GRANTED IN PART: June 17, 2008 
(CORRECTED VERSION: Issued June 20, 2008) 
CBCA 470 
ADMIRAL ELEVATOR, 
Appellant, 
v. 
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 
Respondent. 
W. Charles Bailey, Jr., of Simms Showers LLP, Baltimore, MD, counsel for 
Appellant. 
Seth Binstock and Lucinda E. Davis, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security 
Administration, Baltimore, MD, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges DANIELS  (Chairman), HYATT , and DeGRAFF . 
DANIELS , Board Judge. 
The Social Security Administration (SSA) contracted with Admiral Elevator 
(Admiral) to maintain elevators and escalators at SSA’s Woodlawn, Maryland, headquarters 
building complex and its Baltimore, Maryland, Metro West facility. The contract ran from 
June 1, 2003, through May 31, 2008.  In an earlier opinion, we determined that SSA was 
obligated to pay Admiral more than it previously had for maintenance duties under the 
contract.  Admiral Elevator v. Social Security Administration, CBCA 470, 07-2 BCA 
¶ 33,676.  In this opinion, we determine the amount SSA is obligated to pay. 

 
   
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
    
  
 
 
  
 
    
2 CBCA 470 
The contract contained a unique pricing structure.  Admiral had to have a specified 
minimum number of maintenance mechanics on duty at each location during specified hours. 
The contractor was paid for its services on a per-elevator and -escalator, per-month basis, 
with the amount dependent on the number of elevators and escalators in operation during 
each month.  Before the contract was awarded, SSA warned Admiral and other prospective 
offerors that during the life of the contract, many elevators and escalators would be removed 
from service while another contractor was renovating and modernizing them.  A prospective 
offeror questioned how costs could be recovered under the pricing structure, given that the 
number of elevators and escalators to be removed from service and the duration of that 
removal was uncertain, but the labor requirement was firm.  SSA told offerors (including 
Admiral) to use the agency’s estimates as to number and duration in making their pricing 
plans.  Admiral followed this direction.  Elevators and escalators remained out of service for 
far longer than SSA had projected, however.  As a result, Admiral was not able to recover 
its labor costs in the way it expected.  Admiral Elevator , 07-2 BCA ¶ 33,676. 
In our earlier decision in this case, we explained that in determining the amount of 
money that Admiral lost because it relied on SSA’s erroneous estimates in constructing its 
per-elevator and -escalator, per-month maintenance prices -­
our objective will be to put Admiral in just as good a position as the one in 
which it would have been -- no better and no worse -- had the elevators been 
returned to the contractor’s maintenance responsibility at the times they would 
have been, had SSA’s estimates been correct.  White v. Delta Construction 
International, Inc. , 285 F.3d 1040, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2002).  This result will treat 
Admiral fairly, given its pricing of the contract in accordance with SSA’s 
instructions.  No specific methodology for establishing the amount of recovery 
is prescribed; we will accept any workable, sensible approach which meets the 
goal we have set out.  Hi-Shear Technology Corp. v. United States , 356 F.3d 
1372, 1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (referencing Rumsfeld v. Applied Cos. , 325 
F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003), and Everett Plywood [& Door Corp. v. United 
States , 419 F.2d 425 (Ct. Cl. 1982)]). 
Admiral Elevator , 07-2 BCA at 166,731-32. 
At our hearing on this aspect of the case, Donald Wadhams, the director of the 
Division of Facilities Contracts within SSA’s Office of Acquisitions and Grants, testified 
that the difference between the amount Admiral was paid for maintenance under the contract 
and the amount it would have been paid if the agency’s estimates had been correct is 
$259,293.60.  This figure is inclusive of the entire contract period -- through May 31, 2008. 
Transcript at 153-70; see also  Respondent’s Exhibit 1 at 2.  In its brief,  SSA adopts the 

            
   
 
 
    
 
 
 
 
  
   
    
 
  
  
 
