ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of -- ) 
) 
Hanley Industries, Inc. ) 
) 
Under Contract Nos. N00104-03-C-K101 ) 
NOO 104-04-C-K053 ) 
NOO 104-04-C-K063 ) 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 58198 
Ryan K. Manger, Esq. 
Manger Law, LLC 
St. Louis, MO 
Ronald J. Borro, Esq. 
Navy Chief Trial Attorney 
Abram D. Burnett, III, Esq. 
Trial Attorney 
NA VSUP Weapon Systems Support 
Mechanicsburg, PA 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MELNICK ON THE PARTIES' 
CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
Hanley Industries seeks increased costs allegedly arising from the Department 
of the Navy's constructive change of three contracts for impulse cartridges. Each 
contract required Hanley to package the cartridges in accordance with very similar 
Special Packaging Instructions (SPis) (R4, tab 6 at 263, 266-68, tab 18 at 443, 445-47, 
tab 23 at 517-20). Hanley complains that the government required it to pack one can 
of cartridges in one inner box, while Hanley maintains that the SPis permitted it to 
place multiple cans in a box. The parties have crossed-moved for summary judgment, 
seeking the Board to adopt their interpretations of the contracts. Hanley also contends 
that the government should be equitably estopped from relying upon its position 
because it approved Hanley's program plan referring to cans in the plural, as well as a 
First Article Test (FAT) sample containing multiple cans in a box. 
Summary judgment should be granted if there are no genuine issues of fact and 
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 
477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The SPis are part of the contracts. When a contract is 
unambiguous it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, as derived "by a 
reasonably intelligent person acquainted with the contemporaneous circumstances." 
Teg-Paradigm Envtl., Inc. v. United States, 465 F.3d 1329, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The 
SPis are not clear. They contain numerous undefined technical references. Though 

some of that language might be clarified after careful review of various lengthy and 
complex military and international standards, it is not clear what weight limits the SPis 
impose upon any boxes and how many cans may be placed inside a box. Indeed, both 
parties have relied upon extrinsic evidence to explain their interpretations of the SPis. 
There is also evidence in the record of a contract modification acknowledging 
approval of the multiple can FAT submittal, raising a question as to the parties' 
contemporaneous interpretation of the contracts and course of performance. "When 
the meaning of a contract and the parties' intentions are both relevant and in dispute, 
there are mixed questions of fact and law that pose triable issues precluding summary 
judgment." AshBritt, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 56145, 56250, 09-2 BCA ~ 34,300 at 
169,434; see also Metropolitan Area Transit, Inc. v. Nicholson, 463 F.3d 1256, 1260 
(Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Having found the contract ambiguous, we may appropriately look to 
extrinsic evidence to aid in our interpretation .... "); Delfasco LLC, ASBCA No. 59153, 
15-1BCA~35,853 (denying summary judgment after identifying at least one disputed 
issue for trial). Accordingly, the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment are 
denied. 
Dated: 8 February 2016 
I concur 
~J!f;4 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
2 
MARK A. MELNICK 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
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. 58198, Appeal of Hanley 
Industries, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals