officer receives notice of an appeal to the OHA prior to the award of the contract. FAR 19.302(g)(2). In fact, the United States Court of Federal Claims has held that this presumption is conclusive, and not rebut-table. Chapman Law Firm v. United States, 63 Fed.Cl. 25, 35 (2004) (“Because plaintiff did not file [an] appeal prior to the contract award and OHA did not issue a decision before HUD awarded HMBI the contract, the award of this contract is unchallengeable.”) (citing FAR 19.302(g)(2)). This is not a novel construction. The conclusive presumption of validity has been the rule for many years, because it allows contractors to begin work on a Government project, without fear of post-award rescission. Mid-West Const., Ltd. v. United States, 181 Ct.Cl. 774, 387 F.2d 957, 963 (1968) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, in this case, even if the CO
holding that for a suit to be brought in the venue in which the contract was to be performed the contract must expressly state where the performance of the contract was to occur holding the word individuals is not the equivalent of the dictionary acts use of the word persons holding that there was no contract of insurance when the receipt provided that no offer of insurance within sixty days would be deemed a declination and the sixty days had passed prior to the loss explaining that the overwhelming weight of authority is to the effect that no inference or presumption of acceptance is to be drawn from mere delay in passing on the application holding that the word interest is to be understood in its ordinary senseto hold that congress intended to use the word in the sense of a penalty is contrary to all rules of interpretation and invokes a special definition of the word interest that is unwarranted citations omitted holding that the word presumed was equivalent to deemed creating a conclusive presumption serving the interest of finality regarding when delay in the contract performance would be disadvantageous to the government