of subject matter jurisdiction, and its argument on the merits responded to contentions in plaintiff’s opposition. Plaintiff is not prejudiced by treating defendant’s motion as to Count Six as one for summary judgment, because the parties’ cross-proposed findings and evidentiary showings on all counts proceeded under RCFC 56. 7 . If notice were required, plaintiff argues that satisfactory notice was provided through the CSSRs. Plaintiff submitted evidence demonstrating that the contracting officer had actual notice of the overruns. Although defendant contends that this notice did not conform with the requirements of the LOGO clause, actual notice has been held to be "the substantial equivalent.” See Appeal of Applied Technology Assocs., Inc., 98-1 BCA ¶ 29,633, 1998 WL 122361 (1998) (<HOLDING>); see also American Electronic Labs., 774 F.2d
holding that more than notice to a defendant is required holding that monthly progress payment requests which indicated funding status provided notice required under logo clause holding monthly invoice qualified as a false claim under the fca recognizing that the applicant received notice from the plea form even though such notice was not required holding that the plaintiffs complaint was valid because despite general allegations it provided notice