49 Fed.Cl. at 141. “A contractor’s failure to perform may be excused and a termination for default converted to a termination for the convenience of the government if the contractor can establish that the government materially breached the contract.” Morganti Nat'l, Inc. v. United States, 49 Fed.Cl. at 141. Moreover, a breach of contract defense to a termination for default is not necessarily a CDA claim for breach of contract. See Roxco, Ltd. v. United States, 60 Fed.Cl. 39, 43-44 (2004) (explaining that a contractor may waive its ability to allege breach of contract as an affirmative defense to a termination for default without waiving its ability to submit a CDA claim based on the same breach of contract in the future); but see Armour of Am. v. United States, 69 Fed.Cl. at 590 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, a contractor can appeal a
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 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 holding that courts should consider the merits of the litigants claims the nature of the factual issues the litigants ability to present his claims and the complexity of the legal issues 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 the tucker act gives the united states court of federal claims jurisdiction over cda claims only when a decision of the contracting officer has been issued under section 6 of the cda 