ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of --
Amaratek 
Under Contract No. W9124R-l 1-P-1054 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 59149, 59395 
Mr. David P. Dumas 
President 
Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 
Army Chief Trial Attorney 
CPT Cali Y. Kim, JA 
Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL 
In these consolidated appeals, appellant, Amaratek, seeks compensation for 
work performed in October 2013, during part of which the government shut down 
appellant's operations. Appellant elected to proceed under Board Rule 12.2, 1 and the 
parties have waived an oral hearing. Both entitlement and quantum are at issue. The 
Board sustains the appeals, in part, and denies them, in part. 
FINDINGS OF FACT 
On 26 May 2011, the Department of the Army, Mission & Installation 
Contracting Command Center-Yuma (government) awarded appellant Contract 
No. W9124R-11-P-1054 for material analysis laboratory services at the Yuma Proving 
Ground in Yuma, Arizona (R4, tab 1 at 1, 3). The total award amount was $977,432 
(id. at 1). The contract provided for a base period of 1July2011through30 June 2012, 
and two options periods: 1 July 2012 through 30 June 2013, and 1July2013 through 
30 June 2014 (R4, tab 1 at 8-9, 13). Option Period 2, from 1 July 2013 through 30 June 
2014, consisted of 12 units of service of one month each, with each unit priced at 
$58,947 (R4, tab 1 at 13). The contract was a Commercial Items contract and 
incorporated by reference the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.212-4, 
CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS-COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JUNE 2010) (R4, tab 1 
at 21). 
1 A decision under Board Rule 12.2 shall have no value as precedent, and in the 
absence of fraud, shall be final and conclusive and may not be appealed or set 
aside. 

The contract also incorporated by reference the FAR 52.242-15, STOP-WORK 
ORDER (AUG 1989) clause (R4, tab 1 at 21 ), which provides, at paragraph (b ): 
If a stop-work order issued under this clause is 
canceled or the period of the order or any extension thereof 
expires, the Contractor shall resume work. The 
Contracting Officer shall make an equitable adjustment in 
the delivery schedule or contract price, or both, and the 
contract shall be modified, in writing, accordingly, if--
(1) The stop-work order results in an increase in the 
time required for, or in the Contractor's cost properly 
allocable to, the performance of any part of this contract; 
and 
(2) The Contractor asserts its right to the adjustment 
within 30 days after the end of the period of work 
stoppage; provided, that, if the Contracting Officer decides 
the facts justify the action, the Contracting Officer may 
receive and act upon a proposal submitted at any time 
before final payment under this contract. 
On 27 June 2013, the government exercised Option Period 2 for the period 
1July2013 through 30 June 2014 (app. 19 August 2014 hr., attach. A, Mod. 
No. P00015). On 1 October 2013, at 11 :10 a.m., the government ordered appellant to 
stop work, citing "the Government shutdown in the absence of FY2014 
appropriations" (R4, tab 3). On 22 October 2013, at 3:18 p.m., the government 
authorized appellant to "recall personnel in support of the subject contract" (R4, 
tab 11). On 23 October 2013, the government modified the contract "to obligate 
additional Fiscal Year 2013 funding" (R4, tab 12).2 
On 6 November 2013, appellant presented Invoice No. 2030 to the government, 
requesting payment in the amount of $62,718.35, for services and supplies for October 
2013 (R4, tab 13). On 21November2013, the government rejected the invoice, and 
requested that appellant resubmit the invoice "prorated to reflect only that portion of 
the month for which funds were available and that service was actually performed (the 
six workdays from October 23-31, 2013)" (id.). Later on 21November2013, 
appellant presented to the contracting officer (CO) a Request for Equitable Adjustment 
(REA), in the amount of $69,677: $58,947 for services provided in October 2013, and 
$10,730 in costs that appellant asserted were caused by the government's order to stop 
2 It is unclear whether the reference to "Fiscal Year 2013 funding" should read 
"Fiscal Year 2014 funding," given the October 2013 date of the modification. 
2 
, 
f 

work (R4, tab 14). The REA "request[e]d an equitable adjustment of $10,730 beyond 
the $58,947 due" (id. at 4-5). The REA states that: 
(Id. at 3-4) 
These added costs were a direct result of the government 
shutdown, failure to allocate funds for [appellant's] 
contract, and the issuance of a stop work order. The total 
cost beyond the standard monthly labor cost of $58,947 
that should be equitably added is $10,730 . 
... [I]t is [appellant's] position that the standard monthly 
labor cost of $5 8,94 7 should not be prorated for the 
percentage of days work. Rather, this amount should be 
paid in full .... 
... [T]he full amount of $58,947 is rightfully due to 
[appellant]. 
... [Appellant] has demonstrated ... that it is entitled to an 
equitable adjustment as a direct result of the government's 
failure to allocate funds to its contract and the issuance of a 
stop work order. 
The CO denied the REA on 6 February 2014 (R4, tab 17). The denial is not 
labeled a final decision, and does not apprise appellant of appeal rights. Appellant 
filed an appeal docketed as ASBCA No. 59149 on 7 February 2014, from the denial of 
the REA. On 24 April 2014, appellant submitted to the CO a certified claim in the 
amount of $81,161.75, 3 based upon the same facts as was based the 21 November 
2013 REA. The CO has not issued a final decision upon that claim. On 1 July 2014, 
appellant filed an appeal docketed as ASBCA No. 59395, ostensibly from the "deemed 
denial" of the 24 April 2014 certified claim. 
3 Under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), only claims over $100,000 require 
certification. 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(3). 
3 

DECISION 
Jurisdiction 
The Board possesses jurisdiction to entertain these appeals. A contractor's 
submission of a valid CDA claim in writing to the CO for decision, and a contractor's 
appeal from that decision, or from the CO's failure timely to issue a decision, are 
prerequisites to the Board's jurisdiction to entertain its appeal. Madison Lawrence, 
Inc., ASBCA No. 56551, 09-2 BCA ii 34,235 at 169,206. Appellant's 21 November 
2013 REA is a valid CDA claim because it is a "written assertion ... seeking, as a matter 
of right, the payment of money in a sum certain" (FAR 2.101 (defining "claim")); 
namely, $69,677, consisting of (1) $58,947 for services provided in October 2013, and 
(2) an equitable adjustment in the contract price in the amount of $10,730. The 
government denied that claim on 6 February 2014, and, on 7 February 2014, appellant 
timely appealed from that denial, and it was docketed as ASBCA No. 59149. 
Appellant's 24 April 2014 submission to the CO is also a valid CDA claim, for 
$81,161.75. By 1July2014, when appellant filed the appeal in ASBCA No. 59395, more 
than 60 days had passed since the submission of that claim. Therefore, the claim is 
deemed denied. Aqua-Fab, Inc., ASBCA No. 34283, 87-2 BCA ii 19,851at100,440. 
Merits 
Appellant is entitled to $58,947 for service provided in October 2013. When it 
exercised Option Period 2, the government ordered 12 units of monthly service at 
$58,947 per unit. The government received service in October 2013, albeit, by the 
government's count, for only six days (R4, tab 13). That the government received 
only a few days of service in October 2013 is attributable to the government's order 
that appellant stop providing service during part of October 2013 (id.). In this respect, 
this case is not like Olympiareinigung, GmbH, ASBCA No. 53643, 04-1 BCA 
ii 32,458, or B.F.I. Waste Systems, ASBCA No. 30076, 86-2 BCA ii 18,842, both of 
which were cited by the government. In those cases the units of work that the 
government contended were not provided were the same units specified in the 
contracts: square meters in Olympiareinigung, and cans and trips B.F.I. Waste 
Systems. Here, the government relies upon a unit of work that the contract does not 
specify (days) instead of the unit of work that the contract specifies (months). Because 
the government ordered service for the month of October 2013, and received all the 
service it allowed appellant to provide during that month, it owes appellant the 
contract's unit price for that service: $58,947. 
This case is also not like South Pittsburgh Cable Co., ASBCA No. 40014, 
91-3 BCA ii 24,125, also cited by the government. There, the government asserted a 
4 

deductive change claim. Here, the appeal is from a contractor claim for services rendered, 
not a government claim for a credit for the value of unperformed work. Nor does FAR 
clause 52.242-15 help the government. The stop work clause concerns (1) the 
government's right to order a work stoppage, and (2) whether a contractor is entitled to an 
increase in the contract price in the event of such a stoppage. Whether appellant is 
entitled to the unit price for work that the government ordered concerns neither the 
government's right to stop work nor an increase in the contract price. Because the 
government received the service it allowed appellant to provide in October 2013, 
appellant is entitled to the unit price for October 2013 - $58,947 -with interest pursuant 
to the CDA, 41 U.S.C. § 7109(a)(l), from 21November2013 (the date the CO received 
the certified claim) until the date of payment. 4 The government has pointed to no 
provision in the contract that gave it the authority to avoid paying the monthly charge. 
Equitable Adjustment of the Contract Price 
Appellant does not demonstrate entitlement to an equitable adjustment in the 
contract price. Appellant presented the REA to the CO on 21November2013, within 
30 days of the 22 October 2013 end of the period of work stoppage; consequently, 
under FAR 52.242-15(b ), the issue is whether the stop-work order resulted in an 
increase in the time required for, or in the Contractor's cost properly allocable to, the 
performance of any part of the contract. 
Appellant is not entitled to any additional amounts. Appellant seeks two 
categories of"costs": (1) $5,810 for what appellant characterizes as the cost of 
terminating a research and development project, (2) $64,206 in 261 hours of what 
appellant characterizes as contract administration performed by its president, 
Mr. David P. Dumas, through 15 October 2014 (app. 14 October 2014 br. at 34). 
First, appellant cannot recover $5,810 for the termination of a research and 
development project. That "cost" appears to consist of "lost profits" that appellant 
contends would have been realized if it had not had to shut down a research and 
development program as part of the October 2013 government shutdown (app. 
19 August 2014 br. at 43). However, lost profits that might have been realized on 
other business endeavors are too remote and speculative to be compensable. 
Muhtesem Co., ASBCA No. 57538, 12-1 BCA 'i) 34,946 at 171,815. 
4 We reject any request for Prompt Payment Act interest upon the as-yet unpaid 
$58,947 for October 2013. Payment of that amount has been in dispute between 
the parties (R4 tabs 13, 14); therefore, pursuant to 31U.S.C.§3907(c), Prompt 
Payment Act interest is not applicable. See Dillingham Construction Pacific 
Basin, Ltd., ASBCA Nos. 53284, 53414, 03-1 BCA 'i) 32,098 at 158,664. 
5 

I 
Second, appellant does not demonstrate entitlement to an increase in the 
contract price for additional contract administration costs. The timesheets for 
Mr. Dumas for the weeks ending 5 October 2013 through 18 October 2014 reflect that 
nearly all of the labor hours for which appellant seeks compensation were incurred in 
connection with the prosecution of appellant's claim against the government 
(including these appeals filed in 2014), and, therefore, are not recoverable. See Bill 
Strong Enterprises, Inc. v. Shannon, 49 F.3d 1541, 1549-50 (Fed. Cir. 1995), 
overruled on other grounds by Rejlectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572, 1579 n.10 
(Fed. Cir. 1995). Although the timesheets also note 12 "shutdown" hours performed 
by Mr. Dumas in October 2013, the documentary record does not provide sufficient 
information from which to determine that those 
hours reflect (as required by 
FAR 52.242-15) "an increase in the time required for, or in the Contractor's cost 
properly allocable to, the performance of any part of this contract." Indeed, the 
timesheets appear to demonstrate no such increase: Mr. Dumas worked 40 hours per 
week both before and 
during the shutdown. (App. 14 October 2014, attach. 1) 
CONCLUSION 
For these reasons, the Board sustains the appeals in the single amount of 
$58,947, with interest upon that amount pursuant to the CDA, 41 U.S.C. § 7109(a)(l), 
from 21 November 2013 until the date of payment. The appeals are otherwise denied. 
Dated: 10 November 2014 
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 Nos. 59149, 59395, Appeals of 
Amaratek, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
6 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals