DENIED:  February 9, 2026
CBCA 8385
LIBERTY TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent.
Lee Dougherty and Esna Milhail of Effectus PLLC, Washington, DC, counsel for
Appellant.
David G. Fagan, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, Bend,
OR, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges GOODMAN and CHADWICK.
GOODMAN, Board Judge.
Liberty Technical Services, LLC (Liberty or LTS) entered into a contract to provide
water treatment supplies and services at three Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical
centers (VAMCs) in Texas.  Liberty submitted a certified claim to VA’s contracting officer
(CO) seeking compensation for providing certain equipment it alleges was not specified in
the contract and for VA’s use of equipment left in place during a transition period after the
contract expired.  The CO issued a final decision (COFD) denying the certified claim, and
Liberty has appealed that decision.  Liberty elected disposition of this appeal by two Board
judges under the accelerated procedure in Board Rule 53 (48 CFR 6101.53 (2024)), and the
parties submitted the case on the written record under Rule 19.  We deny the claim.


CBCA 8385 2
Findings of Fact
Solicitation and Contract
On May 3, 2023, VA issued a solicitation1 for “Boiler/Chiller Chemical Water
Treatment Supplies and Services” at three VAMCs, located in Dallas, Garland, and Bonham,
Texas, under a commercial items and services contract for a firm, fixed price.  Exhibit 1.2 
The solicited statement of work (SOW) described the requirement as “all supplies and
technical support services for chemical treatment of boiler plant water, steam, and condensate
systems throughout [each] medical center/campus.”  Id. at 5.
VA offered prospective contractors the opportunity to visit the Dallas and Bonham
sites, but Liberty did not attend either site visit.  See Exhibits 2, 3; Declaration of
DeMarcus W. Stokes (Aug. 13, 2025) ¶¶ 8–9.3  Had Liberty visited either site, it would have
been able to see the incumbent contractor’s logo and other identifying information on
electronic controllers4 that were in operation in both treatment systems, as the controllers
were provided by that contractor and were not owned by VA.  Id. ¶¶ 8–9.
VA amended the solicitation twice.  Exhibits 4, 5.  The second amendment, issued in
early June 2023, added separate contract line items (CLINs) for unexpected maintenance at
each of the three locations.  Exhibit 5.  A Liberty vice president posed a question via email
1 Page 1 of the solicitation, standard form 1449, box 14, identified the
solicitation method as a request for quotations (RFQ).  Exhibit 1 at 1.  However, the
acquisition did not proceed by RFQ.  The solicitation called for binding “offers” rather than
quotations, Exhibit 1 at 38–39, and VA’s award message congratulated Liberty on VA’s
“acceptance of [Liberty’s] offer.”  Exhibit 7; see 48 CFR 13.004(a) (2022) (“A quotation is
not an offer and, consequently, cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding
contract.”).  The parties’ arguments do not depend on the solicitation type.
2 Numbered exhibits are in the appeal file.  Respondent’s declarations and
exhibits designated by submitting party and letter were submitted with the briefs.
3 VA submitted declarations of Mr. Stokes, who was appointed the contracting
officer’s representative (COR), and the CO, Sherine S. Brooks.  Liberty did not submit any
testimony.
4 The record does not contain a specific definition of “controller” or a depiction
of one.  We understand the term from the context—including the parties’ agreement—that
the equipment required the use of someone’s controllers to perform the contract work.

CBCA 8385 3
about the amendment.  He asked whether VA anticipated that the work covered by the CLINs
“would . . . only be on the water treatment equipment (small chemical pumps and controllers)
or are you looking for repairs and maintenance on the chillers and boilers[?]  Possibly such
items as tube cleaning?  Please clarify as the provided cost could be [$]10K or could be
[$]100K.”  Appellant’s Brief Seeking Judgment on the Written Record in Accordance with
CBCA Rule 19 (Appellant’s Rule 19 Brief), Exhibit A at 1.  The contracting officer
responded, “Just small chemical pumps/controllers and chemicals in case of chill water line
ruptures.  Any mishap out side [sic] the SOW.”  Id.
In mid-August 2023, the parties executed a contract under which VA ordered the
solicited requirement from Liberty with an effective date of August 21, 2023.  Exhibit 8 at 1.5 
The contract provided for a base year and up to four option years.  For each year, the contract
contained, for each VAMC, a fixed-price CLIN and a not-to-exceed CLIN, for a total of six
CLINs.  The fixed-price CLINs covered the water treatment work while the not-to-exceed
CLINs were for unforeseen maintenance and repairs.  The contract value for year one was
$195,598.  Id. at 1, 10–14.
The contract incorporated Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.212-4 (48 CFR
52.212-4 (2023)), Contract Terms and Conditions—Commercial Products and Commercial
Services (DEC 2022).  Exhibit 8 at 1, 15.  The clause provided that “[c]hanges in the terms
and conditions of this contract may be made only by written agreement of the parties.” 
FAR 52.212-4(c).
The introduction to the SOW provided:
1. The contractor shall provide all supplies and technical support services
for chemical treatment of boiler plant water, steam, and condensate
systems throughout [each] medical center/campus to ensure compliance
with [Veterans Health Administration] standards and requirements.
2. VAMC boiler plant employees will be responsible for continuous
feeding of chemicals and performing water tests with oversight by the
contractor.
5 On August 16, 2023, VA accepted Liberty’s August 11 offer, effective as of
August 21; awarded the contract (no. 36C25723P0624) to Liberty; and assigned a purchase
order number (549C30568) for invoicing.  Exhibit 8 at 1.  Consistent with the solicitation,
the contract, and the parties’ briefs, we refer to the agreement as a contract rather than an
order.

CBCA 8385 4
3. In addition, the contractor shall verify the proper operation of all water
treatment systems which serve the boiler plant including feedwater
deaerator, water softener, and continuous blowdown at least
semiannually.
4. The goals are safety, reliability and longevity of the steam and
condensate piping and equipment in the boiler plant, in the steam
distribution system and in the various buildings of the VA facility.
5. The contractor shall provide “Unforeseen Repairs and Maintenance” as
needed.
Exhibit 8 at 4.
The SOW included requirements for chemical testing supplies and services, and
related maintenance and training, as well as performance (water quality) standards and
contract administration requirements.  Pertinent here, the SOW also included, under the
heading “EQUIPMENT LIST,” a table specifying boilers, steam generators, deaerator tanks,
centrifugal chillers, air coolers, and cooling towers by make, model, capacity rating, and
quantity at each location.  Exhibit 8 at 4–5.  We do not quote the equipment list, as the parties
agree this dispute concerns items that were not on it.  Controllers and pumps were not in the
equipment list for any of the three locations.  See id.  However, pumps were specified as
supplies in section F of the SOW discussed below.
The contract contained no explanation of the purpose of the equipment list and did not
state that the contractor needed to furnish the listed equipment (a term used elsewhere in the
SOW), rather than, for example, to know simply how to operate and maintain the listed
equipment at the three sites.  The contract did not indicate whether VA expected the
contractor to furnish any ancillary equipment that might be needed to operate the listed
equipment but that VA had elected not to specify.
SOW section F was titled “CHEMICALS AND TESTING SUPPLIES.”  Exhibit 8
at 6.  Sections F.8 and F.9 set forth additional requirements for contractor-supplied
equipment, as follows:
8. Furnish on site chemical storage containers with secondary
containment.  Provide bulk delivery service which delivers the
chemicals directly into the on-site storage containers with no assistance
necessary from VA employees other than to provide access. 

CBCA 8385 5
9. Provide chemical metering pumps as required, plus one spare.
a. DA Tank–one pump 
b. Boiler 1–one pump for each chemical being added to the
boiler.
c. Boiler 2–one pump for each chemical being added to the
boiler.
d. Boiler 3–one pump for each chemical being added to the
boiler.
e. Boiler 4–one pump for each chemical being added to the
boiler.
f. Steam line treatment–one pump for each injection point. 
Steam line treatment may require remote injection points
on a large campus.
g. All boilers will have an extra injection point for laying
up a boiler wet.  Boiler treatments must go to the
individual boilers, it is impossible to control the
chemistry of two boilers with one common chemical
injection point.
Id.
Post-Award Communications About Controllers, Tanks, and Pumps
Soon after the August 2023 contract award (neither party gives an exact date), the
parties held a start-up meeting.  During the meeting, VA told Liberty that VA expected
Liberty to furnish all of the equipment needed to provide the water treatment services,
including controllers.  “The required equipment was the same type of equipment that had
been used by the previous contractor . . . and which remained in place for Liberty’s
temporary use.”  Declaration of Sherine S. Brooks (Aug. 13, 2025) ¶ 8 (emphasis added); see
Appellant’s Rule 19 Reply Brief at 6 (contending “Liberty [at first] relied on the prior
contractor’s equipment at VA’s direction, not at its own intention or plan”).
VA’s declarants testified (using virtually identical wording) that “it is not unusual in
this industry for [departing] contractors to leave their installed equipment in place for a short
period of time, maybe a few weeks, to allow a new contractor’s equipment to arrive on-site
and be installed.”  Stokes Declaration ¶ 11; see Brooks Declaration ¶ 11.  We see no
evidence in the declarations or elsewhere, however, that the VA declarants possess
knowledge of practices in “the industry” generally.  Neither declarant states, for example,
how many such contracts he or she has been involved with nor their locations.

CBCA 8385 6
Liberty’s position in its claim and in the appeal has been that it was surprised to be
expected to furnish equipment not specified in the contract.  However, there is no indication
that Liberty expressed surprise at the start-up meeting when VA advised that it expected 
controllers to be provided.  In an interrogatory response in this case, Liberty asserted that
“[h]istorically, equipment [such as controllers] at customer sites is government-owned. 
Equipment replacement occurs only when contractually stated with sufficient technical and
functional detail.”  Brooks Declaration, Exhibit A at 3.  Again, there is no evidence in the
record that Liberty stated this position in, or promptly after, the start-up meeting.
On August 29, 2023, eight days into the contract term (and apparently after the
start-up meeting), VA’s COR asked Liberty by email for “dates o[f] deliveries of
tanks/pumps and chemicals.”  Exhibit 13 at 1.  Liberty’s representative replied in full,
“Tanks, testing equipment, controllers have been ordered.  I don’t have the lead time in front
of me.  Will obtain and get back to you.”  Id.  There was no indication that Liberty
considered this equipment to be outside the contract scope.
There follows a gap in the record as to correspondence between the parties of more
than three months.  On December 6, 2023, Liberty provided the contracting officer a
“requested summary of services to date,” raising for the first time the issue of controllers
being within the contract scope.  Appellant’s Exhibit B at 1–2.  Liberty stated, in relevant
part:
Gov[ernment] at Dallas mentioned that we needed controllers on the boiler
side and they can[’]t be connected with extension cords.  Controllers were not
identified in the contract nor was any electrical work to install controllers on
the boiler side.  Statement of work i[mpli]ed by not specifying them that there
were already controllers there in a usable state.  We can provide a quote for
new boiler side controllers.  These controllers should be hard wired in so as to
avoid use of extension cords.  The pumps will need to be connected to
controllers to maintain proper boiler feeds.
. . . .
Even though controllers were not required per the contract on the chiller side,
we had a few spares in the shop and are providing one at the steamers[6] and
one at Garland at no cost to the Government.
6 This appears to refer to steam boilers at the Dallas VAMC.

CBCA 8385 7
. . . .
We did order single walled tanks and were going to utilize containment pallets. 
[VA] did not like these and asked us to remove them from the site.  Contract
does not specify tank specifications, beyond code regulations.  However, we
will remove these single walled tanks and have ordered double walled tanks
which should be in by the end of next week.  Even though the contract says
“chemical storage tanks with secondary containment.”  It does not say “double
walled tanks.”
Id. at 2.
Less than two weeks later, on December 18, 2023, VA issued a contract discrepancy
report (CDR).  Exhibit 10.  The cited discrepancies included multiple items of equipment that
Liberty had not furnished but that VA said were required by the contract.  The CDR directed
Liberty to submit a corrective action plan by December 21, 2023.  Id. at 1.
Liberty timely responded.  Exhibit 11.  We quote VA’s pertinent comments from the
December 18 CDR, followed by Liberty’s responses from its December 21 response, where
the parties’ respective positions are set forth in sequence:
2. [Discrepancy]  Per [SOW] section F.8[:]  Furnish on site chemical
storage containers with secondary containment.  Provide bulk delivery
service which delivers the chemicals directly into the on-site storage
containers with no assistance necessary from VA employees other than
to provide access.
• Contractor has delivered chemicals to each site in barrels. 
Contractor is waiting on tanks, pumps, and controls.  We are
having to use the old company equipment from the previous
contractor . . . and they are asking for the return of their
equipment.
CONTRACTOR RESPONSE:
• Tanks–All have been ordered.  Based on delivery tanks . . . will be
installed on next scheduled visit(s).
• Pumps–delivery for Dallas has been made, they will be installed on
next scheduled visit(s).
• Controllers–contract does not specify controller requirements; our
technician was informed that boiler controllers in place were

CBCA 8385 8
Government-owned and that the electrical would be hard piped in as
previous extension cords are no longer allowed.
3. [Discrepancy]  Per [SOW] section F.9[:]  Provide chemical metering
pumps as required, plus one spare.
• Contractor has not provided tanks, pumps, or controllers.
CONTRACTOR RESPONSE: 
• Per above, pumps have been ordered and/or delivered.
• Tank status:  Tanks for Dallas and Garland have been delivered;
Bonham are in-process.  Uninstalled tanks shall be installed in service
visit(s) following their delivery.
• Controllers–see response to item #10.
 . . . .
10. [Discrepancy]  There have been two Teams meetings with the CO,
CORs, Contractors o[n] this contract to get everything on track.  The
contractor has ordered and installed tanks at the Dallas location and has
the tanks on order for the other two sites.  Pumps are on order also. 
There is an issue with how the system will be controlled without
controllers being install[ed] from the contractor because the contractor
is stating that controllers were not specified in the contract to be
provided by the contractor.  However, you cannot execute all other
terms of this contract without providing controllers specific to the
equipment being purchased/installed under this contract.
CONTRACTOR RESPONSE:
• Tanks and pumps are specifically stated in the contract. 
Controllers are not cited at all.  Based on 8 Dec[ember] meeting, CO
indicated that VA would consult with legal for disposition on controller
requirements.  We are awaiting the outcome of that inquiry.
Id. at 1–3 (VA bulleted comments and discrepancy no. 10 in red in originals; emphasis added
to Liberty response to no. 10).  At this point, Liberty was not asserting that tanks and pumps
were outside the contract scope.
VA replied with an evaluation and partial acceptance of Liberty’s CDR response. 
Exhibit 12.  The VA document bears no date but appears to be from January 2024.  Pertinent
here, VA directed Liberty to provide “specific dates for when pumps were ordered, expected

CBCA 8385 9
delivery date, and anticipated date of installment” and stated that Liberty’s response as to the
status of controllers was “[n]ot accepted.”  Id. at 5.  VA explained:
Controllers, though not specifically mentioned in the contract, are required to
complete the terms and conditions of the contract.  Without controllers, the
contractor cannot monitor conductivity of the water which tells the system to
add or remove water, in order to properly release the amount of steam to heat
the buildings in the winter or provide [air conditioning (AC)] in the summer. 
If the proper amount of water is not added or removed, this will damage the
tubing and cause corrosion, which will allow the systems to malfunction and
not provide critical heat and/or AC when needed.  In a previous email to the
COR on 8/21/2023, the contractor stated, “controllers were ordered”. 
Additionally, during the technical questions portion of the solicitation, the
question “if controllers are to be provided by the Government” was never
asked because standard industry practice is that controllers ensure the device
maintains the correct temperatures.
Id.
The parties agree that Liberty eventually obtained and installed the equipment that VA
wanted.  The record does not show when that happened.  A spreadsheet of unresolved
discrepancies and a corrective action plan summary, dated January 24, and 25, 2024,
respectively, indicate that Liberty had just placed orders for equipment to resolve
discrepancies 2, 3, and 10, quoted above, on January 24.  Exhibits 14, 15.  VA states, without
citing evidence, that “controllers, pumps, and tanks” were installed in or about February
2024, approximately six months into the base year.  Respondent’s Rule 19 Brief at 10 n.1. 
Liberty cites evidence of “orders for pumps/tanks in late 2023 and controllers in early 2024”
but cites no delivery or installation dates.  Appellant’s Rule 19 Brief at 4 (citing Exhibit 14). 
We cannot determine from the record the dates on which the specific pumps, tanks, or
controllers for which Liberty seeks compensation came into service.
Removal of Liberty’s Equipment
On August 10, 2024, a Liberty officer advised the contracting officer that Liberty
intended to remove its equipment on August 21 or 22, after the contract expired.  Exhibit 16
at 3.  He added,
If the Government indicates a requirement for equipment to remain in place
beyond the [period of performance], the fee is $500.00 per day until such time
that the equipment is available for our technicians to uninstall and remove

CBCA 8385 10
from VA sites.  To maintain adequate chain of custody and serviceability of
our equipment, all LTS-owned equipment may only be uninstalled and
removed by LTS-approved personnel.
Id.  The contracting officer asked for “a transition period of up to 30 days . . . to allow the
new contractor to come in and set up their equipment,” which she suggested was “fair,” given
Liberty’s delay in installing the equipment.  She declined to agree to pay $500 per day.  Id.
at 2.  Liberty replied, “Thank you for your reply.  We will follow the contract.  Please inform
us when all equipment is ready for our technicians to remove.”  Id. at 1.
The record does not reflect the date or dates on which Liberty retrieved its equipment. 
No evidence of further communication on the topic is in the record.
Claim and COFD
In December 2024, Liberty submitted a certified claim to the VA contracting officer
for $97,098.74 in compensation for constructive changes.  Exhibit 18.  Liberty asserted in
the claim that, as a result of the December 2023 CDR, it “was required to install equipment,
including controllers, pumps, tanks, and a flow switch manifold, that w[as] out of the scope
of the contract. . . . [In addition], the Government required LTS to install equipment for the
Chiller plant when the contract only required such equipment to be added to the Boiler.”  Id.
at 3.  Included within the $97,098.74 claim total was $9975, representing $285 per day for
thirty-five days after the end of the contract (August 21 to September 25, 2024) during which
VA allegedly retained the equipment Liberty had used in performance.
Liberty’s certified claim included a table of alleged “out-of-scope equipment,” with
eighteen individual types of equipment, described by type, manufacturer, size, quantity, and
price.  The table listed fifteen controllers, $43,360.15; one flow switch manifold, $5942.60;
fifteen chemical pumps, $21,603.67; ten chemical tanks, $16,217.33; and equipment left in
place for thirty-five days at $285 per day, $9975.00.  The total claim was $97,098.74.  
The CO issued a COFD in January 2025 denying the claim, finding that “controllers,
flow switch manifolds, and chemical pumps” were within the scope of the contract and that
VA “did not deny [Liberty] the opportunity to retrieve its equipment” after the contract
ended.  Exhibit 19 at 3.

CBCA 8385 11
Appeal and Board Proceedings
Liberty filed this appeal in March 2025 and elected the Rule 53 accelerated procedure
the following month.  Briefing under Rule 19 was completed in September 2025, and the
record was closed.
During the appeal proceedings, Liberty submitted documentation in support of its
claimed costs.  Appellant’s Exhibit G (hereinafter, simply Exhibit G).  Liberty asserts that
it has provided the Board with “the job ledger, invoices, and proofs tying each line item to
VA’s directives.”  Appellant’s Rule 19 Reply at 6.  The documents are less probative than
Liberty suggests, as Liberty did not submit written testimony to authenticate or explain its
cost documentation, nor did Liberty discuss the individual documents in its briefs.  While we
deny entitlement below, we offer the following analysis of Liberty’s quantum submission to
illustrate its lack of probative value.
We see no “job ledger.”  Liberty is apparently referring to a table it submitted for the
Rule 19 record titled “Additional Equipment Detail[,] VA Claim[,] Contract
36C25723P0624.”  Exhibit G at 1.  This exhibit is an expanded version of the quantum table
from Liberty’s December 2024 certified claim, quoted above.  It lists the same equipment as
did the claim but includes additional columns for location of installation, serial number(s),
unit price, item subtotal price, freight, tax, total material cost, and installation cost.  Nothing
in the record indicates that this exhibit is a business record or that it was generated from
Liberty’s accounting system.  As such, we view the exhibit only as a summary of Liberty’s
contentions—that is, as an illustrative aid rather than as a summary of substantive evidence. 
Compare Fed. R. Evid. 107 (Illustrative Aids) with Fed. R. Evid. 1006 (Summaries to Prove
Content); see Fed. R. Evid. 107 advisory committee’s note to 2024 amendment (“An
illustrative aid is any presentation offered not as evidence but rather to assist the trier of fact
in understanding evidence or argument.  ‘Demonstrative evidence’ is a term better applied
to substantive evidence offered to prove, by demonstration, a disputed fact.”); Automated
Management Systems, Inc. v. Rappaport Hertz Cherson Rosenthal, P.C.,
No. 16-CV-04762-LTS-JW, 2024 WL 4987018, at *7 n.6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2024).
As for invoices, the record contains just two.  Neither invoice appears to have been
issued to the appellant.  Both were issued to Liberty Chemtron RiverBend, an entity that
Liberty does not mention in its briefs but which the record suggests was acting as a buyer on
Liberty’s behalf.  One invoice, dated February 27, 2024, is in the amount of $58,730.86 for
a single line item of one unit of “Chemical Equipment for Dallas VA Locatio[n],” with

CBCA 8385 12
shipping to a Liberty address in Dallas.  Exhibit G at 5.7  This invoice appears to correspond
with front and back images of an uncancelled Liberty check dated August 8, 2024 (162 days
after the date on the invoice) made out to “Chemtron” for the same amount, $58,730.86, and
bearing an endorsement by Chemtron Supply LLC.  Id. at 7.  The memorandum line of the
August check includes the number of the February invoice.  Id.
The second invoice, dated July 18, 2024, is for $4983 for a single line item of one unit
of “Sample Line for Cooling Tower” shipped to a Liberty address in Bonham.  Id. at 6.  We
do not see how this invoice could be relevant to the case.  Liberty does not claim
compensation for purchasing a sample line or anything with a price of $4983.
Liberty also included in the record a quotation issued to “Chemtron Supply
Corp/River Bend Labs” by AccentPDIR—another company that Liberty does not mention
in its briefs—dated January 25, 2024, and valid for one month.  Exhibit G at 8–11.  This
quotation lists a total of nineteen items of equipment on three pages under the headings
“Dallas site,” “Garland site,” and “Bonham site,” plus one optional pallet skid, with a total
quoted price, including a $2015 “expedite fee,” of $42,997.67.  Shipping is quoted as
“PPD/ADD,” which we understand to mean prepaid and added (i.e., included in the
quotation).  The record contains no evidence that a Chemtron entity ordered the quoted
equipment from AccentPDIR or that Chemtron paid AccentPDIR anything.  If, by grouping
the documents together, Liberty means to imply that the $58,730.86 it paid Chemtron in
August 2024 was connected somehow to the January 2024 quotation by AccentPDIR issued
to the Chemtron entity totaling $42,997.67, we see no evidence of such a link in the record. 
Liberty’s exhibits include emails between Liberty and Chemtron Riverbend that appear to
relate to ordering equipment for this contract but do not mention specific dollar amounts.
VA demonstrates in detail, moreover, that the January 2024 AccentPDIR quotation
lends weak support, at best, to Liberty’s quantum calculation.  Respondent’s Responsive
Brief Seeking Judgment on the Written Record in Accordance with Rule 19 (Respondent’s
Response Brief) at 23–28.  Of the eighteen types of equipment for which Liberty claims
compensation in its expanded table, only eight appear both in the AccentPDIR quotation and
in Liberty’s Exhibit G claim summary with the same number of units and at the same unit
price.  Id. at 26–27.
To trace but one example, Liberty claims $5260.64 as the total installed price of four
LMI PD051-832SI chemical pumps.  In the illustrative aid, Liberty shows these items at
7 Liberty’s pagination of the exhibit includes the heading Document Responses
and leading zeroes, which we omit.

CBCA 8385 13
$486.75 per unit, for a total equipment cost of $1947.  Exhibit G at 1.  The AccentPDIR
quotation does not include any chemical pumps at $486.75 per unit.  Moreover, whereas
Liberty indicates in the illustrative aid that these four pumps were for the Bonham VAMC,
the AccentPDIR quotation does not list any pumps in the Bonham portion of the quotation. 
See Exhibit G at 1, 10.  The AccentPDIR quotation does, however, list three LMI
PD051-832SI pumps for the Garland VAMC at $518.10 each, for a total cost of $1554.30
($392.70 less than the equipment subtotal net of freight, tax, and installation shown in the
illustrative aid).  Id. at 8.  VA points out similar inconsistencies between the AccentPDIR
quotation and the illustrative aid for nine other types of equipment.  Respondent’s Response
Brief at 23–26.
Liberty also submitted unauthenticated statements of work from four solicitations for
water treatment services issued in 2025.  Appellant’s Exhibits C, D, E, F.  Assuming they are
authentic, the statements of work were issued by VA, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the
University of Pittsburgh.  In each instance, the soliciting entity sought a “complete” water
treatment system, including “all necessary equipment” or words to that effect.  In what
appears to be the solicitation for the follow-on contract to the contract at issue in this appeal,
issued in April 2024, VA defined its requirement of “[a]ll equipment” to include
“Controllers, double wall tanks, metering pump devices,” other specific equipment, and “any
necessary unit to complete work.  All equipment will be VA own [sic] property after contract
base year ends.”  Appellant’s Exhibit C at 5.  We do not find this information relevant to the
resolution of this appeal.  Rather, we interpret the contract at issue, reading it as a whole and
considering the parties’ actions during performance.
Discussion
At issue is what, if anything, VA owes Liberty for (1) equipment not specified in the
contract and (2) use of equipment left in place post-contract.  The parties elected to submit
the case under Rule 19, foregoing live testimony.  In the Rule 19 proceedings, the Board
makes factual findings based on the written record created by the parties and bases its legal
rulings on such findings.  See Sylvan B. Orr v. Department of Agriculture, CBCA 5299,
17-1 BCA ¶ 36,863, at 179,613 (citing Bryant Co., GSBCA 6299, 83-1 BCA ¶ 16,487, at
81,967).  Just as in a live hearing, the party bearing the burden of proof must ensure that the
Board possesses evidence the party needs in order to prevail.  E.g., Crystal Clear
Maintenance v. General Services Administration, CBCA 7547, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,776, at
188,491 & n.10.  The parties had an ample opportunity to create the record.  We therefore
take the record as we find it.
Liberty argues that “VA constructively changed the contract by requiring boiler-side
controllers and other equipment not specified in the contract.”  Appellant’s Rule 19 Brief

CBCA 8385 14
at 2; see also id. at 5–10.  To recover for constructive change, Liberty bears the burden to
“show (1) that it performed work beyond the contract requirements, and (2) that the
additional work was ordered, expressly or impliedly, by the government.”  Bell/Heery v.
United States, 739 F.3d 1324, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see Nu-Way Concrete Co. v.
Department of Homeland Security, CBCA 1411, 11-1 BCA ¶ 34,636, at 170,696 (2010),
aff’d, 449 F. App’x 945 (Fed. Cir. 2011).  VA maintains that Liberty properly acknowledged
at the start of performance that it was responsible for supplying necessary but unspecified
controllers, tanks, and pumps and that Liberty simply provided, without VA’s direction, what
the contract required.  E.g., Respondent’s Rule 19 Brief at 34–35.  Both sides argue that the
contract is clear and unambiguous when read in the proper context and with the appropriate
background knowledge.  However, both parties rely on background premises that neither
party places before us in the form of persuasive evidence.
To determine what the contract required, we must construe it to the extent possible
according to its plain meaning, McAbee Construction, Inc. v. United States, 97 F.3d 1431,
1435 (Fed. Cir. 1996), adopting the point of view of a reasonably intelligent person
acquainted with the surrounding circumstances.  Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. United
States, 444 F.2d 547, 551 (Ct. Cl. 1971); Hol-Gar Manufacturing Corp. v. United States,
351 F.2d 972, 975 (Ct. Cl. 1965).  We must read the document as a whole, giving reasonable
meaning to all of its parts and avoiding, if we can, readings that result in useless,
inexplicable, void, or superfluous terms.  McAbee, 97 F.3d 1431, 1434–35; Gould, Inc.
v. United States, 935 F.2d 1271, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 1991).  Generally, we may consider parol
evidence and other extrinsic aids to interpretation only upon finding the contract ambiguous. 
See P.K. Management Group, Inc. v. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 987
F.3d 1030, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 2021); McAbee, 97 F.3d at 1435.  However, as discussed below,
the parties’ actions during performance in the form of written communication confirm the
unambiguous, plain meaning.  Evidence of trade custom or practice may inform our reading
of a contract even absent an ambiguity but “only where a party makes a showing that it relied
reasonably on [its] competing interpretation of the words when it entered into the contract.” 
Metric Constructors, Inc. v. National Aeronautics & Space Administration, 169 F.3d 747,
752 (Fed. Cir. 1999).  Neither party has submitted sufficient evidence to establish a trade
practice; rather, they have only alleged reliance on assumptions.
The Equipment Claim
Applying these principles to this contract, on this record, we find that Liberty has
failed to prove entitlement to compensation for supplying equipment alleged to be outside
of the contract scope—controllers, tanks, pumps and a manifold switch.  The contract
requires that “[t]he contractor shall provide all supplies and technical support services” to
fulfill the contract requirements.  When the contract is read as a whole, it supports VA’s

CBCA 8385 15
position that the equipment for which Liberty claims additional compensation is within the
scope of the contract and additional work was not ordered by VA.
While controllers are not in the equipment list, neither party denies that controllers
were necessary for contract performance.  This mutual interpretation of the parties shows that
a reader of the contract with knowledge of the subject matter would have known that the
equipment list did not include all of the equipment that the contractor would need.  It was
also reasonable to assume, therefore, that controllers were in place at the three sites before
award, as this was a follow-on contract.  Even so, Liberty did not attend a pre-bid site visit
and,  therefore, did not take the opportunity to assess who owned any existing controllers
(whether the Government or the previous contractor) and whether the intent was to leave
them in place.  Neither party has sufficiently proved that “trade practice” would allow
previously-supplied equipment to remain in place for the benefit of a follow-on contractor. 
There is no provision that states or implies that existing controllers would remain in place
for the benefit of a follow-on contractor.  Therefore, the reasonable conclusion is that
controllers would have to be supplied by the follow-on contractor if not left in place.
Further, the contract does not distinguish between equipment and supplies.  Even
though the equipment list in the SOW did not include the controllers or other equipment for
which Liberty seeks compensation, it does not appear to be an all-inclusive list.  For instance,
reading Section F of the SOW, various pumps are referred to as “supplies,” while Liberty
considers pumps to be equipment.  When the contract is read as a whole, the SOW
requirement of “all supplies and technical support services” encompasses all necessary
equipment.
Liberty’s actions during contract performance also do not support its later assertions
that controllers were outside of the contract scope.  Before award, a Liberty vice president
posed a question about the second amendment to the solicitation in which he asked about
repairs to controllers and chemical tanks.  VA’s response referenced the need for
maintenance of these items.  This exchange clearly indicates an understanding by both parties
of the need for these items during contract performance.  Liberty did not question how the
controllers would be supplied.
Within eight days of starting performance of the contract, Liberty confirmed that it
had purchased controllers and did not dispute at that time that controllers were included in
the contract.  Only later did Liberty assert that controllers were not within the scope of the
contract.  Additionally, Liberty makes the contradictory argument that “boiler-side controllers
were not required,” offering no explanation.  This assertion implies that other controllers, not
on the boiler side, would be required.

CBCA 8385 16
As to the claim for pumps and tanks, section F of the SOW, addressing chemicals and
testing supplies, included pumps.  Liberty confirmed that it had purchased pumps, tanks, and
other testing equipment at the same time it confirmed purchase of the controllers, without
disputing that these items were contract requirements.  Liberty stated thereafter in December
2023, in response to a VA discrepancy report, that “[t]anks and pumps are specifically stated
in the contract.”  Liberty’s claim for these items is therefore contrary to its acknowledgment
during performance that the items are contract requirements.
In summary, during contract performance, Liberty’s actions indicate it had interpreted
the contract to require equipment—for which it now claims additional compensation—to be
within the contract scope.  We find that Liberty is not entitled to compensation for the
equipment claimed.
The Use of Equipment After Contract Expiration Claim
Liberty seeks $9975 for what it calls a reasonable rental value of VA’s use of its water
treatment equipment after the contract expired.  Appellant’s Rule 19 Brief at 9–11, 12.  We
have no basis to award entitlement or determine quantum for this claim.
Liberty cites no evidence that it left its equipment behind.  Liberty cites the only
communications in the record on this topic, which occurred before the contract’s expiration
date and ended with Liberty asking to be advised when it could retrieve the equipment.  We
have no evidence of what happened next.  VA does not deny that the equipment remained
at the VAMCs for some time.  Indeed, VA argues, among other things, that it was an
“industry practice” for water treatment contractors to leave their equipment for follow-on
contractors’ use during transition periods.  Neither the CO in the COFD nor the VA
declarants admit that any particular equipment remained behind for any particular length of
time.
As to quantum, Liberty offers no basis for its daily rate.  Liberty relies solely on the
amount listed as a “late return” fee in its purported “claim ledger,” which we explained above
is merely illustrative of Liberty’s allegations and is not evidence.
The claim for the rental value of equipment after contract expiration is denied.

CBCA 8385 17
Decision
The appeal is DENIED.
    Allan H. Goodman        
ALLAN H. GOODMAN
Board Judge
I concur:
    Kyle Chadwick                
KYLE CHADWICK
Board Judge