ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, RESPONDENT’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXHIBITS IN THEIR NATIVE FORMAT:
December 9, 2025
CBCA 7147, 8110
WILLIAMS BUILDING COMPANY, INC.,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Respondent.
Kevin M. Cox of Camardo Law Firm, P.C., Auburn, NY, counsel for Appellant.
Randal W. Wax, Office of the Legal Adviser, Buildings and Acquisitions, Department
of State, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
LESTER, Board Judge.
ORDER1
1 This order is being published to assist in providing greater transparency to the
public about the manner in which the Board has addressed issues in cases before it. 
Nevertheless, although single-judge orders like this one are binding in the appeals in which
they are issued, they are, consistent with Board Rule 1(d) (48 CFR 6101.1(d) (2024)) not
precedential in other appeals before the Board.

CBCA 7147, 8110 2
This order addresses attempts by the Department of State’s Bureau of Overseas
Building Operations (OBO) to include Microsoft Excel (Excel) spreadsheets as exhibits in
the Rule 4 appeal file and to file them with the Board.
Background
The Board recently lifted a stay of proceedings in these two consolidated appeals
after, on July 23, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit resolved
a related appeal, Williams Building Co. v. Secretary of State, No. 2023-2337, 2025 WL
2057994 (Fed. Cir. July 23, 2025).  That case arose out of the same contract as the one at
issue here, and, as indicated in the Board’s decision on respondent’s motion for partial
summary judgment dated November 21, 2025, the resolution of that case affects the scope
of the appellant’s recovery in these consolidated appeals.
On June 2, 2023, shortly before the Board stayed proceedings in these appeals, OBO
filed a Rule 4 appeal file supplement that contained Exhibits 400 through 559.  When OBO
submitted those exhibits to the Clerk of the Board for filing, it also filed what it titled a
“Motion To File Certain Exhibits in Native Format” in which it indicated that some of the
exhibits that it needed to file were Excel spreadsheets.  In the appeal file supplement that it
submitted with the motion, it used “placeholder” documents in a portable document format
(.pdf) as a substitute for forty-eight separate Excel spreadsheets.  Each of the forty-eight
“placeholder” documents was a one-page .pdf containing the following (or similar) language: 
“Excel File Produced in Native Format.”  Although OBO’s index for the Rule 4 appeal file
supplement describes the exhibits as representing subjects such as “[Williams Building
Company (WBC)] Financial Statements 2016” (Exhibit 401), “WUAN Contract . . . Mod.
20 ‘Draft’ support for daily rate” (Exhibit 407), “Statement of Cost Review Summary”
(Exhibit 412), and “Change Order Log” (Exhibit 458), the only “document” associated with
each title is the one-page document which reads, “Excel File Produced in Native Format.”
In its June 2, 2023, motion, OBO requested “leave to file . . . a portion of its Rule 4
Exhibits in Native format with a separate PDF placeholder containing the required Rule 4
Exhibit stamp and Bates number.”  The Board, during the suspension of proceedings in the
appeals, deferred resolution of OBO’s motion.  The Board has no record of OBO ever
sending to the Clerk’s office any of the forty-eight Excel documents represented by a
“placeholder” .pdf.  Although OBO filed a motion for partial summary judgment (that the
Board resolved on November 21, 2025) in which OBO on several occasions referenced
Exhibit 458, the only copy of Exhibit 458 in the record is OBO’s single-page
“placeholder” .pdf.

CBCA 7147, 8110 3
More recently, on September 30, 2025, after the Board had lifted the stay of
proceedings, OBO filed a new appeal file supplement, adding Exhibits 600 to 634 (plus a
corrected copy of an earlier-filed exhibit) to the record.  Each of the exhibits identified as
Exhibits 617 through 632 is a single-page .pdf document containing the following language: 
“No image available for this record.”  Nevertheless, the index for Exhibits 617 through 632
describes the exhibits as substantive evidence, with titles such as “JS Held work paper: 
‘WBC Summary (TW)’” (Exhibit 617) and “JS Held work paper:  Labor Burden Native File
SJA Working File” (Exhibit 631).  OBO later delivered to the Clerk’s office a flash (or
“thumb”) drive containing the Excel spreadsheets that OBO had identified as Exhibits 617
through 632.  In the letter accompanying the delivery, OBO stated, “Enclosed please find 16
native Excel files, Respondent’s Rule 4 Exhibits numbers 617 through 632.”  OBO did not
file a motion seeking leave to submit the Excel spreadsheets underlying Exhibits 617 through
632 to the Board.
Discussion
The Board’s Rules do not permit the submission of Excel spreadsheets in native
format as exhibits.  Rule 4(b)(3) (48 CFR 6101.4(b)(3) (2024)) expressly provides that
“[a]ppeal file exhibits shall be in .pdf format or will be rejected.”  The Board generated this
requirement when updating its rules in 2018 “to make filing documentary evidence
electronically in pdf format, rather than on paper, the default for Contract Disputes Act
cases.”  83 Fed. Reg. 13211, 13212 (Mar. 18, 2018).  The rule further provides that “[p]arties
shall number the pages of each exhibit consecutively, unless an exhibit is already paginated
in another logical manner,” something that cannot be done in a useable manner in an Excel
spreadsheet.  Rule 4(b)(5).
That being said, the boards of contract appeals have the authority, when necessary,
to waive their rules and allow a party to submit certain documents in their original native
electronic format where “elements of these documents are both material and cannot be
captured in hard copy.”  Alion Science & Technology Corp., ASBCA 58992, 15-1 BCA
¶ 36,168, at 176,940 n.4.  If a party has a video of activity at a construction site that is
relevant to the parties’ dispute, we cannot realistically preclude the party from introducing
that video as an exhibit simply because it is not in a .pdf form.  In fact, a party’s failure to
provide documents to the opposing party in their native format, which may contain
searchable information that the conversion into a .pdf will not carry, may constitute an abuse
of the discovery process and create an evidentiary issue at a hearing.  See JE Dunn
Construction Co., ASBCA 63183, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,879, at 189,243-45, 189,252-53
(discussing the limited usefulness of .pdfs in construction delay analyses as a result of
information contained in the native format lost in the conversion).  “[W]e are to construe our
rules liberally to provide for the informal and just resolution of matters before us, . . . and we

CBCA 7147, 8110 4
are entitled to modify our rules when necessary to achieve those goals.”  Safe Haven
Enterprises, LLC v. Department of State, CBCA 3871, et al., 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,928, at 175,604
(citing Rule 1(c)); see Rule 1(a) (“The Board may alter these procedures on its own initiative
or on request of a party to promote the just, informal, expeditious, and inexpensive resolution
of a case.”).
That being said, non-.pdf exhibits create some challenges for the Board.  Excel
spreadsheets and some other non-.pdf native formats can (whether intentionally or
unintentionally) contain malware that, if loaded into the Board’s electronic appeal file
directories, could wreak havoc on the Board’s record-keeping systems.  See, e.g., Sead
Fadilpašic, Watch Out, That Excel Document Could Be Infected with Dangerous Malware,
TechRadar (Nov.12, 2024), https://www.techradar.com/pro/security/watch-out-that-excel-
document-could-be-infected-with-dangerous-malware; Simon Hunt, Add-Ins or Bad-Ins? The
Dangers of Excel XLL Files, Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales
(Feb. 2, 2023), https://www.icaew.com/technical/technology/excel-community/excel-
community-articles/2023/add-ins-or-bad-ins-the-dangers-of-excel-xll-files.  As a result, the
Board has established internal protocols that require such exhibits to be stored outside of the
Board’s regular systems and maintained separately.  These burdens necessitate that we find
good cause before allowing an exception to the rule requiring that exhibits be in .pdf form. 
A party that wishes to submit exhibits that do not conform with the requirements of the
Board’s Rules can do so only with the express permission of the judge presiding in an appeal,
based upon a showing of good cause.
Here, with regard to the Excel spreadsheets that are the subject of OBO’s June 2023
motion, OBO does not tell us why these Excel spreadsheets cannot be converted into and
filed as .pdfs.  We recognize that, in certain instances, the conversion of an Excel spreadsheet
into a .pdf might render the resulting document mostly unreadable and virtually useless. 
Nevertheless, it seems possible that at least some of the documents subject to OBO’s
June 2023 motion, such as a “Change Order Log,” could be converted effectively.  Certainly,
OBO has not made any kind of representation that they could not be usefully converted,
much less provided an explanation as to why they could not.  “Good cause” requires “[a]
legally sufficient reason” or a “show[ing of] why a request should be granted or an action
excused.”  4K Global-ACC Joint Venture, LLC v. Department of Labor, CBCA 6683, et al.,
22-1 BCA ¶ 38,227, at 185,654 (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 266 (10th ed. 2014)).  OBO
has not satisfied the “good cause” requirement for filing the Excel spreadsheets subject to
its June 2023 motion.
With regard to the Excel spreadsheets that OBO first identified in September 2025,
OBO filed no motion for leave but simply sent the spreadsheets to the Clerk’s office.  Before
a party may submit Excel spreadsheets to the Board as appeal file exhibits, it must file a

CBCA 7147, 8110 5
motion for leave and obtain the presiding judge’s express permission to do so.  Because the
Board’s Rules preclude OBO from adding non-.pdf documents to the record absent leave
from the presiding judge, the Excel spreadsheets that OBO identified as Exhibits 617 through
632 are viewed as having been rejected and are not currently considered a part of the record
of this appeal.
To the extent that OBO wants to add any of the Excel spreadsheets that it identified
in its June 2023 or September 2025 submissions to the appeal file, it shall first attempt to
convert those spreadsheets into .pdfs, in as readable a form as possible.  For those .pdf
conversions that OBO determines will work for evidentiary purposes, OBO shall file those
exhibits (in .pdf form) with the Board in lieu of submitting the Excel spreadsheets.  For any
Excel spreadsheets that OBO finds cannot be converted in an effective manner, OBO may
file a motion identifying those exhibits and showing good cause for the need to file them with
the Board in their native Excel format.  With its motion for leave, OBO shall provide the
Clerk of the Board a virus-free, single flash drive containing all of the Excel-formatted
exhibits that it wants to file, identifying each one by the exhibit number that it previously
identified for that exhibit but with the addition of “-E” to the number (labeling, for example,
the native-format version of Exhibit 401 as “Exhibit 401-E”).
Decision
OBO’s motion for leave to file Excel spreadsheets is denied without prejudice to its
refiling at a later date.  The sixteen Excel files that OBO sent to the Clerk of the Board in
September 2025 for inclusion in the Rule 4 appeal file as Exhibits 617 through 632 are
considered rejected because, absent leave of the presiding judge, the Board’s Rules do not
permit their filing; counsel for OBO may contact the Clerk if it wishes to retrieve the flash
drive on which it delivered those files.  OBO shall make efforts to convert the Excel
spreadsheets at issue into a .pdf form and shall make those .pdfs for which the conversion
is successful a part of the appeal file.  For any conversions that OBO finds insufficient, OBO
may file another motion for leave to add those native-format documents to the appeal file,
identifying good cause in the motion for their submission, and shall submit with the motion
a virus-free, single flash drive using the protocols described above.
    Harold D. Lester, Jr.      
HAROLD D. LESTER, JR.
Board Judge