3 CBCA 470 
number put forward by Mr. Wadhams (except for twelve cents -- the brief says the difference 
was $259,293.48 ).  Respondent’s Post-Hearing Brief at 5.  Admiral accepts the figure 
$259,293.  Appellant’s Post-Hearing Brief at 4-5; Appellant’s Reply Brief at 2. 
Shawn Clasing, Admiral’s co-owner, testified that Admiral’s pricing for maintenance 
of elevators and escalators was predicated on the industry standard that ten percent of the 
price would be consumed by costs of materials and parts used for maintenance. 
Consequently, if SSA’s projections as to elevators and escalators being out of service for 
renovation had been correct, and Admiral had received additional payments for maintenance, 
the contractor would have incurred costs of ten percent of those payments for parts and 
materials.  Transcript at 65-66.  According to Mr. Clasing, Admiral would not have incurred 
any additional costs for labor or anything else, since it would not have needed any more 
personnel to perform the work.  Id.; see also id. at 95.  This testimony went unchallenged, 
so we accept it. 
On the basis of the agreed-upon figure for the difference between the amount 
Admiral was paid for maintenance and the amount it would have been paid if the agency’s 
estimates had been correct, and the unchallenged testimony as to costs Admiral would have 
incurred to achieve these revenues, we tentatively conclude that Admiral is entitled to be 
paid $233,364 -- $259,293 less ten percent. 
We reach this conclusion tentatively because SSA poses four defenses to Admiral’s 
claim, and the number must be reduced to the extent that any or all of these defenses are 
found to have merit.  We now examine the defenses. 
First, SSA asserts that because the agency paid the contractor, over the life of the 
contract, more than three million dollars for services other than maintenance, Admiral is 
already in a better financial position than the one in which it would have been if the contract 
had been performed as initially projected. Therefore, says SSA, the Board should not award 
Admiral any additional money.  Respondent’s Post-Hearing Brief at 4-6. 
We reject this argument because it misconstrues the structure of the contract.  The 
contract states that its “objective . . . is to acquire the on-site services of an elevator/escalator 
maintenance contractor.”  Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 21.  Toward that end, the contract 
included per-elevator and -escalator, per-month pricing for maintenance.  Id. at 10-19.  The 
contract also required the contractor to provide service calls and additional services.  Id. at 
25-26, 38; see also  Respondent’s Exhibit 4 at Tab 13. The contract did not include any 
funds for these calls and services, however; this work was paid for through contract 
modifications only when it was expressly authorized by SSA officials.  Appeal File, 
Exhibit 2 at 38; Respondent’s Exhibit 4.  Similarly, repairs which involved parts and 

 
 
 
  
  
  
    
   
 
 
  
    
  
       
    
  
 
  
 
4 CBCA 470 
materials which cost more than $10,000 were performed by Admiral and paid for by SSA, 
but only through contract modifications which provided for additional payments. 1 See 
Respondent’s Exhibit 4 (which includes all contract modifications through the date of our 
March 12, 2008, hearing).  Thus, all the work other than maintenance which Admiral 
performed for SSA was expressly priced and compensated as work additional to and 
different from the maintenance services that constituted the portion of the contract which 
was priced in advance.  Payments for the non-maintenance services, as Admiral suggests, 
must be considered separately from payments for the maintenance services.  SSA’s proposal 
that we diminish one of the payments because the other was fairly made at agreed-upon 
prices is manifestly unfair. 
SSA’s second defense is that any additional money the Board awards to Admiral 
should be limited because the contractor failed to mitigate its damages.  SSA asserts that 
Admiral could have reduced its loss on the maintenance portion of the contract by assigning 
its on-site maintenance personnel to work on additional services and repairs.  Respondent’s 
Post-Hearing Brief at 9. 
In response, Admiral notes that the contract specifically stated that its labor hour 
requirements for mechanics performing maintenance duties “shall remain the same during 
any and all renovation/moder[niz]ation work.” Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 22.  Diverting the 
maintenance mechanics from their contracted-for duties, Admiral contends, would be 
inconsistent with the contract. Further, the contractor asserts, if it had used maintenance 
personnel for separately-compensated repair work, it would have effectively billed SSA 
twice for the same individuals’ time, and that would have been inappropriate and unfair. 
The contractor had practical reasons, as well, for not diverting maintenance personnel to 
other duties.  Admiral’s Mr. Clasing had worked as a technician for the company that had 
held the previous contract for maintaining SSA’s elevators and escalators.  He knew that that 
1 The contract defined “repairs” as “unscheduled work required to prevent the 
breakdown or failure of an elevator/escalator, or to put an elevator/escalator back in service 
after a breakdown or failure” and provided for them in the following way:  When the cost of 
the materials and parts needed to perform an individual repair job was estimated to be $3000 
or less, Admiral was to do the work at its own cost.  When the cost of materials and parts was 
estimated to be more than $3000 but less than $10,000, Admiral was to do the work after 
receiving formal notification from SSA to do so, and the contractor was to absorb only the 
first $3000 of the cost.   The contract stated, “Repairs expected to cost $10,000.00 or more 
per repair for materials and parts only are not a part of this contract and may be performed 
by Government employees or other contractors.”  Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 27; see also 
Appellant’s Exhibit 40. 

      
 
 
     
   
 
  
  
 
   
 
  
  
 
 
  
    
   
 
5 CBCA 470 
company had often used mechanics who were supposed to be performing maintenance for 
SSA to do work elsewhere. Maintenance of the SSA elevators and escalators suffered, he 
said, while the contractor benefited by double-billing for the services of the mechanics.  Mr. 
Clasing testified that he was determined to ensure that such a situation would not occur 
while his company held the contract.  Transcript at 99-100, 134-35.  We find persuasive 
Admiral’s justification for not reassigning maintenance mechanics to other work. 
Even if we believed that Admiral could and should have had its maintenance 
mechanics perform some of the other work assigned to the contractor, we would be hard-
pressed to find that Admiral’s recovery should consequently be reduced by any particular 
amount.  Mr. Clasing testified that his maintenance mechanics stayed busy (though perhaps 
not as busy as they might have been) performing their assigned duties.  Transcript at 95.  But 
SSA presented no evidence (such as testimony of individuals who observed those mechanics 
during their work days) on the basis of which we could conclude that a specified percentage 
of their time could have been spent on other assignments without diminishing the quality of 
the maintenance.
2 
The third defense SSA advances is odd.  The agency contends that Admiral’s “alleged 
damages should be reduced by the amount of the contract price it has failed to invoice to 
date.”  Respondent’s Post-Hearing Brief at 8.  In this regard, SSA asserts, “Over the life of 
the contract, Admiral Elevator has failed to invoice the full contract price amount by a total 
of $27,067.64.” Id.  We read this statement to be an acknowledgment that SSA owes 
Admiral more than it has paid for services performed under the contract.  If this is so, we do 
not understand how the statement might affect the amount that SSA owes as to the matter 
before us.  This matter, which involves payments which would have been made, had 
2 We also reject a subsidiary argument made by SSA as to this failure-to-mitigate 
defense. The agency contends that Admiral sometimes over-staffed the maintenance portion 
of the contract and consequently incurred more labor costs than necessary.  Respondent’s 
Post-Hearing Brief at 10-11.  This argument is irrelevant to the matter before us, in which 
Admiral’s recovery is dependent on the revenues the contractor would have obtained, and 
the costs it would have incurred in performing work associated with receipt of those 
revenues, if SSA elevators and escalators had been returned to Admiral’s maintenance 
responsibilities as promptly as SSA had projected. Whatever labor costs Admiral has already 
incurred cannot be recovered through this appeal.  Those costs are neither revenues the 
contractor would have obtained if the machines had been returned to service as projected nor 
additional costs which would have been incurred to obtain those revenues.  If Admiral over­
staffed the maintenance portion of the contract, it has already suffered financially, and will 
continue to suffer financially, as a result of its decision. 

 
 
   
 
  
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
   
 
 
6 CBCA 470 
elevators and escalators been available for maintenance as projected, is entirely separate 
from invoiced amounts for maintenance which was actually performed.  In response to 
SSA’s argument, Admiral says, “There does not appear to be any evidence that Admiral 
under-invoiced SSA.”  Appellant’s Reply Brief at 12.  Thus, although SSA seems to believe 
that Admiral could invoice it for additional money, Admiral thinks that it could not do so. 
In any event, we conclude that the defense is inapplicable to the claim before us and 
therefore do not reduce, on this basis, the amount to which Admiral is entitled here. 
SSA’s fourth and final defense is that “Admiral Elevator’s alleged damages should 
be reduced by SSA’s payment for Admiral Elevator’s repair work on the Operations 
Buildings escalators in June -- December 2006.”  Respondent’s Post-Hearing Brief at 7. 
Admiral does not address this issue directly in its reply brief.  As close as the contractor 
comes to the issue is its continued contention that compensation should be forthcoming 
under the maintenance portion of the contract for all elevators and escalators which were out 
of service for periods additional to those on which contract pricing was based. 
On this defense, we agree with SSA.  The solicitation presented estimates of the times 
that elevators and escalators would be out of service, and therefore unavailable for the 
contractor’s maintenance, while another contractor was renovating and modernizing those 
machines.  Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 21-22. The solicitation amendment which effectively 
directed offerors to price their maintenance work on the assumption that those estimates 
were correct also specifically referenced “information on the renovation work.”  Appellant’s 
Motion for Summary Relief, Exhibit 4 at 001895-96 ( see Admiral Elevator , 07-2 BCA at 
166,728).  The escalators in question -- numbers 1 through 12 in the Operations Building -­
were out of service from October 2003 through January 2006, and again from June 2006 
until later in that year.  Respondent’s Post-Hearing Brief at 7; Transcript at 9-10 (citing 
Stipulation 18); Respondent’s Exhibit 3.  The second time these escalators were out of 
service, the reason was not that they were being renovated or modernized by another 
contractor, but rather, that they were being repaired by Admiral.  Respondent’s Exhibit 4 at 
Tabs 35-38.  Thus, the escalators were out of service during the later times for a reason 
different from the one on which contract pricing should have contemplated unavailability 
for maintenance.  The expectations on which Admiral relied in constructing its pricing 
proposal were not affected by this unavailability, so the contractor’s recovery should not 
include payment encompassing these periods of time. 
Escalators 1 through 4 were not maintained by Admiral (while repairs were being 
made) from June 1 to September 30, 2006. Escalators 5 through 8 were not maintained from 
June 1 to October 14.  Escalators 9 through 12 were not maintained from June 1 through 
December 31.  Respondent’s Exhibit 3. Thus, the escalators were not maintained for a total 
of 61.81 escalator-months. The contract price for maintaining these escalators during this 

 
       
 
  
    
  
   
     
 
      
  
       
      
_________________________ 
_________________________ _________________________ 
7 CBCA 470 
period (part of option period 3) was $562 per escalator per month. Appeal File, Exhibit 2 
at 18. Thus, the total revenue which Admiral would have received if it had maintained the 
escalators instead of repairing them was 61.81 times $562, or $34,737.  We deduct this 
amount from the agreed-upon figure of $259,293 which the contractor would have received 
if all elevators and escalators had been available for maintenance at all times additional to 
those on which contract pricing was based. The net revenues on which we calculate 
Admiral’s recovery are therefore $224,556. 
As explained earlier, to ensure that Admiral receives only the money it would have 
obtained if SSA’s projections as to duration of the other contractor’s renovation and 
modernization activities had been accurate, we must deduct from $224,556 the ten percent 
of that figure that Admiral would have spent on parts and materials if it had actually 
maintained the elevators and escalators for which payment is appropriate. The net amount 
which Admiral would have received, and which we now award, is $202,100. 
Decision 
The appeal is GRANTED IN PART . The Social Security Administration shall pay 
to Admiral Elevator $202,100. The Social Security Administration shall also pay to Admiral 
Elevator interest on that amount, at rates prescribed in accordance with statute, from the date 
on which the contractor’s January 26, 2006, certified claim was received by the contracting 
officer until the date of payment.  41 U.S.C. § 611 (2000). 
STEPHEN M. DANIELS 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
CATHERINE B. HYATT MARTHA H. DeGRAFF 
Board Judge Board Judge