1 
 
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
 
Appeal of - )  
 )  
Interaction Research Institute, Inc. ) ASBCA No.  61505 
 )   
Under Contract No. 000000-00-0-0000 )  
    
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Ms. Barba B. Affourtit 
    Vice President 
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq. 
    Navy Chief Trial Attorney 
 John Torresala, Esq. 
Erin L. Hernandez, Esq. 
Lt Col Russell R. Henry, JAGC 
    Trial Attorneys 
    Western Area Counsel Office 
  Camp Pendleton, CA 
 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WOODROW ON THE GOVERNMENT’S 
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
 
 This appeal concerns three unpaid invoices for trainings allegedly provided by 
Interaction Research Institute, Inc. (IRI or appellant) to the I Marine Expeditionary Force 
Training and Experimentation Group within the U.S. Marines’ Advisor Training Cell 
(government) during April 2009, May 2009, and another between June and August 2009.  
The government has moved for summary judgment, arguing that there is no 
documentation of an express contract or approval by the government in the form of a 
Standard Form 182 (SF-182)1 to support a showing of an implied-in-fact contract.  For 
the reasons discussed below, we deny the motion. 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 
 
 We previously have issued a decision denying the government’s motion to dismiss 
for lack of jurisdiction, Interaction Research Institute, Inc., ASBCA No. 61505, 18-1 
BCA ¶ 37,196 at 181,080.  Familiarity with that decision and the facts discussed therein 
is presumed.  However, we will reiterate several relevant facts here for clarity. 
                                              
1 Standard Form 182 (SF-182) is a Request, Authorization, and Certification of Training 
form.  It typically is used to document a training, education, or professional 
development event from a non-government source.  Interaction Research Institute, 
Inc., ASBCA No. 61505, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37,196 at 181,080. 

2 
 
 
 April 2009 Training 
 
 1.  On April 4, 2009, IRI sent a quote for a training program to 
Major Philip A.  Bain at his verbal request.  This training was carried out during April 6-
10, 2009.  (April 2009 training) (Gov’t mot. at ex. 2 at 31, ex. 3 at 7; R4, tab 1 at 27)  
Mrs. Affourtit, IRI’s Vice President, stated in a later email, “all services were conducted 
by IRI and received by ATG that week” (R4, tab 2 at 50).  Major Bain ordered another 
training in a similar fashion later that same month (gov’t mot. at ex. 1 at 8). 
 
 2.  On September 16, 2009, Mrs. Affourtit emailed Cpl Javvad Shah that “the 
invoice and corresponding quote to Major Bain for IRI services conducted during 
April 6-10, 2009.”  In her email, Mrs. Affourtit stated, “[w]e were advised that since the 
quote was submitted late to TEG, it was undergoing a ratification process.  Do not know 
whether the ratification process is complete.”  (Gov’t mot. at ex. 2 at 45-46)  This invoice 
was for $14,940.64 (gov’t mot. at ex. 2 at 31). 
 
 May 2009 Training 
 
 3.  On February 5, 2010, IRI sent an invoice to Major Bain for two trainings that 
IRI conducted on May 11-13, 2009, and on May 10, 2009.  As Mrs. Affourtit described 
it, she provided Major Bain with a price quote for the trainings “right before the training 
began, since we found out about the training at the last minute” (R4, tab 2 at 72).  These 
two trainings were a Marine Advisor Training Impact System (MATIS) course, and a 
“Cross Cultural Psychology Course for ETT-1” (May 2009 training) (R4, tab 2 at 38, 
tab 4 at 174, 184).  The trainings were priced at $3,492.82 and $3,560 respectively (R4, 
tab 4 at 177).  These trainings took place as planned (R4, tab 4 at 189-193; gov’t mot. at 
ex. 3 at 33).  
 
 4.  Other trainings had relatively short lead times between when the government 
would order the training and when it was to be performed (see, e.g., R4, tab 1 at 16, 23, 
31-32, 45; gov’t mot. at ex. 2 at 103, ex. 3 at 7-8).  IRI would often seek and receive 
payment of invoices after the trainings were conducted (see, e.g., R4, tab 1 at 47-51, 54-
55, 58-59).  The government would pay for these trainings via the Government 
Commercial Purchase Card (GCPC), including Cpl Javvad Shah paying at least two 
invoices (gov’t mot. at ex. 2 at 2-3; R4, tab 2 at 242).  According to an August 24, 2010 
email by Dr. Affourtit, IRI’s President:  
 
In the past (2008-2009), we conducted training on verbal or 
email authorization using SF 182 agreements.  Contracts were 

3 
 
processed in 1-2 days.2  Back up documents and periods of 
service were provided with IRI invoices.  Some of the 
invoices were eventually paid. 
 
