ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of -- ) 
) 
Astro Systems, Inc. ) 
) 
Under Contract Nos. W56PFY-14-A-0042 ) 
W56PFY-16-P-0049 ) 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 60769, 60781 
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 vehicles that appellant 
leased to the government. We consolidated the appeals. The appeals are governed by 
the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109. 1 
FINDINGS OF FACT 
ASBCA No. 60769 
On 25 November 2015, the government awarded to appellant, Astro Systems, 
Inc. (Astro), Delivery Order 0011 under Contract No. W56PFY-14-A-0042, for the 
lease and maintenance of five vehicles for use in N'Djamena, Chad (ASBCA 
No. 60769 R4, tab 1 at 1, 3, tab 5 at 13-36). Astro subsequently, on 10 August 2016, 
submitted a claim to the contracting ofiicer on 20 June 2016 requesting $1, 164 for 
damage to two of the vehicles ($779 in direct costs, $233 in overhead, and $152 in 
profit) while in the government's possession (R4, tab 6). According to the claim, the 
repairs to the vehicles consisted of body metal work, repainting, and repairs to items 
such as bumpers and tires (id.). 
On 3 August 2016, the contracting officer issued a final decision awarding 
$778.11 (R4, tab 9 at 4, 5). On 18 August 2016, the contracting officer issued a 
1 Astro elected to have the appeals 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). 

unilateral modification increasing the total cost of the contract by $778.11 "[f]or repair 
[sic] the contractor's vehicle due to the incurred cost for damages caused by 
government personnel" (R4, tab 8). Astro timely filed its appeal from the decision on 
30 August 2016, seeking $385 in overhead and profit (R4, tab 9 at 6). We docketed 
the appeal as ASBCA No. 60769. In its initial brief before the Board, appellant states 
that its request consists of $233 in overhead and $152 in profit (app. hr. at 7). On 
22 November 2016, the government paid Astro $233 in overhead (app. reply at 2; see 
gov't hr. at 3 n.2, at 4 iJ 8; supp. R4, tab 10). 
ASBCA No. 60781 
On 18 February 2016, the government awarded to Astro Contract 
No. W56PFY-16-P-0049-P00003 for the lease and maintenance of vehicles for use in 
Faya, Chad (ASBCA No. 60781 R4, tab 1 at 1, 3). Astro subsequently, on 10 August 
2016, submitted a claim to the contracting officer requesting $1, 723 for damage to one 
of the vehicles ($1, 152 in direct costs, $346 in overhead, and $225 in profit) while in 
the government's possession (R4, tab 8 at 10). According to the claim, the repairs to . 
the vehicle consisted of repairs to tires, an injector pump, and a fuel pump (id.). 
On 16 August 2016, the contracting officer issued a final decision awarding 
$1,495.87 in direct costs and overhead, but denied the request for profit (R4, tab 8 at 2-3). 
Astro timely filed its appeal from the decision on 7 September 2016, seeking $225 in 
profit (R4, tab 10 at 6, 8). We docketed the appeal as ASBCA No. 60781. 
DECISION 
As Astro acknowledges (app. reply at 2), now that the government has paid 
Astro the requested overhead for the N'Djamena repairs, the only issue before us is 
whether Astro is entitled to $377 in profit on the N'Djamena and Faya repairs. Astro 
fails to demonstrate that its contracts require the government to pay Astro profit on 
such repairs. Astro points out that profit motivates a contractor to perform a contract 
(app. br. at 2), and we do not disagree. 2 However, here, the contracts were 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 contends in its reply that "after the government personnel 
damaged the vehicles and the appellant presented a claim for the repairs, the 
government unilaterally modified the contract to create another scope," that is ''the 
scope of repairing the vehicles" (app. reply at 2-3). We disagree. Astro cites no 
record material in support of that contention, and the only unilateral modification we 
find in the record of these appeals is the 18 August 2016 modification to Contract 
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 

No. W56PFY-14-A-0042 increasing the total cost of the contract by $778.11 "[f]or 
repair [sic] the contractor's vehicle due to the incurred cost for damages caused by 
government personnel" (ASBCA No. 60769 R4, tab 8). Nevertheless, that 
modification did not increase the scope of the contract to require the repair of any 
vehicles, it merely increased the total cost of the contract to pay the incurred costs of 
vehicle repair that the contracting officer had awarded. 
Astro cites New York Shipbuilding Co., ASBCA No. 16164, 76-2 BCA 
~ 11,979, 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 contracts; indeed, there is no indication that the 
contracts or the government required Astro to repair the damaged vehicles. 
Presumably, had Astro decided not to repair the damaged vehicles, and provided other 
suitable vehicles for the government's use, Astro would have satisfied its obligations 
under the contracts, and the government could not have insisted upon the vehicles' 
repair. Under the circumstances of these appeals, if the government paid Astro profit 
(that is, more than the cost of repairing the vehicles, including overhead) it would be 
getting nothing in return, resulting in a windfall to Astro. 
The appeals are denied. 
Dated: 20 December 2016 
3 
Administrative udge 
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. 60769, 60781, Appeals of 
Astro Systems, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
4 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals