Securityhunter, Inc.
Docket: ASBCA 56305, ASBCA 56313
Decision date: 2018-02-15

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of--
Securityhunter, Inc. 
Under Contract No. N39430-13-D-1265 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 60896 
Robert F. Camey, Esq. 
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston L.L.P. 
Columbia, MD 
Ronald J. Borro, Esq. 
Navy Chief Trial Attorney 
Russell A. Shultis, Esq. 
Assistant Director 
David M. Marquez, Esq. 
Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MELNICK ON THE PARTIES' 
CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
Securityhunter, Inc., seeks a declaration interpreting a contract with the Naval 
Facilities Engineering Command (government). In particular, Securityhunter submitted a 
claim to the contracting officer contending that its obligation to complete performance 
of a task order was extinguished when the task order and base contract periods of 
performance expired. The contracting officer concluded in a final decision that 
Securityhunter remained obligated to complete performance. The Board agrees with the 
government. Securityhunter' s motion for summary judgment is denied and the 
government's motion for summary judgment is granted. Securityhunter's appeal is 
denied. 
BACKGROUND 
On May 21, 2013, the government awarded Securityhunter the firm-fixed-price, 
indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract identified above. The contract sought 
materials and services for Physical Security/ Access Control systems, with work assigned 
through separate, firm-fixed-price task orders. (R4, tab 1 at 1-2, 4, 7-23, 33-34, 46-47) 
The contract's initial 365-day period of performance began on May 21, 2013. The 
contract also provided the government with two option years that it exercised. (R4, tab 1 
at 1-3, 23) The second option year's period of performance ended on May 20, 2016 (R4, 
tab 1 at 32). Among the contract's clauses was Federal Acquisition Regulation 

I 
I 
I I 
I 
i I 
I 
l 
(FAR) 52.216-22, INDEFINITE QUANTITY (OCT 1995). Section ( d) provided in pertinent 
part that: 
( d) Any order issued during the effective period of 
this contract and not completed within that period shall be 
completed by the Contractor within the time specified in 
the order. The contract shall govern the Contractor's and 
Government's rights and obligations with respect to that 
order to the same extent as if the order were completed 
during the contract's effective period; provided that the 
Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries 
under this contract after 365 days after contract award. 
(R4, tab 1 at 4 7) 
On May 7, 2014, the government issued Task Order 0008 (TO 8) under the contract 
(R4, tab 13). TO 8 incorporated a Performance Work Statement (PWS) for physical 
security/access control at the Naval Station Norfolk and the Naval Support Activity 
Hampton Roads (R4, tab 13 at 4, tab 5). 1 The PWS provided specific requirements for 
Securityhunter to install automated vehicle gates and related systems such as card readers, 
badging components, sensors, monitors, interfaces, communications, video, license readers, 
lighting, and related components and software (R4, tab 5 at 81-91). The task order's firm­
fixed-price totaled $2,545,798.01 (R4, tab 13 at 521). TO 8 established a 365-day period of 
performance from May 7, 2014 until May 6, 2015 (R4, tab 13 at 526, tab 5 at 91). 
Securityhunter submitted a claim to the contracting officer dated September 8, 2016, 
seeking an interpretation of the contract. Specifically, Securityhunter observed that, 
though the government had successfully extended other task orders issued under the 
contract, it had failed to extend TO 8. Securityhunter therefore stressed that both the 
contract and task order periods of performance had expired. It maintained that 
FAR 52.216-22(d) relieved it from any further obligations to complete performance. 
Accordingly, it declared that it was no longer under contract with the government to 
perform the PWS. It offered to outline what work remained to be completed. 
Securityhunter "demand[ ed] that it be released from any further performance under [TO 8] 
as a result of the expiration of the contract and the task order periods of performance." 
Securityhunter did not seek a monetary award. (R4, tab 16) The contracting officer denied 
Securityhunter's claim on October 21, 2016, concluding that Securityhunter was required 
1 The task order states that the PWS was dated July 31, 2013 (R4, tab 13 at 523). 
However, the parties agree that the relevant PWS is one dated August 14, 2013 
(app. prop. finding ,i 13, gov't prop. finding ,i 53 n.2). 
2 

