Section 605(a) ... empowers contracting agencies to settle and pay, and administrative forums to decide, all claims or disputes arising under or growing out of or in connection with the administration or performance of contracts entered into by the United States excluding cases of fraud.” S.Rep. No. 95-1118, at 19, reprinted in, 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5235 at 5242, 5253; see also Martin J. Simko Construction, Inc. v. United States, 852 F.2d 540 (Fed.Cir.1988) (concluding, after an exhaustive review of the legislative history of the CDA, that “[a]t no time did Congress ever intend to include fraud claims in section 605(a)”). This conclusion is in agreement with the reported opinions addressing this point. See United States ex rel. Mayman v. Martin Marietta Corp., 894 F.Supp. 218 (D.Md.1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Rockwell International
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  recognizing appellate court jurisdiction over questions of law when objections were not presented below 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 court had jurisdiction over common law counts related to fca claim even though not presented to contracting officer