With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at all pending a decision by [OHA] on [Plaintiffs] appeal[.]”) (emphasis added). Accordingly, Plaintiffs concede there was no basis in fact or law for alleging that the May 5, 2009 e-mail was a valid CDA claim. Finally, the CDA requires that, after receiving a claim, the CO “[will] issue [a] decision in writing, and [will] mail or otherwise furnish a copy of the decision to the contractor. The decision [will] state the reasons for the decision reached, and [will] inform the contractor of [the] rights as provided in this chapter.” 41 U.S.C. § 605(a). The United States Court of Federal Claims has held that whether a final decision has been issued depen valid claim, Plaintiffs alleged CDA violation also must be dismissed. England v. The Swanson Group, 353 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed.Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION. For the reasons discussed

A: 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 
B: holding that court had jurisdiction over common law counts related to fca claim even though not presented to contracting officer
C: holding that when the contracting officer modified the contract to name the contractors bank as payee the contracting officers actions demonstrated an express agreement to pay the bank
D: 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
A.