its claim and now argues, in its response to defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, that the Coast Guard delayed the design process by not complying with the review procedures and deadlines set forth in the contract specifications. This argument is appreciably different from the claim it presented to Ms. Broussard, and there is no evidence in the record before the court that plaintiff formally requested a contract modification from the Coast Guard based on the Coast Guard’s purported noncompliance with the submittal review procedures described in the contract. Because plaintiffs current position was not presented to the Coast Guard, as required under the CDA, the court must disregard it. See Contract Cleaning Maint., Inc. v. United States, 811 F.2d 586, 592 (Fed.Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff is therefore left with the claim it
holding that a contractor must provide the contracting officer with adequate notice of the basis and amount of 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 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 submissions qualified as cda claims when the contractor asserted in writing and with sufficient specificity a right to additional compensation and the contractor communicated his desire for a contracting officer decision 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 