ESCgov, Inc.
Docket: ASBCA 58852
Decision date: 2008-04-21

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of --
ESCgov, Inc. 
Under Contract No. HC1028-12-C-0047 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 58852 
Francis E. Purcell, Jr., Esq. 
Thomas 0. Mason, Esq. 
Cooley LLP 
Washington, DC 
William E. Brazis, Jr., Esq. 
DISA General Counsel 
JoAnn W. Melesky, Esq. 
Laura J. Barke, Esq. 
Trial Attorneys 
Defense Information Systems Agency 
Scott Air Force Base, IL 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE STEMPLER 
Appellant appeals from the deemed denial of its contract termination for 
convenience claim. The appeal is governed by the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 
41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109. The Board conducted a three-day hearing. Both entitlement 
and quantum are before us for decision. We deny the appeal in part and sustain it in 
part. 
FINDINGS OF FACT 
The Predecessor Contract (2008 contract) 
1. On 21 April 2008, the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA or 
government), Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization, awarded a 
delivery order, No. HC 1028-08-F-22 l 
2 (2008 contract), under 
a General Services 
Administration schedule contract to appellant, ESCgov, Inc. (ESCgov) (R4, tab lB 
at 1). The 2008 contract was for a base period of one year, commencing 
1 August 2008, and included two one-year option periods (id. at 23). 
2. Modification No. P00005 of the 2008 contract modified the start date of the 
base period to 1 February 2009 (R4, tab lB, Modification No. P00005 at 1). The 
government ultimately exercised all option periods, and further extended the period of 

performance by another 6 months until 31July2012 (R4, tab lB, Modification 
Nos. POOO 11, POOO 13, POOO 16). 
3. The 2008 contract incorporated a Statement of Objectives (SOO), dated 
27 June 2007, which described the agency's Access and Security Configuration 
Control (ASCC) program's need for an integrated and automated software-oriented 
solution: 
The purpose of this Statement of Objectives (SOO) is to 
obtain a dynamically scalable, cost effective, and 
integrated 
capability to achieve granular-level access 
control to operating systems (OS) and positive control of 
systems security configurations infrastructure through a 
government-controlled, "Vendor provided Service" for 
specified operating environments (OE) located in DISA 
owned and managed facilities and/or remotely located, 
DISA-managed systems .... The solution should utilize an 
on-demand service approach that will readily adjust to 
changes in access control and security configuration 
requirements (increases I decreases and changes in security 
policy) and is priced on a utility ("as used") basis. 
(R4, tab lB at 29) The agency aimed to "harden" the security of its operating 
environments through "the systematic checking or scanning of the operating system, to 
ensure that there are configurations put in place to prevent...hacking" (tr. 3/125-26). 
4. The SOO contemplated a service providing automated configuration and 
security management which included, among other things, the capability to scan and 
report that configurations across DISA servers, operating systems, and databases 
meet information assurance compliance. The software would be installed and 
maintained on DISA-managed servers. (R4, tab lB at 30-31, 33-34) In order for a 
system to be deemed information assurance compliant, it must meet the requirements 
of the DISA Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs) and Information 
Assurance Vulnerability Alerts (IAVAs). The STIG is a set of rules or set of 
configurations of servers released by the DISA Field Security Office (FSO) on a 
quarterly basis (tr. 3/126-27, 129). It is "a security configuration control setting" 
(tr. 3/156). The FSO also releases IA V As on a daily or weekly basis which consists of 
alerts of immediate threats or vulnerabilities to a system that need to be addressed and 
remedied. The IA VA has since been converted to the Information Assurance 
Vulnerability Management (IA VM) and the terms IA VA and IA VM are used 
interchangeably. (Tr. 3/130) 
2 

5. The 2008 contract included a contract line item number (CLIN) at a 
firm-fixed-price (FFP) for the software utility service on a monthly basis. Payment 
depended on the number of DISA servers covered during a month (tr. 1175). For 
example, Modification No. P00007, effective 31 August 2009, increased the number 
of DISA servers covered under the utility service CLIN to 7,500 (R4, tab lB, 
Modification No. P00007 at 1 ). The contract also included a separate CLIN for 
technical support and consulting/implementation services that was designated as FFP 
but not separately priced (R4, tab lB at 8, 15, 21; tr. 2/269). 
6. On 6 August 2008, ESCgov executed a purchase order with BMC Software, 
Inc. (BMC), owner of the proprietary commercial software "BladeLogic 1 ,"to procure 
20,000 perpetual software licenses for $2,424, 736 and maintenance support (ex. G-3). 
The perpetual licenses were restricted to ESCgov's software utility service in support 
of DISA (id.; tr. 1172). By purchasing 20,000 licenses of the software, ESCgov had 
the capability to apply the software to up to 20,000 servers at any point in time 
(tr. 1168-69). In explaining the rationale for obtaining the more expensive perpetual 
licenses and more licenses than were required to support the 2008 contract, ESCgov's 
CFO and Executive 
Vice President, Mr. Keith R. Zagurski, testified that ESCgov made 
a business decision to purchase enough capacity to anticipate long-term support and 
future contracts with DISA (tr. 11136-37, 252-53). ESCgov did not reach a level that 
required the use of 20,000 licenses during performance of the 2008 contract (tr. 11136). 
7. The BladeLogic software utilized internal compliance component templates. 
These component templates consisted of "a set of scripts that goes out and looks at the 
configuration settings denoted by the [FSO]'s STIG." (Tr. 3/136) The templates 
would be used to check configuration settings and make changes as appropriate 
(tr. 3/156). During performance, the parties realized that the "out of the box" baseline 
templates included with the commercial software could not fully meet the 
requirements of the DISA STIG (tr. 2/162, 164, 3/138-40). ESCgov estimated that the 
software would cover approximately 15-20% of the requirements (tr. 21164). 
Additionally, there were other problems related to software implementation 
on DISA 
servers that impacted performance (tr. 3/140-41). 
8. The BladeLogic software was flexible to create and modify templates to 
handle daily security changes (tr. 3/137-38). Through Modification Nos. P00008 and 
P00009 of the 2008 contract, effective 9 September and 17 November 2009, 
respectively, DISA modified the SOO and added additional funding for engineering 
services under the technical support CLIN. The modified SOO included tasks 
involving coding and scripting development to update component templates for 
1 ESCgov initially partnered with BladeLogic, Inc. to develop the proposal for the 
utility service utilizing the BladeLogic software (app. PFF ii 14). The 
BladeLogic software was later acquired by BMC (app. PFF ii 20 n.1; tr. 1/67). 
3 

testing, migration, implementation, and compliance monitoring of operating 
environments. (R4, tab lB, Modification Nos. P00008, P00009; tr. 3/150-51) 
9. ESCgov continued developing coding and scripts to supplement the 
BladeLogic software's baseline component templates to meet security checking and 
compliance requirements (tr. 21112-13, 163, 183). This development included the 
creation of content including component templates and associated sensors and 
extended object files (tr. 21172). According to ESCgov, component templates "have 
the ability to check the components to verify the existence of an object and ... [ s ]ensors 
and extended object files are scripts and/or commands that are used by the component 
templates to help extract more information from the target systems" 
(R4, tab 11 at 1 ). 
The sensors contained scripts that executed the commands for checking 
configurations, and the extended object files executed the sensors that were modified 
(tr. 2/173). According to Mr. Philip S. Orda, DISA's IT specialist, ESCgov was tasked 
with maintaining the BladeLogic software and the compliance content including 
updating and modifying code on a daily basis to meet STIG requirements 
(tr. 3/158-59). ESCgov developed, updated, and modified component templates, 
sensors, and extended object files to meet DISA compliance requirements during the 
duration of the contract. 
The Follow-On Contract (2012 Contract) 
10. On 22 February 2012, DISA issued a solicitation seeking to award a 
contract "to obtain software as a service (SaaS) from a single, integrated, and 
contractor-provided software service solution, priced on a utility ("as used") basis, 
using BMC Bladelogic software" (R4, tab 2 at 13of108). DISA solicited proposals 
from contractors that were authorized resellers of the BladeLogic product (id. at 3 
of 108). The contractor would be required to provide BMC BladeLogic software and 
licensing, and perform technical services necessary to maintain and sustain the ASCC 
BladeLogic Enterprise solution (id. at 13 of 108). The solicitation required offerors to 
propose a "fully loaded" unit price that included software licensing and technical 
support for the monthly utility service (id. at 13, 20 of 108). The period of 
performance was a base period of one year and included two one-year option periods 
(id. at 27 of 108). 
11. The solicitation included a Performance Work Statement (entitled 
"Commercial Off-The-Shelf') (PWS), dated 13 February 2012, that described a 
variety of tasks to be performed including the creation of component templates to 
comply with the security directives released by the DISA FSO (R4, tab 2 at 11, 24-25 
of 108). The solicitation also included Addendum 1 entitled "SOFTWARE 
SERVICES LICENSING REQUIREMENTS" which provided that DISA did not own 
the software provided by the contractor as a service, and "payment is based upon 
4 

monthly usage of the product per unit and technical services provided" (id. at 35-36 
of 108). With regard to data rights, the solicitation provided in pertinent part: 
b. Rights in Data and Non-Disclosure Agreement. 
The Government shall have unlimited rights in all data first 
produced by the contractor and delivered hereunder (or 
first produced by the contractor under prior related 
Government contracts or subcontracts and modified 
hereunder) including technical data and computer software. 
Accordingly, the Contractor shall not incorporate "limited 
rights data" or "restricted computer software" as defined in 
FAR 52.227-14 in any deliverable without express written 
consent of the Contracting Officer. Contractor shall not 
incorporate "markings" what so ever [sic] on the data. 
(Id. at 33 of 108) 
12. Of relevance to this dispute, the solicitation (entitled 
"SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS") included 
FAR clauses 52.212-4 (including paragraph 1, Termination for the Government's 
convenience), CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS - COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JUN 
2010); 52.249-2, TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT 
(FIXED-PRICE) (MAY 2004); and 52.233-3, PROTEST AFTER AWARD (AUG 1996) (R4, 
tab 2 at 1, 65 of 108). Although the solicitation included some clauses not applicable 
to the acquisition of commercial items, the contract would be awarded in accordance 
with commercial items procedures (id. at 101-05 of 108). The contracting officer 
(CO) testified that she did not recall including FAR 52.249-2 in the contract and that 
no questions were submitted by offerors respecting that clause (tr. 3/17-19). The CO 
speculated that when the contract was 
drafted she "missed" the fact that two 
termination for convenience clauses were included (tr. 3/59). 
13. In its technical proposal, with respect to data rights, ESCgov stated the 
following in pertinent part: 
ESCgov understands that the 
Government will have 
unlimited rights in all data first produced by ESCgov and 
delivered hereunder (or first produced by ESCgov under 
prior related Government contracts or subcontracts and 
modified hereunder) including technical data and computer 
software. Accordingly, ESCgov will not incorporate 
"limited rights data" or "restricted computer software" as 
defined in FAR 52.227-14 in any deliverable without 
express written consent of the Contracting Officer. 
5 

ESCgov will not incorporate "markings" what so ever [sic] 
on the data. 
(R4, tab 3 at 39 of 49) 
14. On 24 July 2012, DISA awarded the captioned contract, No. HC1028-12-C-0047 
(2012 contract) to ESCgov (R4, tab 4 at 1). The contract provided for a base year in the 
amount of $2,276,906 (consisting of $2, 171,250 for twelve months of "Software as a 
Service"; $30,656 for training modules; and $75,000 for travel) (id. at 1-6). The contract 
period of performance began on 1 August 2012 (id. at 24, 53). 
15. Paragraph (I) of the commercial items clause, FAR 52.212-4, provides that: 
Termination/or the Government's convenience. 
The Government reserves the right to terminate this 
contract, or any part hereof, for its sole convenience. In 
the event of such termination, the Contractor shall 
immediately stop all work hereunder and shall immediately 
cause any and all of its suppliers and subcontractors to 
cease work. Subject to the terms of this contract, the 
Contractor shall be paid a percentage of the contract price 
reflecting the percentage of the work performed prior to 
the notice of termination, plus reasonable charges the 
Contractor can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 
Government using its standard record keeping system, 
have resulted from the termination. The Contractor shall 
not be required to comply with the cost accounting 
standards or contract cost principles for this purpose. This 
paragraph does not give the Government any right to audit 
the Contractor's records. The Contractor shall not be paid 
for any work performed or costs incurred which reasonably 
could have been avoided. 
16. Paragraph (g) of FAR clause 52.249-2, TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE 
OF THE GOVERNMENT (FIXED-PRICE) (MA y 2004) provides that: 
If the Contractor and the Contracting Officer fail to 
agree on the whole amount to be paid because of the 
termination of work, the Contracting Officer shall pay the 
Contractor the amounts determined by the Contracting 
Officer as follows, but without duplication of any amounts 
agreed on under paragraph (f) of this clause: 
6 

( 1) The contract price for completed supplies or 
services accepted by the Government (or sold or acquired 
under subparagraph (b )(9) of this clause) not previously 
paid for, adjusted for any saving of freight and other 
charges. 
(2) The total of-
(i) The costs incurred in the performance of the work 
terminated, including initial costs and preparatory expense 
allocable thereto, but excluding any costs attributable to 
supplies or services paid or to be paid under subparagraph 
(g)( 1) of this clause; 
(ii) The cost of settling and paying termination 
settlement proposals under terminated subcontracts that are 
properly chargeable to the terminated portion of the 
contract if not included in subdivision (g)(2)(i) of this 
clause; and 
(iii) A sum, as profit on subdivision (g)(2)(i) of this 
clause, determined by the Contracting Officer under 
49.202 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, in effect on 
the date of this contract, to be fair and reasonable; 
however, if it appears that the Contractor would have 
sustained a loss on the entire contract had it been 
completed, the Contracting Officer shall allow no profit 
under this subdivision (g)(2)(iii) and shall reduce the 
settlement to reflect the indicated rate of loss. 
(3) The reasonable costs of settlement of the work 
terminated, including-
(i) Accounting, legal, clerical, and other expenses 
reasonably necessary for the preparation of termination 
settlement proposals and supporting data; 
(ii) The termination and settlement of subcontracts 
(excluding the amounts of such settlements); and 
(iii) Storage, transportation, and other costs incurred, 
reasonably necessary for the preservation, protection, or 
disposition of the termination inventory. 
7 

17. On 1 August 2012, a protest was filed with the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) alleging that ESCgov was improperly awarded the 2012 
contract because it was not an authorized reseller of the BladeLogic software at the 
time of contract award (R4, tab 5). 
18. On 10 August 2012, CO Carrie M. Ross (CO Ross), who awarded the 2012 
contract, issued a stop work order to ESCgov pursuant to FAR clause 52.233-3, 
PROTEST AFTER AWARD (AUG 1996), as a result of the protest (R4, tab 6). 
19. Ina 16 August 2012 filing, DISA informed GAO that it intended to take 
corrective action by terminating the 2012 contract for convenience and awarding a 
contract to the protestor, determining that ESCgov was not an authorized reseller of 
BMC products. The agency requested dismissal of the bid protest. (R4, tab 8) 
20. On 17 August 2012, GAO dismissed the bid protest (R4, tab 8B). 
21. On 29 August 2012, CO Ross terminated the 2012 contract for convenience 
(R4, tab 9A). In a document entitled "Notice of Termination to Prime Contractors 
(FAR 49.601-2)," the government stated in pertinent part: 
(a) Effective date of Termination. ESCgov, Inc., is notified 
as of29 August 2012 that Contract No. HC1028-12-C-0047 
(referred to as "the contract") is terminated completely for 
the 
Government's convenience under paragraph (l), 
Termination for the Ordering Activity's Convenience of 
FAR clause 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions -
Commercial Items (JUN 2010). The termination is 
effective immediately upon receipt of this notice. 
(R4, tab 9B at 3) CO Ross also sent a draft modification that proposed a termination 
of the contract at no cost to either party (R4, tab 9C). ESCgov acknowledged receipt 
of the termination notice but communicated that it would not agree to the proposed 
modification (id. at 1 ). 
Post-Termination 
22. In a letter dated 13 September 2012 to CO Ross, ESCgov requested "the 
return of ESCgov-developed intellectual property installed on DISA servers." 
ESCgov claimed that it developed the intellectual property at its own expense and 
alleged that DISA continued to use this intellectual property after termination of the 
2012 contract. ESCgov also communicated that it would submit a termination 
settlement proposal pursuant to Part 49 for incurred costs resulting from the 
termination. (R4, tab 10) 
8 

23. In a letter dated 24 September 2012 to CO Ross, ESCgov again demanded 
the return of its intellectual property developed in support of the 200 8 and 2012 
contracts, which included the component templates, sensors, and extended object files 
that it referred to as its software. ESCgov asserted that the government did not have 
ownership rights or license rights over its developed intellectual property. (R4, tab 11) 
24. In a letter dated 2 November 2012, CO Ross notified ESCgov that the 
government had removed and uninstalled all BladeLogic software and associated 
known component templates, sensors and extended object files that were a part of 
ESCgov's software solution used in performing both contracts (R4, tab 13). 
25. In a letter dated 9 November 2012, ESCgov requested, among other things, 
an audit of DISA's current BladeLogic software to confirm that its intellectual 
property was removed from DISA's servers (R4, tab 14). CO Ross denied the request, 
in a letter dated 19 December 2012, and stated that ESCgov had failed to provide the 
government with a listing of its intellectual property in prior requests. Additionally, 
CO Ross requested ESCgov to submit its final termination settlement proposal in 
accordance with FAR Part 12. (R4, tab 15) 
26. In a letter dated 2 January 2013, ESCgov submitted a listing of the 
component templates, sensors, and extended object files that it deemed as its 
intellectual property and requested return of these items (R4, tab 16). The list was 
created with input from ESCgov's engineering personnel, Mr. Anthony J. Fasano and 
Mr. Frank Brand, who primarily developed the items (tr. 11166). Mr. Orda testified 
that, to his knowledge, the government and its current contractor, continued to use and 
operate the compliance. templates developed by ESCgov subsequent to the termination 
(tr. 3/181, 218). 
27. On 2 January 2013, ESCgov submitted its termination settlement proposal 
to the government, seeking recovery of its incurred costs pursuant to FAR Part 49 in 
the amount of $3,384,500.76 as a result of the termination. First, it asserted it was 
entitled to $1,031,430.50 for the BladeLogic software licenses purchased in 2008, an 
amount it calculated "based upon the position that the remaining 50% of the software 
license costs would have been allocated to and recovered under [the 2008 contract]," 
50% of the license costs represented the present value of the licenses "that would have 
been used to support the [2012 contract]," and the licenses could not be used to 
support a customer other than DISA. (R4, tab 17) ESCgov further asserts that the 
licenses are perpetual and remain valid (app. br. at 19, 25). Second, ESCgov asserted 
that it was entitled to $180,93 7 .50 that represented one month of utility services 
provided under the terminated 2012 contract. Third, ESCgov asserted that it was 
entitled to costs related to its development of component templates, sensors, and 
extended object files installed on DISA servers that it deemed as its intellectual 
property used to perform the contracts. It sought $2, 127 ,924 which represented an 
9 

average of two methodologies used by its expert, Mr. Graham D. Rogers to assign a 
value of the intellectual property - a cost approach based on labor and other expenses 
incurred to develop the intellectual property and a royalty-based approach based on 
ESCgov's entitlement to royalties for licensing to DISA and its BladeLogic 
contractors for continued use of its intellectual property. Fourth, ESCgov asserted that 
it was entitled to termination settlement expenses for a sum total of $44,208.76 
($20,868.40 for severance of a terminated employee; $1,689 for its employees' 
preparation of the settlement proposal; $6,000 for consulting fees; and $15,651.36 for 
legal fees). (R4, tab 17) 
28. In a letter dated 22 April 2013, CO Ross, after evaluating the settlement 
proposal pursuant to paragraph (I) of the commercial items clause, determined that the 
sought costs were unallowable except for the monthly utility cost of $180,937.50 (R4, 
tab 18). The CO stated that the contract had been awarded as a commercial items 
contract and further expressly recognized that FAR 12.403 allowed the use of FAR 
Part 49 as guidance where it did not conflict with FAR 52.212-4(1). We find that the 
parties were at an impasse as of this date. 
29. On 12 June 2013, ESCgov converted its termination settlement proposal 
into a certified claim under the CDA for $3,384,500.76 and requested a contracting 
officer's final decision. Profit was expressly not claimed. (R4, tab 20) 
30. CO Ross did not issue a final decision upon the claim (tr. 3/48). In a notice 
of appeal dated 29 August 2013, ESCgov appealed to the Board from the contracting 
officer's failure to issue a final decision (R4, tab 25). 
31. On 9 December 2014, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) issued 
a memorandum to DISA legal counsel in response to a request for litigation assistance 
to evaluate ESCgov's termination claim (ex. G-27). With respect to software licensing 
costs, the memorandum stated that the accounting records and invoices reflected costs 
incurred and paid under the 2008 contract, and therefore, the claimed costs resulting 
from the termination of the 2012 contract were not supported, citing FAR 12.403( d)(ii) 
(id. at 3). 
32. Both ESCgov's President, Mr. Guy Speers, and Executive Vice-President 
Mr. Zagurski testified that half of the acquisition costs of the BladeLogic licenses were 
allocated between the two contracts (tr. 1/94, 169-70). However, Mr. Zagurski 
confirmed that ESCgov's accounting records showed no allocation to the 2012 
contract (tr. 11258-59). 
33. Mr. Zagurski testified that the entire cost for the purchased BladeLogic 
licenses were pooled into an inventory assets account 
in 2008 (tr. 1/198-99, 243). The 
purpose of the inventory assets account was "to collect the costs to match costs with 
10 

revenue as our service was delivered" (tr. 1/237). ESCgov then allocated the costs of 
the licenses to a cost objective for the 2008 contract in accordance with generally 
accepted accounting principles but did not amortize these costs over the entire duration 
of the.contract (tr. 11199-200, 238). In explaining why BladeLogic license costs were 
not allocated to the 2012 contract, Mr. Zagurski stated that: 
By the time this contract was awarded, those costs 
had already been absorbed under another cost objective. 
To do that would be incorrect. We cannot continue to 
allocate costs once they've been fully absorbed. 
As I said, we could make an accounting 
adjustment 
to reverse all those charges, half of the license value and 
the maintenance, and then put that back into inventory 
asset. And then it sounds like, if it's in inventory asset, 
DISA would be more than happy to pay ESCgov for that 
amount of the licenses. 
(Tr. 1/240-41) 
34. Mr. Darrell J. Oyer served as ESCgov's expert for financial accounting 
(tr. 2/226). He was hired to review the DCAA's 9 December 2014 memorandum 
(tr. 2/235). He provided his expert report, dated 26 January 2015, in which he stated, 
with regard to DCAA's observations related to licensing costs, that "[f]inancial 
accounting would not allow deferral of these costs to any subsequent jobs and thus this 
accounting is not unexpected" and that the FAR for contract purposes is "concerned 
about costs being allocated to the benefiting job regardless of the year involved" 
(ex. A-136 at 1-2). To prepare his report, Mr. Oyer did not review ESCgov's 
accounting records and relied on the DCAA memorandum, his meeting with 
Mr. Zagurski, and portions of the FAR (tr. 2/234-35, 239-40; ex. A-136 at 5, Enclosure 
B). Mr. Oyer testified that the stope of his report does not contain opinions or analysis 
on the percentage of the license costs that should be allocated to either of the contracts 
(tr. 2/239). 
35. Mr. Rogers was hired by ESCgov to serve as an expert in the valuation of 
its claimed intellectual property assets (tr. 1/262). Mr. Rogers is not a certified public 
accountant (tr. 2/15). In his 30 January 2015 expert report, he stated that the 
methodologies used to value the intellectual property were based on assumptions that 
ESCgov O\~ns the rights to the claimed intellectual property (ex. A-131at16). 
36. Mr. Rogers testified that he did not review ESCgov's accounting and 
payroll records or audit the information that was provided to him (tr. 2/24-25, 28-29, 
32). He was retained by ESCgov to review its termination settlement proposal, and 
11 

issued an opinion letter, dated 14 December 2014, which later became the basis for 
ESCgov's demand for compensation in its proposal and subsequent claim related to 
intellectual property (tr. 2118; ex. G-17). He stated that his 14 December letter did not 
list or clearly identify the intellectual property at issue in this appeal (tr. 2/49). 
37. In his report, Mr. Rogers stated that the trending historical reproduction 
cost approach methodology used involves "the restatement of historical costs in 
current dollars in order to provide an indication of the total amount that would need to 
be invested today in order to reproduce the property" (ex. A-131 at 8 of 48). The 
report further stated that "actual expenditures by the company on the subject property" 
was required (id. at 9 of 48). However, at the hearing, he testified that a conservative 
estimate to determine the value was used instead because ESCgov was not: 
(Tr. 2/94-95) 
[A]ble to provide me the information as far as when the 
hours were incurred. So since I wasn't able to determine 
when the hours were incurred, I made the assumption that 
they were all incurred at the same time, which means that 
there's no future value, and therefore if there's no future 
value, it's another level of conservatism in this calculation. 
38. -ESCgov's engineers, Mr. Fasano and Mr. Brand, primarily developed the 
intellectual property at issue (tr. 2/137-38). Mr. Fasano is a senior systems architect 
for ESCgov (tr. 21159). Mr. Brand did not testify at the hearing. With regard to 
copyright marking, Mr. Fasano testified that each code that he created was marked 
with his name, the company name, and sometimes the date (tr. 2/213). Mr. Fasano 
initially testified that he attached copyright markings (tr. 2/184), but later on 
cross-examination suggested that Mr. Brand applied the proper copyright markings to 
his understanding (tr. 2/217). In a response to the government's second 
interrogatories, ESCgov stated, in part, that it "avers that the intellectual property has 
not been copyrighted and that ESCgov is in the process of obtaining a copyright" to a 
question on whether the claimed intellectual property were protected 
by copyright 
(ex. G-24 at 5-6, iJ 6). Mr. Orda testified that ESCgov did not provide notification to 
the government that the templates or associated files were copyrighted or restricted for 
use (tr. 3/165, 167). Mr. Rogers testified that, to his knowledge, ESCgov did not have 
a patent or copyright for the intellectual property claimed (tr. 2/59-60). Weighing 
the 
competing evidence, we find that ESCgov has not adequately established that it's 
claimed intellectual property or software was marked with copyright notifications or 
other restrictions prior to the termination of the 2012 contract. 2 
2 After the hearing, the government moved to strike the testimony of Mr. Fasano 
regarding the copyright markings on the content delivered to DISA. In its 
12 

39. The record includes copies of invoices in the sum total of$16,641.67 that 
contain an itemized list oflegal fees incurred from September 2012 to January 2013 
for legal services rendered in preparation of the termination settlement proposal (R4, 
tab 19). 
40. As a result of the termination of the 2012 contract, ESCgov terminated the 
employment of the contract's program manager. The record includes a copy of the 
separation agreement, effective on 12 October 2012, between ESCgov and its 
terminated employee (ex. A-124). ESCgov agreed to pay 
a severance amount of 
$20,868.40 equating to seven weeks of compensation (id. at 4503; tr. 1/90). 
41. The record also includes a copy of an undated document entitled 
"ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS CORPORATION EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK" 
(ex. A-122). With regard to severance pay, paragraph 19.6 provided that "ESCgov in 
some instances pays severance to terminated employees who leave the organization" 
(id. at 66). 
42. With respect to ESCgov's claim for $1,689 in connection with termination 
settlement proposal preparation costs incurred by its employees, Mr. Zagurski testified 
that "this is a very, very conservative estimate" consisting of two hours each of three 
people for a total of six hours at a commercial rate of$281.50 per hour (tr. 11175). 
ESCgov does not cite any document in the record that supports its calculation of this 
amount. 
43. The record includes a copy of an invoice, dated 31 December 2012, from 
Mr. Rogers submitted to ESCgov's counsel for services performed during 
December 2012 in the sum total of $7,972.50 (ex. G-18). We find that these services 
were rendered in connection with Mr. Rogers' 14 December 2012 letter (finding 36). 
DECISION 
Before 
the Board, now relying upon FAR 52.212-4(1), "Termination for the 
Government's convenience," and what it says is the "commercial nature" of the 
contract and the BladeLogic software, ESCgov seeks $3,384,500.76, consisting of 
(1) $1,031,430.50 for BladeLogic software licenses that ESCgov says it purchased in 
2008; (2) $180,937.50 for one month of contract performance; (3) $2, 127,924 for the 
government's alleged "retention 
and continued use of ... ESCgov-developed software"; 
(4) $20,868.40 in severance paid to a program manager that ESCgov terminated 
response to motion, appellant requested admission of exhibits that support 
Mr. Fasano's testimony. We denied the government's motion and appellant's 
request (see Bd. order dtd. 25 August 2015). 
3 Citations are to the consecutively-numbered pages unless noted otherwise. 
13 

subsequent to the termination of the contract; (5) $1,689.00 in employee costs to 
prepare the termination settlement proposal; and (6) $15,651.36 in legal fees and 
$6,000.00 in consulting costs to prepare the termination settlement proposal (app. br. 
at 1-2, 25-28, 35-37; app. reply br. at 9). FAR 52.212-4(1) provides, in pertinent part: 
Subject to the terms of this contract, the Contractor shall be 
paid a percentage of the contract price reflecting the 
percentage of the work performed prior to the notice of 
termination, plus reasonable charges the Contractor can 
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Government using its 
standard record keeping system, have resulted from the 
termination. The Contractor shall not be required to 
comply with the cost accounting standards or contract cost 
principles for this purpose. This paragraph does not give 
the Government any right to audit the Contractor's records. 
The Contractor shall not be paid for any work performed 
or costs incurred which reasonably could have been 
avoided. 
The government asserts that ESCgov is entitled to no more than $58,366.94, 
including because, it now says, FAR 52.249-2, not FAR 52.212-4(1) governs (see gov't 
br. at 4, 84). FAR 52.249-2 provides, at paragraph (g): 
If the Contractor and the Contracting Officer fail to 
agree on the whole amount to be paid because of the 
termination of work, the Contracting Officer shall pay the 
Contractor the amounts determined by the Contracting 
Officer as follows, but without duplication of any amounts 
agreed on under paragraph (f) of this clause: 
(1) The contract price for completed supplies or 
services accepted by the Government (or sold or acquired 
under subparagraph (b)(9) of this clause) not previously 
paid for, adjusted for any saving of freight and other 
charges. 
(2) The total of-
(i) The costs incurred in the performance of the work 
terminated, including initial costs and preparatory expense 
allocable thereto, but excluding any costs attributable to 
supplies or services paid or to be paid under subparagraph 
(g)( 1) of this clause; 
14 

