DENIED: September 29, 2015
CBCA 4845
G2G, LLC,1
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Respondent.
Darren Rittenhouse, Sole Member of G2G, LLC, Gainesville, VA, appearing for
Appellant.
Lisa J. Obayashi and Heidi Bourgeois, Office of the General Counsel, United States
Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, Alexandria, VA, counsel for
Respondent.
Before DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).
G2G, LLC (G2G) claims that it is entitled to $14,813.97 for work it performed at the
conclusion of its contract with the Department of Commerce’s Patent and Trade Office
(PTO).  According to the contractor, this work was additional to the work it was required to
perform under the contract.
1 Documents in the record of this case refer to the appellant variously as “G2G,
LLC” and “Good to Go, LLC.”  The appellant has informed us that its legal name is G2G,
LLC.

CBCA 4845 2
G2G elected to have this case considered under the Board’s small claims procedure. 
Board Rule 52 (48 CFR 6101.52 (2014)); see 41 U.S.C. § 7106(b) (2012).  Consequently,
this decision is being rendered by a single judge.  The decision is final and conclusive; it may
not be set aside except for reason of fraud and has no value as precedent.  Id.; Mitchell
Enterprises, Inc. v. General Services Administration, 03-2 BCA ¶ 32,403, at 160,354 (citing
Palmer v. Barram, 184 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).  At the request of the parties, the case
is being decided on the basis of the written record.  Board Rule 19(a).
We deny the appeal.
Findings of Fact
The PTO awarded contract number DOC50PAPT0901028 (the 2009 contract) to G2G
on September 30, 2009.  The contract provides that in exchange for a fixed price, G2G was
to “provide the [PTO] . . . with . . . general storage and delivery of forms, publications, other
paper products, and miscellaneous items.”  The contractor was to maintain an inventory of
PTO items in its warehouse “in an organized and orderly fashion to facilitate timely
inventory retrieval and restocking,” and, upon request, to deliver items to any of various PTO
facilities.  The base period of the contract was October 1, 2009, to September 30, 2010; the
contract could be extended at the PTO’s discretion for four option periods of one year each.
The PTO exercised its discretion to extend the contract through option year 1
(October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011) and option year 2 (October 1, 2011, through
September 30, 2012).  The agency chose not to extend the contract further, however.  On
September 11, 2012, it informed G2G that it would send tractor-trailers to the contractor’s
facilities to load PTO inventory that remained in the warehouse.
G2G responded that it “cannot give representatives nor [PTO] employees access to
the inside of the warehouse during the move.”  G2G’s personnel moved all the items to a
location just outside the warehouse, and another PTO contractor picked them up there.  The
transfer was completed by September 28, 2012.  By invoice dated September 30, 2012, G2G
sent to the PTO its bill for storage and warehousing service during the month of September. 
The amount of the invoice was G2G’s standard monthly billing amount under the contract. 
The PTO paid this amount.
The parties had no further contact until August 29, 2014, when the PTO sent to G2G
various forms and certifications “[t]o facilitate formal closeout procedural requirements”
regarding the 2009 contract.  In response, on September 17, 2014, G2G sent to the PTO a
invoice under this contract for “Exit of Storage” in the amount of $20,406.  G2G noted that
both the 2009 contract and a predecessor contract which had been awarded in 2005 for the

CBCA 4845 3
same types of services contained a clause entitled “Transfer General Storage From Current
Facility.”  This clause required the contractor to “transfer an estimated 850 skids of forms,
publications, and miscellaneous items from the [PTO] current storage facility to contractor’s
facility.”  G2G maintained that although “[t]he [clause] was not revised to require the close-
out/move-out related services,” the contractor’s costs of removing PTO inventory from its
warehouse should be reimbursed by the agency.  On January 22, 2015, a PTO contracting
officer denied recovery, asserting that “the final movement of [PTO] materials from G2G’s
facility was required and within the scope of work and that G2G included the costs associated
with both on-boarding as well as ‘exit’ services as part of its firm fixed price for which it has
already been fully compensated.”
On January 24, 2015, G2G submitted to the PTO a claim in the amount of $20,616,
contending that the contractor’s billings and the agency’s payments under the 2009 contract
had been this much less than the contract amount.  On February 10, 2015, the agency
acknowledged that there was a remaining balance of $20,400 under the contract and
promised to pay that amount once the contractor had submitted an invoice.  The PTO asserts
that it did pay the amount.  This matter is not at issue in this case.
On February 2, 2015, G2G submitted a second claim for exit fees, this one calculated
in a different way and in the amount of $14,813.97.  By decision dated April 14, 2015, the
PTO contracting officer denied this claim. On July 6, 2015, G2G appealed this decision to
the Board.
Discussion
G2G maintains that the PTO’s direction to remove items from the warehouse at the
conclusion of the contract period was a constructive change to the contract, and that the PTO
must pay for the costs associated with the change.  The PTO posits two arguments in
opposition: first, the exit services performed by G2G were within the scope of the contract,
so a constructive change never occurred; and second, the claim was made too late to be
considered, since claims made pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulation’s changes
clause, 48 CFR 52.243-1, must be made “within 30 days from the date of receipt of the
written order.”
We agree with the PTO that whatever services G2G performed in removing items
from the warehouse were encompassed within the contract’s requirements.  The contract
mandated that G2G was to remove items from the warehouse at the PTO’s request and
deliver them to any of various PTO facilities.  The agency actually directed the contractor to
perform a lesser task at the conclusion of the contract: simply permit agency representatives
to enter the warehouse to remove agency-owned inventory.  G2G, for its own reasons, chose

CBCA 4845 4
to take a greater role in the removal: it would place the items outside the warehouse, where
another contractor would pick them up.  Even with this level of involvement, the contractor
performed an easier task than it would have if the agency had exercised its contractual right
to have the items delivered to agency facilities, for no transportation services were
necessitated.
As we have explained:
A constructive change occurs where a contractor performs work beyond the
contract requirements without a formal order, either by an informal order or
due to the fault of the Government.  To recover on its constructive change
claim, a contractor must prove that the government ordered it to perform
additional work and that this work was not required under the contract.
IAP World Services, Inc. v. Department of the Treasury, CBCA 2633, 12-2 BCA ¶ 35,119,
at 172,444-45 (quotations and citations omitted).   Because the exit services that G2G
provided were not beyond the scope of this fixed-price contract, to the extent (if any) that
those services entailed additional cost, the risk of that cost was assumed by the contractor. 
See id. at 172,445.
G2G also contends that the exit services involved far more work than was estimated
by the PTO in soliciting bids for contract work, and that this justifies a claim for additional
payment.  We are in no position to judge whether this contention is correct, however, because
the contractor has not provided data on which an evaluation could be made.  The agency
estimated that the inventory to be warehoused would be on “850 skids and including an
estimated 200 different line items, which are stored in an area of approximately 13,000 to
15,000 square feet.”  The contractor tells us that at the time the contract ended, the inventory
was in 62,903 boxes and involved 200 line items.  The 200 line item figures are consistent
between estimates and actual count.  We have no basis for comparing 850 skids to 62,903
boxes, in either volume or work entailed.
Having resolved the dispute on the PTO’s first defense, we have no need to consider
the second.

CBCA 4845 5
Decision
The appeal is DENIED.
_________________________
STEPHEN M. DANIELS
Board Judge