A Request for Equitable Adjustment and a formal claim under the Contract Disputes Act are not two versions of the same document with different letterhead. They’re two different legal procedures, with different certification requirements, different interest implications, and different appeal rights, and picking the wrong one at the wrong moment can cost months of avoidable delay before the actual dispute even gets addressed.

Federal owners who understand the fork early can steer a dispute down the faster, lower-friction path when one is available. Owners who don’t tend to find out the difference only after a contractor has already filed the more adversarial option.

What an REA Actually Is

A Request for Equitable Adjustment is a request to the contracting officer for additional compensation or time, made under the contract’s changes clause or another applicable clause, without invoking the formal claims process under the Contract Disputes Act. An REA does not require CDA certification, does not automatically trigger interest accrual under the CDA, and can be negotiated and resolved administratively, often without either side needing to formally position for litigation.

This makes an REA the lower friction option. It keeps the conversation in the realm of contract administration rather than dispute resolution, and it preserves the possibility of a negotiated settlement without either party having made a formal legal filing.

What a CDA Claim Actually Is

A formal claim under the Contract Disputes Act is a different animal entirely. For claims over a set dollar threshold, it requires a specific certification from the contractor, attesting that the claim is made in good faith, that supporting data is accurate and complete, and that the amount requested accurately reflects the adjustment the contractor believes is due. Once submitted, the contracting officer has a defined period to issue a final decision. If that decision is unfavorable, or if no decision is issued within the required timeframe, the contractor can appeal to a board of contract appeals or file suit in the Court of Federal Claims.

A CDA claim also triggers interest accrual from the date the contracting officer receives the claim, which changes the financial calculus for both sides in a way an REA does not.

Why the Distinction Gets Blurred in Practice

Contractors sometimes submit what is functionally an REA but label it a claim, or vice versa, without appreciating that the label carries real procedural weight. A document that includes CDA certification language is a claim, regardless of what it’s titled, and it starts the contracting officer’s final decision clock whether or not that was the intent. A document that omits certification but demands a specific sum “in the amount of” can create ambiguity about whether it should be treated as a claim, which itself can become a point of dispute.

This ambiguity isn’t just a paperwork problem. It changes what interest is owed, what appeal rights exist, and how much procedural flexibility both sides retain to negotiate rather than litigate.

Comparison at a Glance

Factor	REA	CDA Claim
Certification required	No	Yes, for claims over the statutory threshold
Interest accrual	Not automatic under the CDA	Accrues from date of contracting officer receipt
Resolution path	Administrative negotiation	Contracting officer’s final decision, then appeal rights
Appeal rights if unresolved	None inherent to the REA itself	Board of contract appeals or Court of Federal Claims
Typical use case	Early-stage adjustment requests where negotiation is still likely	Disputes where negotiation has stalled or a formal decision is needed

What This Means for Federal Owner-Side Project Controls

An owner-side controls team tracking potential change and delay exposure on a federal project should track REAs and claims as distinct categories from the moment either appears, not as a single “disputes” bucket. The procedural clock, the certification status, and the interest exposure differ enough between the two that lumping them together in a risk register creates a false sense of how much time and negotiating room actually remains on each item.

It’s also worth building in an early internal review of any contractor submission that uses claim-like language, specifically to confirm whether certification is present and whether the document should be treated, and responded to, as a formal CDA claim rather than an REA still open to negotiation.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What’s the main difference between an REA and a claim on a federal contract? An REA is a request for adjustment made without CDA certification, keeping the matter in administrative negotiation. A formal CDA claim requires certification for amounts over the statutory threshold, starts the contracting officer’s final decision clock, and carries appeal rights to a board of contract appeals or the Court of Federal Claims if unresolved.

Does an REA accrue interest the way a CDA claim does? Not automatically. Interest accrual under the Contract Disputes Act begins when the contracting officer receives a properly certified claim, which is one of the specific procedural consequences that separates a claim from an REA.

Can a document be treated as a claim even if it isn’t labeled one? Yes. Whether a submission functions as a formal claim depends on whether it includes the required CDA certification and demands a sum certain, not on the title of the document. A submission with certification language can start the contracting officer’s final decision clock regardless of how it’s labeled.

Why does it matter which path is chosen for a federal construction dispute? The two paths carry different certification requirements, different interest implications, and different appeal rights. Choosing the wrong path, or letting ambiguity persist about which path a submission represents, can cost significant time before the underlying dispute is even substantively addressed.