(ii) The cost of settling and paying termination 
settlement proposals under terminated subcontracts that are 
properly chargeable to the terminated portion of the 
contract if not included in subdivision (g)(2)(i) of this 
clause; and 
(iii) A sum, as profit on subdivision (g)(2)(i) of this 
clause, determined by the Contracting Officer under 
49.202 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, in effect on 
the date of this contract, to be fair and reasonable; 
however, if it appears that the Contractor would have 
sustained a loss on the entire contract had it been 
completed, the Contracting Officer shall allow no profit 
under this subdivision (g)(2)(iii) and shall reduce the 
settlement to reflect the indicated rate of loss. 
(3) The reasonable costs of settlement of the work 
terminated, including-
(i) Accounting, legal, clerical, and other expenses 
reasonably necessary for the preparation of termination 
settlement proposals and supporting data; 
(ii) The termination and settlement of subcontracts 
(excluding the amounts of such settlements); and 
(iii) Storage, transportation, and other costs incurred, 
reasonably necessary for the preservation, protection, or 
disposition of the termination inventory. 
In this appeal it is obvious the FAR 52.212-4(1) (the commercial items clause) 
and FAR 52.249-2 (the Part 49 clause) (findings 15, 16) are in conflict and cannot be 
harmonized. Because we cannot harmonize them, we must determine which clause to 
apply. Cf General Engineering & Machine Works v. O'Keefe, 991 F.2d 775 (Fed. 
Cir. 1993) (two payment clauses not in conflict and no determination was necessary). 
The FAR itself permits the standard clause's principles to be used in conjunction with 
the commercial items clause, but only where the two clauses do not conflict. 4 
General. The clause at 52.212-4 permits the 
Government to terminate a contract for commercial items 
4 We note that the FAR does not permit use of provisions of the commercial items 
clause in contract's containing only the standard termination clause. 
15 

either for the convenience of the Government or for cause. 
However, the paragraphs in 52.212-4 entitled "Termination 
for the Government's Convenience" and "Termination for 
Cause" 
contain concepts which differ from those contained 
in the termination clauses prescribed in Part 49. 
Consequently, the requirements of Part 49 do not apply 
when terminating contracts for commercial items and 
contracting officers shall follow the 
procedures in this 
section. Contracting officers may continue to use Part 49 
as guidance to the extent that Part 49 does not conflict with 
this section and the language of the termination paragraphs 
in 52.212-4. 
FAR 12.403. While the goal of each clause is fair compensation for the contractor 
upon the termination of the contract for the government's convenience, (SWR, Inc., 
ASBCA No. 56708, 15-1 BCA ii 35,832) the commercial items clause's recovery is 
price based, while the standard clause's recovery is cost based. They also differ 
respecting the right to a government audit, the use of a contractor's standard record 
keeping system, compliance with the Cost Accounting Standards, and compliance with 
contract cost principles. 
In this instance we are faced with a situation where there is no evidence in the 
record that the parties even realized that there were two termination for convenience 
clauses in the contract until after the contract was terminated. The contract itself was 
awarded as a commercial items contract using FAR Part 12 procedures (finding 12). 
Moreover, it was terminated pursuant to the commercial items clause (finding 21 ). It 
is clear that the commercial items clause was the proper clause for inclusion in the 
contract (see FAR 12.30l(b)(3)) and the only evidence we have as to how the standard 
clause came to be included in the contract is that it was inadvertent (finding 12). We 
have no evidence of any reliance prior to termination of the contract on the standard 
clause's presence. 
This is not the first appeal before us in which a contract included two different 
convenience termination clauses; in American Packers, Inc., ASBCA No. 14275, 
71-1 BCA ii 8846 at 41,129, with no evidence as to the parties' intent, we applied the 
clause preferred by the contractor on equitable grounds of fairness. More recently we 
encountered two different convenience termination clauses, FAR 52.212-4 and 
52.249-1 in Deas Construction, Inc., ASBCA No. 60633, 17-1 BCA ii 36,596. There 
the parties agreed on the proper operative clause and we used the commercial items 
clause stating: "Because this is a commercial services contract, we agree that 
FAR 52.212-4(1) is the applicable clause." Id. at 178,274 n.4. In general, pursuant to 
SWR, the overall purpose of a termination for convenience settlement is to fairly 
compensate the contractor and to make the contractor whole for the costs incurred in 
16 

connection with the terminated work; a contractor should not suffer as a result of a 
termination for convenience. We conclude that ESCgov's termination recovery should 
be determined using the commercial items clause (FAR 52.212-4(1)). Accordingly, we 
proceed to analyze ESCgov's termination recovery under FAR 52.212-4(1), using FAR 
Part 49 principles as guidance as permitted by FAR 12.403. 
1. BladeLogic software licenses 
ESCgov requests $1,031,430.50, a portion of the cost of its purchase in 2008 of 
"perpetual" BladeLogic software licenses (finding 27) because, it says, it purchased 
the licenses "specifically for [the government]," 
and, therefore, "cannot use the 
licenses in support of another entity, despite the fact that the licenses remain valid" 
· (app. br. at 19-20, 24-25). ESCgov says that it "is precluded from using those licenses 
for another customer," and that, therefore, the termination "effectively 
render[ ed] 
those licenses useless," entitling it to recover at least part of the licenses' purchase 
price (id. at 19).5 However, fair compensation does not include the cost of purchasing 
those licenses. Because, according to ESCgov, those licenses are perpetual and valid, 
there is no need to make ESCgov "whole" for the costs incurred in connection with 
those licenses. 
To begin with, ESCgov's position relies upon the assertion that the termination 
rendered the licenses useless because they are government contract-specific; however, 
the "uselessness" component of that assertion rings hollow. Because, as ESCgov 
admits, the licenses are perpetual and remain valid, there appears no reason why they 
could not be used to perform future contracts like the one terminated. Indeed, 
according to ESCgov, it purchased the licenses for use on a 2008 contract and 
"subsequent [such] contracts," well before it was awarded the 2012 contract at issue 
here (finding 6); it does not contend that there is no prospect of any such contracts 
being awarded to anyone in the future. In that sense, ESCgov is in the same position 
as when it purchased the licenses: it possesses licenses that it purchased including for 
use on future potential government contracts. There is no serious contention that the 
termination of the contract changed that scenario. For these reasons, ESCgov fails to 
demonstrate that fairness requires that it be reimbursed 
now for any of the cost of 
purchasing the BladeLogic licenses. Moreover, ESCgov's system of records shows no 
such allocation between the two contracts but rather a full allocation to the 2008 
contract (findings 31-34). 
5 The amount that ESCgov claims for software licenses in this appeal is roughly half of 
what it says it paid for 20,000 licenses purchased upon having been awarded, in 
2008, a predecessor contract to the contract at issue in this appeal (finding 6). 
That ESCgov may have purchased the licenses at issue in this appeal after the 
award of an earlier contract not at issue in this appeal does not change our 
analysis. 
17 

2. Contract performance 
Compensation under the commercial items clause for a convenience 
termination may include payment of a percentage of the contract price reflecting the 
percentage of the work performed prior to the notice of termination. See TriRAD 
Technologies, Inc., ASBCA No. 58855, 15-1 BCA ii 35,898 at 175,496-98 (applying 
FAR 52.212-4(1)). ESCgov seeks $180,937.50 for the one-month period that ended on 
29 August 
2012, the date that the government issued the termination notice (R4, tab 
27; app. br. at 25-28). The government contends that ESCgov is entitled to only 
$58,366.94, for the period 1 August 2012 (the beginning of the base period) through 
10 August 2012, when the government issued the stop work order (gov't br. at 110). 
ESCgov replies that it began performance on 24 July 2012, before the base period 
began, and that the contract required payment on a monthly basis, entitling it to a 
month of contract payment (app. reply br. at 22-23). 
We agree with the government's rationale, but not its calculation. ESCgov 
performed 10 base-period contract days before being ordered to stop work. That is 
10/365, or approximately 2.74 percent, of the 12-month base period. Although the 
government does not show its work, we infer that it bases its calculation upon the 
$2, 171,250 contract price for the "software as a service" alone (see gov't br. at 11 O); 
however, we find that the more fair approach is to start with the full contract price. 
Using that approach, 2.74 percent of the $2,276,906 contract price (finding 14) is 
$62,387.22, the amount to which ESCgov is entitled for contract performance. 
3. ESCgov-developed software 
ESCgov seeks $2,260,875 (findings 27, 35-38) for what it says is software that it 
developed and deployed on government computer servers to "provid[ e] additional 
functionality to the BladeLogic software to meet the contract requirements," saying 
further that subsequent to the termination of the contract, the government refused 
ESCgov's request to return the ESCgov-developed software, and continues to use it 
(findings 22-26). 
Fair compensation for a convenience termination includes payment of a 
percentage of the costs related to partially completed work reflecting the percentage of 
the work performed prior to the notice of termination. See TriRAD Technologies, 
15-1BCAii35,898 at 175,498 (applying FAR 52.212-4(1)). However, ESCgov's 
request for $2,260,875 is, essentially, a 
request for what it says is the market value of 
its software, not a request for costs. Fair compensation for a convenience contract 
termination does not include the fair market value of an item (here, software) 
developed and deployed to perform the contract. Although ESCgov appears to 
request, in the alternative, $555,610.63 "in costs for the effort expended by its 
employees to develop the software" (app. reply br. at 34-35, 42), ESCgov also 
18 

explains that it developed that software to perform the 2008 contract; stating that 
"[b ]ecause the Blade[L ]ogic software lacked the full level of functionality to meet the 
2008 Contract's requirements, ESCgov developed software to ensure compliance with 
the contract's requirements" (app. br. at 30). Because ESCgov effectively admits that 
the software was developed to perform a contract other than the one at issue here, we 
find that any cost incurred to develop that software is not compensable as a cost 
related to the terminated work of the contract at issue in this appeal. For these reasons, 
ESCgov does not demonstrate entitlement to recovery of either the value of the 
software, or the cost of its development. 
4. Severance pay 
Fair compensation for a convenience termination includes payment, as a 
settlement charge, of an employee severance payment resulting from the termination 
where the contractor had a legal obligation to pay the severance payment. See TriRAD 
Technologies, 15-1 BCA ii 35,898 at 175,499 (applying FAR 52.212-4(1)). Here, 
ESCgov seeks $20,868.40 in what it says was a severance payment to a program 
manager whose employment it terminated as a result of the termination of the contract 
(findings 40-41). However, ESCgov does not claim that it was obligated to make that 
payment; it says that "ESCgov's established practice was to pay terminated employees 
a severance payment as part of their termination," and that its "employee handbook 
permitted severance payments" (app. br. at 35). Fair compensation for a convenience 
termination does not include a 
voluntary severance payment to a terminated employee. 
Consequently, ESCgov does not demonstrate entitlement to recovery of its severance 
payment to a program manager because it was a cost that was incurred that reasonably 
could have been avoided. 
5. Employee and consultant termination settlement proposal preparation costs 
ESCgov seeks $1,689 in what it says are "employee costs to prepare the 
termination settlement proposal" 
(finding 42). The government objects that this 
amount was calculated with a "fully burdened rate" of $281.50 per hour that includes 
unallowable profit (gov't br. at 153). ESCgov replies by pointing to testimony that the 
rate it used "is a reasonable reflection of the costs ESCgov incurred for its employees' 
time," which it estimates consists of two hours each of three people, totaling six hours 
(app. reply br. at 45). However, a contractor may not rely upon testimony alone to 
support its claim to charges resulting from a commercial items convenience 
termination; it must, at least, point to contemporaneous documentation supporting the 
claimed charge. See SWR, 15-1BCAii35,832 at 175,230-31 (applying 
FAR 52.212-4(1)). Because it does not point to any such documentation, ESCgov 
does 
not demonstrate entitlement to the employee costs that it claims it incurred preparing 
the termination settlement proposal. 
19 

6. Legal and consulting termination settlement proposal preparation costs 
ESCgov seeks $15,651.36 in legal costs and $6,000.00 in consulting costs, both 
of which it says it incurred in "preparation of the termination settlement proposal" 
(finding 27; app. hr. at 37-38). The government objects that those costs are not 
recoverable because, it says, the settlement claim was not submitted in good faith, and 
(quoting Dairy Sales Corp. v. United States, 593 F .2d 1002, 1006 (Ct. Cl. 1979) 
(citing Topeka Janitor Service, ASBCA No. 9989, 65-2 BCA ,-i 4911)), "no claim may 
be made," in a 
termination for convenience case, "for fees incurred in the preparation 
of claims which are not compensable" (gov't br. at 153-54 ). In the alternative, the 
government provides an itemized breakdown of the claimed legal fees, contending that 
ESCgov is entitled to no more than $5,489.00, all in legal costs (id. at 154-58). 
ESCgov 
replies by insisting that its fees are recoverable, including fees that the 
government points out are for "unsegregated time" (that is, time spent at least in part in 
pursuit of compensation for ESCgov-developed software), but provides no line-by-line 
response to the government's itemization (app. reply hr. 45-47). 
Implicit in the allowability of a contractor's costs in connection with the 
submittal of a termination for convenience settlement proposal is that the proposal is 
submitted in good faith; costs connected with a proposal not submitted in good faith 
are not allowable. Anlagen-und Sanierungstechnik GmbH, ASBCA No. 37878, 91-3 
BCA ,-i 24,128 at 120,754. The government asserts that the settlement proposal was 
not submitted in good faith because, it says "ESCgov knew that the BladeLogic 
licenses were a cost of the 2008 Contract, not the 2012 Contract" at issue here, and 
that 
"ESCgov submitted a claim in the amount of $2,127,924 for the 'value' of 
compliance content that it knew was produced through performance of the 2008 
Contract and that ESCgov had previously agreed 
to sell [to a third party] for only 
$85,000" (gov't hr. at 154). The government cites no record evidence to support its 
"no good faith" position (id.). We will not scour the record for such evidence, and, 
therefore, without deciding whether ESCgov submitted the proposal in good faith, we 
hold that the government has failed 
to demonstrate that ESCgov did not submit 
the 
termination settlement proposal in good faith. Cf Creative Times Dayschool, Inc., 
ASBCA Nos. 59507, 59779, 16-1 BCA ,-i 36,535 at 177,981 (appellant that failed to 
cite record evidence in support of claim issue failed to demonstrate entitlement to 
compensation on that issue). 
However, we are persuaded, following Dairy Sales, that ESCgov's claim for 
legal and consulting costs is unreasonably high. First, the parties agree that the 
consulting fees were for a valuation of the ESCgov-developed software (app. reply br. 
at 46; see gov't br. at 153), which alleged value we have found is noncompensable; 
consequently, those consulting fees are also noncompensable. 
20 

Second, with respect to the claimed legal fees, the government offers a detailed 
itemization of the attorney billing records in evidence in support of its position that 
ESCgov should recover no more than $5,489 in legal fees because, the government says, 
the remainder was spent in whole or unsegregated part in support of claims for 
noncompensable issues (as opposed to potentially compensable issues), mostly the claim 
for the value of the ESCgov-developed software (gov't br. at 154-5 8). Again, we have 
found that the value of the ESCgov-developed software is noncompensable; therefore, 
fees spent in pursuit of that value are noncompensable. ESCgov makes a mostly 
conclusory effort to contest the government's itemization of the claimed legal fees, 
providing no line-by-line challenge to that itemization, and no alternative quantification 
(app. reply br. at 45-47). Having reviewed the parties' positions (including the 
government's itemization and ESCgov's response) and the attorney billing records, and 
comparing ESCgov's more than $3 million claim to the $62,387.22 that we find is 
compensable, cf Dairy Sales, 593 F.2d at 1006-07, we accept the government's position 
and find that $5,489 is reasonable compensation for legal fees incurred in the preparation 
of the settlement proposal. 
Affirmative Defenses 
Neither of the government's affirmative defenses changes our analysis. The 
first, that ESCgov's requests for the cost of purchasing the licenses and the value of 
the software it developed be reduced due to a lack of mitigation (gov't br. at 158), 
need not be considered because we do not award any compensation for those issues. 
The second, that ESCgov's damages should be reduced for failure to comply with the 
CDA in submitting "baseless" elements for recovery in its termination claim. The 
government requests that we reduce (in an unspecified amount) appellant's recovery, 
citing as support the anti-fraud underpinnings of the Contract Disputes Act's 
certification requirement ("41 U.S.C. § 605(c)(l))" [sic] 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(l)). This 
request is merely a thinly disguised attempt to have the Board access fraud penalties. 
It does not require citation that the Board does not possess such jurisdiction, even if 
the CO had issued a contracting officer's decision asserting such a claim. (Gov't br. 
at 160-64) 
Summary 
We award the following, plus interest: 
Contract performance: 
Settlement proposal preparation legal costs: 
Total 
21 
$62,387.22 
$5,489.00 
$67,876.22 

CONCLUSION 
We have considered the parties' other arguments and are not persuaded thereby. 
The appeal is sustained in part, and ESCgov is awarded $67,876.22, plus interest upon 
that amount pursuant to the CDA, 41 U.S.C. § 7109, from 12 June 2013, the date that 
the CO received ESCgov's claim, until the date of payment. 
Dated: 8 May 201 7 
I concur 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur in result 
~ I~!//~/ /~~!~ TIMOTHY P. MC MAI~ 
Administrative ;uge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
22 
I concur 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the Armed 
Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58852, Appeal ofESCgov, Inc., 
rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
23 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals