Contractor loses appeal; court upholds dismissal due to lack of written order and budget mismatch.

The Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance dismissal of the contractor's claim for payment, confirming the government's position that no valid written order existed. The contractor argued for a one-year project duration based on oral discussions and initial budget estimates, while the government contended that official documentation only supported a shorter scope and a lower budget. The court rejected the contractor's reliance on informal communications and the initial budget figures, ruling that without a formal written order matching the claimed duration and amount, the claim was inadmissible under principles of reasonableness and fairness.