ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of--
Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. 
Under Contract No. DAAA09-02-D-0007 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
ASBCA No. 58175 
Jason N. Workmaster, Esq. 
Raymond B. Biagini, Esq. 
Covington & Burling LLP 
Washington, DC 
Arthur M. Taylor, Esq. 
DCMA Deputy Chief Trial Attorney 
Carol Matsunaga, Esq. 
Senior Trial Attorney 
Defense Contract Management Agency 
Carson, CA 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SCOTT 
ON APPELLANT'S MOTION TO AMEND 
Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. (KBR) has filed "Appellant's Motion to Amend 
the Board's March 15, 2018 Judgment," referring to the Board's March 15, 2018 post-hearing 
decision in this appeal, Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 58175, 18-1 BCA 
i1 37,006. KBR asks the Board to amend its decision that "KBR is to remit $11,233,117 to the 
government, plus interest," id. at 180,233, to state that "while the Board has found that the 
[g]overnment is entitled to [that amount plus interest], that amount is not due and owing 
because it is offset by a larger amount that the [g]ovemment owes KBR" (mot. at 2). The 
Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) opposes KBR's motion. 
The Parties' Contentions 
KBR alleges that its motion is akin to one to correct a judgment under FED. R. CIV. 
P. 60, Relief from a Judgment or Order. It does not consider its motion to be a request for 
reconsideration. KBR asserts that, although the Board ruled that KBR "must reimburse 
the government" for the costs KBR incurred due to its failure to follow government 
direction to reduce a site headcount under its contract to provide dining facility services in 
Iraq, 18-1BCAi137,006 at 180,233, the government otherwise owes KBR over $150 
million in incurred costs. KBR states that it understands that the government does not 
dispute its entitlement to at least $3 3 million. Therefore, according to KBR, the Board 
should amend its decision to account for the offset amount said to be due to KBR. KBR 

submits the declaration of Scott Booth, a project manager, in support of its financial 
claims. 
DCMA alleges that there is no legal or factual support in the record for KBR's 
proposed amendment, citing Board Rule 19(a), which provides that "[d]ecisions of the 
Board will be made solely upon the record." DCMA asserts that Mr. Booth's declaration is 
not part of the record and is not supported by it or any other documentation. DCMA 
contends that KBR should follow the normal contract invoicing process and the 
government will make determinations on cost allowability. DCMA appends declarations 
from the procurement contracting officer (PCO) and the administrative contracting officer 
that they are not familiar with the $33 million amount to which KBR alleges the 
government does not dispute entitlement. The PCO notes that KBR has submitted a 
proposal for contract closeout that includes $40 million in legal costs but that the 
government has not yet made allowability determinations. He states that any undisputed 
amounts owed to KBR should be paid through the Defense Finance and Accounting 
Service and the routine invoicing process. 
KBR replies essentially that, regardless of the precise amount the government owes 
KBR, it exceeds the amount the Board ruled KBR owes the government. KBR appends a 
supplemental declaration by Mr. Booth that the $33 million in costs he mentioned in his 
original declaration are included in the $40 million proposal for contract closeout to which 
the PCO referred in his declaration. Mr. Booth declares, among other things, that the 
Defense Contract Audit Agency has audited about half of the costs and found them to be 
allowable and that KBR is confident that the government will not contest at least the 
amount that is at issue here. 
In its sur-reply DCMA continues to oppose KBR' s motion to amend and disputes that 
FED. R. CIV. P. 60 applies. 
Discussion 
The Board does not have a rule such as FED. R. CIV. P. 60. The Board is not bound 
by the Federal Rules, but we may look to them for guidance, particularly when our rules do 
not directly address a matter. TTF, L.L.C., ASBCA No. 58494, 13 BCA ,r 35,343 at 
173,463; Thai Hai, ASBCA No. 53375, 02-2 BCA ,r 31,971 at 157,920, aff'd, Thai Hai v. 
Brownlee, 82 F. App'x 226 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (unpublished). 
FED. R. CIV. P. 60(a) pertains to corrections to a judgment based upon clerical 
mistakes, oversights and omissions, which did not occur here. Rule 60(b) allows for relief 
from a final judgment based upon: ( 1) "mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable 
neglect"; (2) "newly discovered evidence"; (3) "fraud ... , misrepresentation, or misconduct by 
an opposing party"; (4) a void judgment; (5) a judgment that "has been satisfied, released or 
discharged"; and (6) "any other reason that justifies relief." KBR relies in particular upon 
Rule 60(b )( 5), citing it for the proposition that "one of the primary purposes of a motion to 
2 

amend [is] to allow an adjudicative body to account for the satisfaction of a judgment after 
the decision has been made and, thu·s, the record closed" (app. reply at 3 n.2). 
As quoted above, Board Rule 19(a) provides that the Board's decisions are to be 
made upon the record alone. DCMA is correct that the amendment KBR seeks is not based 
upon any matter of record. Moreover, there is no probative, undisputed evidence that the 
Board's judgment has been satisfied. The Board finds nothing in FED. R. CIV. P. 60 to 
support KBR's motion. Thus, there is no basis for the Board to amend its decision. 
The Board denies KBR's motion. 
Dated: August 28, 2018 
I concur 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
DECISION 
ministrative 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. 58175, Appeal of Kellogg Brown & Root 
Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals 
I