order that Plaintiff make substantial additional tenant improvements. Id. at 25. The CDA does not require a plaintiff to wait until it has suffered quantifiable monetary damages before initiating a nonmonetary suit. Id. (citing Todd Constr., L.P. v. United States, 85 Fed.Cl. 34, 41 (2008)). Therefore, this ease is ripe for declaratory relief, as “it involves a live dispute involving a fundamental question of contract interpretation regarding the [Plaintiffs] obligation to perform.” PI. Opp. at 26. In fact, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has recognized that a declaratory judgment is “particularly appropriate” when a contractor is objecting to whether it is obligated to perform. Alliant Techsystems, Inc. v. United States, 178 F.3d 1260, 1271-72 (Fed.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, declaratory relief is appropriate
holding that the united states court of federal claims did not abuse its discretion by entering declaratory relief where the plaintiff asserted that it had no contractual obligations to perform at all holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling whether to proceed with a declaratory judgment action holding when constitutional claims are premised on the notion that the united states has some contractual obligation to the plaintiff that it has failed to satisfy the claims are contractually based and must be heard in the court of federal claims holding that a district court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs statelaw claims after dismissing the plaintiffs federal claims and did not abuse its discretion by declining to remand the case to state court holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute