The Claim Problem:

The Government awarded a one-year firm-fixed-price contract with two one-year options for services that were covered by the Service Contract Act of 1965, but the contracting officer failed to include a Department of Labor wage determination specifying minimum wages and fringe benefits. Prior to the end of the final option period, the contracting officer modified the contract to include wage determinations for the entire three-year period. The contractor requested that the contracting officer further modify the contract to increase the total contract price by $62,655.78 in order to compensate it for the difference between what it had paid its employees and what it now owed them as a result of the addition of the wage determinations. The contracting officer refused to do so. The contractor then sent the following letter to the contracting officer: We received your email denying the request for a modification and disagree with your refusal to do so. By virtue of denying our request for additional funds to meet the government's requirements to pay certain benefits, will unjustly and undeniably enrich the Government knowingly with intent to have this small business incur a loss of such magnitude, and putting many jobs at risk. We are looking to recoup only two years of this multiyear contract. We could by rights go after these additional monies for every year of the contract we lost out on, due to the errors in the initial bidding process and the omission of the pertinent documents. Since the contract is almost over, we are only asking to provide for two years' worth of benefits, which now amounts to $61,655.98. The contract includes the clause at FAR 52.233-1, Disputes (DEC 2013). If the contractor's letter constitutes a claim, then the contracting officer is contractually obligated to take action in accordance with the terms of the clause.

Question: Does the contractor's letter constitute a claim?

Answer (choose one):

YES NO

Show a deductive argument in support of your answer.