DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS  
 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE STINSON 
In Appeal No. 61144, appellant Sungwoo E&C Co., Ltd. (Sungwoo), a Korean 
Company, challenges as improper the government’s Contractor Performance 
Assessment Report Sy stem (“CPARS”)1 ratings under a Multiple Award Task Order 
Contract (MATOC) for three task orders issued during the MATOC base year (R4, 
tab 79).  In Appeal No. 61219, Sungwoo raises several issues concerning the 
government’s June 2, 2016,  overall CPAR under the MATOC, the government’s 
failure to award task orders, a challenge to a stop -work order, allegations t he Army 
committed fraud, an allegation the Army improperly suspended or debarred Sungwoo, 
and an allegation that the Army’s decision not to exercise various contract options was 
improper.  Sungwoo also sought monetary damages of ₩2,050,656,763 (Korean Won) 
(R4, tab 78 at 4307) .   
 
Our decision in Sungwoo E&C Co.,  ASBCA Nos. 61144, 61219, 19- 1 BCA 
¶ 37,449, addressed  several motions filed by the government  which, as resolved,  
narrowed the scope of these  appeals .2  Our decision struck all but Sungwoo’s claim in 
 
1 “CPARS” refers to the rating system, while an individual rating is referred to as a 
“CPAR,” and the plural of a CPAR is “CPARs.”  St. Michael’s Inc. , ASBCA 
No. 62226 et al., 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,757 at 188,389 n.1. 
2These appeals were docketed as ASBCA Nos. 61144 and 61219.  T he Board granted 
the government’s unopposed motion to consolidate  the appeals , and in a 
decision  dated April 27, 2022, dismissed a third appeal, ASBCA No. 62738, as 
duplicative of claims already before the Board.  Sungwoo E&C Co., ASBCA 
No. 61144 et al., 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,125 at 185,209. 
Appeals  of - )  
 )  
Sungwoo E&C Co., Ltd.  ) ASBCA Nos. 61144, 61219  
 )  
Under Contract No. W91QVN-14-D-0034 )  
   
APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANT: Yong Eui Song, Esq.  
    Central IP & Law 
    Seoul, Korea 
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Dana J. Chase, Esq. 
    Army Chief Trial Attorney  
 LTC Julie A. Glascott, JA  
    Trial Attorney  
  
 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
2 
 
ASBCA No. 61144 concerning Sungwoo’s challenge to the “unsatisfactory” CPAR s 
under the MATOC and Sungwoo’s challenge in ASBCA No. 61219 to the Army’s 
decision not to exercise various contract options , and the alleged monetary impact .  
We determined that although Sungwoo frequently used the term “fraud” in its 
characterization of the government’s action s, the two remaining issues in these appeal s 
concerned whether “the government acted arbitrarily and capriciously, or in bad faith, 
when it evaluated appellant’s performance as being ‘unsatisfactory’ and when it 
refused to exercise the options and award additional work under the various contracts.”   
Sungwoo, 19 -1 BCA ¶ 37,449 at 181,976.  We also reduced  Sungwoo’s monetary 
claims.  Id. at 181,973, 181,976.   Familiarity with  these decisions is presumed .
3 
 
The parties  agreed to submit these appeals on the record without a hearing 
pursuant to Board Rule 11.  For the reasons stated below, the appeals are denied.  
 
FINDINGS OF FACT (FOF) 
 
1.  The government awarded Sungwoo several MATOCs for construction 
services  in the Republic of Korea  (ROK) (R4, tabs 5-10).  Pertinent to this appeal is 
MATOC W91QVN-14-D-0034, a general construction, multiple award, indefinite 
delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) task order contract (R4, tab 10 at 381, 390). 4   
 
2.  The MATOC performance period was 12 months from August  14, 2014,  
through August 13, 2015, renewable at the option of the government for two additional 
12-month periods ( id. at 390).  The MATOC required the contractor to (1) comply 
with the 2014 Standard Technical Specifications for O&MA (Operation and 
Maintenance Army) Projects, Korea (sometimes referred to as OMA) (R4, tab 10 
at 392; tab 40; tab 44 at 3998) , (2) submit preliminary, initial, and progress work 
schedules in accordance with the O&MA s pecification s, (3) submit within seven 
calendar days of notice to proceed the requisite ENG Form 4025 submittals  (prior to 
ordering or purchasing any material(s) requiring government approval ), and (4) submit 
within seven calendar days any resubmission or revisions of material submittals after 
receipt of any disapproved/rejected material submittal packages (R4, tab 10 at 396) . 
 
3.  The MATOC included the following clauses:  
 
5152.232- 4030 PAYMENTS – ROK MND – FUNDED 
CONTRACTS: 
 
 
3 On February 26, 2025, these appeals were reassigned to another administrative judge 
for decision.  
4 All references to specific page numbers in the government’s Rule 4 file are to the 
Bates-labeled pagination.  Any prefixes and leading zeroes have been removed.  

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
3 
 
(a) Responsibility for Payment:  Pursuant to Memorandum 
of Agreement (MOA) between United States Forces Korea 
(USFK) and the Republic of Korea Ministry of National 
Defense (ROK MND) concerning this contract, the ROK 
Government shall make payment directly to the contractor 
for performance rendered and accepted under any contract 
part, or delivery or service order identified as “MOA 
contract, funded by ROK MND.”  
… 
 
5152.233- 4008, DISPUTES, MINISTRY OF NATIONAL 
DEFENSE FUNDED CONTRACTS, ROK:  
 
(This clause applies only to ROK -funded acquisitions or 
parts of acquisitions.)  
… 
 
(d) Procedures  
 
(3) Individuals (i) If the contractor is an individual, the 
certification shall be executed by that individual.  
(ii) If the contractor is not an individual, the certification 
shall be executed by – (A) A senior company official in 
charge at the contractor's plant or location involved; or  (B) 
An officer or general partner of the contractor having 
overall responsibility for the conduct of the contractor's 
affairs.  
 
(R4, tab 10 at 405, 419 )  The MATOC also incorporated Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR) 16.505, Ordering, promising the successful contractor a fair 
opportunity to propose on projects unless the contracting officer  (CO) determined that 
an exception was appropriate ( id. at 407). 
 
4.  Sungwoo was awarded eleven task orders under the MATOC , three of 
which, 0001, 0002, 0004, are at issue here ( R4, tab 70 at 4272, 4276; tabs 16 -18). 
 
 Logistics Cost Sharing Program  
 
5.  Sungwoo’s contract s were awarded utilizing the ROK Logistics Cost 
Sharing (LCS) Program, and included requirements specific to that program (R4, tab 5 
at 114- 19; tab 6 at 163– 68; tab 7 at 217– 22; tab 8 at 271– 76; tab 9 at 335– 44; tab 10 
at 411–20). 
 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
4 
 
6.  The LCS program derives from an international agreement between the 
United States Armed Forces and the ROK , and provides for cost sharing between the 
two countries , managed by the U nited States  Forces Korea (USFK) J4  Directorate and 
the ROK MND (R4, tabs 1 –4, 20, 28, 41, 94). 
 
7.  On October 21, 2009, the United States and ROK entered into an 
implementing agreement covering the LCS program from 2009 through 2013 (R4, 
tab 2 at 33, 41).  The  agreement provide d that under the LCS program “ all equipment 
and supplies that are to be acquired with ROKG funds shall be manufactured in the 
ROK, and that all LCS service work shall be carried out by Korean contractor(s)  . . . .” 
(R4, tab 2 at  35).   
 
8.  Although, the LCS implementing agreement requires products be 
manufactured in the ROK, a waiver is available to contractors if ROK -made materials 
are not available.   The process requires the contractor to submit a request to the USFK 
J4 Directorate which then will process the request with the ROK MND.   (R4, tabs 94–
94c) 
 
9.  The W91QVN-14-D-0034 MATOC task orders at issue  here, 0001, 0002, 
and 0004, were issued under the LCS program, were funded by the ROK MND , and 
incorporat ed pertinent ROK MND clauses (R4, tab 10 at 406; tab  16 at 456, 463– 68; 
tab 17 at 482– 88; tab 18 at 505– 10).  Task Order Nos. 0001 and 0004 expressly state d 
they are LCS projects funded in accordance with a memorandum of agreement 
between the United States and the ROK (R4, tab 16 at 463; tab 18 at 505).  Task Order 
No. 0002 state d it is an MOA Contract, funded by ROK MND (R4, tab 17 at 482).  
 
10.  Task Order  Nos. 0001, 0002, and 0004,  included the following clauses:  
5152.232- 4028 FUNDING OF ROK-FUNDED CONTRACTS; 5152.232 -4030 
PAYMENTS – ROK MND-FUNDED CONTRACTS; and 5152.233- 4008 
DISPUTES, MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE FUNDED CONTRACTS, ROK 
(R4, tab 16 at  464–68; tab 17 at 482, 484– 88; tab 18 at 505, 507– 10). 
 
11.  Task Order  Nos. 0001, 0002, 0004 incorporated FAR 52.211- 10 
COMMENCEMENT, PROSECUTION, AND COMPLETION OF WORK (APR 
1984) by full text , which stated :  The Contractor shall be required to (a) commence 
work under this contract within 10 calendar days after the date the Contractor received 
the notice to proceed, (b) prosecute the work diligently, and (c) complete the entire 
work ready for use not later than 120 calendar days after Notice to Proceed 
(NTP) is issued .  The time stated for completion shall include final cleanup of the 
premises .  (R4, tab 16 at 462; tab 17 at 481; tab 18 at 504)  (emphasis in original)  
 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
5 
 
MATOC Task Order No. 0001 
 
12.  Prior to the award, Sungwoo submitted a price proposal that included use 
of offshore  items (app. supp. R4, tab 14 at 4- 6).  By email dated October 29, 2014, a 
government contract specialist requested Sungwoo explain the “need for off -shore 
items in your proposal for LCS project” ( id. at 1).  By emails dated October 30, 2014, 
Sungwoo responded it could change all the items offered to local materials , and 
subsequently provided an updated proposal with only local materials (id. at 1–2, 9; R4, 
tab 100 at  4696-97). 
 
13.  On December 1, 2014, the government awarded Sungwoo Task Order 
No. W91QVN-14-D-0034- 0001 (Task Order 0001) in the amount of $608,710.91, to 
repair Building No. 2253 at Camp Stanley, R OK.  Task Order 0001 included a 
statement of work and completed design, requiring Sungwoo to supply the listed 
materials meeting the contract requirements and necessary labor .  (R4, tab 16 at 452-
54, 456-60, 463)  
 
MATOC Task Order No. 0002 
 
14.  On December 17, 2014, the government awarded Sungwoo T ask Order 
No. W91QVN-14-D-0034- 0002 (Task Order 0002) in the amount of $1,217,776.50, to 
repair Building Nos. 1251 and 1256 ( two dining facilities and kitchen installation) 
located at Camp Casey , ROK (R4, tab 17 at 472-7 3).  Task Order 0002 included a 
statement of work and completed design, requiring Sungwoo to supply the listed 
materials and necessary labor  (id. at 475- 79). 
 
MATOC Task Order No. 0004 
 
15.  On December 17, 2014, the government awarded Sungwoo Task Order 
No. W91QVN-14-D-0034- 004 (Task Order 0004) in the amount of  $579,420.86, to 
repair Building No. 247 at Camp Red Cloud, R OK (R4, tab 18 at 497-9 8).  Task Order 
0004 included a statement of work and completed design, requiring Sungwoo to 
supply the listed materials and necessary labor  (id. at 500- 02). 
 
Additional IDIQ MATOCs 
 
16.  Sungwoo was awarded several other MATOC IDIQ contracts:  
Nos. W91QVN-12-D-0114, W91QVN-12-D-0119, W91QVN-12-D-0130, W91QVN-
12-D-0132, W91QVN-13-D-0064, as well as task orders issued thereunder for paving  
and other work (R4, tabs 5-9).  These contracts included 5152.232- 4030 and 5152.233-
4008 (R4, tab 5 at 111- 13, 118- 20; tab 6 at 167- 69 (W91QVN-12-D-0119 did not 
include 5152.232- 4030 PAYMENTS); tab 7 at 214- 16, 221- 23; tab 8 at 268- 70, 275-
77; tab 9 at 341-44).  These contracts also included the promise of a fair opportunity to 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
6 
 
compete for additional awards and options to renew the contracts for four additional 
12-month periods (R4, tab 5 at 106, 124; tab 6 at 155; tab 7 at 209; tab 8 at 263; tab 9 
at 322). 
 
Contract No. W91QVN- 12-D-0119 - Task Order No. 0034 
 
17.  On September 12, 2014, Sungwoo was awarded W91QVN- 12-D-0119-
0034 (Task Order 0034) in the amount of $143,740, to repair paving at 10th Corps 
Boulevard, United States Army Garrison, Yongsan (Yongsan Garrison) (R4, tab 12).  
Repair was to be completed “within 45 days after contract award/NTP was issued” ( id. 
at 442). 
 
Contract No. W91QVN- 14-D-0034 - Task Order No. 0016 
 
18.  On February 12, 2016, the government awarded  Sunwoo Task Order 
No. W91QVN-14-D-0034- 0016 (Task Order 0016), in the amount of  $363,822.13, to 
“Correct Critical Life, Health, Safety (LHS) Deficiencies, Area II, ” in housing located 
at Yongsan Garrison (R4, tab 44). 
 
19.  Task Order 0016 incorporated FAR 52.211- 10 (id. at 4003)  and required 
work to conform with the  O&MA specifications, the contract drawings listed in the 
task order , and the O&MA standard detailed drawings ( id. at 3998, 4005).  
 
Sungwoo’s Performance Under T ask Order No. 0001 
 
20.  On March 3, 2015, the government issued Sungwoo Contract Deficiency 
Report (CDR) No. 411CSB-L2-15-0021, stating , “as a result of severe construction 
progress delays ,” Sungwoo had not met its submitted progress schedule , and that as of 
March 2, 2015, construction was 60.3 percent complete as compared to Sungwoo’s 
scheduled completion of 78.8 percent .  The CDR noted various delays in Sungwoo’ s 
submission of ENG Form 4025 submittals, as well as Sungwoo’s failure to submit lot 
materials (groups of materials submitted by type ).  The CDR also noted that the 
contract completion date (“CCD”) of March 31, 2015, was not attainable.  (R4, tab 22)  
 
21.  On March 8, 2015, Sungwoo submitted its response stating that its lack of 
construction progress was caused by t he Korean lunar holiday, which reduced the 
number of days Sungwoo could perform work, and that its delay in submitting E NG 
Form 4025s was “because only local materials are required in this project and we need 
time to search applicable local items for mechanical & electrical work” ( id.).  
However, Sungwoo’s proposal  submitted prior to issuance of Task Order 0001 had 
identified all local items for performing the task order ( FOF ¶ 13; app. supp. R4, 
tab 14 at 1-2).  Sungwoo’s response also requested a 24-day extension of the CCD 
(R4, tab 22).  

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
7 
 
 
22.  On March 8, 2015, t he CO determined Sungwoo was responsible for all 
holidays and non- workdays  set forth in its schedule .  The CO noted that Sungwoo was 
required to provide its material submittals se ven days after issuance of the NTP, and 
that Sungwoo was currently 95 days late in submitting its remaining submittals.  The 
CO also noted that (1) the government released the requisite building on December 10, 
2014, and (2) Sungwoo’s schedule forecasted  work to commence on December 21, 
2014, with construction materials available or arriv ing in sufficient time so as not to 
delay project completion.  Sungwoo was directed to submit a revised project schedule, 
all material submittals , and a corrective action plan ( CAP).  Sungwoo also was warned 
that the failure to comply may result in issuance of a cure notice or show cause notice.  
(Id.)    
 
23.  Sungwoo failed to complete Task Order 0001 within the original CCD, 
and, on May 15, 2015, the government issued Modification No. 01 to Task Order 0001 
extending the CCD date from April 15, 2015, to May 15, 2015 (R4, tab 33).   
 
Sungwoo’s Performance Under Task Order No. 0002 
 
24.  On March 6, 2015,  the government issued Sungwoo CDR No. 411CSB-L2-
15-0024, for Task Order 0 002, labeling it a “[m] ajor CDR that could result in severe 
contract performance” issues delaying the completion of the project , and stating that 
Sungwoo had failed to submit ENG Form 4025s within t he contractually  required  
seven calendar days from the NTP.  The CDR further stated that as of February 2015, 
Sungwoo had submitted only 70 percent of its material submittals.   (R4, tab 24)  
 
25.  On March 9, 2015, Sungwoo responded, offering the same justification it 
provided regarding Task Order 0001, i.e, it could not submit all its material submittals 
within seven days of the NTP because it still was searching for local items that met the 
task order requirements and that the items it submitted on February 17, 2015, were not 
approved by the government as meeting the task order require ments (FOF ¶ 21).  
Sungwoo stated that based on its progress as of February 28, 2015, Sungwoo would 
not meet the CCD of April 15, 2015 ( id.).   
 
26.  The CO determined that Sungwoo failed to timely  submit its material 
submittals , as well as timely submit its “resubmission or  revisions of material 
submittals [which were to] be accomplished within seven (7) calendar days after 
receipt of any disapproved/rejected material submittal packages.”  The CO noted that , 
by March 13, 2015, Sungwoo’s submittals would be 79 days late  and that Sungwoo 
had failed to demonstrate any government -caused delay impacting Sungwoo’s 
schedule.   (R4, tab 24)  
 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
8 
 
27.  Sungwoo was directed to submit a revised project schedule, all material 
submittals, and a CAP .  Sungwoo was warned that failure to comply may result in 
issuance of a cure notice or show cause notice.   (Id.)  Sungwoo failed to submit its 
material submittals by the required date of March 13, 2015, and continued  providing 
material submittals well into June 2015 (R4, tab 31) .  Sungwoo’s submittals dated 
March 10, 2015, and March 13, 2015, were rejected as not meeting task order 
requirements ; the government  in response provided Sungwoo information regarding an 
approved local manufacturer to supply the required material  (id. at 3772– 79). 
 
28.  On May 15, 2015, the government issued M odification No. 01 to Task 
Order 0002 extending the CCD date from April 15, 2015, to May 22, 2015 (R4, 
tab 34), and on May 26, 2015, the government issued M odification No. 02 removing 
the kitchen installation requirement and de-obligating the labor cost s (R4, tab 35). 
 
Sungwoo’s Performance Under Task Order No. 0004 
 
29.  On March 3, 2015, the government issued Sungwoo CDR No. 411CSB-L2-
15-0022, stating that (1) the project had encountered several construction delays , (2) 
Sungwoo had not met its submitted progress schedule, and (3) Sungwoo had delayed 
submitting its material submittals.  The CDR concluded that the CCD was not 
attainable.  (R4, tab 23)  
 
30.  On March 8, 2015, Sungwoo responded, stating it was behind schedule due 
to the Korean lunar holiday.  Regarding its failure to provide timely material 
submittals Sungwoo offered the same justification it asserted regarding Task Order s 
0001 and 0002 ( it was still searching for local materials that met the task order 
requirements ), and that it needed  a 50-day extension of the CCD (R4, tab s 23-24; FOF 
¶¶ 21, 26).   
 
31.  The CO determined that Sungwoo was responsible to account for holidays 
in its progress schedule, stating that the schedule would not be extended if there were 
holidays or non- workdays within the task order performance period.  The CO also 
determined that Sungwoo did not submit its material submittals within seven days of 
the NTP as required, that Sungwoo w as 79 days late in submitting its remaining 
material submittals , and Sungwoo had not demonstrated any government -caused 
delays impacting Sungwoo’s perform ance.  (R4, tab 23)  
 
32.  The CDR required Sungwoo submit its revised project schedule by March 
13, 2015, as well as its material submittals and  a CAP.  The CDR noted that failure to 
timely provide a CAP plan could result in i ssuance of a cure notice or show cause 
notice.   (Id.)  On May 14, 2015, Modification No. 01 to Task Order 0004 was issued , 
extending the CCD from April 15, 2015 , to May 15, 2015 (R4, tab 32).  
 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
9 
 
Sungwoo’s Performance Under Contract  No. W91QVN-12-D-0119- 0034 
 
33.  On October 14, 2014, the government issued Sungwoo CDR No. 411CSB -
L1-14-0040 regarding Task Order 0034, stating that Sungwoo performed paving work 
without approved pre -construction submittals as required by the O&MA specifications 
(R4, tab 13; tab 19 at 532, 538, 556, 627).  
 
34.  On November 10, 2014, Sungwoo responded that (1) it was unaware until 
after the project was completed that all material submittals were to be reviewed prior 
to work being performed and (2) it submitted all preconstruction material submittals 
after it was made aware of the requirement (R4, tab 13).  
 
35.  The government rejected Sungwoo’s response, noting that Sungwoo had 
submitted a signed acknowledgement of the O&MA specifications which sets forth the 
pertinent preconstruction submittal requirements (R4, tab 13).  T he CDR included a 
“warning notice,” noting  that during a Department of Public Works (“DPW”) meeting 
on December 2, 2014, Mr. Charlie Yang, Sungwoo’s Vice President, had stated that all 
“documents specified in this CDR were approved by DPW prior to commence [sic] of 
this project and [that he] will provide hard copies of the approved submittals the 
following day. ”  Yet, based upon the government’s  review of “the hand carried 
documents provided by Mr.  Yang on 3 Dec 14, none of these documents 
substantiate[d] Sungwoo's position.”  ( Id.)    
 
36.  On December 12, 2014, the government issued a second CDR No. 
411CSB-L2-14-0047, noting that approximately one month after project final 
inspection , the installed pavement had started to fail.   The CDR required that Sungwoo 
explain the reason why pavement failed so soon after completion of the project and 
provide “all required test reports and other supporting documentation that validates 
that all work associated with this task order has been completed.”   (R4, tab 14) 
 
37.  On January 3, 2015, Sungwoo responded to the CDR, asserting that (1) it 
had performed the pavement work in accordance with the statement of work and 
specifications, and (2) the pavement failed because of rainy weather ( id.). 
 
38.  The government  requested Sungwoo submit a CAP to replace the damaged 
pavement , including subbase, base, asphalt/concrete surfaces ( id.). 
 
39.  On March 5, 2015, Sungwoo responded to the government’s request for a 
CAP, indicating that Sungwoo would replace only the asphalt/concrete under 
warranty, rather than the subbase and base as requested by the government (R4, tab 25 
at 3714- 15; tab 26 at 3723; tab 27 at 3734).  
 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
10 
 
40.  On April 14, 2015, the government issued Sungwoo a cure notice stating 
that Sungwoo had failed to comply with the O&MA specifications when it performed 
only two density tests (the O&MA specifications require  a minimum of 22) .  The cure 
notice detailed the  corrective action Sungwoo was to perform .  (R4, tab 29) 
Ultimately , Sungwoo “re -accomplished the entire project as per the Cure Notice” (R4, 
tab 40 at  3980). 
 
Sungwoo’s Performance Under T ask Order No. W91QVN- 14-D-0034- 0016 
 
41.  On June 1, 2016, the government issued Sungwoo CDR No. 411CSB-L2-
16-0103, stating that Sungwoo failed to comply with certain safety standards (R4, 
tab 51).  On June 6, 2016, Sungwoo submitted documentation correcting the safety 
issues, and stating that Sungwoo would prevent further safety issues by performing 
daily safety inspection s and safety training.   The CO found this corrective action 
acceptable.  (Id.) 
 
42.  On June 7, 2016, the government issued Sungwoo CDR No. 411CSB-L2-
16-0104, citing improper performance of task order requirements, damage to existing 
underground utility lines, and installation of nonconforming material (R4, tab 53 
at 4135).  On June 16 , 2016, Sungwoo provided a CAP, which the government 
rejected on June 23, 2016, because it did not identify  action s Sungwoo would “take to 
prevent future occurrences” and noted that Sungwoo had not corrected the  safety issue  
identified in the previous CDR  (R4, tab 53 at 4136- 40; tab 54 at 4186- 88). 
 
43.  On June 8, 2016, the government issued Sungwoo CDR No. 411CSB-L2-
16-0105, citing Sungwoo’s difficulty in meeting safety requirements , including the 
need to provide means of exit for workers performing excavation, fall prevention 
systems, access planks, and proper trenching  and excavating  methods  (R4, tab 55 
at 4196). 
 
44.  On June 16, 2016, Sungwoo submitted a CAP (id. at 4197- 98), which the 
government rejected on June 23, 2016, “because it [ did] not state what action the 
contractor [was] going to take to prevent future occurrences in sufficient detail” 
(id. at 4195, 4199).   The government’s rejection listed several deficiencies in 
Sungwoo’s work and its failure to comply with drawings and specifications ( id. 
at 4199). 
 
45.  On June 16, 2016, the government issued Sungwoo CDR 
No. 411CSB-L2-16-0110, for improper (1) material  installation , (2) permitting  for use 
of government property, and (3) site protection (R4, tab 59 at 4226- 27).  On June 23, 
2016, Sungwoo submitted a CAP, which the government subsequently rejected as 
unacceptable because it did not address all the issues raised in the CDR (R4, tab 56 at 
4200, 4202- 03; tab 67 at 4256). 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
11 
 
46.  On June 28, 2016, the government issued Modification No. 01 to Task 
Order 0016, extending the CCD from June 28, 2016, to September 2, 2016 (R4, 
tab 58). 
 
47.  On July 5, 2016, the government issued Sungwoo CDR No. 411CSB-L2-
16-0127, for failure “ to properly protect the worksite from the elements,” which had 
caused “significant damage to the surrounding structures ” and was a “ serious 
violation [] of” specifications  (R4, tab 60 at 4244).   On July 13, 2016, the government 
issued a stop work order (R4, tab 61 at 4245) , and on July 14, 2016, Sungwoo 
responded, noting that the government had descoped the task order on July 8, 2016 
(R4, tab 60 at 4244).  
 
48.  On August 5, 2016, the government issued a show cause notice, citing 
Sungwoo’s failure to perform satisfactory workmanship.  The show cause order noted 
Sungwoo’s “continual prevarication, demonstrated lack of competenc e necessary to 
perform, contract regards and disregards of fundamental requirements for Safety and 
Quality Control ,” as well as the issuance of six  CDRs “over a three month period that 
consisted of unacceptable project schedules/delays, non- compliance of safety 
standards, improper  excavation/shoring, non- conforming materials, significant damage 
to surround[ ing] structures and inability to complete electrical and fire alarm work in 
Government Quarters .”  (R4, tab 69 at 4268)  The government also informed Sung woo 
of its intention to terminate the contract for default  (id.).   
 
CPARS Evaluations  
 
49.  Pursuant to FAR Table 42 -1 EVALUATION RATING DEFINITIONS, 
marginal performance is defined as:  
 
Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.  
The contractual performance of the element or sub -element 
being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the 
contractor has not yet identified correct actions.  The 
contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally 
effective or were not fully implemented.  
 
To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant 
event in each category that the contractor had trouble 
overcoming and state how it impacted the Government.  
 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
12 
 
50.  Pursuant to FAR Table 42 -1 EVALUATION RATING DEFINITIONS, 
unsatisfactory performance is defined as:  
 
Performance does not meet most contractual requirements  
and recovery is not likely in a timely manner.  The 
contractual performance of the element or sub -element 
contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s 
corrective actions appear or were ineffective.  
 
To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple 
significant events in each category that the contractor had 
trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the 
Government.  A singular problem, however, could be of 
such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an 
unsatisfactory rating.  
 
The Paving Contract  No. - W91QVN-12-D-0119- 0034 CPAR 
 
51.  On July 19, 2015, the government issued a CPAR on T ask Order 0034 
assessing Sungwoo’s performance as unsatisfactory in quality, marginal in schedule, 
unsatisfactory in management , satisfactory in regulatory compliance , and 
unsatisfactory in quality control  (R4, tab 40 at 3979) .  Sungwoo completed paving 
work on October 15, 2014, however, the paving surface failed , with cracks appear ing 
two to three months after completion ( id.; FOF ¶¶ 36-37). 
 
52.  The unsatisfactory rating for quality was based upon Sungwoo’s failure  to 
produce documentation establishing that it performed the paving work in accordance 
with the task order requirement s and specifications , as well as its failure to produce a 
Quality Control Plan or other evidence of testing as required under the t ask order  (R4, 
tab 40 at  3979).  The marginal rating for schedule acknowledged that Sungwoo 
adhered to the schedule to complete the paving in October 2014, but that after defects 
became apparent , and the government issued a CDR, Sungwoo’s incoherent  response 
resulted  in a six-month delay in repairs ( id. at 3980) .  The unsatisfactory rating for 
management noted that Sungwoo performed paving work without government 
approval of its pre -construction submittals, which is  required pursuant to the O &MA 
specifications.  The unsatisfactory management rating also noted that Sungwoo failed 
to provide, when requested by the government , required testing results, or other 
evidence demonstrating that the paving c ompleted in October 2014 was performed in 
accordance with the task order specifications .  The unsatisfactory rating for quality 
control stated that Sungwoo’s “Quality Control appears to have been totally 
ineffective .”  (Id.). 
 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
13 
 
53.  The CPAR concluded that Sungwoo should redo the entire paving project 
per the  CO’s cure notice and  noted that the r epaved road appeared to have been 
completed “satisfactory pending [ the] submission of all required tests/reports.”  The 
assessing official recommend that Sungwoo not be awarded similar, future 
requirements.  (Id.) 
 
54.  Sungwoo responded to the CPAR stating it had followed the government’s 
instructions and submitted all requested test results and that final inspection was 
approved based upon the test reports.  Sungwoo’s response complained that the DPW  
did not provide any submittals, did not request the submission of test reports in 
accordance with the O &MA specification s, that project schedule approval authority 
was unavailable , and that Sungwoo followed instructions of the COR and the Director 
of Emergency Services to perform work it believed was contrary to the specifications 
(id. at 3980-81). 
 
55.  The reviewing official, Mr. Ronald Ware, Division Chief , Construction & 
Supply Division, 411th Contracting Support Brigade (“CSB”) made no changes to the 
CPAR, noting that Sungwoo was required to meet all task order terms and conditions , 
including the O& MA specifications , “to insure a solid base for the paving,” and that 
“[i]f these steps were followed, early degredation [sic] would not have surfaced and 
the repaving would not have been necessary” (id. at 3982) . 
 
The MATOC Task Order No. 0001 CPAR 
 
56.  On January 19, 2016, the government issued a CPAR on Task Order 0001, 
assessing Sungwoo’s performance as satisfactory in quality,  unsatisfactory in 
schedule , marginal in management,  satisfactory in regulatory compliance , marginal in 
material submittal procedures , and marginal in communication (R4, tab 42 at 3985– 86, 
3988). 
 
57.  The unsatisfactory rating for schedule stated that Sungwoo “did not 
adequately schedule the work, ” “did not meet administrative milestone dates ,” failed 
to take “appropriate corrective action of its own volition,” failed to complete in a 
timely manner construction activities ( administrative and physical ), submitted la te 
submittals , was “continually behind schedule ,” and, that “[c]ommunication between 
project management and COR and Government [was] not effective,” with late 
decision s causing even more delays  (id. at 3986) .  The marginal rating for 
management  criticized as “lacking ” the capacity of Sungwoo’s  on-site and home office 
personnel  “to adequately plan, schedule, resource, organize, and otherwise manage the 
work,” and labeled as marginal Sungwoo’s “risk management practices, especially the 
ability to identify risks, and to formulate and implement risk mitigation plans” ( id.). 
 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
14 
 
58.  The marginal rating for “ other areas ” noted delays caused by Sungwoo’s 
“inability to identify acceptable local materials ,” suggesting Sungwoo did  not 
“understand Compliance [ ENG Form 4025] timeliness making the CCD unattainable ,” 
did not “fully understand[] Material submittals were the  main issue for falling behind 
in execution,” and that “[i] nteraction between the Contractor and the Government is 
marginal and contractor needs improvement .”  The CPAR also noted that the 
government revised the CCD of May 15, 2015, and on June 25, 2015, allowed 
completion  of punch list items because some material items “ changed to offshore 
material because of electrical UL ratings and critical regulations,” as well as a labor 
strike in Long Beach , California, which “caused additional delays .”  The CPAR noted, 
however, that “this does not excuse the contractor from submitting several submittals 
late.”  The CPAR recommend Sungwoo not be awarded contracts for similar 
requirements in the future .  (Id.) 
 
59.  Sungwoo non-concurred with the CPAR .  Sungwoo’s comments , however, 
failed to address  late submission of the material submittals and poor communications 
with the government , instead focus ing on material  submittals the design engineer did 
not approve, r esulting in discussions further delaying the project .  (Id. at 3987)  
 
60.  Mr. Ware, the reviewing official , concurred with the government’s 
assessment and made no changes to the CPAR, stating , “[b]ased on the government’s 
evaluation of the contractor’s performance, the contractor was late on the first 
submission for most of the material submittals ,” and “was at least 20 days late on the 
first submission of the architecture submittals, ” was 78 days on other architecture 
submittals, “was at least 52 days late on the first submission of all the mechanical 
submittals ,” and “at least 77 days late on the first submission of the electrical 
submittals .”  Mr. Ware summarized his findings, stating , “[b]ased on my review of the 
assessor’s evaluation and of the contractor’s response, I have determined that the root 
cause of the schedule delays was the late submission o f the material submittals ,” and 
“that communication and cooperation with this contractor’s management continues to 
hinder performance on their contracts even though these concerns had been expressed 
by the government .”  (Id. at 3988)  
 
The MATOC Task Order No. 0002 CPAR 
 
61.  On October 8, 2015, the government issued a CPAR on T ask Order 0002, 
assessing Sungwoo’s performance  as satisfactory in quality , unsatisfactory in 
schedule , marginal in management , satisfactory in regulatory compliance , marginal in 
material submittal procedures , and marginal in communication (R4, tab 39 at 3974–
76).  The unsatisfactory rating for schedule stated that Sungwoo did not adequately 
schedule work, meet administrative or physical milestone dates , take appropriate 
corrective action of its own volition , timely submit or respond to submittals, and that 
communication between project management and COR was not effective ( id. at 3975) .  

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
15 
 
The basis for the CPAR marginal rating for management was stated as : “[l]acking 
Contractor management, on -site, and home office personnel exhibiting the capacity to 
adequately plan, schedule, resource, organize, and otherwise manage the work,” and  
that Sungwoo’s “risk management practices, especially the ability to identify risks, and 
to formulate and implement risk mitigation plans were marginal” ( id.).  The marginal 
rating for “other areas ” noted the same problems Sungwoo experienced with Task 
Order 0001,  regarding Sungwoo’s inability to identify acceptable local materials , and 
its misunderstanding of ENG Form 4025, thereby making the CCD unattainable  (id.; 
FOF ¶ 58).  The CPAR also noted the labor strike in Long Beach, California, which 
caused additional delays, but did not excuse Sungwoo’s from submitting several late 
submittals  (R4, tab 39 at 3975) .  The assessing official summarized , stating “[g]iven 
what I know today about the contractor’s ability to perform in accordance with this 
contract or order’s most significant requirements, I would not recommend them for 
similar requirements in the future” ( id.). 
 
62.  Although Sungwoo concurred with the evaluation and provided some 
comments in response, Sungwoo’s comments failed to address late submission of 
material submittals and poor communication with the government, instead focus ing on 
materials that Sungwoo submitted that were not approved by the design engineer, 
resulting in discussions with the design engineer that further delayed  the project 
(id. at 3976) .
5 
 
The MATOC Task Order No. 0004 CPAR 
 
63.  On January 19, 2016, the government issued a CPAR on T ask Order 0004, 
assessing Sungwoo’s performance  as satisfactory in quality , unsatisfactory in 
schedule , marginal in management , satisfactory in regulatory compliance , marginal in 
material submittal procedures , and marginal in communication (R4, tab 43 at 3989– 90, 
3992).  The unsatisfactory rating for schedule was based upon the same issues that 
Sungwoo experienced in performing Task Order 0002, such as inadequate scheduling, 
failure to meet milestones, and failure to complete construction in a t imely manner (id. 
at 3990; FOF ¶ 61).  The marginal rating for management stated that Sungwoo was 
“[l]acking Contractor’s management , on-site, and home office personnel exhibiting the 
capacity to adequately plan, schedule, resource, organize, and otherwise manage the 
work.”  Regarding risk management practices, the CPAR n oted that Sungwoo’s 
“ability to identify risks, and to formulate and implement risk mitigation plans were 
marginal.”  (R4, tab 43 at 3990)   The marginal rating for “ other areas ” noted the same 
problems Sungwoo experienced with Task Order s 0001 and 0002, regarding 
Sungwoo’s inability to identify acceptable local materials, and misunderstanding of 
ENG Form 4025, thereby making the CCD unattainable  (id.; FOF ¶¶ 58, 61).  The 
 
5 The CPAR for Task Order 0002 neither identifies, nor contain s comments of, the 
reviewing official ( R4, tab 39 at 3976).  

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
16 
 
CPAR again noted the labor strike in Long Beach, California, which caused additional 
delays, but did not excuse Sungwoo from submitting several late submittals ( id. at 
3990).  The assessing official summarized, stating , “[g]iven what I know today about 
the contractor’s ability to perform in accordance with this contract or order’s most 
significant requirements, I would not recommend them for similar requirements in the 
future” (i d.). 
 
64.  Sungwoo non-concurred with this CPAR and again provided comments  
that did not address the issue of the late submission of the material submittals , or poor 
communications with the government, and instead focused on materials that Sungwoo 
submitted that were not approved by the design engineer , resulting in discussions with 
the design engineer that further delayed  the project ( id. at 3991) . 
 
65.  Mr. Ware, the reviewing official, concurred with the government’s 
assessment and made no changes to the CPAR, citing the same “root cause” concerns 
he expressed in his review of Task Order 0001 such as schedule delays, late 
submittals, and issues with communication and contractor management ( id. at 3991–
92; FOF ¶ 60). 
 
The MATOC Contract Base Year CPAR and Subsequent CPAR Revision  
 
66.  On March 1, 2016, the government assessed Sungwoo’s performance for 
the MATOC base year as satisfactory.  The government subsequently determined this 
assessment to be a patent error because Sungwoo received unsatisfactory rating s on 
three of the four task orders rated in CPARS (R4, tab 81 at 4402; tab 95 at 4683) .  
Although Sungwoo perform ed 11 task orders during the base year, only four met the 
then dollar threshold of $700,000 for CPARS assessment set forth of in FAR 
42.1502(e)  (R4, tab 95 at 4683).   
 
67.  The MATOC base year CPAR assessment could not be re- opened at the 
agency level to correct the patent error, so the government created a second CPARS 
entry and rating, which was sent to Sungwoo for review.  After Sungwoo’s May 30, 
2016, review of the assessment , the CPAR was modified on June 1, 2016, to correct 
the patent error.  The government mistakenly did not transmit the modified CPAR to 
Sungwoo before final review and closure by Mr. Ware.  (R4, tab 81 at 4402– 03) 
 
68.  The revised  MATOC base year CPAR was issued to correct a clear and 
patent error in rating Sungwoo’s performance as overall satisfactory because three of 
the four CPARs assessed contain ed unsatisfactory ratings (R4, tab 95 at 4683).  
 
69.  The government deleted the June 1, 2016, CPAR and issued a corrected 
CPAR on June 7, 2017 (R4, tab 84; tab 95 at 4683).   The corrected CPAR assessed 
Sungwoo as satisfactory in quality , unsatisfactory in schedule , marginal in 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
17 
 
management , satisfactory in regulatory compliance , marginal in material submittal 
procedures , and marginal in communication.  The basis for these  ratings was the same 
basis set forth in the MATOC task order CPAR s.  (R4, tab 84 at 4409– 10; FOF ¶¶ 56-
65)  Mr. Michael Jones, the assessing official, stated , “[g]iven what I know today 
about the contractor's ability t o perform in accordance with this contract or order's 
most significant requirements, I would not recommend them for similar requirements 
in the future ( id. at 4410). 
 
70.  Sungwoo provided comments, but did not address the issues related to late 
submission of its material submittals, mis management, or marginal communications 
with the government (R4, tab 84 at 4 410–20).  Mr. Unhui Ko, Chief, Construction & 
Supply Division, concurred “with the accessing official [’]s comments” ( id. at 4420).  
 
71.  Mr. Ware’s declaration states that, as the reviewing official,  he “determined 
that Sungwoo’s response in disagreement with its CPAR ratings did not indicate that 
the information contained in the CPAR rating was not factually correct” ( R4, tab 95 
at 4683).  Mr. Ware stated that “ Sungwoo was consistently behind on completing its 
work within [ the] schedule because it did not submit its material submittals within the 
time periods required by the terms of the contract as reflected in the statement of 
work,” which is “the basis for the rating of Unsatisfactory under Schedule and 
Marginal ratings under Management, Material Submittal Procedures, and 
Communication. ”  Mr. Ware also stated “[i] t is the responsibility of the contractor to 
update the progress schedule to be always current and to have discussions during its 
performance whenever there are issues that may impact schedule,” and that u ntimely 
submittal of  ENG Form 4025 and “the Bill of Materials (BOM) listed in Sungwoo’s 
proposal indicate[d] that Sungwoo failed to procure the approved materials upon 
contract award.”  ( Id.)  Mr. Ware noted that “[i] nstead  of providing the BOM listed in 
the proposal as awarded, Sungwoo changed the BOM during performance , which a 
contractor cannot do unless there are changes in the scope of the contract.  As a result 
of Sungwoo changing the BOM approved for the project as awarded, it did not timely 
submit the ENG Form 4025 and fell behind schedule. ”  (Id. at 4684). 
 
Determination Not to Exercise the Option Years  or Award Additional Contracts  
 
72.  On June 27, 2016, the CO de cided not to exercise the second option year 
on Sungwoo’s MATOC (R4, tab 57) .  The CO’s determinations and findings excluded 
Sungwoo from receiving the option extension based upon Sungwoo’s “unsatisfactory 
performance ,” and listed  by contract and task order , Sungwoo’s many performance 
deficiencies  over the previous year (id. at 4218) (identifying eight specific contracts 
and task orders, as well as corresponding C DRs and CPARs)).  
 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
18 
 
73.  In his May 23, 2020, declaration, Mr. Ware set forth his decision approving 
the CO’s determination not to exercise the option years under Sungwoo’s contracts , 
stating:  
 
In general, Sungwoo’s performance was deteriorating 
resulting in multiple contractor discrepancy reports to 
which Sungwoo did not adequately respond or resolve and 
its multiple unsatisfactory CPARS ratings.  Sungwoo’s 
declining performance ultimately le ad [to] the issuance of 
a show cause notice for task order 0016 under the MATOC 
contract.   The task order was ultimately descoped.   
However, based upon the multiple issues identified with 
Sungwoo’s performance, Sungwoo was determined not to 
be a responsible c ontractor under FAR 9.103, 9.104 and 
9.105 and any future award consideration to Sungwoo 
would impose unnecessary risk that such projects would be 
completed satisfactorily given their performance issues.  
 
(R4, tab  95 at 4683 )   
 
74.  Mr. Ware further explained the circumstances surrounding the CPAR , as 
well as the government’s decision to not exercise contract options , stating: 
 
The decision not to exercise the option years on 
Sungwoo’s contracts was based upon Sungwoo’s 
demonstrated inability to perform satisfactorily on those 
task orders awarded under the subject contracts.  
Additionally, the modifications to the 2014- 2015 Base 
Year CPARS rating for the MATOC contract was [sic] 
based upon Sungwoo’s three Unsatisfactory CPARS 
ratings for three of four task orders that were rated in 
CPARS.  The Satisfactory CPARS rating was contrary to 
the CPARS ratings in the system and required m odification 
to correctly reflect the CPARS rating given to Sungwoo.  
At no time did I or anyone else in the contracting office 
take any of these actions or any action with the specific 
intent to harm Sungwoo.  All actions taken were proper 
and reasonable administration of government contracts in 
accordance with policy, regulation, and law.  Sungwoo’s 
actual performance and documented deficiencies clearly 
define them to be a contractor that meets almost all the 
expectations of a non- responsible contractor pe r FAR 
9.104, Standards.  

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
19 
 
(R4, tab 95 at 4684)  
 
75.  On July 13, 2016, the government notified Sungwoo of the government ’s 
determination not “to extend your General Construction Multiple Award Task Order 
Contract Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity requirements,” specifically, 4th Year 
options for contracts  Nos. W91QVN-12-D-0110, W91QVN-12-D-0114, 
W91QVN-12-D-0119, W91QVN-12-D-0130, W91QVN-12-D-0132, 
W91QVN-12-D-0143 and W91QVN -13-D-0064 (R4, tabs 62, 63) , as well as the 
government’s determination not to exercise the MATOC second year option (R4, tabs 
64, 65). 
 
Sungwoo’s Allegations Regarding E NG Form 4025 
 
76.  Sungwoo alleges  that the government instructed and forced it to make false 
entries on the ENG Form 4025 and instructed and forced it to procure offshore 
materials rather than utilize local materials (app. br. at 3).  In support of these 
allegations, Sungwoo cites to statements of its employees Yi, Chin Chuk and Cho, 
Myng Hyun.   
 
77.  Mr. Chuk’s statement provides : 
 
In the mid of January, 2015, I attended in the meeting at 
Camp Red Cloud Conference Room.   The other attendees 
are Daniel Hong, Kichong Seo, Hongil Pyun, Taechong 
Kim, Chunhyuk Kwon, Project Mangers from each 
MATOC Contractor such as Deokdong Co, Elim Co, 
Seongril Co, etc.  I was told that all projects should be 
completed before CCD  and that offshore materials (OM & 
OE) should be entered as local materials (LM & LE) in 
ENG Form 4025.  
 
(App. supp. R4, tab 40 at 2)  
 
78.  Mr. Cho’s statement also addresses  a meeting in mid -January 2015 at the 
Camp Red Cloud conference room, hosted by Mr. Daniel Hong, with attendees, 
“Jangmuk Yun (Engineer) Taechong Kim, Sunhuk Kwon, Hongil Pyun, Kichong Seo 
(COR) About fifteen (15) Project Managers of MATOC Contractors” (app.  supp. R4, 
tab 42 at 2).  The “subject” of the meeting was “[a]ll project [sic] should be completed 
before CCD,” and “[o]ffshore items should be entered as local items in the ‘ Item No.’ 
column of  Form 4025, Material  submittal because these LCS projects should be local  
material only” ( id.). 
79.  Sungwoo also cites the following September 8, 2016, statement of 
Mr. Yang:   

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
20 
 
In mid of January, our project manager (DO#0001&#0004: 
Cho, Myong Hyun / DO#0002: Yi, Chin Chuk) reported to 
me that they was [sic] ordered to make false entries in the 
submittal identification column of material submittal 
stating OM to LM in the meeting with DPW.  Also, they 
were told that off -shore materials should be designated to 
local materials due to LCS project.  
 
I believed that DPW Area I forced MATOC contractors to 
commit a forgery.  Therefore, I instructed our project 
managers not to engage in this misconduct and informed 
COR that we would not order off -shore materials.  
 
(App. supp. R4, tab 43 at 1)  Mr. Yang also stated:  “In the meeting of March 9,  2015, 
I complained Mr. Song [sic] that DPW Area I did not coordinate 100% local material 
usage.  Also, I asked Mr. Hong if it was right decision as Government employee to 
force all contractors [sic] committing a forgery” ( id.).  
 
Government Declarations Regarding ENG Form 4025 Allegations  
 
80.  In a subsequent declaration dated May 27, 2022, Mr. Yang “revoked” his 
September 8, 2016, statement : 
 
Sungwoo also claims that it was ordered by Mr. Daniel 
Hong to forge its Eng. Form 4025 and identify offshore 
material as local material.  Sungwoo bases this claim on 
three statements.  One statement I made and two made by 
other Sungwoo employees.  I have no knowledge of a 
meeting in January 2015 with Sungwoo's employees.   
However, my statement says that Mr. Hong forced myself 
and all LCS contractors to forge documents and that I was 
instructed to order offshore materials for installation to 
complete task or der W91QVN-14-D-0034- 0001 at a 
meeting on March 9, 2015.   No such thing happened.   
Rather, I was upset that Sungwoo had fallen behind 
schedule and the materials we had wanted to install did not 
meet the engineering requirements of the task order.   It was 
quicker for Sungwoo to obtain the offshore materials as it 
had already intended on using them at the time Sungwoo 
submitted its proposal.  I wanted someone to blame for the 
issues that were occurring and Mr. Daniel Hong in trying 
to enforce the engineering requirements for the project was 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
21 
 
the target of my frustration.  Therefore, I revoke my 
statement dated September 8, 2016.  
 
(R4, tab 101 at 4699)  
 
81.  Mr. Daniel Hong, Chief of the Engineering Division, DPW , Yongsan 
Garrison , provided a declaration stating that he signed ENG Form 4025s based upon 
the recommended approval of the project designers, and that he did not have the time 
nor the expertise to verify each construction material submittal to determine whether 
the materials were local materials or offshore materials.  Mr. Hong also stated that he 
never ordered Sungwoo or any LCS contractor to falsify information on ENG Form 
4025s .  (R4, tab 91 at 4514– 15) 
 
82.  Mr. Todd Hill, current Chief of the Engineering & Services Division, 
DPW, Yongsan Garrison (now Garrison Yongsan- Casey) stated that “no one in DPW 
specifically examines the material submittal packets for purposes of determin ing 
whether items are manufactured locally or offshore.”  Additionally, Mr. Hill stated that 
the backup materials provide specifications of listed items consisting of catalog cuts, 
brochures, manuals and other manufacturer information, but that the information is not 
reliable as to whether the material is local or offshore, and that DPW relies on the 
contractor’s cer tification that the materials comply with the contract requirements.  
(R4, tab 96 at  4687– 88) 
 
83.  Other DPW Area I personnel also stated that they do not review material 
submittals to verify whether the materials are local or offshore nor do they recall any 
meeting in January 2015 at which LCS contractors were allegedly told to identify 
offshore material as local material on the ENG Form 4025 (R4, tabs 97– 99).  Kim, Tae 
Chong and Kwon, Chun Hyok, both DPW construction inspectors, Garrison Yongsan-
Casey, stated in their declarations that they were “not responsible for review or 
approval of ENG form 4025 documents,” “do not recall any such meeting in January 
2015 and it was not Mr. Hong’s practice to meet with a contractor to discuss Eng. 
Form 4025 entries,” and that “[t]hose issues were usually dealt with by the applicable 
engineer depending on disci pline” (R4, tab 98 at 4693; tab 99 at 4695).  
 
84.  Mr. Seo, Ki Chong, DPW Civil Engineer/COR, Garrison, Yongsan- Casey, 
in his declaration stated that he reviews ENG Form 4025 “material submittals to 
ensure the materials meet the project’s engineering requirements,” does “not review 
the material submittals to ensure that the materials are properly identified as offshore 
or local materials[,] . . . [ does] not verify whether the material submittals accurately 
identify whether the materials are properly identified as offshore or local materials,” 
and that a review to identify “offshore materials or local materials would be [a] time -
consuming and difficult task as the information is not always readily identifiable on 
the material submittals received from the contractors” (R4, tab 97 at 4690- 91).  

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
22 
 
Mr. Seo also stated that he does not “have any information that [sic] Mr. Hong’s 
practice to meet with a contractor to discuss the Eng. Form 4025 entries,” and does 
“not recall and attend [sic] any such meeting in January 2015” ( id. at 4691).  
 
85.  Mr. Song, Ho Chun, a CO at Camp Casey, ROK , in his declaration stated 
that, as procuring CO for Task Order 0001, he “informed Sungwoo that its materials 
list in its offer contained material identified as offshore, and that because the task order 
was part of the Logistical Cost Sharing (LCS) program, materials listed to complete 
the project needed to be local materials” (R4, tab 100 at 4696).  Mr. Song also stated 
that “[i]f Sungwoo believed it could not perform the task order without the use of 
offshore materials, it should have withdrawn its proposal” (id. ).  In addition, Mr. Song 
stated he does “not recall anyone telling Sungwoo that it could order offshore 
materials to complete the task order,” and that “[t]o do so, would have not been in 
compliance with .  .  . the contract” ( id. at 4697).  
 
Sungwoo’s Complaints to the Contract Ombudsman 
 
86.  By letter dated April 18, 2016, Sungwoo submitted a “Complaint about 
Award Exclusion of Three Government Contracts” to Colonel Americus M. Gill, III 
(COL Gill), the 411th CSB Commander  and Ombudsman for the MATOC ( W91QVN-
14-D-0034) .  Sungwoo alleged that Mr. Ware, the reviewing official, excluded 
Sungwoo from task order awards and did not exercise option years on Sungwoo’s 
contracts based upon an alleged falsified CPAR, and that the government directed 
Sungwoo and other LCS contractors to falsify entries on the ENG Form 4025 by 
identifying offshore materials as local materials .  (R4, tab 48 at 4037- 39) 
 
Contract Ombudsman ’s Response to Sungwoo’s  Complaint  
 
87.  On July 14, 2016, COL Gill responded to Sungwoo’s April 18, 2016, letter, 
stating that Sungwoo’s allegations alleging falsification of entries on ENG Form 4025 
were referred to the Major Procurement Fraud Unit (MPFU) for “further investigation 
into potential occurrences of procurement fraud”  (R4, tab 66 at 4253) .  COL Gill also 
informed Sungwoo that the MPFU investigation had found insufficient evidence of 
fraud and addressed Sungwoo’s allegations concerning Mr. Ware excluding Sungwoo 
from task order awards and Sungwoo’s unsatisfactory CPAR s (id.).  COL Gill 
explained that Sungwoo was not awarded ad ditional task orders under Solicitation 
Nos. W91QVN-16-R-0008, W91QVN-15-R-0026, and W91QVN -15-R-0081, because 
Sungwoo was determined not to be the lowest -priced, technically acceptable offeror, 
and in the case of Solicitation No. W91QVN -15-R-0026, Sungwoo had informed the 
CO that it could not perform the work until other task orders were completed.  Thus, 
COL Gill concluded that Mr. Ware’s conduct was not unfair towards Sungwoo.  ( Id. 
at 4253– 54) 
 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
23 
 
88.  COL Gill also determined that CPAR s for the MATOC task orders  were 
reasonable, finding that Sungwoo was required to provide all local materials per the 
terms of the task orders, and that it refused to obtain the materials from local 
manufacturers that were recommended by the government because the local materials 
were too costly compared to the offshore materials.  Because Sungwoo continued to 
delay in obtaining the approved material from local sources, the government provided 
government -furnished mate rial to meet the contract schedule.  ( Id. at 4254– 55)  
COL Gill’s response also note d Mr. Ware’s statement that although the government 
provided Sungwoo information as to “where local materials compliant with the 
contract specification could be purchased, ” that “despite the government providing the 
name and phone numbers for the local companies that could provide materials meeting 
the contract specification, Sungwoo instead insisted on obtaining materials from 
offshore”  (R4, tab 95 at 4684) . 
 
89.  Sungwoo submitted to COL Gill additional complaints and letters, dated 
August 10, 2016 (R4, tab 70), September 12, 2016 (R4, tab 71), September 17, 2016 
(R4, tab 72), November 15, 2016 (R4, tab 75),
6 and December 7, 2016 (R4, tab 77), 
reasserting allegations  set forth in Sungwoo’s April 18 , 2016, letter, and challenging 
the government’s CPAR  for the MATOC base year  and Sungwoo’s exclusion and 
alleged debarment from engaging in future contracts.  
 
MPFU Interview s Regarding ENG Form 4025 Allegations  
 
90.  In October 2016, t he MPFU interviewed Mr. Ware regarding the 
procedures by which ENG Form 4025s were processed under LCS contracts, during 
which he stated  that local materials should be utilized but that offshore material (OM) 
could be used if a waiver was submitted and approved prior to contract award (R4, 
tab 74 at 4295) .  Mr.  Ware also stated : 
 
Sungwoo kept trying to utilize OMs for parts which were 
going into boilers in Area 1.  The 411th CSB provided a 
local manufacture Hansung which had parts that qualified 
and met requirements for Sungwoo to purchase parts from.  
However, Sungwoo persistently tried to use OMs due to 
the fact the parts were cheaper than Hansung's parts.  As 
the construction was being pushed to the right and was 
about to pass the deadline [,] the government provided 
Government Furnished Materials (GFMs) for  the boiler in 
order to  meet the c onstruction timeline . 
 
 
6 Sungwoo’s November 15, 2016, letter was address ed to Army legal counsel , 
LTC Robert Nelson and Mr. Justin Paulette (R4, tab 75 at 4300).  

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
24 
 
(Id. at 4295- 96)   
 
91.  In November 2016, the MPFU interviewed Mr. Yang regarding his 
allegations that Sungwoo w as forced to falsify information on ENG Form 4025s 
submitted for LCS funded contracts , by identifying offshore material as local material 
(id. at 4297) .  During his interview, Mr. Yang, stated that, in reviewing ENG Form 
4025s submitted by contractors, CORs were not comparing the contractors’ 
documentation to items submitted by the contractors, and that if a listed item indicated 
it was local material the COR would sign the document  (id. at 4298).  Mr. Yang then 
admitted to falsif ying information on the ENG Form 4025 by identifying offshore 
material as local material and submitting it to the COR for processing ( id.). 
 
Sungwoo’s Claims 
 
92.  On December 17, 2016, Sungwoo submitted a claim to the CO certified by 
Mr. Song Yong Eui, Sungwoo’s attorney , asserting that Sungwoo suffered losses due 
to the 411th CSB’s “improper and discriminatory acts” (R4, tab 78 at 4307).   Sungwoo 
also asserted that the government failed to award it contracts under Solicitation 
Nos. W91QVN-16-R-0091 and W91QVN -16-R-0119, and to exercise options under 
the MATOC and Contract Nos. W91QVN -13-D-0064, W91QVN-12-D-0114, 
W91QVN-12-D-0119, W91QVN-12-D-0130 (R4, tab 78 at 4308).  
 
93.  On December 18, 2016, Sungwoo submitted a claim to the CO, also 
certified by Mr. Song, asserting that Sungwoo’s CPAR was fabricated and, that based 
upon that CPAR, the 411th CSB suspended or debarred Sungwoo (R4, tab 79).   
Sungwoo request ed that “the Report be either nullified or revised from an 
‘Unsatisfactory ’ to a ‘Satisfactory ’ rating,” and that the government lift “the 
suspension/debarment imposed on Sungwoo” (R4, tab 79 at 4384).   
 
94.  Sungwoo disputes the government ’s evaluation of its performance (R4, 
tab 78 at 4309- 10, 4320, 4325- 26; ASBCA No. 61219, compl. ¶¶ 12- 14; ASBCA 
No. 61144, compl. ¶¶ 1- 4).  Sungwoo alleges the government engaged in fraudulent 
acts,
7 including requiring contractors to forge documents and retaliated against 
Sungwoo when it refused to participate in the alleged scheme, by (1) giving it 
“unsatisfactory” CPAR s and (2) by imposing a de  facto suspension or debarment when 
 
7 As noted above, our previous decision clarified that although Sungwoo frequently 
used the term “fraud” to characterize the government’s actions, the issues 
remaining in these appeals concern whether “the government acted arbitrarily 
and capriciously, or in bad faith, when it evaluated appellant’s performance as 
being ‘unsatisfactory’ and  when it refused to exercise the options and award 
additional work under the various contracts.”  Sungwoo, 19 -1 BCA ¶ 37,449 
at 181,976.   

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
25 
 
the government refused to exercise options under the MATOC and paving contract and 
award additional work to Sungwoo (ASBCA No. 61114, compl . ¶¶ 129-43; ASBCA 
No. 61219, compl. ¶¶ 12, 16, 17; R4, tab 78 at 4309– 10, tab 79 at 4384 85) . 
 
Quality Assurance Team Memorandum  
 
95.  On February 21, 2017, the 411th CSB Quality Assurance Team (QAT) 
issued a memorandum for record addressing i ts “Review of material submittal forms 
4025 from LCS contracts at DPW” (R4, tab 82 at 4405).  The QAT found that the term 
“local materials” was not defined in the Special Measures Agreement, the LCS 
Implementing Arrangement, or the Amendment to the LCS Implementing 
Arrangement, that current procedures place the burden of compliance with the local 
materials requirements on the contractor, and that  no one from DPW is responsible for 
reviewing the ENG Form 4025 for compliance with the LCS requirements (id. ).  The 
QAT recommended that an inspection item be added “ in the COR's Surveillance 
Activity Checklist to inspect ENG  4025 forms to ensure contractor identification of 
materials as local or off -shore ” (id.). 
 
CO Final Decision  
 
96.  On March 17, 2017, the CO issued a final decision recognizing that “[t]he 
evidence shows a series of administrative errors on the part of 411th CSB personnel in 
the management of CPARS,” but d enying Sungwoo’s claims , explaining that the 
MATOC CPAR was modified to correct a patent error; however, the attempts to 
modify the CPAR resulted in an administrative error in which Sungwoo was not 
provided an opportunity to comment on the modified CPAR.   The final decision  also 
informed Sungwoo that the decision not to exercise the option years on Sungwoo’s 
Contract Nos.  W91QVN-12-D-0114, W91QVN-12-D-0119, W91QVN-12-D-0130, 
W91QVN-12-D-0132 and W91QVN -14-D-0034, was reasonable based on Sungwoo 
unsatisfactory performance on task orders issued under Sungwoo’s contracts.   (R4, 
tab 81 at 4402- 03) 
 
Additional Findings by Contract Ombudsman 
 
97.  On April 7, 2017, COL Gill responded to Sungwoo’s “previous 
complaints ” (R4, tab 83) .  In response to Sungwoo’s allegation that D PW Area I 
personnel “directed Contractors to create the false submittal register  stating that all 
material items were local materials from Korea, ” COL Gill again informed Sungwoo 
that the MPFU declined to open an investigation ( id.).  COL Gill closed his response , 
stating that the 411th CSB was conducting a quality assurance review of contract 
administration procedures related to the LCS program with DPW  (id.). 
 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
26 
 
Sungwoo Debarment 
 
98.  On August 10, 2017, Sungwoo was notified of its proposed debarment 
based upon its admission that it falsified entries on its ENG Form 4025 (R4, tab 87).  
Sungwoo admitted to falsifying documentation provided to the government in 
response to its debarment notice (R4, tab 89 at 4433; FOF ¶ 91 ).  Sungwoo ultimately 
was debarred for a period of four years and its requests to lift its debarment were 
denied (R4, tabs  87, 90). 
 
Sungwoo’s Request for Relief  
 
99.  Sungwoo seeks relief in ASBCA No. 61144 in the form of an order 
directing the government to change the CPARs ratings from “unsatisfactory” to 
“satisfactory” and in ASBCA No. 61219 in the form of damages in the amount of 
₩2,050,656,763 for  failure to award it additional  contracts and exercise options 
(ASBCA No. 61144,  compl. ¶ 2; ASBCA No. 61219, compl. first ¶ 1).  Included in the 
total amount claimed in ASBCA No. 61219 is ₩1,000,000,000, described as “punitive 
damages” (ASBCA No. 61219, compl. ¶18).  
 
100.  The damages, other than the “punitive damages ,” asserted in ASBCA 
No. 61219 total ₩1,013,084,498.
8  Solicitation Nos. W91QVN -16-R-0008, 
W91QVN-16-R-0091 and W91QVN -16-R-0119 are the three solicitations for which 
Sungwoo asserts it was the lowest offeror but received no award (R4, tab 93 at 4597) . 
 
DECISION 
 
I.  Contentions of the Parties  
 
Sungwoo argues (1) that “the government acted arbitrarily and capriciously and 
engaged in bad faith when the government evaluated the 3 Task Orders  . . . as 
unsatisfactory and revised the March 1 Base Year CPAR . . . from satisfactory to 
unsatisfactory ,” (2) that “the government acted arbitrarily and capriciously and 
engaged in bad faith when the government instructed and forced Sungwoo to make 
false entries in Eng Form 4025s and instructed and forced Sungwoo to procure 
offshore materials,” and (3) “the government is liable for the loss and damage incurred 
by [Sungwoo] when the government declared [ Sungwoo] as a non -responsible 
contractor based on the improperly issued unsatisfactory evaluation of the  
CPARs . . . .” (app. br. at 3).  
 
 
8 The specific damages other than the “punitive damages” asserted in ASBCA 
No. 61219 are set forth in a table that appears in our previous decision, 
Sungwoo, 19 -1 BCA ¶ 37,449 at 181,974. 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
27 
 
The government counters, stating that (1) Sungwoo has failed to establish “ by 
clear and convincing evidence that the government acted arbitrarily and capriciously, 
or in bad faith, when it both evaluated [ Sungwoo’s] performance as ‘ unsatisfactory ’ 
under the MATOC Contract and in its decision not to exercise  [Sungwoo’s] options 
under its various contracts ,” and (2) Sungwoo has provided “no evidence to support its 
assertions of bad faith and provide [d] no case law in support ” (gov’t br. at 2-3 ; gov’t 
reply br . at 2).   
 
In its sur -reply brief, t he government argues that Sungwoo failed to address its 
“bad faith claim concerning the government’s decision not to exercise the option years 
on the subject Contracts” (gov’t reply br. at 1-2).  The government  asserts that rather 
than address its remaining claims, “ appellant’s brief focuses on an unsupported 
conspiracy theory regarding the requirements of the [LCS] Program and the purported 
orders to falsify information on the ENG Form  4025 material submittals by a 
Department of Public Works employee ,” and that “ appellant has failed to meet its 
burden of proof ” (gov’t br. at 2-3).  The government also argues in its sur -reply brief 
that Sungwoo’s briefs fail to address its monetary claims  and, it is therefore abandoned 
(gov’t reply  br. at 2-5). 
 
The government also challenges this Board’s jurisdiction (1) to review 
Sungwoo’s debarment “ [t]o the extent Sungwoo’s assertion is that Sungwoo’s 
debarment was arbitrary and capricious or in bad faith” (gov’t br. at 66- 67), (2) to 
consider Sungwoo’s request for specific performance as “the Board does not have 
jurisdiction to grant appellant’s requested relief ” (gov’t br. at 72), and (3) to consider 
Sungwoo’s monetary claim , stating that Sungwoo’s certification did not comply with 
the MATOC requirement that the certification be executed by a “senior company 
official in charge at the contractor’s plant or location involved,” or a n “officer or 
general partner of the contractor having overall responsibility for the conduct of the 
contractor’s affairs ” (gov’t br. at 76; FOF ¶ 3 ).  Sungwoo’s reply brief does not 
address the se jurisdictional arguments.  
 
II. Proceedings Pursuant to Board Rule 11  
 
Board Rule 11 provides the parties the option of waiving their right to a hearing 
and instead submitting the appeal for a decision on the written record; with the Board 
issuing factual findings on disputed facts.  Trade West Constr., Inc ., ASBCA 
No. 61068, 22- 1 BCA ¶ 38,214 at 185,596.  Pursuant to Board Rule 11(d), the weight 
given to evidence contained in the written record rests “within the discretion of the 
Board.”   

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
28 
 
III.  Sungwoo Has Failed to Establish the G overnment’s CPAR s Ratings Were 
Arbitrary and Capricious , an Abuse of Discretion, or in Bad Faith   
 
Pursuant to FAR 42.1501(b) , “CPARS is the official source for past 
performance information” (original italics).  T he Board has jurisdiction to address 
inaccurate and unfair CPAR s, wherein we “assess whether the CO  acted reasonably in 
rendering the disputed performance rating or was arbitrary and capricious and abused 
his [or her] discretion.”   Cameron Bell Corp. d/b/a Gov Sols. Grp. , ASBCA 
No. 61856, 19- 1 BCA ¶ 37,323 at 181,537.  Sungwoo argues that the government’s 
unsatisfactory CPARs regarding Task Orders 0001, 0002, and 0004, and the revised 
MATOC CPAR (from satisfactory to unsatisfactory ), were arbitrary, capricious, and in 
bad faith (app. br. at 2).  Sungwoo requests that the government change the CPARs 
ratings from “unsatisfactory” to “satisfactory” (FOF ¶ 99).  Although we cannot “order 
the government to revise a CPARS rating, we may remand to require the CO  to follow 
applicable regulations and provide [the contractor] a fair and accurate performance 
evaluation.”   Cameron Bell Corp. , 19-1 BCA ¶ 37,323 at 181,537. 
 
Our jurisdiction to address inaccurate and unfair CPARs  is constrained by 
practical considerations regarding the age of the CPARs being challenged.  “ CPARs 
are active and usable as past performance data for three years from ‘ completion of 
performance of the evaluated contract or order .’”  St. Michael’s Inc. , 25-1 BCA ¶ 
38,757 at 188,390 (citing FAR 42.1503(g)).  Under this regulatory scheme, there is “a 
rolling three -year window when each CPAR can be used to evaluate a contractor for 
future awards ,” and, at least in the context of the government agency at issue in St. 
Michael’s , “[a]fter three years CPARs are archived and become functionally invisible 
and inaccessible to all users .”  Id.   
 
The principle espoused in St. Michael’s  applies equally here.  The 
government’s CPARs assessing Sungwoo’s performance were issued in 2015 and 
2016 (FOF ¶¶ 51, 56, 61, 63, 66 ).  Sungwoo’s challenge to the propriety of those 
ratings for purposes of effecting a change in those ratings is now moot.  However, 
Sungwoo’s appeals still present a live issue .  As we previously held, w ere we to find 
that the CO’s actions  were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or undertaken 
in bad faith , Sungwoo might be entitled to monetary damages were we also to 
determine that  because of the government’s inaccurate or unfair  CPARs, Sungwoo was 
not awarded option year  extensions of its contract s.  Sungwoo, 19 -1 BCA ¶ 37,449 
at 181,976 ( “We do have jurisdiction to consider and rule on whether the 
government ’s performance evaluations and decision to not exercise the options were 
arbitrary and capricious actions or undertaken in bad faith”); s ee St. Michael’s Inc. ,  
25-1 BCA ¶ 38,757 at 188,391 (noting that appellant presented “no evidence in the 
record that [the CPARs] were ever ‘used against’ [appellant] in any contract award 
decision”) ; Nexagen Networks, Inc. , ASBCA No. 60461 19-1 BCA ¶ 37,258 
at 181,328 (contractor may be entitled to breach damages for failure to exercise option 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
29 
 
where contractor proves bad faith, an abuse of discretion or that the CO  acted in an 
arbitrary or capricious manner  in failing to exercise option).   Accordingly, we still 
must determine whether the government’s ratings  were arbitrary , capricious , an abuse 
of discretion , or undertaken in bad faith.  Sungwoo, 19 -1 BCA ¶ 37,449 at 181,976.  
 
Unfortunately for Sungwoo, the answer to that inquiry is a resounding “no.”  
Sungwoo has the burden of proof and must establish by a preponderance of the 
evidence its claims that the CO’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, or abuse of 
discretion .  Peter Bauwens Bauunternehmung GmbH & Co. KG , ASBCA No. 44679, 
98-1 BCA ¶ 29,551 at 146,497, aff'd , 194 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .  Overwhelming 
record evidence establishes that Sungwoo’s performance on the contracts and task 
orders at issue  here was riddled with unsatisfactory and marginal performance  in areas 
such as schedule, submission of submittals,  contract management , and communication 
between Sungwoo and the government  (FOF ¶¶ 51-52, 56-58, 61, 63, 66, 68 -74, 87).  
The government detailed Sungwoo’s performance issues in CDRs issued on its 
contracts and task orders (FOF ¶¶ 20, 24, 29, 32, 33, 35-37, 41-43, 45, 47- 48), as well 
as in the resulting CPARs and the documents issued by the CO and the reviewing 
officials , all in accordance with the FAR  (FOF ¶¶ 49-51, 53-56, 58-61, 63-69, 71-74).  
The MPFU investigation into potential occurrences of procurement fraud, and COL 
Gill’s determination finding no impropriety regarding the government’s CPARs, are 
yet additional record  evidence refuting Sungwoo’s allegations of government 
impropriety (FOF ¶¶ 87, 90-91).   
 
The record likewise establishes that the government’s reissuance of the 
MATOC CPAR to correct what the CO termed “a series of administrative errors ” was 
proper based  on what the government admits was  a “patent error” such that the 
original CPAR did not comply with regulatory requirements  (FOF ¶¶ 66-68, 96).  
After balancing and weighing the totality of the evidence presented by both parties, we 
conclude that Sungwoo has failed to establish by a  preponderance of the evidence that 
the government’s actions in correcting that error were either arbitrary  and capricious , 
or an abuse of discretion.    
 
Regarding Sungwoo’s allegation that the government’s actions evidence bad 
faith, it is beyond cavil that government officials are presumed to act in good faith.  
Puget Sound, ASBCA No. 58828, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,435 at 177,597 (citing Road and 
Highway Builders, LLC v. United States , 702 F.3d 1365, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).  To 
establish that a government official acted in bad faith, a contractor “must show a 
‘specific intent to injure ’ by clear and convincing evidence.”   Id. (quoting Road and 
Highway, 702 F.3d at 1369).  Such a showing requires “ well-nigh irrefragable proof of 
malice or a specific intent to injure. ”  Tristana R. Harvey Career Planning & 
Consulting Series LLC , ASBCA No. 60927, 17- 1 BCA ¶ 36,826 at 179,478.  Given 
our determination that Sungwoo has failed to establish by preponderant evidence that 
the government ’s CPARs were arbitrary  and capricious,  or an abuse of discretion, or 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
30 
 
that the government’s actions were otherwise improper in correct ing the patent error in 
the original MATOC CPAR, we likewise conclude that Sungwoo has failed to 
establish by clear and convincing evidence that the government acted in bad faith.   
 
IV.  Sungwoo has Failed to Establish  that the  Government  Instructed or Forced 
Sungwoo to Make False E ntries on Its ENG Form 4025s  
 
Sungwoo argues that it was “instructed and forced” by the government to make 
false entries on its ENG Form 4025s , and “instructed and forced” to procure offshore 
materials , arguing that the government ’s alleged actions were arbitrary and capricious , 
and in bad faith (app. br. at 3).  As support, Sungwoo offers conclusory declarations of 
two of its employees wherein during a meeting in January 2015, an unidentified 
individual allegedly stated that offshore materials should be entered as local materials 
on ENG Form 4025s (FOF ¶¶ 76-78).  The proffered statements cited by Sungwoo, 
however,  fall far short of offering any specific  detail necessary to qualify as sufficient 
evidence of the alleged government wrongdoing .  This especially is true when 
considered in light of evidence offered by the government  (FOF ¶¶ 80-85).    
 
