THIS OPINION WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
IS BEING RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN ITS ENTIRETY ON MAY 12, 2020
GRANTED IN PART: May 5, 2020
CBCA 4026
VALERIE LEWIS JANITORIAL,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent.
Theodore P. Watson of Watson & Associates, LLC, Aurora, CO, counsel for
Appellant.
David G. Fagan, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs,
Portland, OR, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges DRUMMOND, KULLBERG, and O’ROURKE.
KULLBERG, Board Judge.
Appellant, Valerie Lewis Janitorial (VLJ), timely appealed the contracting officer’s
final decision (COFD) that denied its two certified claims and asserted two counterclaims
related to VLJ’s contract with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for custodial and
aseptic cleaning services. In its first claim, VLJ sought to recover $272,751.03 for the
increased cost of using a two-step process of aseptic cleaning. In its second claim, VLJ
sought to recover $441,138.06 for the cost of the increased frequency of cleaning certain
buildings. The counterclaims included a claim in the amount of $112,682.12 for the use of


CBCA 4026 2
the VA’s mops and laundry services, and a claim in the amount of $56,924.20 for the cost
of janitorial services for two buildings after VLJ stopped cleaning those buildings. A
three-day hearing of the appeal was held at the Board, and the parties submitted briefs and
reply briefs. Only entitlement is at issue. Board Order (Aug. 7, 2014).
As discussed below, the Board grants the appeal in part. The Board finds entitlement
with regard to VLJ’s implementation of the two-step aseptic cleaning process at the VA’s
direction. The Board denies VLJ’s claim for increased frequency of cleaning. Additionally,
the Board denies the VA’s two counterclaims.
Background
Solicitation
On or about September 5, 2008, the VA issued solicitation VA-261-08-UP-0083
(solicitation). Appeal File, Exhibit 3 at 1. 1 The intent of the solicitation was “to enter into
a contract to procure janitorial services and hospital aseptic maintenance services for the VA
Northern California Health Care System, Martinez facility.”Id. at 3. The solicitation stated
that the Government “comtemplate[d] award of a (Firm Fixed Price) contract.”Id. at 48.
Additionally, the solicitation was a set-aside for “[s]ervice-disabled veteran-owned small
business concern[s].”Id. at 101.
The Martinez facility included buildings for in-patient and out-patient care and various
other buildings related to research (“R” buildings), and administration (“AB” buildings).
Exhibit 1 at 405-16. Building 20, the Center for Rehabilitation and Extended Care (CREC),
consisted of three patient-care wings: Tahoe, 11,493 square feet (sq. ft.); Shasta, 12,753 sq.
ft.; and Napa, 13,051 sq. ft. Exhibit 56 at 1. The cleanable area of other buildings on the
campus included the following: building 19, outpatient clinic (OPC), 14,017 sq. ft.; building
18, bio-med, 1292 sq. ft.; the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) trailer, 1295 sq. ft; R1,
12,348 sq. ft.; R2, 1412 sq. ft.; R3, 1800 sq. ft.; R4, 7920 sq. ft.; AB2, 3981 sq. ft.; AB4,
1937 sq. ft.; AB5, 1321 sq. ft.; AB6, 7409 sq. ft.; AB7, 11,702 sq. ft.; and AB21, 22,083 sq.
ft. Exhibits 56, 61. 2
1 All exhibits are found in the appeal file, unless otherwise noted. The appeal
file consists of six volumes.
2 Subsequent to the hearing the Board determined that various documents in the
record contained inconsistent information as to the area of various buildings, and, in some
cases, such information was lacking. The Board directed the VA to provide complete
information as to the area, as measured in square feet, of the buildings and areas within

CBCA 4026 3
The solicitation provided for a contract performance period that consisted of a base
year and four option years. Exhibit 3 at 6-7. The pricing schedule required that offerors
propose a monthly unit price and total price for the base year and each option year. Id.
Additionally, offerors were required to submit information regarding technical capability,
technical approach, and past performance. Id. at 30-33.
The solicitation scope of work (SOW) set forth the following in pertinent part:
The Contractor shall furnish all management, labor, supervision, management
support, transportation, equipment and materials to provide Hospital Aseptic
[M]aintenance Services to Northern California Health Care Systems VA
Martinez . . . and the VA Outpatient Clinic building . . . administration
building[s,] and outl[ying] trailers. . . . An estimated total of 104,019 square
footage is to be serviced by the contractor. Note: This figure does not include
the kitchen square footage; see attachment 2 for Kitchen Work Statement.
Exhibit 3 at 51.
Section 1.3.1 of the SOW required that the contractor employ a certified executive
housekeeper (CEH). Exhibit 3 at 52. The SOW further required that the CEH be “fully
International Executive Housekeeping Association (IEHA) Certified at the contract start date
or must possess an associate [IEHA] certification at the time of contract start and submit
proof of full [IEHA] certification within nine months of contract start date.”Id.
The quality control section of the SOW stated, in pertinent part, the following:
1.4.4 Contractor Quality Control Program . Contractor shall have a quality
control program to assure all requirements of the contract are provided as
specified. The program shall be continuously improved and . . . documented
in loose-leaf manual format. The program shall include, but not be limited to
the following:
. . . .
certain buildings in Martinez facility, which are relevant to this appeal. Board Order
(Aug. 16, 2018). Several exchanges with the parties followed. Without objection, the Board
received from the VA the requested information, which is found at exhibits 56 through 61.
Board Order (Apr. 15, 2019).

CBCA 4026 4
1.4.4.2 An inspection system (implemented by a work instruction as required
in paragraph 1.4.4.1) covering the Hospital Aseptic Management System
(HAMS) services stated in the Statement of Work. This inspection system
shall include as a minimum, daily sampling inspection of the rooms . . . listed
in attachment J-1.
. . . .
1.4.4.6 The Awardee shall provide to the [contracting officer’s technical
representative (COTR)] its HAMS Policy and Procedure Manual it will use to
implement the HAMS program. This will be provided at the time proposals
are submitted as part of each offeror’s package.
Exhibit 3 at 61-62.3
The definitions section of the solicitation provided the following:
2.1 GENERAL DEFINITIONS: As used throughout this Performance
Work Statement (PWS), the following terms shall have the meaning set forth
below:
HAMS POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL.
Adapted manuals work instructions, quality control instruction, that are
composed of all procedures/training, and other literature and directives that
implement the HAMS program.
Exhibit 3 at 65.
Section 2.4 of the SOW stated the following in pertinent part:
2.4 HANDBOOK DEFINITIONS: The following definitions are from the
American Hospital Association “Infection Control in the Hospital and Hospital
Housekeeping Handbook, 1979.[”]
3 The term COTR is often used throughout the record interchangeably with
contracting officer’s representative (COR).

CBCA 4026 5
2.4.1.1 Cleaning: This is the removal of soil from a surface and is the primary
responsibility of the housekeeping staff.
. . . .
2.4.2 Soil is dust, dirt, stains, grease, smudges, streaks, spots, lint, odors,
organisms, vomits, or any agent that is injurious to health. Soil can be visible
such as dust, or can be invisible such as organisms, and odors.
2.4.2.1 Soil can be removed chemically, mechanically, or by a combination of
both. Mechanical soil removal is removing soil with a machine such as a
vacuum cleaner. Chemical soil removal is removing soil with a liquid that
contains cleaning agents, such as detergents, disinfectants, and sanitizes [sic].
The combination of chemical and mechanical methods, such as an automatic
floor-scrubbing machine, uses the chemical method to break down and loosen
the soil while the mechanical method picks up and carries the soil
away. Which soil removal method is used depends on the cleaning objectives
and on the size, location, and type of surface to be cleaned and is the
prerogative of the Contractor.
Exhibit 3 at 65-66.
Section 4.2 of the SOW provided the following:
DISINFECTANT/DETERGENT: The disinfectant/detergent shall be
currently Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved and registered as
pseudomon[a]cidal, fungicidal, and viricidal at the recommended use dilution
even in hard water 400 (Parts Per Million) PPM (CaC03). The germicidal
detergent shall be coupled with a non-phonelic-based environmental
disinfectant. Use dilution shall be that recommended by the Association of
Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) use dilution confirmation tests and
maintain a record of tests. Any germicidal detergents must be presented to the
ICC for approval prior to use. Automatic dilution centers will be used.
Exhibit 3 at 71. The solicitation did not include any historical data of infectious disease
outbreaks. Exhibit 55 at 4, ¶ 13.
Section 5.2.2 of the SOW provided the following with regard to frequency of
cleaning:

CBCA 4026 6
Categories of Time: There are three (3) categories of times housekeeping
services are required to be performed:
Aseptic Seven (7) day per week minimum once per day. Aseptic Five (5) day
week, (Mon through Fri) minimum once per day. Cycle task cleaning.
Frequency task list cited on Attachment J.1 to J.10.
Custodial three (3) day a week minimum once per day.
Critical Care Areas, (Ref para 2.12.1) and Patient Use/Visit Areas. (Ref
para 2.12.2) consist of rooms/areas that require housekeeping services to [b]e
performed in one of the above categories. Specific rooms/areas are identified
in the Room Listing Charts (see Attachments J.1–J.10).
Exhibit 3 at 76.
Section 5.2.2.2 of the SOW provided the following for cleaning a room after a
patient’s departure:
Unit Checkout Service: is a seven (7 day per week “as necessary” required
service and includes patient rooms, On Call Staff/Residents Bedrooms. During
the day shift and until 9:30 PM on the evening shift, the Contractor shall begin
cleaning within 15 minutes. After 9:30 PM if the rooms vacated, cleaning
shall start within 30 minutes of the following day shift. Except as to this
requirement will be considered as an emergency response. All unit checkout
cleaning includes obtaining clean linens for the rooms and bathrooms, removal
of all soiled hospital linens and making the beds. It also includes the
housekeepers changing of cubical curtains when visibly soiled or as required
by [Veterans Administration Medical Center] personnel. Unit checkout
service shall continue without interruption until completed.
Exhibit 3 at 77.
Section six of the SOW stated, in pertinent part, the following:
Administration Building and Trailers
6.1 The contractor shall provide all labor, equipment and materials required
to provide custodial services Monday through Friday at the VA. Work shall
start no later than 4:30 pm. DAILY TASKS:

CBCA 4026 7
Empty wastebaskets/replace liners when soiled
Relocate all recycle material to designated location.
Clean/sanitize wash basins, urinals, commodes, partitions, mirrors, chrome
fixtures, paper and soap dispensers and sanitary napkin disposal containers.
Replenish and refill paper/soap dispensers as needed.
Dust mop, damp mop (with generic detergent to sanitize), then buff all hard
surface floors.
Vacuum all carpets/mats, spot clean as needed. (Move all furniture to clean
and vacuum, replace in original position)
Pick up and dispose of all litter/debris in offices, restrooms and staff rooms.
Place marked “RED BAG” medical waste bags in locked container outside
building for separate contractor’s pick-up.
Clean fingerprints/smudges from the entrance doors and walls as necessary.
Mid day: Cleaning of restrooms and restocking of supplies.
Exhibit 3 at 82-83. Section six also listed various tasks that were to be completed either
daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or semi-annually. Id. at 82-83. Monthly tasks included
waxing all hard floors; those floors were also to be stripped and waxed semi-annually. Id.
Attachments J.1 through J.10 of the SOW were spreadsheets that listed the buildings
and rooms in each building that were to be cleaned. Exhibit 3 at 85-107. The SOW required
either aseptic or custodial cleaning in the three wings of the CREC (Tahoe, Shasta, and
Napa), the outpatient clinic, AB4, AB6, AB7, AB21, R1, and bio-med, but the SOW lacked
information about the cleanable area for all of the buildings. Id. Based upon information
obtained after the hearing, the actual combined cleanable area of those buildings was 108,112
sq. ft. Exhibit 56.
A note at the top of the first page of attachment J.1 stated “FTE = Full Time
Equivalent.” Exhibit 3 at 85. For each of the three wings in the CREC, an additional note
at the heading with attachments J.1 through J.3 stated “2 FTE,” which amounted to six FTEs
for the CREC. Id. at 85-87. In attachments J.4 through J.10, a note at the heading for each

CBCA 4026 8
building stated “2nd Shift Responsibilities 1 FTE,” which amounted to an additional six FTEs
for the buildings to be cleaned.4 Id. at 89-96.
The rooms in each of the three wings of the CREC (Tahoe, Shasta, and Napa) were
listed in attachments J.1, J.2, and J.3. Exhibit 3 at 85-88. There were sixty-six patient rooms
in the CREC that required aseptic cleaning seven days per week. Id. Other rooms in the
CREC, such as offices, lounges, and storage rooms, only required custodial cleaning. Id.
Most of the rooms specified five days per week for custodial cleaning, but other rooms did
not specify a minimum number of days per week for custodial cleaning. Id. The dining
rooms (Shasta 103 and Napa 102) both showed a “0” frequency for aseptic cleaning.Id.
at 86-87.
With regard to buildings AB6 and AB7, attachments J.4 and J.5 specified either
aseptic or custodial cleaning five days per week. Exhibit 3 at 89-90. In the case of buildings
AB4, AB21, R1, and bio-med, attachments J.7 through J.10 did not specify a minimum
number of days per week for janitorial services. Id. at 93-94, 96-97. Although the majority
of rooms in the administration and research buildings required only custodial cleaning,
certain rooms, such as restrooms and some labs, required aseptic cleaning. Id. at 89-97.
Attachment two to the SOW described the work to be performed in the kitchen and
canteen area, which had a combined area of 6777 sq. ft. Exhibit 3 at 104-08. Additionally,
attachment two stated, in pertinent part, the following:
Provide daily janitorial services in the kitchen, dining, canteen area, offices,
dressing rooms and lounge from Mondays [through] Fridays between 1 pm to
5 pm. The contractor shall use approved solutions to mop flooring, walls,
clean tables, chairs, floors, walls, vents, lights, glass, empty [and] relined
containers. On a daily basis, provide full service to the restrooms as outline[d]
in the standards below. Follow daily schedule for canteen, dining areas as
prescribed in the Frequency and Task schedule.
Id. at 104. Section 4 of the SOW provided that “[t]he Contractor shall furnish and maintain
all equipment and supplies (other than that specified as Government-furnished) necessary to
perform all services required by the contract.”Id. at 71.
4 Bio-med, which is listed at attachment J.10, did not have an FTE designated,
but that building appeared to utilize the FTE associated with building R1. Exhibit 3 at 94-95.

CBCA 4026 9
The solicitation provided the opportunity for a site visit on September 17,
2008. Exhibit 3 at 49. Ms. Valerie Lewis, the owner of VLJ, attended the site visit. Exhibit
1 at 150, Exhibit 3 at 153. On or about October 20, 2008, VLJ executed a teaming agreement
with ADS-Myers, Inc. (ADS). Exhibit 1 at 137-46. The agreement provided, generally, that
ADS would work with VLJ “in preparing, performing and completing [the] contract.”Id.
at 138.
Solicitation Amendments 0001, 0002, and 0004
On September 26, 2008, the CO issued amendment 0001 to the solicitation. Exhibit
1 at 402-16. Amendment 0001 extended the date for submission of proposals and “additional
details of areas to be serviced via drawing attachments . . . [and] areas that will NOT be
serviced.”Id. at 402. Those areas that amendment 0001 removed from the SOW included:
Napa rooms 100–106, 2328 sq. ft.; Shasta rooms 100–107, 2637 sq. ft.; Tahoe rooms
100–102, 2200 sq. ft.; and the third and fourth floors of AB21, 11,091 sq. ft.Id. at 403;
Exhibit 56 at 2-3.
Additionally, amendment 0001 included architect drawings of the CREC, the
outpatient clinic, AB2, AB4, AB5, AB6, AB7, AB21 (first and second floors), and R4.
Exhibit 1 at 405-15. A separate drawing that showed the entire Martinez campus included
the aforementioned buildings as well as AB3, R1, R2, R3, and the MRI trailer.5 Id. at 416.
The amendment also had a note that stated, “All other areas (drawings) that are attached . . .
will be cleaned by the Contractors.”Id. at 403. VLJ acknowledged receipt of amendment
0001 on October 14, 2008. Exhibit 2 at 2.
The CO issued amendment 0002 on October 8, 2008. Exhibit 1 at 420. That
amendment responded to the following:
Question 3). Are we responsible to wipe down and clean the MRI machine?
Answer: Yes. The entire department will require daily cleaning. (Monday
thru Friday). It will also be the responsibility of the contractor to clean on
week-ends should there be cases.
Id. at 421.
5 Although building AB3 was shown on a drawing of the Martinez facility, the
Government has represented that building AB3 was demolished before the solicitation.
Exhibit 56 at 3.

CBCA 4026 10
The CO also issued amendment 0004 on October 8, 2008, which responded to an
inquiry regarding the buildings listed in amendment 0001. Exhibit 1 at 426. That inquiry
asked in pertinent part:
Question 10): Amendment 1 indicates Buildings [AB2]; [AB5]; [R4] are to
be serviced. We have no J attachments for them giving description and
[square] footage. We have J attachments for [R1] but it was excluded in the
Attachment 1 maps indicated to be cleaned. Would you confirm servicing
status and forward any J attachments necessary?
Id. at 427. In response, amendment 0004 provided a spreadsheet for building R4 that
required either aseptic or custodial cleaning five days a week for each of the rooms in that
building. Id. The amendment, however, did not provide any information regarding buildings
AB2 and AB5. Id.
Amendment 0004 also responded to the following:
Question 12): Please confirm that most of the non clean square footage in
amendment 1 was not a part of the original identified cleanable square footage
of 104,019. The room numbers do not seem to coincide with those in the J
attachments other than in [AB21] – 3rd and 4th floors.
Answer: We still have over 180,000 sq ft cleaned by VA staff and the contract
has the 104,000.
Exhibit 1 at 428. VLJ acknowledged amendment 0004 on October 23, 2008. Exhibit 2 at 6.
The closing date for proposals was changed to October 28, 2008. Id.
VLJ’s Initial and Revised Proposals
On or about October 26, 2008, VLJ submitted its first technical and cost proposal.
Exhibit 4 at 5. VLJ’s proposed cost for the base year and four option years was $4,603,668.
Id. at 10-11. VLJ’s monthly unit price for the base year, November 1, 2008, to October 31,
2009, was $76,111. Id. at 10. The scope of work section of VLJ’s proposal stated that it
would be providing services for “[a]n estimated total of 104,019 square feet.” Exhibit 1
at 194. VLJ had previous experience performing a contract for janitorial services at a VA
nursing facility. Transcript at 189.
VLJ’s technical proposal stated the following with regard to the control of bloodborne
pathogens stated the following:

CBCA 4026 11
Universal Precautions is an approach to infection control in which all human
blood and other potentially infectious materials are handled as if they were
known to be infectious for Bloodborne pathogens. ADS, as a provider of
environmental services, works with each hospital to ensure compliance with
the facility’s engineering and work practice controls. The on-site supervisor
is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the hospital’s work
practice and controls and for work in conjunction with the hospital’s Infections
Control Officer to assure the effectiveness of these controls.
Exhibit 4 at 33.
By letter dated February 23, 2009, the CO, Mr. William L. Ulibarri, requested that
VLJ submit a revised technical proposal. Exhibit 4 at 131. Additionally, Mr. Ulibarri’s letter
noted that “all offerors continue to propose a level of staffing that is inadequate and below
the Government estimate.”Id. The letter directed VLJ to address the following:
1. General Introduction. Overall analysis of FTEs proposed and VA
position, per the VA Environmental Programs Service Staffing Guide
(provided to each offeror prior to the meeting).
2. General Discussion of VA Northern California housekeeping
requirements, to include the following: general housekeeping (daily routines,
floor care), linen, kitchen, inpatient and outpatient administration.
Id.
VLJ subsequently submitted its revised technical proposal and cost proposal.
Exhibit 1 at 214-79. The cost proposal included rates for a base year commencing on
November 1, 2008, and four option years with a total contract price of $4,863,324.
Id. at 265-66. VLJ’s revised technical proposal stated, in pertinent part, the following:
The standard for hospital cleaning is 14,000 square [feet] per [f]ull-time
employee (FTE). We believe that to have proper controls . . . to ensure patient,
staff and employee safety the benchmark we strive for is 8,000 square feet per
FTE. Custodial (non-aseptic) cleaning benchmarks are higher. Based on this
standard and what the Martinez facility currently employ[s], we should be able
to meet this staffing requirement with the proposed full-time employees and
a C.E.H. Below is a sample CREC cleaning procedure:

CBCA 4026 12
6:00 a.m - 8:00 a.m. there will be two (2) to a ward. These housekeepers will
dust mop and mop all hallways. Empty trash in rooms and vacuum all
carpeted areas.
8:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. (approximate times) Team cleaning begins: After
completion of ward cleaning, the housekeepers will report to lead and/or
supervisor for other assigned tasks. The other tasks will include shampooing,
buffing, afternoon trash pick-up, window cleaning, checking all restrooms
inpatient rooms and hallways, and bed cleanings where needed.
After wards are cleaned this should leave an approximate 2 hour window to do
other duties listed above.
Id. at 217-18. Ms. Lewis has represented that she had assistance in preparing her proposal
from her attorney, certified public accountant, consultant, and ADS. Exhibit 34 at 25;
Transcript at 151.
A VA evaluation Board convened and issued its recommendations in a memorandum
dated May 27, 2009. Exhibit 4 at 135. The VA board recommended awarding the contract
to a firm other than VLJ. Id. For reasons not reflected in the record, no award was made.
In an email dated January 28, 2010, Mr. Ulibarri informed VLJ that “things are still
in ‘play’ as far as the award at VA Northern Calif[ornia].” Exhibit 4 at 139. Mr. Ulibarri
also raised the question as to how VLJ “would meet the 51% requirement for cost of
personnel.”Id. In response, VLJ represented that it would “team with the very capable . .
. ADS Myers who brings the experience necessary to handle the 49% on a sub contract to
VLJ.”Id.
By a fax, which was dated March 15, 2010, VLJ sent to Mr. Ulibarri a copy of its
revised teaming agreement with ADS. Exhibit 4 at 141. The teaming agreement stated, in
pertinent part, that “ADS is expected to be awarded a subcontract, subject to the negotiation
of mutually acceptable terms and conditions between the Parties.”Id. at 143.
Solicitation Amendments 0013 and 0014
On May 25, 2010, Mr. Ulibarri issued amendment 0013, which extended the date for
receipt of proposals to June 15, 2010. Exhibit 1 at 294. The page number block on the first
page of amendment 0013 showed that it consisted of seventy-one pages. Id. VLJ
acknowledged receipt of amendment 0013 on July 13, 2010. Exhibit 2 at 19.

CBCA 4026 13
Amendment 0013 included a revised SOW. Exhibit 1 at 297-364. The SOW in
amendment 0013 stated, in pertinent part, the following:
The Contractor shall furnish all management, labor, supervision, management
support, transportation, uniforms, equipment and materials/supplies to provide
Hospital Aseptic [M]aintenance Services to the Northern California Health
Care System’s VA Martinez Building 19 VA Outpatient Clinic, Building 20
CLC/CREC, Building [AB21] Administration, and outlying trailers (except as
specified herein as Government-furnished). An estimated total of 127,931
square footage is to be serviced by the contractor. Note: This figure does not
include the kitchen square footage; see attachment 2 for Kitchen Work
Statement.
Id. at 297.
Section 5.2.2, categories of time, of the revised SOW in amendment 0013 required
aseptic cleaning seven days per week and custodial cleaning a minimum of three days per
week. Exhibit 1 at 323. Section 6.1 of the SOW in amendment 0013 listed the same
requirements for cleaning trailers and administration buildings as shown in section 6.1 of the
solicitation. Id. at 329-30. Additionally, section 6.1 added a weekly requirement that stated
in pertinent part:
Patient rooms/Offices/Exam Rooms/Halls to be burnished min[imum] of 2
times per/week and/or as often as necessary to maintain floors in an ASEPTIC
appearance free from scratches, dulling and walk off of wax. High traffic
areas may require 3 to 5 times per week burnishing. Top scrubbing and
waxing to be on a[n] as needed basis to maintain the floors in an aseptic
appearance.
Exhibit 1 at 330.
Attachments J.1 through J.10 of the revised SOW in amendment 0013 required either
aseptic or custodial cleaning for the three wings of the CREC, the outpatient clinic, AB4,
AB6, AB7, AB21, R1, and bio-med. Exhibit 1 at 332-45. The revised SOW required aseptic
cleaning seven days a week in the dining rooms and custodial cleaning five days per week
in buildings AB4, AB21, and R1. Id. at 333-34, 340-45. Although amendment 0001 had
deleted Napa 100-106, Shasta 100-107, Tahoe 100-102, and the third and fourth floors of
AB21 from the SOW, the revised SOW in amendment 0013 included those areas. Id.
at 332-34, 340-43.

CBCA 4026 14
On June 6, 2010, the CO issued amendment 0014, which extended the date for
submission of proposals to June 22, 2010. Exhibit 2 at 20. VLJ acknowledged the
amendment on June 18, 2010. Id. The amendment also included responses to questions
submitted by potential offerors regarding floor work, and included the following:
Q6: Is there something else that was added that is considered a “new” scope
or a change to the previous scope that I might possibly be overlooking?
A6: None that we are aware of.
Id. at 22-23. Amendment 0014 also incorporated VA clause 852,219-10, Notice of Total
Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Set-Aside. Id. at 21. That clause defined
such a business concern as “[n]ot less than 51 percent of which is owned by one or more
service-disabled veterans or, in the case of any publicly owned business, not less than 51
percent of the stock of which is owned by one or more service-disabled veterans.”Id.
Contract Award
The VA awarded to VLJ contract VA261-P-0356 (contract), Aseptic and Nonaseptic
Janitorial services for northern California, with an effective date of October 1, 2010.
Exhibit 2 at 29. The contract award, which was issued on a standard form 1449, referenced
the solicitation number in block 5.Id. VLJ signed the contract on July 13, 2010, and the CO,
Mr. Mark J. Mikus, signed it on August 18, 2010.6 Id. The total contract price for the base
year and four option years was $5,158,632. Id. at 24. VLJ’s monthly rate for the base year,
which commenced on October 1, 2011, and first option year was $85,368.Id. The monthly
rate for the second and third option years increased to $86,271, and the monthly rate for the
final option year was $86,608. Id.
The SOW in the contract required either aseptic or custodial cleaning in the three
wings of the CREC, the outpatient clinic, AB4, AB6, AB7, AB21, R1, and bio-med.
Exhibits 2 at 83-95, 3 at 85-97. The contract SOW and attachments J.1 through J.10 were
the same as those set forth in the original solicitation. Exhibits 2 at 47-106, 3 at 51-108. The
contract included copies of the standard form (SF) 30 for each solicitation amendment with
VLJ’s signed and dated acknowledgment.7 Exhibit 2 at 2-23.
6 Mr. Mikus was Mr. Ulibarri’s supervisor. Transcript at 564.
7 Amendment 0012 was not issued. Exhibit 1 at 3 n.6.

CBCA 4026 15
The contract incorporated in full text Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause
52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions-Commercial Items (FEB 2007), which provided,
in pertinent part, the following:
(a) Inspection/Acceptance. The Contractor shall only tender for acceptance
those items that conform to the requirements of this contract. The Government
reserves the right to inspect or test any supplies or services that have been
tendered for acceptance. The Government may require repair or replacement
of nonconforming supplies or reperformance of nonconforming services at no
increase in contract price. If repair/replacement or reperformance will not
correct the defects or is not possible, the Government may seek an equitable
price reduction or adequate consideration for acceptance of nonconforming
supplies or services. The Government must exercise its post-acceptance
rights-
(1) Within a reasonable time after the defect was discovered or should have
been discovered; and
(2) Before any substantial change occurs in the condition of the item,
unless the change is due to the defect in the item.
. . . .
(c) Changes. Changes in the terms and conditions of this contract may be
made only by written agreement of the parties.
(d) Disputes. This contract is subject to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978,
as amended (41 U.S.C. 601-613). Failure of the parties to this contract to
reach agreement on any request for equitable adjustment, claim, appeal or
action rising under or relating to this contract shall be a dispute to be resolved
in accordance with the clause at FAR 52.233-1, Disputes, which is
incorporated herein by reference. The Contractor shall proceed diligently with
performance of this contract, pending final resolution of any dispute arising
under the contract.
Exhibit 2 at 32-33.
Modification of the Date for Starting Contract Performance

CBCA 4026 16
On January 4, 2011, Mr. Ulibarri advised VLJ in an email that he would arrange a
meeting with a VA employee and technical staff member, to determine “the exact areas that
[VLJ] will be responsible for.” Exhibit 1 at 78. In a later January 14, 2011, email to VLJ,
Mr. Ulibarri stated the following:
In order to maintain some grip on workload (which I am gradually losing) I
need to be as efficient as possible, therefore, I’d prefer to get everything done
at once. You can send me the wage determination part, I’ll hold it pending
final figures on the addition which I should [have] heard . . . about first, not
you. In fact, this makes me think we’d better wait until you and he are done
with the walk through before I issue anything. The sooner you meet with him,
the better.
Id. at 80. Mr. Ulibarri testified that meetings were held with VLJ to “get on the same page
. . . and then . . . get pricing and fix . . . the contract . . . and then fix the statement of
work.” Transcript at 28.
In an email dated January 13, 2011, the VA’s technical staff member informed VLJ
of the following:
Just wanted to follow up with an E-mail concerning our earlier
conversation. As we talked about, the start date is confirmed for
2/1/2011. Since you haven’t enough time to place an order for equipment and
for it to be delivered by the start date, we will let you use VA equipment until
yours arrive[s]. . . . Please let us know when you need us to remove our
supplies so you can start stocking your supplies.
Exhibit 1 at 82. Mr. Ulibarri testified to the following regarding that email:
Q – would you agree that the VA gave [VLJ] permission to use their
mops?
A Yes, but – yes, but there’s a but in there, you know, what’s reasonable.
Q So the answer to my question is, yes, the VA did give her permission?
A That’s what he did. I mean, I didn’t, you know.
Transcript at 35-36. Mr. Ulibarri also testified that “we didn’t set a deadline on that but
reasonably speaking you would think she’d get her equipment within a short period.”Id. at

CBCA 4026 17
144. The VA did not have storage space available for VLJ when it allowed VLJ to use
government-owned mops and laundry facilities. Exhibit 1 at 376. The record does not show
when such storage space became available.
In a January 25, 2011, email to VLJ, Mr. Ulibarri stated the following:
We have a contract with a statement of work that we signed. We’ve had
enough misery over the past three and one half years, now there are questions
as to just what areas [VLJ] is responsible for - will this never end? I suggest
you both review the SOW and any attachments (the ones that specify room
numbers in particular areas). Whatever is not in there that . . . needs [to be]
covered should be in a quote [VLJ] will provide five years pricing for. That
should be clear cut. I need this immediately because she starts in one week.
Exhibit 1 at 84.
On January 28, 2011, the VA’s technical staff member sent VLJ an email that stated
the following:
According to Bill Ulibarri you are sending him a “catch all[”] quote for the
mod. Please make sure you include the offices in primary Care as well as the
waiting area and receptionists desk, X-ray waiting area and receptionist desk,
Primary Care and the 3 offices in the kitchen. The 5 offices in AB7 should
have been part of your original quote. The sheet was cut off. Also AB5 and
AB2 should also be in the package.
Exhibit 1 at 88.
In an email dated February 2, 2011, the VA’s technical staff member advised
Mr. Ulibarri, that VLJ “is not cleaning MRI, Bio Med, AB5 which was included [i]n the
contract and questions & answers.” Exhibit 1 at 462. In an email on that same date, VLJ’s
response stated that “[w]e have BIO MED INCLUDED and [it] is getting cleaned by our
crew now. We are working on the MODS for the rest.”Id. at 461.
In his February 2, 2011, response to VLJ’s email, the VA’s technical staff member
stated that “MRI is part of the contract, Reference Amendment 2, question 3. To be serviced
5 days a week. AB2 & 5 also to be cleaned (see attachment for amendment 4, question 10.
Reference amendment 1).” Exhibit 1 at 461. On that same day, VLJ responded to
Mr. Zabadal’s email with the following:

CBCA 4026 18
Amendment 13 modified the Scope of Work and outlined what was included.
I signed the paperwork/contract that had all the rooms numbers & identified
what they wanted cleaned. The VA answered the question back in 2008 and
they still directed us to the Spreadsheet for further clarification. The
Spreadsheet did not list any detail for AB2, or AB5 nor did it list the MRI.
And, it is not listed anywhere else in the detail spreadsheet. The VA went
through great detail to outline the rooms, square footage, description, area and
so on. We never walked the Day Treatment Building and we did not walk the
Magnetic MRI. Mr. Ulibarri already told us to give the price for those areas.
In the spirit of unity and more importantly, in order to bring this issue to a
close; I will throw in the MRI and AB2. Please remember, I am a Small
Business and I don’t have the government’s unlimited resources. The only
way I can provide the services you are requiring is if you are willing to pay for
them. I want to do a very good job and the VA hospital is near and dear to my
heart. I am concerned about the cleanliness of the hospital, safety of all those
who work here and well-being of the patients and my employees. Cutting
corners is not my forte.
Please also note that we are already doing the MRI Building and AB2.
Id. at 460. VLJ disputed whether the contract included janitorial services for buildings AB4
and AB5. Id. at 376-77.
On February 11, 2011, VLJ executed bilateral modification P0002 to the contract, and
the VA subsequently executed it on February 15, 2011. Exhibit 1 at 444. The modification
stated, in pertinent part, the following:
This supplemental agreement is issued to: 1. Reset the start date for this
contract to 2/1/11. 2. Incorporate the latest Dept. of Labor Wage
Determination rates per Wage Determination 2005-2051, Rev. 10 dated
7/16/10 and 3. Incorporate the MRI and AB2 areas at no additional charge
(excluding carpets/strip/wax). All other terms and conditions shall remain the
same.
Id. The contract price increased to $5,193,007.20. Id. at 457. The cleanable space in
building AB2 and the MRI trailer amounted to 5276 sq. ft.
Mr. Ulibarri testified that modification P0002 was issued to include the MRI trailer
and building AB2 in the SOW because those buildings were not in the contract. Transcript

CBCA 4026 19
at 70. Ms. Lewis testified that “the VA wanted more when we did the initial walk-through
and Mr. Ulibarri had directed me to go back to the COR and for us to get straight what areas
they wanted.”Id. at 155. She executed modification P0002 and agreed to clean building
AB2 and the MRI trailer with no increase to the contract price “because they were . . . very
small areas.”Id. However, she also expected to be paid for the “carpet, strip and wax” work
referenced in modification P0002 under a separate modification, but no such modification
was ever issued. Id. at 156-58.
The VA did not issue a written modifications to the contract to reflect other changes
to those area where VLJ was supposed to work. Shortly after contract award, Mr. Ulibarri
and VLJ’s representative reached a verbal agreement in which VLJ would perform custodial
services in buildings R2, R3, and R4, and the parties would execute a written modification
at a later date. Exhibit 32 at 11; Transcript at 425-26. The combined cleanable area of
buildings R2, R3, and R4 was 11,132 sq. ft. Exhibit 56 at 4. VLJ only cleaned the first and
second floors of building AB21 because “the third and fourth floor[s] . . . [were cleaned by]
VA personnel.” Transcript at 461. VLJ, consequently, only had to clean 10,992 square feet
of building AB21. Exhibit 56 at 3. As a result of those changes, VLJ would have been
responsible under the contract for a cleanable area of 113,402 square feet, which would have
included the CREC, the outpatient clinic, buildings AB2, AB4,AB6, AB7, AB21 (first and
second floors), R1, R2, R3, R,4, bio-med, and the MRI trailer. Id. at 3-4.
On March 8, 2011, ADS advised Mr. Ulibarri of the following:
As you know, I am looking to Terminate [ADS’] Teaming Agreement with
Valerie Lewis Janitorial and our involvement with the Martinez contract. . . .
Please let me know as I plan on terminating on March 22, unless you state
there could be a problem with ADS’ performance rating if I were to terminate.
I would also like to let you know that the CEH we trained has the capabilities
and management skills to be able to run and do an excellent job for [VLJ] and
intends to stay on as CEH. [He] has worked for ADS for over 7 years working
in an aseptic environment. ADS has provided [VLJ] with [HAMS] and QC
documents and training which she has at her disposal and the CEH knows
those aspects of Aseptic cleaning and [Joint Commission on Accreditation of
Healthcare Organizations] [regulations]. [VLJ] should do well on her own and
we would still be available to assist her with any questions she might have.
Exhibit 1 at 202. ADS terminated its teaming agreement with VLJ on March 22, 2011.
Exhibits 5 at 5, 55 at 4, ¶ 22. Mr. Ulibarri testified that he did not have any concerns about
VLJ’s ability to perform the contract. Transcript at 145.

CBCA 4026 20
VLJ’s October 14, 2011, email to Mr. Ulibarri stated the following:
Since we are at the point where we need to do some internal housekeeping, I
think the time has come for us to clean up the whole contract or it will keep
getting pushed back and I never get paid for any of this work.
. . . .
At this point, I will settle for getting a modification that adds the floor work
for carpet/stripping/waxing for AB2.
Exhibit 1 at 393.
Clostridium Difficile (C. diff) Outbreak in the CREC
On or about February 1, 2012, VA staff at the Martinez facility determined that an
outbreak of clostridium difficile (C. diff) had occurred among patients in the CREC.
Exhibit 55 at 5, ¶37. C. diff is transmitted through spores, which are difficult to eradicate,
and affects the colon, causing severe and persistent diarrhea and posing increased risk among
persons who are either elderly, have compromised immunity, or suffer from other illnesses.
Exhibit 42. A nurse and infection control coordinator at the Martinez facility, advised VA
housekeeping staff in a February 6, 2012, email about “a rash” of C. diff. Exhibit 7 at 1. He
further advised that alcohol in hand sanitizers and antibacterial soaps were ineffective and
“bleach must be used to kill it as it is often in spore form.”Id. The infection control
organization at the Martinez facility set the guidelines for cleaning in a hospital environment,
and VA staff were responsible for instructing the contractor’s employees as to those methods.
Transcript at 819. On May 29, 2012, the COR, sent an email that stated she was “[s]haring
with [the] Housekeeping contractor for appropriate response: -ensure EMS/housekeeping
using bleach for disinfection for residents . . . and 48 hour after, then terminal clean; two step
process (clean then disinfect).” Exhibit 9 at 1.
In a June 14, 2012, email, VLJ advised Mr. Ulibarri of the following:
This is all above and beyond and we are going through supplies at an alarming
rate. I have tried to keep down costs but now they have changed their
processes and throwing out [a lot] of things and because of the numerous
outbreaks instituted a “two-step” process which used to be one which is more
time-consuming and costly in manpower. I will be meeting with my staff
today at the site to ensure that our steps [are] documented and followed to a
tee. I will have to increase manpower and it seems because Napa is a problem

CBCA 4026 21
unit that I need supervision/quality control management just for that area and
it will require dedicated people until the situation gets under control.
Exhibit 10 at 5-6. In response, Mr. Ulibarri advised VLJ that “what we currently have [is]
the statement of work [versus] changing conditions that are causing your increased costs.”
Id. at 5.
In an email dated October 16, 2012, Mr. Ulibarri advised VLJ of the following:
Two-Step Cleaning Process, as defined by VA [Northern California Health
Care System] Infection Control Prevention . . . Staff:
1) Use hospital-grade detergent to clean. This removes soil and organic
material allowing disinfectant to have maximum effect.
2) Use a disinfectant that kills [C. diff]. Generally, only bleach will kill
[C. diff] in spore form.
3) Follow manufacturer[’s] recommendations for product, paying attention
to “wet” or “dwell” times.
Exhibit 1 at 33. Before the C. diff outbreak, VLJ used only quaternary (QUAT) disinfectant
for aseptic cleaning of patients’ rooms. Transcript at 194-95. After the outbreak, VLJ used
bleach as a disinfectant. Id. at 781. The two-step process required that VLJ’s employees
spray a surface to clean it, wait ten minutes before wiping it off, and then repeat the same
procedure to disinfect with diluted bleach. Exhibit 34 at 56-59. Those ten-minute waiting
periods were industry-standard dwell times. Id.
Contract Administration Issues
In an exchange of emails with Mr. Ulibarri on June 26, 2012, VLJ raised the issue of
whether it was cleaning buildings and other areas that were not part of the contract, and they
subsequently agreed to the removal of certain areas from the contract. Exhibit 10 at 14-15;
Transcript at 296-97. In an August 8, 2012, email to Mr. Ulibarri, VLJ summarized their
agreement as follows:
Here is a list of the areas that we will discontinue service in effective
immediately. We are willing to negotiate to do the work per an
Amendment/Modification to the Contract.

CBCA 4026 22
As agreed, the following areas are not included in this contract:
AB4
R1
R2
R3
Shasta Rooms 100-107
Tahoe Rooms 100-102D
Napa Rooms 100-106
Extra Trash Pickup
Exhibit 12 at 11. The combined cleanable area of those buildings and portions of the CREC
in which VLJ ceased work totaled 24,662 sq. ft. Exhibit 56 at 1-4. In an August 9, 2012,
email, Mr. Ulibarri stated that VLJ was “rightfully discontinuing the work we’ve been getting
for free.” Exhibit 12 at 10.
In an August 6, 2012, email to VLJ, the COR stated that “VLJ needs to provide their
own mop service as specified in [the] contract.” Exhibit 12 at 18. VLJ’s use of the VA’s
mops and laundry service had not been an issue until the COR raised it. Exhibit 1 at 375.
VLJ then ceased use of the VA’s mops and laundry.Id.
On February 15, 2013, VLJ sent an email to Mr. Ulibarri that stated the following:
I need a Modification to reflect that the hospital wants five (5) days a week
Custodial and not three (3). The contract was supposed to be a working
document and we were in the process of cleaning it up. . . . To go back and
mock up the contract and input five (5) days . . .is not fair to me. It is a clear
violation and I am willing to negotiate the work but have waited long enough.
Exhibit 17 at 29. In an April 3, 2013 email dated, Mr. Ulibarri responded to VLJ’s
February 15, 2013, email and stated the following:
It’s been nearly a year since we started trying to revise and adjust the SOW
fairly. The contract is now over two years old and it could almost be argued
a precedent has been established for leaving some things the way they are. Let
me know. I’d like to get this done and over with at some point, preferably
sooner than later.
Exhibit 19 at 9. The VA and VLJ never reached an agreement that resulted in a written
modification to the contract SOW.

CBCA 4026 23
The VA’s Time Study and Proposed Increase for Two-Step Aseptic Cleaning
On May 20, 2013, VLJ requested a contract modification regarding its use of the
two-step process for aseptic cleaning. Exhibit 21 at 10. On May 30-31, 2013, the COR
conducted a study of the time VLJ’s employees spent cleaning patients’ rooms. Exhibit 23
at 1-3. The COR attached the results of the study to an August 30, 2013, email to the
contract specialist, Ms. Felicia DeMita. 8 Id. at 1. The record of the COR’s time study
showed, in detail, the time VLJ’s employees spent performing similar cleaning tasks in three
different double-occupancy rooms, including the time employees spent applying a bleach
solution to surfaces, waiting, and then wiping it up. Id. at 3-4. The results of the time study
showed the following:
Summary/Averages for Bleach Wipe:
9.3 minutes per double occupancy room = 4.6 minutes per each bed/space
4.6 minutes x 120 beds = 552 minutes (9.2) hours per day
Id. at 3. The COR testified that the average time VLJ’s employees spent cleaning a room
was thirty minutes. Transcript at 737. The VA did not notify VLJ that the COR was going
to conduct such a time study. Id. at 620-21.
In his December 13, 2013, memorandum Mr. Mikus justified a contract modification
in the amount of $179,049.48 for VLJ’s increased costs related to the two-step aseptic
cleaning process. Exhibit 26 at 17-19. He stated the following:
The purpose of the contract modification is to compensate Valerie Lewis
Janitorial (VLJ) for a constructive change to the contract beginning February,
2012, for the two-step cleaning process. The two-step cleaning process
requires the contractor to wipe surfaces in the CREC twice as opposed to once.
The second wipe of the surface is made with diluted bleach as a method of
decontaminating the area for [C. diff], which is a particularly virulent bacteria
that spreads rapidly in the hospital environment.
8 Ms. DeMita was assigned to the contract as a contract specialist in March of
2013 and took over Mr. Ulibarri’s responsibility for the contract in April 2013.
Transcript at 563-64. Mr. Mikus was her supervisor, and she became the CO responsible for
the contract in January of 2014. Id.

CBCA 4026 24
Id. at 17. Mr. Mikus summarized the proposed increase for VLJ’s use of the two-step
process as follows:
Labor: The Government’s anticipated labor costs are based on actual
observations of the additional amount of time contractor employees spent
doing the two-step process. The previous COR . . . made three observations
of different areas to calculate the amount of extra time required of the
contractor. The COR’s observations indicated it would take 9.2 additional
labor hours per day, seven days per week.
GSA labor rates for janitorial in this area is $26.62, and is fully burdened and
with overhead and profit included.
Each day: $26.62*9.2 = $244.90
Each year: $244.90*365 days = $89,388.50
Supplies: The contractor is required to use diluted bleach to clean the surfaces.
Rags may also have been used, but for the majority of the time in question, the
contractor was using VA linens without permission thus negating the cost for
rags.
Cost of bleach: $4.75 per 96 oz with dilution of 1:10,
Bleach calculation: 96 oz of bleach equals 960 oz of dilution. [The COR]
estimated the CLC requires 64 oz of dilution per day. Thus, one bottle of
undiluted bleach will last 15 days. (960 oz / 64 oz per day = 15 days). Two
bottles of bleach are required for one month, which is $9.14 per month.
Year = $9.14 * 12 - $109.68
Round up for waste = $120.00
Overhead of 6%= $7.20
Profit of 5% - 6.04
Total for Bleach per Year = $133.24
Total $89,521.74 per year
Two years: $179,049.48

CBCA 4026 25
Id. at 18.9 By email dated December 19, 2013, Ms. DeMita informed VLJ’s legal counsel
of the VA’s proposed cost increase in the amount of $179,049.48. Exhibit 26 at 21-22.
VLJ’s Claim for the Two-Step Cleaning Process
On January 10, 2014, VLJ submitted a certified claim in the amount of $272,751.03
for the additional costs of supplies and labor for performing the two-step process for aseptic
cleaning at the VA’s direction since February of 2012. Exhibit 1 at 26-31. VLJ described
the two-step process, in pertinent part, as follows:
First, clean with disinfectant (QUAT), allowing a proper dwell time of 10
minutes. The surface is then wiped down. The surface must then be allowed
to air dry - keeping in mind that chemicals cannot be mixed.
Second, VLJ employees apply bleach solution to surface, allowing dwell time
of 10 minutes. Then the surface is wiped down. Wipe down surface. Please
consider that this is one process within a room and it only accounts for
surfaces.
If done properly, the process should take a minimum of forty-five minutes,
which may vary based on efficiency (to a degree) and whether the curtains
need to be re-hung. To date, VLJ has not been written up by the VA for failing
to meet its standards.
. . . .
It should be noted that while it is not enumerated in the SOW or the current
Contract, the VA has directed VLJ to change the curtains upon every instance
of a patient room change, discharge, or terminal clean. . . . This required the
curtains to be taken down, segregated, then re-hung, tagged and dated every
time a patient moves his room. This practice has increased the number of
labor hours expended by VLJ.
Id. at 28. VLJ stated that “it estimates that it has added the equivalent ofa minimum one
and half full-time employees in order to accomplish the additional duties required under the
Two-Step Process.”Id. at 30. According to VLJ, the time required to clean a patient’s room
9 Mr. Mikus did not testify at the hearing.

CBCA 4026 26
before the C. diff outbreak was fifteen to twenty minutes, but the two-step process required
a cleaning time of forty-five minutes. Exhibit 34 at 68; Transcript at 413.
Additionally, VLJ claimed an annual cost of $20,645.52 for materials and supplies,
which included an annual cost for bleach in the amount of $12,765.60. Exhibit 34 at 61.
Also, VLJ claimed costs for various other cleaning products such as QUAT, hand towels, and
hand soap. Id. Finally, VLJ claimed “start-up” costs for cleaning equipment, such as carts,
in the amount of $1808.97. Id. VLJ, however, did not provide any documentary evidence
of actual expenses for the purchase of cleaning supplies.
On January 27, 2014, VLJ and the VA executed bilateral modification P00019 to the
contract. Exhibit 27 at 19. The modification stated the following:
1. The purpose of this bilateral modification is to formally add the
two-step cleaning process to the Statement of Work incorporated into the
contract. The two-step cleaning process is added as an addendum and is
shown in full on the following page of this modification. The
two-step-process is considered vitallysignificant to continued operations at the
VA Northern California Health Care Clinic in Martinez.
2. The contractor has been performing the two-step process since
February 2012 at the Government’s request. The contractor submitted a
certified claim for the two-step process [on] January 10, 2014. The
consideration required for the two-step process will be determined upon
resolution of the certified claim. Upon resolution, the contract will again be
modified to provide fair and reasonable consideration for the same.
3. The contractor agrees to continue performing the two-step process for
the duration of the contract, including any and all option periods.
Id.
VLJ’s Frequency of Cleaning Claim
On March 17, 2014, VLJ filed its second certified claim in the amount of
$441,138.06. Exhibit 1 at 74. In pertinent part, VLJ’s claim stated the following:
This is a request . . . for equitable adjustment based on the additional janitorial
services VLJ has been required to perform that are not enumerated in the . . .
[contract]. This request covers the following areas of the Martinez campus:

CBCA 4026 27
AB21, R4, AB2, MRI and other areas where “custodial” services were either
added or increased in frequency. This totals approximately 136 rooms with
varying square footage and departments with the Martinez campus. VLJ has
been performing these additional services from Contract’s start date on
February 1, 2011 and will continue performing these services under VA
direction through April 30, 2014.
To summarize . . . VLJ requests compensation for the hiring of the equivalent
to 1.8 full-time equivalents: one full-time janitor, one half-time janitor, and an
additional part-time employee to perform floor work and detailing. These
employees were necessitated by the additional work directed by the VA,
equaling 3360 . . . additional labor hours per contract year. VLJ also requests
compensation for the costs of additional supplies necessary to perform this
work. This has resulted in a total increased actual cost to VLJ of
$441,138.06, which accounts for February 1, 2011 through April 30, 2014.
Id.
With regard to building AB21, VLJ represented in its April 24, 2014, letter to the CO
the following:
The custodial work VLJ performs is enumerated in the Schedules attached to
the Contract, labeled as Attachments J.1 to J.10 ( See . . . the “Schedules,”
beginning on page 53 of the Contract). These Schedules identify the rooms
VLJ is required to clean under the Contract, including the following:
approximate square feet, the area to be cleaned, the room number, the type of
room, housekeeping, and the type of cleaning. As you will note, the Schedules
do not provide for frequencies for certain areas (see, specifically, AB21 at J.7
of the schedules); for others, the Contract specified that custodial work was to
be performed three times a week but VLJ was directed by COTR to instead
perform such work five times per week, or VLJ was directed to change the
cleaning performed to “aseptic.”
Exhibit 1 at 75. VLJ also acknowledged that the cleaning frequencies for buildings R4 and
AB2 and the MRI trailer were not in the contract but, instead, were the result of an agreement
reached in a meeting with Mr. Ulibarri, the COR, and VLJ’s attorney.Id. at 76.
After VLJ submitted its frequency of cleaning claim, the CO requested additional
information, which VLJ provided in its April 24, 2014, letter. Exhibit 1 at 372-78. VLJ
represented that modification P0002 was executed with the parties agreeing that “VLJ would

CBCA 4026 28
add MRI and AB2, so long as costs associated with supply usage and the cost associated with
carpets/strip/wax were excluded and separately modified.”Id. at 375. With regard to the
research buildings, VLJ represented to the CO the following:
Pursuant to [amendment 0004], VLJ did not propose costs to service [R1],
[R2] or [R3]. VLJ proposed costs for [R4] at the three (3) day a week
frequency as there was ambiguity and ongoing discussions with the VA with
regard to whether R buildings would be serviced by VLJ. After much
discourse with regard to the R buildings and which were to be exempted, VLJ
and the agency reached an agreement that VLJ would service all R buildings
and a modification would be forthcoming. After VLJ began performance on
the R buildings, the Agency never issued the modification. Eventually at the
government’s sole decision all R buildings with the exception of [R4]; were
returned to the VA. VLJ seeks compensation for the efforts up until the time
the areas were returned to the VA.
Id. at 376. With regard to amendment 0013,VLJ represented that it “was only provided page
one (1), the cover sheet for this amendment.”Id. at 373.
The CO exercised the options for the first and second option years of the contract, but
did not exercise the option for the third year that began on February 1, 2014. Exhibit 1 at 3.
VLJ, however, performed the contract through April 30, 2014. Exhibit 29 at 6.
The COFD
On May 23, 2014, Ms. DeMita, issued the COFD that denied both of VLJ’s claims.
Exhibit 1 at 1-23. With regard to VLJ’s claim that the two-step process increased the time
required to clean patients’ rooms, the COFD stated the following:
Through contractor employee interviews the Contracting Officer observed that
it takes a total of 15 to 20 minutes to clean each room completely, first and
second step, on a daily basis. Five employees provided the janitorial services
to the patient rooms in the CREC. Of those five, the Contracting Officer asked
two VLJ employees separately how long it took to clean a patient’s room. The
first employee indicated it took between 15 to 20 minutes to clean a room, and
she added that included the two-step process. The second VLJ employee also
indicated it takes approximately 20 minutes to clean a room. A VA
housekeeping supervisor also asked another VLJ employee the same question
within hearing distance of the Contracting Officer, and the employee
responded its takes about 20 minutes to clean the room in its entirety. The

CBCA 4026 29
Contracting Officer asked the VA nursing staff, who were unaware of any
dispute between the Government and the contractor, how long it takes for a
patient’s room to be cleaned, and the nurse indicated it took approximately 20
minutes total.
Id. at 4. None of the persons referenced in that quoted portion of the COFD was ever
identified. Additionally, the COFD did not mention the results of the VA’s time study, which
was conducted by the COR on May 30-31, 2013.
With regard to VLJ’s claim for the increased costs of cleaning certain buildings five
times per week as opposed to three times per week, the COFD represented that the inclusion
of the original solicitation SOW in the contract was “an obvious, critical mistake upon
contract award and incorporated the original, incomplete SOW into the contract.” Exhibit 1
at 10. The COFD explained the following with regard to the amendments to the solicitation:
In this case, the contractor was provided a list of facilities in [amendment
0001] with the express intent that the contractor would provide service to those
areas, which includes in part [AB2], [AB4], [AB5], [R4], and the first and
second floors of [AB21]. Furthermore, [amendment 0002] discusses the
cleaning requirements for [the] MRI [trailer]. Vendors note in question 10 of
[amendment 0004] that [AB2], [AB5], and [R4] require service. The
thirteen[th] amendment, [0013], provides a revised SOW showing a frequency
schedule for [AB4] and [R1], followed by blank pages. A review of the
amendments shows that the Government answered questions with a question
and answer section rather than by revising the SOW, with the exception of
[amendment 0013], and that generally the contractors understood which areas
were to be serviced by considering all the amendments together in context to
determine what was required.
When the Government amended the Request for Proposal with [amendment
0013], its revised SOW created an obvious patent ambiguity in relation to the
requirement, because it did not mention several of the buildings provided by
the other amendments.
Id. at 14-15. The COFD also cited a cost proposal, which was prepared by ADS, and
contended that VLJ had intended to clean the disputed areas five times a week.Id. at 18-19.
However, the cost proposal referenced a different solicitation number than the one related
to the contract and a bid date of January 31, 2001, which was before VLJ was in business.
Id. at 474; Transcript at 303, 306.

CBCA 4026 30
The COFD also asserted two counterclaims. Exhibit 1 at 20-22. First, the COFD
claimed $112,682.12 for VLJ’s use of the VA mops and laundry service from February 1,
2011, through August 31, 2012. Id. at 21. Second, the COFD claimed $56,924.20 the cost
of janitorial service in buildings R1 and AB4 from September 1, 2012, through April 30,
2014. VLJ timely appealed the COFD.
Discussion
This appeal is before the Board pursuant to the Contract Act Disputes Act (CDA),
41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (2012). VLJ asserts claims for the cost of implementing the
two-step process of aseptic cleaning after the C. diff outbreak and the cost of cleaning
buildings AB21, R4, AB2, the MRI trailer, and other areas five times, instead of three times,
per week. The VA asserts two counterclaims that seek reimbursement from VLJ for the use
of mops and laundry service and the cost of cleaning R1 and AB4 after VLJ ceased work in
those buildings.
Two-Step Process of Aseptic Cleaning
The issues before the Board are whether, after the C. diff outbreak, the VA directed
VLJ to change its process of aseptic cleaning to a two-step process and whether such a
change is compensable. In general, a contractor asserting a claim for an equitable adjustment
has the burden of proving “three necessary elements–liability, causation, and resultant
injury.”Servidone Construction Corp. v. United States, 931 F.2d 860, 861 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
(citing Wunderlich Contracting Co. v. United States, 351 F.2d 956, 968 (Ct. Cl. 1965)). The
Veterans Administration Board of Contract Appeals (VABCA) recognized that “when the
Government informally orders a method of performance more stringent than that required
by the contract, a constructive change can be found to have occurred.”Caddell Construction
Co., VABCA 5608, 03-2 BCA ¶ 32,257 (citingAydin Corp. v, Widnall, 61 F.3d 1571, 1578
(Fed. Cir. 1995); Len Co. & Associates v. United States, 385 F.2d 438, 443 (Ct. Cl. 1967)).
The VABCA also recognized the following:
To establish a constructive change, two essential elements must be present: a
change and an order or direction, by word or deed. To find the change
element, one must first examine the actual performance to see whether it went
beyond the minimum standards demanded by the terms of the contract. Then
it is necessary to find that the change was one that the Government’s
representative ordered the contractor to perform. . . . In particular, the rejection
of a method or manner of performance selected or used by a contractor is a
constructive change if the method was permitted by the contract.

CBCA 4026 31
John R. Hundley, Inc., VABCA 3493, et al., 95-1 BCA ¶ 27,494 (citations omitted).
The VA’s direction that VLJ use a two-step process for aseptic cleaning amounts to
a constructive change. Although the contract required aseptic cleaning for the patients’
rooms in the CREC and other areas, it did not specify any particular method, and the
contractor was tasked with preparing a HAMS policy and procedures manual. The VA’s
personnel first identified the C. diff outbreak on February 1, 2012, and that outbreak resulted
in a significantly heightened concern about controlling infection. The VA’s infection control
personnel determined that diluted bleach was the only effective means of destroying the
C. diff spores. The COR’s February 8, 2012, email showed that VLJ was using diluted
bleach as a disinfectant by that date. The first mention in the record of a two-step process
for cleaning in response to the C. diff outbreak appeared in an email dated May 29, 2012.
Mr. Ulibarri directed VLJ to implement that two-step process with specific directions.
The VA’s time study showed how the COR measured the time that VLJ’s employees
spent to accomplish various tasks while cleaning patients’ rooms. In particular, the time
study analyzed the time that VLJ’s employees spent applying, waiting, and wiping up diluted
bleach. The COR computed an average cleaning time of thirty minutes per room and an
average “bleach wipe time” of 9.3 minutes per double occupancy room, which amounted to
an additional 9.2 labor hours per day. Mr. Mikus, determined that VLJ was entitled to
compensation for the two-step process of aseptic cleaning based upon that increase of 9.2
labor hours per day for a two-year period, plus the additional cost of bleach during that same
period. After VLJ submitted its claim, the VA issued a bilateral modification that
implemented the two-step process of aseptic cleaning, but the modification did not include
any increase in the contract price to reflect that change.
In spite of the findings of the time study and Mr. Mikus’ recommended contract
modification, the VA now takes the position that VLJ is not entitled to any compensation for
implementing the two-step process of aseptic cleaning. The COFD made reference to
statements from unidentified VA and VLJ employees regarding the time required for the two-
step process of aseptic cleaning. The factual basis for such comments is unknown, and no
affidavits or testimony from those persons is in the record. The VA has offered no evidence
to disprove its own time study or Mr. Mikus’ recommended contract modification for VLJ’s
increased costs due to implementing the two-step process for aseptic cleaning. Although the
VA has offered various theories in an attempt to show that the two-step aseptic cleaning
process did not increase the time that VLJ’s employees spent cleaning rooms, such theories
are of no avail where the VA has not refuted its own time study that contradicts those
theories. Based upon those determinations by the COR and Mr. Mikus, the Board finds that
the VA’s direction to VLJ to implement the two-step aseptic cleaning process was a
constructive change to the contract.

CBCA 4026 32
The Board’s discussion, accordingly, turns to the measure of VLJ’s recovery for its
increased costs that resulted from the VA’s direction to implement the two-step process of
aseptic cleaning after the C. diff outbreak. The Court of Claims has held that “[t]he
ascertainment of damages, or of an equitable adjustment, is not an exact science, and where
responsibility for damage is clear, it is not essential that the amount thereof be ascertainable
with absolute exactness or mathematical precision.”Electronic &Missile Facilities, Inc. v.
United States, 416 F.2d 1345, 1358 (Ct. Cl. 1969). This Board has recognized the following:
As the court stated in Dawco Construction Inc. v. United States , 18 Cl. Ct.
682, 698 (1989), aff’d in part, 930 F.2d 872 (Fed. Cir. 1991), “All that is
necessary is a reasonable showing of the extra costs. Defendant cannot be
permitted to benefit from its wrong to escape liability under the guise of a lack
of a perfect measure. See generally Dale Construction Co. v. United States,
161 Ct. Cl. 825 (1963).” InDawco, the court had decided quantum on the
basis of a jury verdict, a less-favored approach than total cost.
Moshe Safdie & Associates, Inc. v. General Services Administration, CBCA 1849, et al.,14-1
BCA ¶ 35,564. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) recognized that
a government estimate was “sufficient to support an award . . . under a ‘Jury verdict’ theory
of arriving at a fair approximation of the damages.”Freeman General, Inc., ASBCA 34611,
02-1 BCA ¶ 31,758 (1991) (quoting Freeman General, Inc. v. United States, No. 90–1025,
1990 WL 165558 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 31, 1990) (unpublished)10).
The Board finds that the VA’s estimate, which Mr. Mikus prepared, is the proper
measure of recovery for VLJ’s increased costs of implementing the two-step process of
aseptic cleaning. VLJ’s claim was not based on a time study similar to the COR’s time study,
but rather, the claim assumed that employees spent forty-five minutes cleaning each room
using the two-step process. Additionally, VLJ did not have documentary evidence to support
an increased cost of cleaning supplies in excess of $20,000. The Board, accordingly, adopts
Mr. Mikus’ estimate of recovery for VLJ’s labor hours and material costs in the amount of
$179,049.48 for the two-year period from February 2012 to February 2014, plus the
additional two months VLJ performed the contract from March 1 to April 30, 2014. As
directed in this decision, the Board remands this portion of the appeal back to the CO to
compute quantum, including interest, consistent with this decision.
10 In its unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
reversed the ASBCA’s earlier decision inFreeman General, Inc., ASBCA 34611, 89-2 BCA
¶ 21,809, reconsideration denied, 89-3 BCA ¶ 22,096, rev’d, Freeman General, Inc. v.
United States, 918 F.2d 188 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (table).

CBCA 4026 33
Frequency of Cleaning Claim
VLJ’s frequency of cleaning presents the issue of how the Board should interpret a
contract in which the SOW in the executed contract does not reflect the solicitation
amendments and the parties dispute which of those amendments, if any, should comprise the
terms of the contract. In general, the Board looks to the following:
In interpreting a contract, “[w]e begin with the plain language.”McAbee
Constr., Inc. v. United States, 97 F.3d 1431,1435 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “We give
the words of the agreement their ordinary meaning unless the parties mutually
intended and agree to an alternative meaning.”Harris v. Dep’t of Veterans
Affairs, 142 F.3d 1463,1467 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In addition, “[w]e must interpret
the contract in a manner that gives meaning to all of its provisions and makes
sense.”McAbee, 97 F.3d at 1435.
Jowett, Inc. v. United States , 234 F.3d 1365, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “[A]n interpretation
which gives a reasonable meaning to all parts of an instrument will be preferred to one which
leaves a portion of it useless, inexplicable, inoperative, void, insignificant, meaningless or
superfluous.”Hol-Gar Manufacturing Corp. v. United States , 351 F.2d 972, 979 (Ct. Cl.
1965). “[I]t is elementary that the language of a contract must be given that meaning that
would be derived from the contract by a reasonable intelligent person acquainted with the
contemporaneous circumstances.”Id. at 975.
The VA and VLJ dispute whether amendment 0013 became part of the contract. In
general, when a contractor acknowledges an amendment to a solicitation, that amendment
becomes part of the contract. See Charles Cunningham Construction Corp., GSBCA 7420,
85-2 BCA ¶ 17,965; West Coast Research Corp. , ASBCA 21087, 77-1 BCA ¶ 12,510;
Window Master Corp., GSBCA 4183, 76-1 BCA ¶ 11,735. Even if the awarded contract
omits the terms of the solicitation amendment, that amendment is still part of the contract.
See ALCAN-JHW, A Joint Venture , ASBCA 10773, 66-2 BCA ¶ 5932 (“To hold that the
contract as awarded required something different from the advertised invitation as bid would
be to find that the contracting officer had violated the statutes and regulations pertaining to
procurement by advertising.”).
VLJ acknowledged amendment 0013 but contends that it only received the cover page
to that amendment. This Board has recognized that when a contractor acknowledges an
amendment that does not have all of the indicated number of pages, the contractor is
responsible for inquiring as to the content of those missing pages. See Future Forest, LLC
v. Department of Agriculture, CBCA 5764, 19-1 BCA ¶ 37,238 (2018). Additionally, the

CBCA 4026 34
fact that a contractor lacked all of the pages of an amendment does not mean that those pages
“magically ‘dropped out’ of the [contract].”Id.
The awarded contract referenced the solicitation and the amendments, which included
amendment 0013, and the Board reads all of those parts of the contract together so as to give
a reasonable meaning to the contract as a whole. Amendment 0013, consequently, revised
the entire contract SOW, and that revised SOW would have replaced any conflicting terms
in the earlier amendments. See Enterprise Information Services, Inc. v. Department of
Homeland Security, CBCA 4671, 15-1 BCA ¶ 36,010. In spite of the fact that the VA
awarded the contract with a SOW that did not reflect those changes set forth in the
solicitation amendments, nothing in the record would suggest that either the VA or VLJ
intended to proceed as though the solicitation amendments had no meaning. VLJ referenced
amendment 0013 in its February 2, 2011, email that questioned the VA’s position that it was
required to clean buildings AB2, AB5, and the MRI trailer. The Board infers that the VA
agreed with VLJ because it executed bilateral modification P0002 to add building AB2 and
the MRI trailer to the contract.
The Board, accordingly, finds that amendment 0013 changed the frequency of
cleaning requirements under the contract. The revised SOW in amendment 0013 required
custodial cleaning five days per week in building AB21 and aseptic cleaning seven days per
week in the CREC dining rooms. In the case of building AB2 and the MRI trailer, which
were added by modification P0002, there was no schedule for frequency of cleaning, but
other contract provisions provided guidance. Section 6.1 of the SOW required that the
contractor perform specific custodial services five days per week in administration buildings
and trailers. Those tasks included removal of trash and recycling, vacuuming, dust and damp
mopping, cleaning and sanitizing restrooms, disposing of litter and debris, removal of
medical waste, and cleaning fingerprints and smudges. Building AB2 and the MRI trailer
were subject to those requirements. Additionally, that same language in section 6.1 was also
in the solicitation SOW. VLJ and other bidders would have been on notice as to those
requirements for custodial cleaning in excess of three days per week.
In the case of building R4, the awarded contract SOW did not list that building, and
there is no way for the Board to determine a frequency of cleaning requirement. However,
the VA added that building to the contract without a written contract modification. When
VLJ identified in its August 8, 2012, email those buildings that it deemed not to be part of
the contract, it did not include building R4 in that list, but rather, appeared to consider that
building part of the contract. To the extent that VLJ is attempting to claim the cost of
cleaning building R4 five times a week instead of three times, its claim fails. VLJ has not
shown that the contract required it to clean building R4 only three times a week and that the
VA directed a greater frequency of cleaning. Amendment 0013, which was the contract

CBCA 4026 35
SOW, required custodial cleaning five times a week for research and administration
buildings. At most, VLJ has only shown that it believed that it was responsible for cleaning
building R4 only three days a week, but such a belief is insufficient to support its claim.
VLJ’s frequency of cleaning claim also fails to prove the amount of a financial loss
in connection with its claim. As discussed above, a contractor’s claim for a constructive
change must prove the “liability, causation, and resultant injury.”Servidone Construction
Corp., 931 F.2d at 861. VLJ contends that the VA’s direction to provide custodial cleaning
five days a week resulted in the hiring of an additional 1.8 FTEs, but the claim lacks any
supporting evidence to show the extent that its actual costs of performing the contract
exceeded its proposed cost of performing the contract.
Additionally, VLJ’s claim does not account for changes in the number of buildings
that were part of its contract and the financial benefit of such a reduction. Its claim states
that it incurred costs for increased frequency of cleaning from February 1, 2011, to April 30,
2014. However, VLJ’s claim ignores the fact that on August 8, 2012, the VA agreed to
remove buildings AB4, R1, R2, and R3 and several rooms in the CREC, including the two
dining rooms, from the contract. The removal of those areas from the contract, at VLJ’s
request, amounted to a reduction of 24,662 sq. ft. of cleanable space from the contract. VLJ
has represented that the benchmark for its technical proposal would have been one FTE for
every 8000 sq. ft. VLJ’s claim does not account for that reduction in work, as it would have
amounted to a reduction of three FTE’s during the last half of the contract performance
period.
As part of its frequency of cleaning claim, VLJ argues that the VA did not pay for
work described as “carpet, strip, wax” under modification P0002, but the VA points out that
VLJ’s claim did not mention that modification. Appellant’s Posthearing Brief at 77-78;
Respondent’s Posthearing Brief at 43. “It is well established that the ‘proper scope of an
appeal processed under the CDA is circumscribed by the parameters of the claim, the
contracting officer’s decision thereon, and the contractor’s appeal therefrom.’”Guilltone
Properties, Inc., HUDBCA 02-C-103-C4, 2006 WL 990150 (Mar. 30, 2006) (quotingStencel
Aero Engineering Corp., ASBCA 28654, 84-1 BCA ¶ 16,591 (1983)). VLJ’s frequency of
cleaning claim did not assert a claim for the cost of “carpet, strip, wax,” and it does not
mention modification P0002. At most, VLJ’s claim makes a vague reference to “floor work”
that required an additional part-time FTE without any specific reference to building AB2 and
the MRI trailer. While there are several emails in the record in which VLJ indicated that it
expected a contract modification subsequent to modification P0002 that would pay for
“carpet, strip, wax” for building AB2 and the MRI trailer, its frequency of cleaning claim did
not assert such a claim. The Board has no authority to supplement VLJ’s claim. In any case,

CBCA 4026 36
VLJ provided no documentary evidence to support the costs incurred for such work, and the
Board does not have the means to even speculate as to the amount of such costs.
The VA’s Counterclaims
The VA asserts two counterclaims against VLJ regarding its use of mops and laundry
services and stopping work in buildings R1 and AB4, but the counterclaims ignore the fact
that VLJ did so with Mr. Ulibarri’s authorization.11 “[T]he Government can be bound by a
contracting officer’s ‘unfettered opinion [as] the person delegated as decision maker by the
parties to the contract,’. . .even when that opinion is expressed in internal correspondence.”
Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States, 922 F.2d 810, 814 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quotingGeneral
Electric Co. v. United States , 412 F.2d 1215, 1221, reh’g denied, 416 F.2d 1320 (Ct. Cl.
1969)). The Government is bound by such an agreement and it cannot be revoked “based on
unsupported and unverified allegations of impropriety not revealed to the contractor.”Id.
at 816. The VABCA has recognized that in the absence of a formal written modification, the
contract will be deemed to have been modified where “there are present . . . sufficient
writings either setting forth the terms of the agreement or reflecting the parties’ intention to
be bound.”Adams Construction Co., VABCA 4669, 97-1 BCA ¶ 28,801.
The Board finds no merit in the VA’s counterclaim in the amount of $112,682.12 for
the use of the VA’s mops and laundry service. The VA’s technical staff member, with
Mr. Ulibarri’s knowledge, directed VLJ to commence work and authorized the use of the
VA’s mops and laundry service. The VA had held up commencement of work under the
contract and had not made storage space available to VLJ. VLJ’s use of the VA’s mops and
laundry service was for the benefit of both parties. The record does not explain why VLJ
used the VA’s resources for almost a year-and-a-half into the contract performance period,
but VLJ stopped when directed to do so. There is no evidence of any impropriety on VLJ’s
part. Although the contract stated, generally, that the VLJ was to use its own resources, the
Board does not construe that clause as giving the CO authority to charge a fee after-the-fact
for such use. In any case, the VA made no effort to prove its asserted costs and the COFD
is the only document in the record that relates to that counterclaim.
The VA’s counterclaim in the amount of $56,924.20 for the cost of cleaning buildings
R1 and AB4 is also without merit. In response to VLJ’s request, Mr. Ulibarri allowed VLJ
11 VLJ argued that the VA did not assert its counterclaims in its answer. The
Board does not find it necessary to address that argument because the COFD asserted the
counterclaims and VLJ appealed the COFD. The counterclaims are properly before the
Board under the CDA. 41 U.S.C. § 7104(a).

CBCA 4026 37
to stop work in buildings R1 and AB4 as well as other buildings. While the VA may now
disagree with the terms of Mr. Ulibarri’s agreement with VLJ, the Board will not undermine
that agreement. Also, the VA has offered no proof to support the amount of its counterclaim.
Summary
As discussed above, this appeal consists of two claims by VLJ and two counterclaims
by the VA. The Board finds entitlement with regard to VLJ’s claim for implementing the
two-step process of aseptic cleaning at the VA’s direction. Using the jury verdict method to
determine the amount of recovery, the Board adopted the VA’s estimate of the cost of such
work for the period from February 2012 to February 2014, which was $179,049.48, plus two
additional months, March and April of 2014, to be computed in accordance with the daily
rate set forth in Mr. Mikus’ December 13, 2013, memorandum. VLJ is also entitled to
interest on that amount as calculated under the CDA. The Board, accordingly, remands this
appeal to the contracting officer to compute quantum consistent with this decision. The
Board denies VLJ’s claim for increased costs for frequency of cleaning. Finally, the Board
denies both of the VA’s counterclaims regarding VLJ’s use of mops and laundry facilities
and the cost of cleaning buildings AB4 and R1.

CBCA 4026 38
Decision
The appeal is GRANTED IN PART . The appeal is remanded to the contracting
officer for the computing of quantum as directed in this decision.
H. Chuck Kullberg
H. CHUCK KULLBERG
Board Judge
We concur:
Jerome M. Drummond Kathleen J. O’Rourke
JEROME M. DRUMMOND KATHLEEN J. O’ROURKE
Board Judge Board Judge