to continue performance of the task order "until the design, procurement, and installation of 
the necessary automated gate equipment is completed" (R4, tab 18 at 3).2 
This appeal followed. Securityhunter's complaint essentially repeats the allegations 
of its claim, contending that Securityhunter was relieved from any obligation to deliver 
supplies and services as a result of FAR 52.216-22(d). It asks that it be "released from any 
further performance under this task order." It does not seek a monetary award. 
DECISION 
Securityhunter moves for summary judgment, seeking a declaration from the 
Board that it was not required to make further deliveries under TO 8 after May 20, 2016. 
The government cross-moves for summary judgment, suggesting that Securityhunter has 
not been relieved of the task order's requirements. 
Summary judgment should be granted if it has been shown that there are no 
genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of 
law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The Board's jurisdiction 
over appeals from the denial of claims includes the power to interpret the parties' contract 
rights. See Alliant Techsystems, Inc. v. United States, 178 F.3d 1260, 1265-70 (Fed. Cir. 
1999); Kaman Precision Prods., Inc., ASBCA Nos. 56305, 56313, 10-2 BCA ,r 34,529 at 
170,287. However, its jurisdiction does not include the power to order specific relief. See 
MicroTechnologies, LLC, ASBCA Nos. 59911, 59912, 15-1 BCA ,r 36,125. Though 
Securityhunter's request for a "release" might imply that it seeks specific relief, its claim 
also requests "interpretation of the contract terms." The appeal is deemed to address 
contract interpretation. 3 
1 Securityhunter 's Motion 
Securityhunter's motion for summary judgment relies upon a specific assertion 
that it did not include in its claim to the contracting officer. It now contends that the 
government delayed its performance of TO 8 past both the task order's completion date 
of May 6, 2015, and the base contract's period of performance which, after extension, 
2 The contracting officer also stressed that, should Securityhunter disagree with the 
decision, it remained obligated to continue performance under the contract's 
Disputes clause, FAR 52.233-1, pending resolution of any further review. 
3 On July 26, 201 7, Securityhunter filed an objection to the admissibility of Rule 4 
file, tabs 10 through 12, and a motion to strike exhibits attached to the 
government's brief in opposition to Security hunter's motion for summary 
judgment and supporting the government's motion. None of these materials are 
relied upon for the purpose of this decision and therefore the objection and 
motion are considered moot. 
3 

I 
I I 
l ij 
ended on May 20, 2016. Securityhunter says this government delay, combined with 
section ( d) of the Indefinite Quantity clause, stating "that the Contractor shall not be 
required to make any deliveries under this contract after 365 days [ extended to three 
years] after contract award," eliminates any obligation to continue performance after 
May 20, 2016. (App. mot. at 2, 6, 9-10, 12-14; app. resp. at 8, 11) 
Securityhunter did not present to the contracting officer a claim that the 
government delayed performance of the task order, and therefore that contention is 
beyond the Board's jurisdiction to consider. See Taj Al Safa Co., ASBCA No. 58394, 
13 BCA ,i 35,278. Securityhunter's claim merely stated that the task order and 
contract periods of performance expired, and therefore Securityhunter was no longer 
obligated to continue performing. It further contended that any attempt to extend 
either the contract or task order would violate FAR 52.216-22( d). 
To remain within the scope of a claim, an action must arise from the same 
operative facts as those presented to the contracting officer. See Am. Gen. Trading & 
Contracting, WLL, ASBCA No. 56758, 12-1 BCA ,J 34,905 at 171,639-40. At the 
very least, Securityhunter's allegation that the government delayed its performance of 
TO 8 involves consideration of the facts supporting the alleged delay, causation, and 
responsibility. See ECC, Int'!, ASBCA No, 55781, 13 BCA ,J 35,207 at 172,741, 
172,744. The operative facts associated with these issues are not the same as what 
Securityhunter asserted in its claim. Consequently, the Board lacks jurisdiction to 
consider Securityhunter's delay allegation. Because government delay is a central 
component to Securityhunter's motion for summary judgment, the motion is denied. 
II. The Government's Motion 
The government seeks summary judgment upon Securityhunter's complaint. 
That pleading, like the claim, contends that its obligation to deliver under TO 8 
expired when the base contract's period of performance ended on May 20, 2016. 
Securityhunter contends that section (d) of the Indefinite Quantity clause extinguishes 
any obligation to perform after that date and therefore Securityhunter is no longer 
under contract to perform TO 8's requirements. We disagree. 
Section ( d) begins with the recognition that an order issued during the 
contract's effective period, but not completed within that time, shall be completed 
within the time specified by the order. It confirms that the base contract governs such 
an order as if it were completed during the contract's effective period. But, it provides 
that "the Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract 
after 365 days after contract award," which Securityhunter acknowledges was 
extended to three years. (R4, tab 1 at 47; app. mot. at 3-4, 7, 9) 
4 

I ! 
l 
Though in other contexts there has been some uncertainty about the meaning of 
section (d), see DayDanyon Corp. v. Department of Defense, 600 F. App'x 739, 742 
(Fed. Cir. 2015), here it is inapplicable. TO 8's period of performance, and therefore 
the time within which Securityhunter was to complete the task order work, ended on 
May 6, 2015, well before the base contract's effective period ended on May 20, 2016. 
Nothing in subsection ( d) suggests that it relieves Securityhunter of its contractual 
obligation to complete such a task order simply because Securityhunter failed to do so 
during the task order and contract effective periods. As a firm-fixed-price task order, 
TO 8 placed upon Securityhunter "maximum risk and full responsibility for all costs and 
resulting profit or loss" so that it would "perform effectively." FAR 16.202-1. It also 
imposed a fixed scope of work. See Zafer Taahhut Insaat ve Ticaret A.S. v. United 
States, 833 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (declaring a firm-fixed-price contract 
"generally sets forth a fixed scope of work"). Relieving Securityhunter of its contractual 
obligations to complete that work merely because it failed to perform on time would 
render the contract illusory and void. Securityhunter could simply decline to perform 
without any consequences. See Stockton E. Water Dist. v. United States, 583 F.3d 1344, 
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Torncello v. United States, 681 F.2d 756, 760 (Ct. Cl. 
1982) ("[A] party may not reserve to itself a method of unlimited exculpation without 
rendering its promises illusory and the contract void .... "); Richard A. Lord, Williston on 
Contracts § 4.27 ( 4th ed. 1999) ("[W]here the promisor retains an unlimited right to 
decide later the nature or extent of his or her performance[, the] unlimited choice in 
effect destroys the promise and makes it illusory.")). 
Securityhunter appears to recognize the possibility of invalidity by stressing 
now that its position is premised upon the government delaying the task order's 
completion. An excusable delay might relieve Securityhunter from performing during 
the delay. See Alley-Cassetty Coal Co., ASBCA No. 33315, 89-3 BCA ,i 21,964 at 
110,490 (finding contractor was entitled to an extension of time to deliver coal due to 
excusable delay). But, normally it would have to perform after the impairment was 
removed. See Consolidated Molded Prods. Corp. v. United States, 600 F.2d 793 (Ct. 
Cl. 1979); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 269 ( 1981) (relieving contractor 
from resuming performance only if it would be materially more burdensome). 
Regardless, as already noted, Securityhunter did not allege delay in its claim. 
Securityhunter's claim that its obligation to perform disappears upon expiration of the 
contract's period of performance is unsupported as a matter oflaw. Accordingly, the 
government's motion for summary judgment is granted. 
5 

I 
r 
I 
CONCLUSION 
Securityhunter did not allege in its claim that the government delayed its 
performance of TO 8. Because such a contention would arise from separate operative facts 
than those alleged in the claim, the Board lacks jurisdiction to consider it. Securityhunter's 
motion for summary judgment premised upon government delay is therefore denied. 
Securityhunter's claim contends that, upon expiration of the contract's period of 
performance, its obligation to complete performance of TO 8 was extinguished under the 
terms of section (d) of the Indefinite Quantity clause. That contention is rejected as a 
matter of law, and therefore summary judgment is granted to the government. The appeal 
is denied. 
Dated: 15 February 2018 
I concur 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
MARK A. MELNICK 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
OWEN C. WILSON 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
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. 60896, Appeal of 
Securityhunter, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
· Dated: FEB 1 6 2018 
!.•. 
6 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals