In ABS Development Corp. (ASBCA Nov. 17, 2016), the Board dismissed for lack of jurisdiction certain contractor claims that had been “certified” by means of typewritten names in signature-font (rather than the acceptable handwritten or e-signatures) because a typewritten name “cannot be authenticated, and, therefore, is not a signature.” Because the CDA’s purpose is to bind contractors by means of a signed certificate that “cannot be easily disavowed by the purported author,” the Board held that typed signatures were jurisdictionally inadequate and could not be cured (via a substitute signature), a reminder to contractors that a critical element of litigating CDA claims is adherence to statutory requirements as well as the Board’s rules.