Perhaps the most telling  is conflicting record evidence regarding  Sungwoo’s 
former vice president , Mr. Yang.  In his September 8, 2016, written statement, 
Mr. Yang asserts that he was informed by two Sungwoo employees “ that they was 
[sic] ordered to make false entries in the submittal identification column of material 
submittal stating OM to LM in the meeting with DPW ” and that during a meeting in 
March 2015, Mr. Yang “asked Mr. Hong if it was right decision as Government 
employee to force all contractors [ sic] committing a forgery ” (FOF ¶ 79).  In his 
November 2016 interview, Mr. Yang again state d that Sungwoo was forced to falsify 
information on the ENG Form 4025 (FOF ¶ 91).   
 
However, in his May 22, 2022, declaration Mr. Yang refutes his earlier 
statements, declaring:  
 
I have no knowledge of a meeting in January 2015 with 
Sungwoo's employees.   However, my statement says that 
Mr. Hong forced myself and all LCS contractors to forge 
documents and that I was instructed to order offshore 
materials for installation to complete task order 
W91QVN-14-D-0034- 0001 at a meeting on March 9, 
2015.  No such thing happened.  
 
(FOF ¶ 80)  Indeed, in his statements to MPFU, Mr. Yang admitted to falsifying 
information on the ENG Form 4025 by identifying offshore material as local material 
and submitting it to the COR for processing ( FOF ¶ 91). 
 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
31 
 
Declarations  of government employees provide yet additional evidence 
supporting a conclusion that the government neither forced, nor instructed, Sungwoo 
to make false entries in its ENG Form 4025s  or to procure offshore materials .  For 
example, Mr. Hong stated that he never ordered Sungwoo or any LCS contractor to 
falsify information in the ENG Form 4025 (FOF ¶ 81).  In addition, DPW personnel , 
several of whom  (according to Sungwoo) al legedly attended the January 2015 
meeting, 9 stated in their declarations that they d id not recall any such meeting in 
January 2015, and that “ it was not Mr. Hong’s practice to meet with a contractor to 
discuss Eng. Form 4025 entries”  (FOF ¶ 83). 
 
The record establishes that it was not the practice of the government , in 
approving ENG Form 4025s , to verify whether material submittals accurately 
identified whether the materials are properly listed by the contractor as offshore or 
local materials , and that such a verification would be a time-consuming and difficult 
task (FOF ¶¶ 81- 85, 88, 95).  Moreover, the QAT memorandum issued in response to 
COL Gill’s inquiry found “that the term ‘local materials’ was not defined” by any of 
the pertinent LCS agreements , “that current procedures place the burden of compliance 
with the local materials requirements on the contractor, and that no one from DPW is 
responsible for reviewing the ENG Form 4025 for compliance with the LCS 
requirements” (FOF ¶ 95).   
 
Considering the record evidence presented, including the statements and 
declarations offered by both parties, we conclude that Sungwoo has failed to establish 
by preponderant evidence that the g overnment instructed or f orced Sungwoo to m ake 
false entries on its ENG Form 4025s or to procure offshore materials .  As noted above, 
to establish bad faith, a contractor “must show a ‘specific intent to injure' by clear and 
convincing evidence.”  Puget Sound, 16 -1 BCA ¶ 36,435 at 177,597.  Given our 
determination th at Sungwoo failed to establish by preponderant evidence that 
government officials directed it to falsify information on ENG Form 4025s  or procure 
offshore materials , we likewise conclude that Sungwoo has failed to meet its higher 
burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the government acted in 
bad faith.  
 
V.  The Government  Properly Decided  to Not Exercise Option Year  Contracts  
 
Sungwoo alleges that the government’s improper CPAR s deprived it from 
receiving other contracts as well as additional option years on contracts it already held 
(app. br. at 4, 8, 25- 27).  Sungwoo’s arguments challenging the propriety of the 
government’s decision not to award it other contracts and other certain  option years is 
based upon its argument that the CPARs issued to Sungwoo were unlawful and in bad 
 
9 Mr. Chuk’s statement identifies Daniel Hong ; Kim, Tae Chong; Kwon, Chun Hyok; 
and Seo, Ki Chung as attending the January 2015 meeting  (FOF ¶ 77).  

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
32 
 
faith).10  We already have determined that Sungwoo f ailed to e stablish by 
preponderant evidence that the government’s CPARs were arbitrary and c apricious, or 
an abuse of discretion.   In addition, r ecord evidence establishes that the government’s 
decisions not to exercise option years  under the MATOC properly took into account 
the import of Sungwoo’s CDRs and CPARs.  For example, t he CO’s determination 
and findings detailed the decision to exclude Sungwoo from receiving additional 
option period contracts based upon Sungwoo’s unsatisfactory performance of the 
MATOC base year (FOF ¶ 72).  Indeed, the CO listed by contract and task order 
numerous examples of  Sungwoo’s many performance deficiencies ( id.).  The CO’s 
final decision not to exercise option years on Sungwoo’s  other contracts, i.e., Contract 
Nos. W91QVN-12-D-0114, W91QVN-12-D-0119, W91QVN-12-D-0130, W91QVN-
12-D-0132 and W91QVN -14-D-0034, was likewise reasonable based on Sungwoo 
unsatisfactory performance on the task orders issued under Sungwoo’s contracts (FOF 
¶¶ 51-55, 96). 
 
The reviewing official likewise detailed a litany of reasons why Sungwoo 
should not receive further contracts or task orders noting that “Sungwoo’s 
performance was deteriorating resulting in multiple contractor discrepancy reports to 
which Sungwoo did not adequately respond or resolve and its multiple unsatisfactory 
CPARS ratings” (FOF ¶¶ 73-74).  Sungwoo has failed to meet its burden of 
establishing by preponderant evidence that the government’s decision not to award 
additional contracts and task orders wa s either arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of 
discretion.  Nor has Sungwoo established  by clear and convincing evidence  that the 
government’s actions were somehow in bad faith.    
 
VI.  The Board Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Propriety of Sungwoo’s 
Debarment  
 
Sungwoo challenges its debarment, alleging that the government’s actions were 
motivated by Sungwoo’s refusal to follow the government’s alleged instructions to 
falsify entries on various ENG Form 4025 (app. br. at 29- 30).  The government 
 
10 Sungwoo alleges it is entitled to lost profits and other monetary damages because it 
did not receive contracts on other solicitations in which it alleges it was the 
lowest offeror but was determined by the government to be non- responsible 
(app. br. at  25) (citing Solicitation Nos. W91QVN- 16-R-0008, W91QVN-16-R-
0091, and W91QVN-16-R-0119), offering nothing in support other than its bare 
allegations.  However, even assuming Sungwoo’s offered more than bare 
allegations of impropriety, this Board lacks jurisdiction to award Sungwoo such 
consequential damages.  Nexagen Networks,  19-1 BCA ¶ 37,258 at 181,328 
(“Even if a contractor succeeds in showing bad faith, it is not entitled to 
consequential damages,  such as lost profits on other contracts”) (footnote 
omitted).  

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
33 
 
responds, stating that Sungwoo “mischaracterizes the basis for its debarment, ignoring 
Mr. Yang’s statement to investigators which indicates that appellant admitted to 
falsifying the information on the ENG Form 4025 because it knew the government 
was not going to verify whether the materials were offshore or local,” and that, “[t]o 
the extent Sungwoo’s assertion is that Sungwoo’s debarment was arbitrary and 
capricious or in bad faith, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review Sungwoo’s 
debarment” (gov’t br. at  67).  We agree.  As we previously held in our earlier decision, 
“we do not have jurisdiction to consider appeals from suspension or debarment orders, 
whether actual or de facto .”  Sungwoo. , 19-1 BCA ¶ 37,449 at 181,977.  To the extent 
Sungwoo seeks review of the government’s debarment decision, we lack jurisdiction 
to consider such a challenge.  
 
VII.  Sungwoo is Not Entitled to Monetary Relief  
 
As noted above, pursuant to our decision in Sungwoo, 19 -1 BCA ¶ 37,449 
at 181,976, the monetary claims concerning the government’s decision not to exercise 
the options under six contracts remain in dispute.  As discussed above, however, 
Sungwoo has failed to meet its burden of proof regarding its challenge to the 
government’s CPARs and the government’s decisions not to award Sungwoo 
additional contracts or options .  Accordingly, Sungwoo is not entitled to any monetary 
damages.   
 
The government argues that Sungwoo “ failed to support its monetary claim 
asserting the government’s decision not to exercise [ Sungwoo’s] option years on 
[Sungwoo’s] Contracts was in bad faith ” and, as such, Sungwoo has abandoned that 
claim (gov’t br. at 73).  In its sur -reply brief, the government argues again that 
“appellant’s monetary claim should be dismissed because [Sungwoo] failed to address 
its monetary claim in its initial brief and in its reply to the government’s Rule 11 brief ” 
(gov’t reply  br. at 3).  Although Sungwoo’s Rule 11 briefs do not present a fulsome 
argument in favor of its monetary claims, Sungwoo does mention the factual basis for 
these claims in its briefings  and request s monetary relief  (app. br. at 1-2 , 4, 13, 25-27; 
app. reply br. at 16).   
 
Given our conclusion that Sungwoo failed to meet its burden of proof regarding 
its monetary claim, we need not decide whether Sungwoo complied with the MATOC 
requirement that the certification be executed by a “senior company official in charge 
at the contractor’s plant or location involved,” or an “officer or general partner of the 
contractor having overall responsibility for the conduct of the contractor’s affairs”  
(gov’t br. at 76; see  FOF ¶ 3).  Moreover, we note that our previous decision in these 
appeals already held that Sungwoo’s certification satisfied the requirements of the 
Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101- 7109, the statute that provides this Board its 
jurisdiction.  See Sungwoo, 22 -1 BCA ¶ 38,125 at 185,209.  
  

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
34 
 
VIII.  The Board Lacks Jurisdiction to Grant Specific Performance  
 
Sungwoo requests that this Board issue an order changing the ratings for both 
the base year MATOC CPAR and the individual task orders CPARs from 
unsatisfactory to satisfactory  (app. br. at 2).  The government argues in response that 
we lack jurisdiction to grant specific performance (gov’t br. at 72).  The government is 
correct.  It is well established that this Board lacks jurisdiction to order specific 
performance.  BR Group , ASBCA Nos. 63507, 63744, 24- 1 BCA ¶ 38,699 at 188,159.  
 
CONCLUSION 
 
The appeal s are denied.  
 
Dated:  June 3, 2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DAVID B. STINSON 
Administrative Judge  
Armed Services Board  
of Contract Appeals  
I concur  
 
 
 
OWEN C. WILSON 
Administrative Judge  
Acting Chairman  
Armed Services Board  
of Contract Appeals  
 I concur  
 
 
 
 MICHAEL N. O’CONNELL 
Administrative Judge  
Vice Chairman  
Armed Services Board  
of Contract Appeals  
  

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release.  
 
35 
 
 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.  61144, 61219,  Appeals  of 
Sungwoo E&C Co., Ltd. , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.  
  
 Dated:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services  
Board of Contract Appeals