ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of --
WIT Associates, Inc. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
ASBCA No. 6154 7 
Under Contract No. N68836-10-D-0002 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
Mr. Steven P. O'Carroll 
CFO 
Craig D. Jensen, Esq. 
Navy Chief Trial Attorney 
Robert R. Kiepura, Esq. 
Senior Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL ON THE 
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
The government moves for dismissal of the appeal for failure to state a claim 
upon which relief can be granted; we converted the motion to one for summary 
judgment (see Bd. order dtd. January 7, 2019). Appellant seeks additional 
compensation for what it says were government orders that exceeded the "maximum 
quantities" or "maximum amounts" provided in the contract ( comp I. at 1-2, 4 ). 
STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 
The following is undisputed. In 2009, the government awarded a transportation 
services contract to appellant (R4, tab 1 at 1 ). The contract includes the following 
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause: 
52.216-19, ORDER LIMITATIONS (OCT 1995) 
(b) Maximum order. The Contractor is not obligated to 
honor: 
( 1) Any order for a single item in excess of the total 
amount of the item; 

(2) Any order for a combination of items in excess of total 
contract amount; or 
(3) A series of orders from the same ordering office within 
3 days that together call for quantities exceeding the 
limitation in subparagraph ( 1) or (2) above. 
( d) Notwithstanding paragraphs (b) and ( c) above, the 
Contractor shall honor any order exceeding the maximum 
order limitations in paragraph (b ), unless that order ( or 
orders) is returned to the ordering office within 3 days after 
issuance, with written notice stating the Contractor's intent 
not to ship the item ( or items) called for and the reasons. 
Upon receiving this notice, the Government may acquire 
the supplies or services from another source. 
(R4, tab 1 at 141-42) 
DECISION 
Summary judgment shall be granted if the movant shows that there is no 
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 
matter of law. Avant Assessment, LLC, ASBCA No. 58867, 15-1 BCA, 36,067 
at 176,127 (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a)). The government says that appellant's request 
for additional compensation for what appellant says were orders that exceeded 
maximum quantities or maximum amounts is precluded by FAR 52.216-19, ORDER 
LIMITATIONS (OCT 1995) (see mot. at 6). We agree. The Order Limitations clause 
provided appellant a remedy: appellant could simply have notified the government, 
within three days of the government's issuance of orders that exceeded the contract's 
specified limitations, that appellant declined to honor those orders. See NMS 
Management, Inc., ASBCA No. 53444, 03-2 BCA, 32,340 at 159,987-88. (Indeed, 
appellant admits as much (see notice of appeal at 1-2).) There is no contention that 
appellant ever gave such notice. Consequently, appellant is not entitled to additional 
compensation, and the government is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See 
NMS Management, 03-2 BCA, 32,340 at 159,988. Because there is no genuine 
dispute as to any material fact and the government is entitled to judgment as a matter 
of law, summary judgment is granted to the government. 
2 

The appeal is denied. 
Dated: May 1,2019 
I concur 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
CONCLUSION 
~~ 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
I 
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. 61547, Appeal of WIT 
Associates, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals