at all pending a decision by [OHA] on [Plaintiffs] appeal[.]”) (emphasis added). Accordingly, Plaintiffs concede there was no basis in fact or law for alleging that the May 5, 2009 e-mail was a valid CDA claim. Finally, the CDA requires that, after receiving a claim, the CO “[will] issue [a] decision in writing, and [will] mail or otherwise furnish a copy of the decision to the contractor. The decision [will] state the reasons for the decision reached, and [will] inform the contractor of [the] rights as provided in this chapter.” 41 U.S.C. § 605(a). The United States Court of Federal Claims has held that whether a final decision has been issued depen valid claim, Plaintiffs alleged CDA violation also must be dismissed. England v. The Swanson Group, 353 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed.Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION. For the reasons discussed
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 contracting officer effectively made a final decision on the government claim for set off by declining to pay the contractor the balance due on the contract holding that when the contracting officer modified the contract to name the contractors bank as payee the contracting officers actions demonstrated an express agreement to pay the bank holding that court had jurisdiction over common law counts related to fca claim even though not presented to contracting officer 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