(Gov’t mot. at ex. 2 at 103)   
 
 5.  On June 3, 2009, Mrs. Affourtit emailed Cpl Cynthia Nicanor a summary of 
IRI’s invoices.  She stated, “We have received payment for all that you sent the SF 182 
forms for and authorized Credit Card payment.  Please sent the any [sic] SF 182’s that 
have not yet been paid and I will send invoices re the SF 182 forms.  Major Bain is 
working on a future contract so that we don’t have to go through this every time.”  
(R4, tab 1 at 42) 
 
 6.  On June 18, 2009, Mrs. Affourtit emailed Cpl Nicanor, seeking to verify whether 
she was “still the I MEF TEG Fiscal Clerk and the POC for payment for IRI services” and 
requesting the “SF 182s for IRI services completed in April and May, 2009?” (gov’t mot. 
at ex. 2 at 71-72).  Cpl Nicanor responded that she was “still the POC for payment for IRI 
services” and “as for the May and April payments, Cpl Shah will be taking care of that, he 
has the SF 182 for those dates” (id. at 71). 
 
 7.  In a document titled “Official Statement from LCpl
3 Shah” which is neither 
sworn nor dated, Cpl Shah states he had paid for various other training dates using “my 
Government Credit Card . . . .  At the time I was the alternate card holder and Cpl Nicanor 
was the primary card holder responsible for making the bulk of the credit card purchases.”  
(Gov’t mot. at ex. 2 at 96; see also gov’t mot. at ex. 1 at 8, referencing other trainings 
were purchased by government purchase card)  He also discusses direction from another 
office, given at an unspecified date, to make other payments he considered valid, though 
he “was never provided any paperwork (SF182) to authorize paying them” (gov’t mot. at 
ex. 2 at 96).  By August 19, 2009, Cpl Shah began using the title Supply/Fiscal Chief in 
his email signature block (gov’t mot. at ex. 2 at 99) 
 
 June & August 2009 Trainings 
 
 8.  On June 5, 2009, Captain Joshua W. Burgess emailed IRI and other Marines, 
including Major Bain, stating “[b]elow dates [June 18 & 22, 2009] are solid for Lima 
Company cross-cultural psychology courses” (R4, tab 1 at 37).  This is first instance that IRI 
discovered they were going to perform a training on those dates (gov’t mot. ex. 3 at 8). 
 
                                              
2 This appears to be a loose use of the term ‘contract’ and likely refers to invoices, as the 
parties agree that there was no express contract (see, e.g., gov’t mot. at ex. 2 at 13). 
3 All other references in the record are to Cpl Shah. 

4 
 
 9.  Mrs. Affourtit sent another quote for a training on June 11, 2009, to 
LCpl Brandon K. Perry, who had requested it by phone (R4, tab 1 at 39).  IRI 
conducted this training from June 18-22, August 7-10, 12-13, and 13-15, 2009 
(August 2009 training) (gov’t mot. at ex. 2 at 7, 39, 73).  The invoice for this training was 
for $21,471.05 (gov’t mot. at ex. 2 at 32). 
 
 10.  Several invoices went unpaid, with IRI emailing government officials 
inquiring as to the reason for the nonpayment and status (R4, tab 2 at 40-41).  Appellant 
compiled an undated spreadsheet of contacts it had with various members of the 
government attempting to get its invoices paid, including one phone call on 
September 18, 2009, where IRI “[p]rovided info to process three invoices” (R4, tab 4 
at 5-7).   
 
 11.  In an unsworn, undated statement, 1st Lt. Lucius Spencer says he ordered 
trainings from IRI for August 17 and 20, 2010, but explained “the contract request was 
too late,” they were “not able to authorize any allocation of funds to compensate them” 
and that “there was no money and no contract involved.”  The Affourtits agreed to do the 
training anyway, but when they returned on August 20, “Major [Erich] Stefanyshyn 
ordered a stop to any and all support that IRI was providing.”  (Gov’t mot. at ex. 2 at 8)  
“Major Stefanyshyn explained to IRI in a meeting that the training was being cancelled 
due to no formal agreement between the U.S. Government and IRI” (gov’t mot. at ex. 2 
at 2).  Despite Dr. Affourtit offering to conduct the training voluntarily, and 
anonymously, the training was cancelled (gov’t mot. at ex. 2 at 9). 
 
 12.  After reviewing the situation and several outstanding invoices IRI had 
submitted to the government, Major Stefanyshyn emailed IRI on October 21, 2010.  He 
informed them of his recommendation that five of the invoices should not be paid, as 
there was no contracting authority to order these trainings.  (Gov’t mot. at ex. 2 at 105)  
In a separate document supplied by the government, Major Stefanyshyn states that “[a] 
vendor has to show a valid invoice, such as a purchase request and receiving document 
that training was requested and provided (SF-182 form, rosters with social security 
numbers)” (R4, tab 2 at 6, 106). 
 
 13.  On January 26, 2012, the government conducted a Command Investigation 
concerning the unpaid invoices.  The government concluded that it could substantiate 
invoices for training events conducted on November 18-25, 2009, May 11-13, 2009, and 
August 17-20, 2010, and agreed to ratify payment of the invoices for those events.  The 
events included the Cross Cultural course held in May 2009, but not the MATIS course 
(gov’t mot. at ex. 5 at 1-9; R4, tabs 2 at 1, 3 at 9).  However, after a second Command 
Investigation concluded on April 12, 2017, the government was unable to find SF-182s 
related to the April, May, and August 2009 training events (see generally gov’t mot. 
at exs. 1, 9). 
 

5 
 
 14.  On January 5, 2016, IRI requested “the final disposition regarding IRI’s 
request for payment of services completed in FY 2009” which consisted of the April and 
August 2009 trainings, as well as the MATIS portion of the May 2009 training (R4, tab 4 
at 1-2).  The government denied the claim on October 31, 2017 (R4, tab 7).  IRI timely 
appealed the denial. 
 
DECISION 
 
 As the movant, the government must set forth sufficient material facts on all 
relevant issues raised by its motion.  Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.317, 322 (1986).  
Summary judgment will be granted if there are no genuine issues of material fact.  Id.; 
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).  A material fact is one which may make a difference in the outcome 
of the case.  Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).  We “evaluate each 
party’s motion on its own merits.”  BMY, A Division of Harsco Corp., ASBCA No. 38172, 
93-2 BCA ¶ 25,704 at 127,868.  Appellant has not submitted a filing in response to this 
motion, so we cannot say any of the material facts are in dispute, per se.  Thus, we consider 
whether the government has presented facts sufficient to entitle it to judgment as a matter 
of law.   
 
 The government’s motion contends that no express or implied contract exists 
between it and appellant.  The government argues that while an SF-182 is not an express 
contract in itself, “it is possible for a properly approved SF-182 to serve as evidence of 
implied authority to contract.”  However, as two Command Investigations “could not 
produce any SF-182 documentation to support the Appellant’s remaining disputed 
invoices, the Government must conclude that no such documentation exists.”  (Gov’t 
mot. at 7)  Notably, the government argues “no documentation currently exists or can be 
located to establish that an Agency official with actual authority . . . committed the 
Government to the alleged training events” while making “no assertion herein as to 
whether IRI was informed by Government personnel that the disputed training[s were] 
approved.”  Therefore, the government argues, any approval of the training must have 
been done without actual authority. 
 
As explained in our previous opinion denying the government’s motion to dismiss, 
the elements of a contract with the government, including an implied-in-fact contract, are 
(1) mutuality of intent, (2) consideration, (3) an unambiguous offer and acceptance, and (4) 
actual authority on the part of the government’s representative to bind the government in 
contract.  Interaction Research Institute, Inc., ASBCA No. 61505, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37,196 at 
181,080 (citing Hanlin v. United States, 316 F.3d 1325, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).  However, 
the nature of the evidence establishing an implied-in-fact contract will differ from that of an 
express contract.  Id.  “An implied-in-fact contract is one founded upon a meeting of the 
minds and is ‘inferred, as a fact, from the conduct of the parties showing, in the light of the 
surrounding circumstances, their tacit understanding.’”  Id. (citing Balt. & Ohio R.R. v. 
United States, 261 U.S. 592, 597 (1923).  “Implied actual authority ‘is restricted to 

6 
 
situations where such authority is considered to be an integral part of the duties assigned to a 
government employee.’”  Jumah v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 603, 612 (2009) (quoting 
Aboo v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 618, 627 (2009)).  “Implied authority binds the 
Government where a Government representative without actual authority exercises an 
integral part of the duties assigned to that Government employee.”  Miller Elevator Co. v. 
United States, 30 Fed. Cl. 662, 693-94 (1994) (citing H. Landau & Co. v. United States, 886 
F.2d 322, 324 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).   
 
Here, the government does not allege that none of the staff involved with ordering 
the training lacked the authority, just that there are no SF-182s documenting the proper 
approval of the training.  As we stated in our previous opinion, an SF-182 may be used to 
show implied actual authority to bind the government in contract, but it is not the only way 
to do so.  Indeed, it is possible to have an implied-in-fact contract without an express 
document.  Interaction Research Institute, Inc., ASBCA No. 61505, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37,196 at 
181,080. 
 
Indeed, the government’s course of dealing demonstrates that the employees 
involved likely did have authority.  Until Major Stefanyshyn’s intervention on August 20, 
2010 (SOF ¶ 11), the government’s course of dealing with ordering IRI trainings appears 
to have been followed for the April, May, and August 2009 training events, as well as the 
other training events for which the government paid (SOF ¶¶ 5-7).  Under this process, the 
government admits it paid IRI for seven training events via government credit card, and 
ratified an additional three commitments reflected by invoices after proper documentation 
was uncovered, including the Cross Cultural course involved in the May 2009 training 
(SOF ¶ 13).  For the April and May 2009 training events, Major Bain requested a quote 
for IRI to conduct a training on specific dates, and received an invoice shortly thereafter 
(SOF ¶¶ 1-3).  When IRI asked about the payment process, Cpl Nicanor stated Cpl Shah 
would be “taking care of” payments, as “he has the SF-182 for those dates” (SOF ¶ 6).  
Cpl Shah, who in August 2009, was using “Supply/Fiscal Chief” in his signature block, 
states (albeit in an unsworn statement with an inconsistent rank) that he was an “alternate 
card holder” for a GCPC, the method of payment used for these trainings (SOF ¶¶ 4, 7).  
These same procedures appear to have been used for the August 2009 training.  In that 
situation, LCpl Perry requested a quote on the training, and Capt. Burgess told IRI at least 
part of the training was scheduled (SOF ¶ 9). 
 
While there appear to have been internal restrictions on Cpl Shah’s use of the 
GCPC (SOF ¶ 7), we don’t find these restrictions to be conditions on his actual authority 
to commit the government, like those in Harbert/Lummus Agrifuels Projects v. United 
States, 142 F.3d 1429, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1177 (1999) (finding 
a CO’s warrant conditioned his authority on making approvals in writing, thus rendering 

7 
 
him unauthorized to verbally alter a contract).4  Rather, it appears that ordering these 
training events may have been an integral part of his job, as in North American 
Landscaping, ASBCA No. 60235 et al., 18-1 BCA ¶ 37,116 at 180,655 (finding implied 
actual authority in a project engineer and project manager to direct the contractor).   
 
In order for the government to succeed on summary judgment, we must infer that 
the persons who ordered the disputed training lacked the (implied) actual authority to do 
so.  Because using the SF-182 was part of the standard operating procedure at the time, 
and because the government previously paid for seven classes using SF-182s, the 
implication is that the disputed classes were authorized in the same fashion.  The fact that 
the government cannot locate the relevant SF-182s could just as easily point to a record-
keeping problem as to a sudden deviance from standard procedures.  Although we do not 
question the diligence of the government’s search for SF-182’s associated with the 
disputed training courses, the fact that no SF-182’s have been located does not 
necessarily imply that the trainings were unauthorized.  We cannot grant summary 
judgment on the basis of such an inferential leap, particularly when the government’s 
course of dealing suggests that the individuals involved – such as Major Bain – possessed 
authority to bind the government.  CI², Inc., ASBCA Nos. 56257, 56337, 11-2 BCA 
¶ 34,823 at 171,353 (citing M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. U.S., 609 F.3d 1323, 
1327 (Fed. Cir. 2010)) (holding that all inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-
moving party).  Therefore, we deny the government’s motion, as summary judgment is 
not appropriate at this time. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
 For the reasons discussed above, the government’s motion is denied. 
 
 Dated:  May 5, 2021 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Signatures continued) 
                                              
4 The government motion cites Mil-Spec Contractors v. United States, 835 F.2d 865, 867 
(Fed. Cir. 1987) for the proposition that proper authority would only exist in a 
GCPC cardholder if they acted “in accordance with Agency procedures” (gov’t 
mot. at 7 n.10).  We do not read Mil-Spec Contractors to support that proposition. 
 
 
 
KENNETH D. WOODROW 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 


8 
 
I concur 
 
 
 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 I concur 
 
 
 
 J. REID PROUTY 
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. 61505, Appeal of Interaction 
Research Institute, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. 
 
 Dated:  May 5, 2021  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals