GRANTED IN PART: June 14, 2012 
CBCA 2716 
SINGLETON ENTERPRISES, 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 
Respondent. 
Wayne Singleton, Owner of Singleton Enterprises, Luthersville, GA, appearing for 
Appellant. 
Grace Reidy, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Highway Administration, Department 
of Transportation, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
POLLACK, Board Judge. 
This appeal arises out of a contract between Singleton Enterprises (Singleton or 
appellant) and the Eastern Lands Division, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA or 
Government) for construction work at Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military 
Park, Georgia.  The dispute involves a claim by FHWA for $22,538.17, which it says it is 
entitled to as repayment because of Singleton’s alleged failure to perform 50% of the work 
itself, as specified in the contract. Additionally, both parties address in their briefs the 
FHWA assessment against Singleton of liquidated damages. That latter issue, however, was 
not specifically addressed in the contracting officer’s decision nor are we aware of a specific 
claim for remission. Nevertheless, at the close of this decision, we will briefly provide 
guidance. 
Appellant has elected to proceed under the Board’s small claims procedure. 
Accordingly, the decision is not precedential nor is it appealable. 

                                                                                                                       
        
  
      
   
        
       
         
       
     
   
     
         
    
    
      
      
       
     
   
     
     
       
      
       
         
   
       
    
        
2 CBCA 2716 
Background 
On August 11, 2009, FHWA awarded a contract to Singleton for a base price of 
$634,241.40, plus an additional $50,000, identified as being for administrative costs for the 
project (costed at $500 per day multiplied by 100 days). The contract was for a firm fixed 
price, which was determined by the use of unit prices and estimated quantities. The contract 
contained a provision requiring Singleton to perform on the site, with its own organization, 
work equivalent to at least 50% of the project work. Notice to proceed was effective 
October 5, 2009, with the original contract completion date set at January 12, 2010. The 
contract provided that the maximum time for completion of the contract was 100 calendar 
days. 
Notwithstanding the 50% requirement, Singleton initiallysubcontracted substantially 
all the work on the project to Talley Construction (Talley). In a letter of August 24, 2009, 
two days before the Government awarded it the contract, Singleton accepted a proposal from 
Talley for $569,251.15. Talley’s proposal was based on a unit price basis for the estimated 
quantities set out in the contract between Singleton and FHWA. Singleton’s award letter 
to Talley provided for Talley to “provide all labor, material, equipment and supervision 
necessary to complete ALL WORK required for the above-referenced project.” As pointed 
out by FHWA, the acceptance letter also required Talley to provide a performance and 
payment bond in the amount of 100% of Talley’s contract amount. The cost of the bonds 
was to be added to Talley’s contract amount. 
After award, the contract between Singleton and Talley was revised.  According to 
the affidavit of Bo Murphy, Talley’s project manager, the revision excluded supervision and 
equipment rental cost, which became the responsibility of Singleton. 
In February 2010, beyond the original completion date, but prior to final acceptance, 
Singleton submitted a form FHWA 1775, Notice of Subcontract Award - Supplemental 
Information to FHWA. On that form, Singleton specified that it was subcontracting 
$309,510, or 48.8% of the work, to Talley. FHWA has contended that the above 
information was false and overstated the value of work retained by Singleton. FHWA relied 
in large part for its conclusion upon the agreement set out in the August 24, 2009, letter, a 
document it had not seen during the contract performance. FHWA also relied upon 
observations of its officials at the site, who uniformly concluded that, at best, the only 
employees on the site being paid by Singleton were the superintendents, and all physical 
work was being done by Talley’s forces.  

                                                                                                                       
        
       
     
         
        
    
        
     
     
      
        
     
     
   
      
        
        
       
      
       
   
      
       
       
      
        
        
         
       
      
     
     
     
    
        
     
3 CBCA 2716 
Based on its determination that Singleton was not performing 50% of the on-site 
work, FHWA proceeded to adjust appellant’s contract to recover damages due to the 
claimed breach of the 50% requirement and alleged falsifications. FHWA calculated its 
damages by taking the installed quantities placed on the contract and then, instead of 
applying Singleton’s unit prices to those quantities, applying the unit prices that had been 
initially proposed by Talley (and which were set out in Talley’s August 9, 2009, letter). 
Once FHWA multiplied Talley’s unit prices bythe installed quantities, it deducted that result 
from the installed quantities times Singleton’s original unit prices. FHWA then determined 
that the difference represented the damages it incurred due to Singleton’s breach of not 
performing 50% of the work with its own forces. The rationale was that since Singleton did 
not perform the required on-site work, it did not provide the services promised and should 
not be paid for a unit price based on meeting that obligation.  
Based on final quantities and a separate liquidated damages downward adjustment 
of $8900, the final contract amount, at the original unit prices plus the $50,000, would have 
been $609,012.15. When the Talley unit prices were substituted for those of Singleton, the 
rest of the calculation being the same, the final contract amount recognized as appropriate 
by FHWA came to $546,580.34. At the time of the calculation by FHWA, Singleton had 
already been paid $569,118.51, based on Singleton’s original unit pricing. The Government, 
in recalculating the price based on Talley’s pricing, essentially removed from Singleton’s 
contract the premium (beyond Talley’s prices) that the Government was paying to have 
Singleton perform as a prime contractor. Thus, FHWA arrived at a reduction of $22,538.17 
to account for the alleged overpayment. The above amount presumes that the $8900 
assessed by FHWA for liquidated damages was valid. The liquidated damages were 
assessed at $100 a day, rather than the contractually specified $500 a day, and were assessed 
for eighty-nine days starting on or about January 14, 2010. If it is ultimately determined that 
the liquidated damages were not justified, then the $8900 should be added to the contract 
and paid to Singleton. To date, Singleton has paid Talley $260,000, against the revised 
Talley contract. The difference between that figure and what Singleton has been paid by 
FHWA covers compensation to Singleton for the work Singleton has performed on the 
project, work primarily consisting of providing equipment, paying for on-site supervisors, 
coordinating the job from its home office, and providing bonding.  
Singleton responded to the FHWA demand for adjustment by e-mail message of 
July 5, 2011. It there indicated that it was willing to accept a recalculation, but requested that 
it be compensated for providing performance and payment bonds and for its cost of 
providing a superintendent during the performance of the contract. It pointed out that under 
the Government’s formula, if compensation was to be at Talley’s unit prices, then these costs 
would not be reimbursed since they were costs never contemplated by Talley. For the 
purposes of this appeal, the Board understands that Singleton is seeking more than just the 

                                                                                                                       
        
       
          
       
        
        
       
    
       
       
      
 
     
     
    
      
      
      
     
 
       
     
     
       
   
        
        
       
      
4 CBCA 2716 
above. Singleton seeks a finding that it is entitled to extended unit prices at the price it bid, 
along with a finding that it either completed 50% of the work or should be relieved of that 
obligation.  
At the time of Singleton’s response and apparently up until the filing of its appeal, 
FHWA has taken the position that it did not have sufficient data from Singleton to 
determine how much Singleton had actually paid for the bonds or what costs Singleton had 
paid for a superintendent. While Singleton had submitted payroll records showing it was 
paying the superintendent, FHWA pointed out that there were issues as to possible 
falsifications of payrolls, and accordingly, FHWA was not willing to rely upon them. 
Without going into detail, our review of the record shows that Singleton essentially 
borrowed the on-site supervisors from Talley. It, however, paid them directly as Singleton 
employees, as evidenced by checks in the record. While FHWA points to some 
discrepancies in work hours for the superintendents, we need not resolve that issue here. 
The record also shows that Singleton paid for the payment and performance bonds, 
totalling $8368. Regarding payment for equipment, Singleton claims that it ultimately paid 
for rental equipment costs on the job and provides an estimated cost for that of $190,056. 
While we do not doubt that Singleton provided equipment, it supplied to us no specific 
pricing to verify actual incurred equipment costs, either as to the equipment used or the rates 
charged.    
On October 19, 2011, the contracting officer issued a decision which set out the 
demand for $22,538.17. While it referenced liquidated damages, such damages were not the 
subject of the final decision.  Appellant filed a timely appeal. 
Discussion 
This appeal is presented to the Board as a small claim. This decision has no 
precedential value. In keeping with the spirit of the small claims procedure, while we set 
out our rationale for our decision, we do not address each and every argument made by the 
parties. We have, however, fully considered the briefs of both parties and the arguments 
made therein. 
The issue before us concerns whether the Government has a right to recoup 
$22,538.17 from funds already paid to Singleton. The Government reasons that because 
Singleton failed to perform 50% of the work, the Government is entitled to re-price the 
contract to the prices bid by the subcontractor, Talley (who at the time of its bid was slated 
to do substantially all of the work). The Government arrived at its damage figure by 

                                                                                                                       
        
    
    
    
  
     
          
    
      
        
      
     
       
      
       
           
       
          
     
        
      
   
       
       
  
     
      
       
       
     
     
      
         
5 CBCA 2716 
unilaterally reducing the contract price to reflect the difference (using actual quantities) 
between the price proposed by Talley and the price bid by Singleton.      
Before analyzing the Government’s calculation of damages, we first find that 
Singleton did not perform 50% of the work as required, and therefore Singleton breached 
that obligation. Unlike FHWA, we accept that the Singleton/Talley contract was revised to 
remove supervision and equipment. However, even with that, we find that Singleton did 
not perform 50% of the work and in fact performed substantially less. As pointed out by 
FHWA officials, but for the contested superintendents, Singleton had no employees at the 
site performing physical work. Moreover, and without ruling either way as to whether 
equipment can be counted toward satisfying the 50% threshold, we find that even if we 
counted the cost of equipment, the necessary percentage for on-site work would still not be 
met. That is because Singleton has not adequately established the dollars it claims to have 
expended for equipment and, therefore, has failed to show that even if the cost of equipment 
was included, it would yield the needed number. The parties were told in a conference, prior 
to the date for submission of evidence in this proceeding, that if they intended for the Board 
to find in their favor as to any claimed expenditure, then they needed to provide backup for 
any number claimed.  
Given our conclusion that Singleton failed to meet the 50% requirement, we now turn 
to whether the reduction taken by FHWA is allowed and appropriate. The imposition of 
damages for failure to meet the 50% threshold is a matter of first impression for this Board. 
No cases that have been brought to our attention are directly on point, either as to the 
propriety of assessing damages for this particular breach or how to calculate those damages. 
That said, after consideration, we find that the Government, as any contracting party, has a 
right to the benefit of its bargain and, thus, the right to recover damages due to a breach. 
There is no provision in this contract which prohibits the Government from seeking damages 
for the breach in issue or which provides a specific remedy for this type of breach.  
While damages in principle are warranted, their amount has to be appropriate. 
Quantification in a case such as this must take into account the particular facts and 
circumstances. Thus, we can see instances where failure to meet the 50% standard might 
well result in minimal or no damages. In this case, however, we find the circumstances 
warrant an assessment of damages and further find that the method used by the Government 
to calculate the demanded sum is reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. The 
Government entered a contract where it expected Singleton to perform at least 50% of the 
work. It did not get what it was promised. What it got instead was the efforts of Talley, 
which had priced the work at a lower figure. Singleton should not be paid a premium for 
work that was not performed by its own forces.   

                                                                                                                       
        
    
   
      
       
     
    
     
     
   
  
       
  
        
        
        
  
   
       
   
     
     
   
      
  
  
       
      
      
       
  
       
6 CBCA 2716 
While we find the methodology of the Government appropriate, we do have one 
disagreement with its application in this case. The Government’s method is only valid as 
to items that were covered in the Talley pricing. To the extent that the original Talley 
pricing did not cover a cost element later paid by Singleton, then Singleton should be 
credited with that item and it should not be deducted from the payments. In this instance, 
bonding of $8368 is such a cost element.  We find that it was not a cost that was included 
in Talley’s initial contract with Singleton. Accordingly, taking a credit for it is not proper. 
In contrast, while Singleton paid for equipment rental and for supervision, we find that those 
items were initially included in Talley’s contract and, thus, when FHWA made its 
calculation and adopted Talley’s unit prices plus the $50,000, those cost items were 
accounted for.  As stated by Mr. Murphy in his affidavit, supervision and equipment were 
items removed from Talley’s revised contract. That means to us that the items were in 
Talley’s pricing. 
The Government has argued that the bonding is not payable because Singleton 
required Talley to provide its own bond. That argument holds no water. Regardless of 
whether Talley provided its own bond, Singleton had an independent obligation to FHWA 
to provide a bond under its name on the contract. Accordingly, any bonding by Talley does 
not negate an adjustment to reflect Singleton’s payment of  bonding costs.  
In summary, based on the final quantities at Talley’s initial subcontract prices, plus 
the administrative costs in Talley’s initial subcontract, the Government is entitled to reduce 
Singleton’s contract by $14,170 and not the $22,538.17 set out in the final decision. The 
difference represents FHWA’s failure to credit Singleton with the cost of bonding.   
Finally, as noted at the outset of this decision, liquidated damages were not the 
subject of the final decision, nor have we seen a specific demand for a decision as to 
remission. Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to decide that matter in this proceeding. 
Notwithstanding that, however, we note that both parties have made arguments as to the 
imposition of liquidated damages. So, recognizing that we cannot issue a binding decision, 
we nevertheless have chosen to provide the following guidance.  
The Government has stated at page 23 of its brief, “Although the Government was 
entitled to $500 a day for liquidated damages, according to the schedule, since the Project 
was substantially complete, the Government allowed itself to recoup 20% of the liquidated 
damages it was entitled to . . . .” The Government calculated the eighty-nine days of 
liquidated damages from January 14, 2010 (the parties at times refer to January 12; however, 
for purposes of guidance, the two day difference is not material). In making that statement, 
the Government appears to acknowledge that the project was substantially complete at the 
time it began the assessment of liquidated damages. The law is clear that liquidated 

                                                                                                                       
        
   
 
   
     
 
      
_______________________________________ 
  
 
7 CBCA 2716 
damages cease at the time of substantial completion. Northern Management Services, Inc. 
v. Department of Agriculture, CBCA 1009, 09-2 BCA ¶ 34,160. The reduction in amount 
from $500 a day to $100 a day does not change that result. While Singleton could file an 
appeal so as to secure a binding decision, the Board suggests that the parties would be well 
served to resolve the matter of the $8900 without going through that exercise. 
Decision 
The appeal is GRANTED IN PART . The Government reduction in contract 
payments is sustained in the amount of $14,170. 
HOWARD A. POLLACK 
Board Judge