ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of -- ) 
) 
Astro Systems, Inc. ) 
) 
Under Contract No. W56PFY-16-P-0037 ) 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 60861 
Mr. Ralph L. Miller 
President 
Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 
Army Chief Trial Attorney 
MAJ Deirdre K. Baker, JA 
Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL 
Appellant seeks profit related to the repair of damage to a vehicle that appellant 
leased to the government. The appeal is governed by the Contract Disputes Act 
(CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109. 1 
FINDINGS OF FACT 
On 5 February 2016, the government awarded to appellant, Astro Systems, Inc. 
(Astro ), the contract referenced above, for the lease and maintenance of five pickup 
trucks for use in N'Djamena, Chad (R4, tab 1 at 1, 3). On 20 June 2016, Astro 
submitted a claim to the contracting officer requesting $1, 7 40 for damage to one of the 
vehicles while in the government's possession (R4, tab 6 at 4, 15). On 10 August 
2016, Astro revised the claim to request $1,658 ($1,109 in direct costs, $333 in 
overhead, and $216 in profit) (R4, tab 7 at 10). According to the claim, the repairs to 
the vehicle 
consisted of work to the windshield, rear view mirror, side windows, as 
well as cleaning of "carpeting, upholstery and dash" (id.). 
1 Astro elected to have the appeal processed pursuant to Board Rule 12.2; consequently, 
this decision shall have no value as precedent and in absence of fraud, shall be final 
and conclusive and may not be appealed or set aside. Board Rule 12.2(d). In Astra 
Systems, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 60769, 60781, 17-1BCAil36,598, we denied appeals 
concerning Astro's similar claims under two other vehicle lease contracts. 

On 29 August 2016, the contracting officer issued a final decision awarding 
$1,439.46, denying the request for $216 in profit (R4, tab 8 at 3). On 1November2016, 
Astro timely filed its appeal from the decision, seeking $216 in profit (R4, tab 10 at 6). 
DECISION 
Astro fails to demonstrate that its contract requires the government to pay profit 
on repairs to the damaged vehicle. Astro points out that profit motivates a contractor 
to perform a contract (app. hr. at 5), and we do not disagree. 2 However, here, the 
contract is for the lease and maintenance of vehicles, not their repair. Indeed, Astro 
does not contend that any of the repairs consists of the vehicle "maintenance" that the 
contract requires it to provide. Astro cites New York Shipbuilding Co., ASBCA 
No. 16164, 76-2 BCA ~ 11,979 (app. hr. at 5), for the statement that "[w]ithout the 
payment of a profit which is fair under the circumstances, the Government would be 
getting something for nothing and the contractor would not truly be made whole." Id. 
at 57,427. However, there the Board was addressing contract changes that "[took] 
place and were performed." Id. Astro does not point to any changes to its contract; 
indeed, there is no indication that the contract or the government required Astro to 
repair the damaged vehicle. Presumably, had Astro decided not to repair the damaged 
vehicle, and provided another suitable vehicle for the government's use, Astro would 
have satisfied its obligations under the contract, and the government could not 
have 
insisted upon the vehicle's repair. Under the circumstances of this appeal, if the 
government paid profit (that is, more than the cost of repairing the vehicle, including 
overhead) it would be getting nothing in return, resulting in a windfall to Astro. 
The appeal is denied. 
Dated: 15 February 2017 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
2 In support of its point, Astro cites Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.404-4(a)(3), 
but does not demonstrate that the regulation is a part of its contracts. 
2 

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. 60861, Appeal of Astro 
Systems, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals