These are two distinct claims, requiring separate proofs. 35 . Plaintiff’s contention that the record contains evidence of a viable claim concerning the thickness of a concrete slab that it was required to remove lacks merit. While the evidence in the record demonstrates that plaintiff advised the Coast Guard of the issue, Pl.'s Supp'l App. 78-79, and that the excessive slab thickness had "impacted” it, id. at 79, there is no evidence that plaintiff actually requested an increase in the contract price or a time extension to compensate it for the additional work that was required. In other words, plaintiff never submitted a claim to the contracting officer, as required by the CDA. See 41 U.S.C. § 605(a); Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Such a claim is a jurisdictional prerequisite
holding that a defendant has a constitutional right to counsel as a matter of right on direct appeal holding that plaintiffs cannot cover all the bases by having one shareholder make a demand and another allege demand futility spiegel requires shareholders to choose either to make demand or attempt to establish demand futility holding that the offense requires that the return be false as to a material matter holding that the federal acquisition regulation far requires a claim to be a written demand seeking a sum certain  as a matter of right recognizing that in certain circumstances inquiry notice may be determined as a matter of law