MODIFIED ON RECONSIDERATION:  November 10, 2010 
CBCA 1735-R, 1736-R 
CHAMPION BUSINESS SERVICES, 
Appellant, 
v. 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 
Respondent. 
Carol E. McCallister, Chief Executive Officer of Champion Business Services, 
Aurora, CO, appearing for Appellant. 
Joel David Malkin, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, 
Chicago, IL, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), HYATT, and GOODMAN. 
HYATT, Board Judge. 
Appellant, Champion Business Services (Champion), has filed a motion for 
reconsideration of the Board’s decision denying its consolidated appeals of contracting 
officer decisions asserting government claims under two task orders for the provision of 
administrative support services to the General Services Administration’s (GSA’s) field 
offices in Battle Creek, Michigan field office (CBCA 1735), and Detroit, Michigan (CBCA 
1736). Champion Business Services v. General Services Administration , CBCA 1735, et 
al., 10-2 BCA ¶ 34,539.  Champion does not actually challenge the Board’s conclusion as 
to entitlement, but instead seeks an explicit award of interest on the amount the Board 
concluded GSA owed it with respect to unpaid invoices under CBCA 1736. 

    
     
       
      
    
     
       
       
     
     
    
    
       
       
      
          
      
        
         
        
      
      
       
     
     
     
2 CBCA 1735-R, 1736-R 
Background 
The appeals arose when GSA determined that it had overpaid Champion under the 
subject task orders, which were issued pursuant to Champion’s schedule contract for the 
provision of temporary administrative and professional staffing services. Specifically, GSA 
determined that Champion had improperly invoiced the Government for vacation days and 
holidays that its employees did not work, and accordingly withheld further payments under 
the orders. Champion, when it did not get paid for its final invoices, and after attempting 
to reach a resolution with GSA, submitted claims to the contracting officer for final payment 
under both task orders on June 26, 2009. Both claim submissions were received by GSA 
on July 6, 2009. Appeal File (CBCA 1735), Exhibit 21; Appeal File (CBCA 1736), Exhibit 
10. 
By letter dated August 13, 2009, GSA denied the claims, asserting that Champion 
was not due any further monies because of the overpayments identified in the closeout audit. 
The contracting officer determined that the alleged overpayments exceeded the amounts 
Champion claimed to be due and demanded that Champion reimburse GSA the amount of 
the alleged overpayments.  Champion appealed. 
Shortly after the appeals were filed, the Board asked GSA to review and reconcile the 
final payments claimed by Champion for services provided to, but not yet paid for, by GSA, 
with the claimed amounts of overpayments asserted by GSA. In a letter dated March 11, 
2010, GSA advised that after reviewing the claims, and offsetting the amounts invoiced by 
Champion with the overpayments identified by GSA, Champion owed GSA a total of 
$189.92 on the Battle Creek delivery order and GSA owed Champion $406.08 for the 
Detroit delivery order. Netting out the two contracts, GSA owed Champion a total of 
$216.16. The Board concluded, based upon its review of the record, that these calculations 
were accurate. 
The Board agreed with GSA’s interpretation of the terms of the schedule contract and 
held that Champion could not bill the agency for holidays and vacation days on which 
Champion’s employees had not actually worked. The Board thus denied Champion’s 
appeals respecting the overpayments asserted by GSA. Nonetheless, since GSA properly 
determined that, after offsetting the overpayments, the amount of $216.16 was owed under 
the Detroit contract, the Board awarded this amount to appellant. 

       
        
    
     
      
        
    
      
      
    
       
     
     
       
    
      
      
      
    
    
    
    
  
      
      
      
       
        
      
       
3 CBCA 1735-R, 1736-R 
Discussion 
Although the Board awarded the amount of $216.16 to Champion, the decision was 
silent with respect to entitlement to interest. Champion has moved for reconsideration of 
the Board’s decision on the ground that interest should have been expressly awarded to it. 
This motion is not predicated on the usual grounds enumerated in the Board’s Rule 26, 48 
CFR 6101.26 (2009), but, nonetheless, raises an issue that requires clarification. Appellant’s 
motion appropriately brings to our attention the need to revise the decision to make clear that 
interest should be paid on the amount found due to Champion. 
Champion contends that interest should be awarded from August 13, 2009, the date 
of the contracting officer’s decision denying appellant’s claims and demanding that 
Champion reimburse GSA for the overpayments. GSA disagrees with Champion for several 
reasons. First, it points out that the agency, in response to a request made by the Board, 
reconciled the competing claims and, in a letter to the Board dated March 11, 2010, derived 
the amount that Champion was ultimately awarded. GSA thus maintains that since the 
amount due was determined on March 11, 2010, this should be the earliest date from which 
Champion could be deemed eligible for interest. GSA also contends that it should not be 
accountable for accumulating interest when Champion has not yet invoiced for this amount. 
According to GSA, under 48 CFR 52.212-4 (2007) FAR 52-212-4, before interest may 
accrue, Champion must invoice for the amount that GSA found was due in March 2010 and 
that subsequently was awarded by the Board.  
Neither party has it quite right, although Champion is closer to the mark. The 
Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA) provides for the payment of interest on contractor 
claims as follows: 
Interest on amounts found due contractors on claims shall be 
paid to the contractor from the date the contracting officer 
receives the claim pursuant to section 605(a) of this title from 
the contractor until payment thereof. The interest provided for 
in this section shall be paid at the rate established by the 
Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to Public Law 92-41 (85 
Stat. 97) for the Renegotiation Board. 
41 U.S.C. § 611 (2006); FAR 33.208(a)(1); accord All Star Metals, LLC v. Department of 
Transportation, CBCA 53, 09-1 BCA ¶ 34,039 (2008). The claims were received by the 
contracting officer on July 6, 2009. Interest on the award should therefore be calculated as 
of that date. It is unnecessary for Champion to invoice this amount. The contractor had 
already filed the requisite invoices for work performed when it submitted its disputed claim 

       
     
     
         
__________________________________ 
_________________________________ _________________________________ 
4 CBCA 1735-R, 1736-R 
to the contracting officer for decision. The contract clause relied on by GSA applies to 
Prompt Payment Act interest, which is not at issue here. 
Decision 
The motion for reconsideration is granted. The Board’s decision in these appeals is 
MODIFIED to provide that Champion is entitled to interest in accordance with the CDA 
on the award of $216.16, accruing from July 6, 2009, the date on which the contracting 
officer received Champion’s claims.  41 U.S.C. § 611. 
CATHERINE B. HYATT 
Board Judge 
We Concur: 
STEPHEN M. DANIELS ALLAN H. GOODMAN 
Board Judge Board Judge