, because they "did not present sum-certain claims to a contracting officer.’’ Gov’t Mot. at 2. The Contract Disputes Act, however, does not require sum-certain claims. Instead, the sum-certain language appears in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”). The FAR applies to Govern-merit acquisitions, not sales. See Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States, 75 Fed.Cl. 80, 87 (2006) (<HOLDING>). Here, the Government sold electricity. As
holding consent is irrelevant and estoppel does not apply when subject matter jurisdiction is in question holding that the far does not apply when the government is not acquiring but rather is selling a commodity holding the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the actions of the federal government holding that rookerfeldman does not apply when the plaintiffs injury rests not on the state court judgment itself but rather on the alleged violation of his constitutional rights by the defendant holding that the ada does not contain a waiver of sovereign immunity and thus does not apply to the federal government