ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of -- ) 
) 
Snowdon, Inc. ) 
) 
Under Contract No. HDTRAl-10-C-0065 ) 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 59705 
Mr. William J. Welsh 
Owner 
E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 
DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 
Gregory T. Allen, Esq. 
Trial Attorney 
Defense Contract Management Agency 
Chantilly, VA 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL 
INTRODUCTION 
Appellant, Snowdon, Inc. (Snowdon), appeals from a contracting officer's final 
decision demanding payment to the government of $47,500, the amount that Snowdon 
received from a third party to which it sold government property used to perform a 
contract that Snowdon had with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (government). 
We deny the appeal, and award to the government $47,500, plus interest. Appellant 
has elected to proceed pursuant to Board Rule 12.3. 
FINDINGS OF FACT 
In July 2010, Snowdon entered into a research and development contract with 
the government (R4, tab 1). The contract incorporated by 
reference Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.245-1, GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (JUN 2007) 
and FAR clause 52.232-17, INTEREST (OCT 2008) (R4, tab 1 at G-17). The contract's 
performance period ended in August 2011 (R4, tab 4 ). In the course of and for the 
purpose of contract performance, Snowdon purchased two pieces of equipment for 
which the government reimbursed Snowdon, vesting title in the equipment to the 
government (see compl. at 2; R4, tab 7 at 76, 81, tab 16 at 1-2). 
In 2012, Snowdon and the government engaged in a series of communications 
regarding the disposition of the government-owned equipment (R4, tab 7 at G-77-81). 
On 17 May 2012, the government informed Snowdon by email that "[i]f none of the 

equipment is deemed good for use here or transferred to another project then it will be 
left to Snowdon," ending the email with the postscript "More to follow .... " (id. at 
G-78-79). Later the same day, in response to Snowdon asking when the government 
might make its decision, the government's representative stated "I think 2 weeks at the 
most" (id. at G-78). On 20 June 2012, Snowdon followed up, requesting that the 
government provide equipment disposition instructions 
because, Snowdon advised, it 
was vacating its facility at the end of the month (id. at G-73). 
On 30 July 
2012, Snowdon sold the equipment to TAXIS Pharmaceuticals 
(TAXIS) for $47,500 (compl. at 4; R4, tab 7 at G-85). There is no evidence that upon 
sale of the equipment, Snowdon offered to remit the proceeds to the government. In 
June 2014, the government inquired of Snowdon regarding the equipment (id. at 
G-81). Snowdon informed the government that "no instructions [regarding the 
equipment] were ever provided to Snowden" (id. at G-77), and that "[a]bsent guidance 
from the [contracting officer], the company was forced to take responsibility for the 
equipment and sold it" (id. at G-73). On 27 August 2014, the contracting officer 
issued a final decision demanding payment to the government of $4 7 ,500, finding that 
Snowdon had 
sold the equipment, for that amount, without government approval (R4, 
tab 11). 
DECISION 
Snowdon owes the government $47,500, plus interest. FAR clause 52.245-1, 
GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (JUN 2007) provides, at paragraph 0)(9), that "[a]s directed 
by the Contracting Officer, the 
Contractor shall credit the net proceeds from the 
disposal of Contractor inventory to the contract, or to the Treasury of the United States 
as miscellaneous receipts." The same clause defines, at paragraph (a), "Contractor 
inventory" as including "[a ]ny property acquired by and in the possession of a 
Contractor ... under a contract for which title is vested in the Government and which 
exceeds the amounts needed to complete full performance under the entire contract." 
There is no dispute, and we so find, that the equipment that Snowdon sold to 
TAXIS 
was "Contractor inventory," and that the net proceeds that Snowdon realized 
from the disposal of that equipment is $47,500. Consequently, pursuant to FAR clause 
52.245-10)(9), Snowdon owes the government $47,500. Snowdon contends that the 
government abandoned the equipment, but we disagree. FAR clause 52.245-l(k)(2) 
provides that "[t]he Government, upon notice to the Contractor, may abandon any 
nonsensitive Government property in place," but Snowdon received no such notice. 
At most, the communications between Snowdon and the government establish that the 
government was considering its options for disposing of the equipment, including 
abandonment, but did not communicate any disposal decision to Snowdon. Indeed, 
without any instructions or guidance from the government, Snowdon took matters into 
its own hands and sold the equipment to a third party. 
2 

In view of our decision, we find it unnecessary to address the parties' other 
arguments. 
CONCLUSION 
For the reasons stated, the appeal is denied, and the government is awarded 
$47,500, plus interest pursuant to FAR clause 52.232-17, INTEREST (OCT 2008), from 
27 August 2014, the date of the contracting officer's final decision demanding 
payment, until the date of payment. 
Dated: 20 May 2015 
I concur 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative 
Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
~~ ·~ffiL 
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. 59705, Appeal of 
Snowdon, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals