DENIED:  January 25, 2024
CBCA 7399
EDGEWATER CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent.
David A. Hearne of David A. Hearne, P.C., Yorktown, VA, counsel for Appellant.
Laetitia C. Coleman, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs,
Arlington, TX; and Neil S. Deol, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs,
Decatur, GA, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges KULLBERG, ZISCHKAU, and KANG.
KANG, Board Judge.
Appellant, Edgewater Construction Services, LLC (Edgewater), appeals a final
decision by a contracting officer of respondent, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA),
concerning appellant’s contract to build two additions to the VA Medical Center in
Martinsburg, West Virginia.  Appellant seeks costs for what it contends was respondent’s
change to the contract requirement to install a pneumatic tube system.  Respondent has filed
a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the contract terms were not changed and that
appellant is not entitled to costs; appellant opposes the motion.  We grant respondent’s
motion and thereby deny the appeal.


CBCA 7399 2
Background
VA awarded contract no. 36C24518C0215 to Edgewater on September 26, 2018, to
build two additions to the VA Medical Center.  Appeal File, Exhibit 17.1  The additions are
the domiciliary (DOM) clinic addition, designated as building 502F, and the community
living center (CLC) addition, designated as building 501D.  Exhibit 1 at VA000015.  The
contract incorporated various documents, including two volumes of specifications and seven
sets of drawings.  Exhibit 17 at VA002010.
Relevant to this appeal, volume 1 of the contract specifications required installation
of a pneumatic tube system for the DOM and CLC additions.  Exhibit 1 at VA000221-22. 
A pneumatic tube system “consist[s] of a tube network with carriers that travel by air
pressure and vacuum between [physical] stations.”  Joint Stipulation to Definitions.  A
carrier2 is a cylindrical container into which a user can place objects to be sent through the
pneumatic tube system.  See Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Respondent’s
Motion), Declaration of John E. Fenton, Contracting Officer’s Representative (Sept. 14,
2023) ¶¶ 8-9; Exhibit 63, Deposition of Richard Marano, Edgewater Vice-President (June 6,
2023) at VA005349.  A physical station is “[t]he place where a person manually sends and/or
receive[s] a carrier.”  Joint Stipulation to Definitions; see also Respondent’s Motion at 4 n.1. 
“A pneumatic system might have two [physical] stations, or it may have diverging paths that
lead to several [physical] stations.”  Joint Stipulation to Definitions.  A transfer station, or
transfer unit, is “enclosed equipment that is comprised of a network of tubes entering and
leaving internally that is controlled via switches/programming to allow an automatic
exchange of carriers between the network of tubes, to transfer carriers between the [physical]
stations.”  Id.  A transfer station is “generally located above the ceiling or in
utility/mechanical closets.”  Id.
The existing VA Medical Center has a pneumatic tube system manufactured by
Swisslog.  Respondent’s Motion at 2.  The contract specifications for the system to be
installed in the CLC and DOM additions were primarily in the architectural drawings,
including the following note regarding the first-floor drawings for the additions:
REUSE EXISTING PNUEMATIC [sic] TUBE TRANSFER STATION
LOCATION TO EXTEND SERVICE TO [CLC], ROOM 501D-120, AND
[DOM], ROOM 502F-106.  CONTRACTOR TO FACILITATE WORK OF
VA APPROVED VENDOR.
BASIS OF DESIGN FOR PRICING IS SWISSLOG.
1 All exhibits are found in the appeal file, unless otherwise noted.
2 Throughout the record, this object is also called a tube, cartridge, or cylinder. 

CBCA 7399 3
[Swisslog Point of Contact] @SWISSLOG.COM.
PHONE: . . . .
Exhibit 5 at VA001751-52.  The architectural drawings and contract specifications for the
system to be installed refer to existing transfer station #061, which (along with physical
station #601) is located in room C-114 (pharmacy) of the existing VA Medical Center.  Id.;
see also Fenton Declaration ¶¶ 17-18.
On March 17, 2020, Edgewater submitted a proposal for VA’s approval to install a
pneumatic tube system manufactured by Aerocom to meet the contract requirements. 
Exhibit 34 at VA002312.  On October 16, 2020, VA rejected Edgewater’s proposal.  Id.
at VA002310.  On October 28, 2020, VA directed Edgewater to install a system
manufactured by Swisslog.  Exhibit 35 at VA002322.
On November 15, 2021, Edgewater submitted a request for equitable adjustment
(REA) to the contracting officer seeking $75,467.50 for the additional cost to install a
Swisslog system instead of its proposed Aerocom system.  Exhibit 45 at VA003182.  On
January 26, 2022, the contracting officer denied the request.  Exhibit 50.  On February 28,
2022, Edgewater submitted a claim and request for a contracting officer’s final decision,
seeking to recover its additional cost for installing the Swisslog system.  Exhibit 54;
Complaint ¶ 5.  The contracting officer denied the claim on March 28, 2022, stating that the
proposed Aerocom system did not meet the contract requirements because it could not
connect to the existing Swisslog system.  Exhibit 55.
Edgewater timely filed an appeal of the contracting officer’s final decision with this
Board.  On September 15, 2023, respondent filed a request for summary judgment.
Discussion
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material 
fact and the moving party demonstrates it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 
Carmazzi Global Solutions, Inc. v. Social Security Administration, CBCA 6264, et al., 19-1
BCA ¶ 37,439, at 181,950.  Genuine issues of material fact exist where a rational finder of
fact could resolve an issue in favor of either party and the resolution of that issue would
impact the outcome of the case under governing law.  Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).  We must view all inferences in a light most favorable to the non-
moving party.  Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 599
(1986).  Interpretation of contract language is primarily a matter of law, and disagreements
concerning the legal interpretation of contract documents do not create factual disputes that
preclude summary judgment.  South Texas Health System v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
CBCA 6808, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,420, at 186,707; Partnership for Response & Recovery, LLP

CBCA 7399 4
v. Department of Homeland Security, CBCA 3566, et al., 14-1 BCA ¶ 35,805, at 175,114;
see M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Brownlee, 363 F.3d 1203, 1205-06 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
To resolve an issue of contract interpretation, we look first to the plain language of
the contract.  Foley Co. v. United States, 11 F.3d 1032, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  When
interpreting a contract, the document must be considered as a whole and interpreted so as to
harmonize and give reasonable meaning to all of its parts.  McAbee Construction, Inc. v.
United States, 97 F.3d 1431, 1434-35 (Fed. Cir. 1996).  An interpretation that gives meaning
to all parts of the contract is to be preferred over one that leaves a portion of the contract
useless, inexplicable, void, or superfluous.  Gould, Inc. v. United States, 935 F.2d 1271, 1274
(Fed. Cir. 1991).
Appellant primarily argues that the contract did not require a brand-name Swisslog
pneumatic tube system and that respondent improperly rejected its proposal to use an
Aerocom brand system.  For these reasons, appellant contends that it is entitled to recover
the difference between the lower-cost Aerocom system and the higher-cost Swisslog system
it was directed by VA to install.  Respondent argues that the contract required the new
system for the DOM and CLC additions to connect to the Swisslog system in the existing
parts of the VA Medical Center and that the Aerocom system could not connect to the
existing Swisslog system.  Respondent contends that it appropriately rejected appellant’s
proposed system and that appellant is not entitled to any additional costs because the
installation of the Swisslog system merely complied with the contract requirements.
Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and appellant’s opposition address three
primary issues:  (1) whether the contract required the new pneumatic tube system to
physically connect to the existing Swisslog system; (2) whether the agency’s direction to use
the Swisslog system was improper because it created a de facto sole source requirement that
did not comply with the requirements of applicable procurement laws and regulations; and
(3) whether respondent’s direction to appellant to use a Swisslog system was a constructive
change to the contract that entitled appellant to additional costs.3  We resolve the first
question in the affirmative and the second and third questions in the negative.  The resolution
of these questions establishes that there is no genuine issue as to a material fact and that
respondent is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
3 The parties each raise other collateral arguments.  Although we do not address
every argument, we have reviewed them all and find that none provides a basis for a different
conclusion in this decision.

CBCA 7399 5
1. The Contract Required the New Pneumatic Tube System to Connect to the Existing
Swisslog System
The parties contest whether the contract required the pneumatic tube systems installed
in the DOM and CLC additions needed to connect to the existing Swisslog system.  The key
language in the architectural drawings incorporated into the contract stated that the contractor
was required to “REUSE EXISTING [PNEUMATIC] TUBE TRANSFER STATION
LOCATION TO EXTEND SERVICE” to the CLC and DOM additions.  Exhibit 5
at VA001751-52.
The parties agree that, although the specifications stated “BASIS OF DESIGN FOR
PRICING IS SWISSLOG,” the contract did not require the use of a name-brand Swisslog
system.  Complaint ¶ 3; Answer ¶ 3.  Neither Edgewater’s bid, nor the resultant contract,
identified the brand of pneumatic tube that must be provided during performance.  See
Exhibits 16, 17.  The parties further agree that Swisslog is the only pneumatic tube system
that could integrate, or physically connect, with the existing Swisslog system.  Exhibit 55;
Appellant’s Opposition to Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Appellant’s
Opposition), Declaration of James Collins, Edgewater President ¶ 18.
The parties stipulate that pneumatic tube service is “a tube network with carriers that
travel by air pressure and vacuum between [physical] stations.”  Joint Stipulation to
Definitions.  The word “extend,” as defined in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary,
means to “cause to reach (as in distance or scope),” “to cause to be longer,” or “ADVANCE,
FURTHER.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extend (last visited Jan. 25,
2024).  Similarly, Black’s Law Dictionary provides the following definition of the word
“extend”:  “Term lends itself to great variety of meanings, which must in each case be
gathered by context.  It may mean to expand, enlarge, prolong, lengthen, widen, carry or
draw out further than the original limit; e.g., to extend the time for filing an answer, to extend
a lease, term of office, charter, railroad track, etc.  To stretch out or to draw out.”  Black’s
Law Dictionary 583 (6th ed. 1990) (citation omitted).
Respondent argues that the term “extend service” refers to extending the pneumatic
tube service provided by the existing Swisslog system from the existing VA Medical Center
to the new additions.  See Respondent’s Motion at 2, 8.  Under this interpretation, a carrier
placed into a physical station in the existing VA Medical Center must be able to travel
through the pneumatic tubes to a physical station in the new additions.  Respondent contends
that to achieve this result, the new system installed by the contractor must connect to the
existing Swisslog pneumatic tube system.  We agree.
Appellant’s claim and its opposition to respondent’s motion for summary judgment
primarily rely on the fact that the contract does not expressly state that the new system must

CBCA 7399 6
physically connect to the existing Swisslog system.  Testimony by Edgewater’s president
shows that appellant understood that the contract requires transmission of carriers from the
existing VA Medical Center to the CLC and DOM additions:  “[W]e were told to reuse the
existing pneumatic tube transfer system at the location which is shown up at the top of the
drawing to extend the service from our new extension into this room [C-114] and then it is
to extend into the rest of the hospital.”  Exhibit 64, Deposition of James Collins (June 6,
2023) at VA005381-82 (emphasis added); see also id. at VA005397-98, VA005400,
VA005402, VA005404-05.  Edgewater’s vice president provided similar testimony during
a deposition.  See Exhibit 63, Marano Deposition at VA00538-19, VA005347-49.  These
statements show that appellant shared respondent’s understanding that the contract
specifications require pneumatic tube service that permits the transmission of a carrier
through the pneumatic tube system from one physical station to another.
Appellant explains that its proposal to install an Aerocom system assumed that
pneumatic tube service would be “extended” by placing a new Aerocom physical station in
room C-114, where the existing transfer station is located.  Appellant’s Opposition at II.
Facts ¶ 19; Collins Declaration ¶ 23.  Because the Swisslog and Aerocom systems cannot
physically connect, however, appellant’s approach requires an additional manual process to
allow a carrier to travel from a physical station in the existing VA Medical Center to a
physical station in the CLC or DOM addition.  
Under appellant’s approach, a user sending a carrier from the existing VA Medical
center to the CLC or DOM addition would initiate the process by using a physical station
from the Swisslog system to send the carrier to room C-114.  A person would need to be
present in room C-114, remove the carrier from the Swisslog physical station, take the carrier
to the newly-installed Aerocom physical station, place the carrier into the new Aerocom
physical station, and then direct the carrier to the final destination at a new Aerocom physical
station in the new additions.4  Collins Declaration ¶ 23.  As the president of Edgewater
testified in a deposition:
Since it wasn’t, you know, detail defined in the documents, then we – the best
idea we had was to, okay, put a [physical] station there and then somebody
nearby or someone would have to take the cylinder out of our existing – let’s
say receiving station, and put it into the [new physical] station in the same
location to extend further in the hospital.
4 The process would be reversed for sending a carrier from a physical station in
one of the new additions to a physical station in the existing building.  All references herein
to appellant’s described manual transfer process therefore refer to sending carriers in either
direction.

CBCA 7399 7
Exhibit 64, Collins Deposition at VA005404-05 (emphasis added).
On this record, we find that both parties interpreted the contract specifications to
require pneumatic tube service be extended in a manner that allows transfer of carriers
through the pneumatic tubes between physical stations in the existing VA Medical Center
and either the CLC or DOM additions.  Given this shared understanding, we find appellant’s
interpretation of the specification unreasonable because it does not provide for a physical
connection between the existing and new systems and requires manual transfer of the carriers
between the systems in room C-114.
Appellant’s interpretation conflicts with or fails to give meaning to all parts of the
specifications in the architectural drawings.  Appellant’s interpretation assumes that a person
will be present in room C-114 to manually transfer the cylinder from the old to the new
system each time a cylinder is sent from the existing VA Medical Center to the new
additions.5  Appellant’s assumption regarding manual transfer effectively ignores the term
“extend” in the specification because it would create two unconnected pneumatic tube
systems that do not provide pneumatic tube service from the existing VA Medical Center to
the two new additions.  This is inconsistent with the parties’ stipulated definitions and
statements.6
5 Respondent states that “VA does not have employees, at any location,
recovering tubes from one destination and immediately putting the tubes into another
[physical] station for another destination.  This would defeat the purpose of the tubes.” 
Fenton Declaration ¶ 11.  Additionally, respondent explains that a carrier “may contain
information protected in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act (HIPAA); it is important that the information is transferred directly from sender to
recipient without an intermediary.”  Id. ¶ 14.
6 The parties also dispute whether the architectural drawings – separate from the
specifications set forth in the notes to the drawings, discussed above – show a connection
between the existing Swisslog system and the system to be installed.  Respondent says the
architectural drawings “depicted the new [physical] station connecting to the existing transfer
station” and points to the drawings that generally show lines representing pneumatic tubes
running through boxes representing transfer station #061.  Respondent’s Statement of
Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 5; see Exhibit 5 at VA001751-52.  Appellant argues that the
architectural drawings do not show the location of the pneumatic tube routing, and lack
details needed to show a connection or lack thereof between the existing and new systems. 
See Appellant’s Opposition at II. Facts ¶ 6; Appellant’s Statement of Genuine Issues ¶ 5.b;
Collins Declaration ¶¶ 10, 14-15; Exhibit 64, Collins Deposition at  at VA005409-10.  We
find that the architectural drawings do not clearly support either party’s interpretation of the
contract requirements and thus do not affect our conclusion that the specifications require a

CBCA 7399 8
In sum, the contract requires the pneumatic tube system for the DOM and CLC
addition to connect to the existing Swisslog system.  Appellant’s proposed system did not
meet the contract requirements.7
2. VA’s Direction to Use a Swisslog Brand-Name System Does Not Create a De Facto
Sole Source Requirement that Affects This Claim
Appellant contends that respondent’s direction to use a Swisslog brand-name
pneumatic tube system created an improper de facto sole source requirement that the agency
failed to properly justify when issuing the solicitation.  Appellant’s Opposition
at I. Background, II. Facts ¶ 18.  In effect, appellant argues that respondent’s interpretation
– even if reasonable – should be rejected because it establishes Swisslog as the only
acceptable option for the new system.
Appellant does not explain why, even if we were to find the specifications reflect a
sole source requirement that violates procurement statutes and regulations, such a finding
would provide a basis to disregard the plain language of those specifications.  To the extent
appellant believes that the specifications for the system creates an improper de facto sole
source requirement for a Swisslog system, this is a matter that pertains to the terms of the
solicitation that could have been addressed in a bid protest.  As this Board has explained,
“[a]ppeals and protests are distinct,” and where a contract’s terms are clear, the fact that a
solicitation created an improper sole source requirement does not give rise to a claim. 
CMEC/ARC Electric JV, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 2806, 14-1 BCA
¶ 35,477, at 173,950 (2013).
3. VA’s Direction to Use a Swisslog Pneumatic Tube System Does Not Give Rise to a
Claim Based on Increased Costs
In addition to the issues above, appellant somewhat indirectly argues that a claim
arose from respondent’s direction to use a Swisslog pneumatic tube system because
Edgewater was deprived of the opportunity to use a less costly system.  While an agency’s
improper rejection of a request for substitution under Federal Acquisition Regulation clause
52.236-5, Material and Workmanship (APR 1984) may constitute a constructive change that
connection between the existing and new systems.
7 Appellant also contends that parts of the existing Swisslog pneumatic tube
system equipment were non-functional at the time a pre-bid inspection was conducted. 
Appellant’s Statement of Genuine Issues ¶ 3.  Even assuming this to be true, appellant does
not point to any contract language excusing the contractor from any requirement if part of
the existing system was not functioning.

CBCA 7399 9
entitles the contractor to an equitable adjustment, see Delfour, Inc., VABCA 3803, 94-2 BCA
¶ 26,789, at 133,228-29 (citing Jack Stone Co. v. United States, 344 F.2d 370 (Ct. Cl. 1965)),
we find that respondent reasonably rejected appellant’s proposed Aerocom system.  Apart
from the rejected Aerocom system, appellant has not identified any compliant alternative it
could have used.  For these reasons, there can be no claim for costs arising from the
difference between the non-compliant Aerocom system and the compliant Swisslog system.8 
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, we grant respondent’s motion for summary judgment and
thereby DENY the appeal.
    Jonathan L. Kang         
JONATHAN L. KANG
Board Judge
We concur:
    H. Chuck Kullberg             Jonathan D. Zischkau   
H. CHUCK KULLBERG JONATHAN D. ZISCHKAU
Board Judge Board Judge
8 Respondent also contends that appellant cannot demonstrate any harm from the
agency’s direction to use a Swisslog brand-name pneumatic tube system because Edgewater
based its bid on a price quote for a Swisslog system.  Appellant acknowledges that it based
its bid price on using a Swisslog system, rather than an Aerocom system.  Collins
Declaration ¶ 11.  Because the contract did not require use of a brand-name system, and
appellant’s bid did not identify the brand of the system it intended to provide, appellant was
free to perform using any system that satisfied the contract requirements and to enjoy the
benefit of providing a lower-priced, compliant system.