MOTION IN LIMINE GRANTED:  December 9, 2022
CBCA 7145
TEAM SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LLC,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Respondent.
James Y. Boland of Venable LLP, Tyson, VA; Christopher G. Griesedieck and
Lindsay M. Reed of Venable LLP, Washington, DC; and David W. Carickoff of Archer &
Greiner, P.C., Wilmington, DE, counsel for Appellant; and George L. Miller of Miller,
Coffee, Tate, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Trustee for Appellant.
Rafael Lara, Jr., Jeffrey D. Webb, Sarah Jaward, and Matthew Lane, Office of Chief
Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges BEARDSLEY (Chair), DRUMMOND, and SHERIDAN.
SHERIDAN, Board Judge.
ORDER
Pending before the Board is respondent Federal Emergency Management Agency’s
(FEMA’s) motion to exclude the written reports of Christopher Reed, John Larson, and
H. Roy Washburn, III.  Appellant, Teams Systems International LLC (TSI), has proposed
these three individuals as experts and submitted the respective reports as appeal file exhibits. 


CBCA 7145 2
We restyle the motion to exclude as a motion in limine.  For the reasons set forth below, the
motion is granted.
Background
TSI and FEMA elected record submission without a hearing, pursuant to Board
Rule 19, 48 CFR 6101.19 (2021).  A schedule was set, and on September 23, 2022, appellant
timely submitted a supplement to the appeal file.  Appellant titled the documents that it
submitted as “Expert Report of Christopher Reed,” “Expert Report of John Larson,” and
“Expert Report of H. Roy Washburn, III” and marked them as exhibits 28, 29, and 30,
respectively.
Mr. Reed, in his signed submission dated August 26, 2022, indicates that he is the
founder and chief information officer of Reeds’s Inc., the maker of two craft soda lines.  Mr.
Larson, in his signed submission dated August 26, 2022, indicates that he is the founder and
chief executive officer of GLOW beverages, which manufactures several water-based
products.  Both of these individuals wrote about their experience in their respective industries
and opined on how the contract at issue should be interpreted.  They addressed the
impracticability of a beverage supplier’s returning or restocking beverages that had left the
supplier’s control, e.g., left the supplier’s warehouse.  They opined that, due to regulations,
a supplier cannot typically reuse beverages that leave its control.  Mr. Washburn, a self-
proclaimed expert in government contracting, indicated in his report dated August 26, 2022,
that he has worked in government contracting since 2000 and is currently the vice president
of compliance at ATAP, Inc., a government contractor.  He also offers his opinion on how
the contract at issue should be interpreted.  We note that none of these proposed experts
addressed the specific facts presented by this case as to where the water was located upon
cancellation and, more importantly, why no restocking fees were charged to TSI by its
supplier.  The reports offer no valuable evidence to assist us in deciding the remaining issues
in this appeal.
FEMA filed a timely objection to appellant’s supplement asking the Board to exclude
exhibits 28, 29, and 30, stating that the documents are not relevant to the claim because
“[t]he Board has already addressed the interpretation of [the contract] as a matter of law, and
any proposed factual ‘evidence’ on this issue is not relevant.”
Discussion
“The Board considers appeal file exhibits part of the record for decision under Rule
9(a) unless a party objects to an exhibit within the time set by the Board and the Board
sustains the objection.”  Rule 4(g).  As FEMA has objected to the inclusion of proposed

CBCA 7145 3
exhibits 28, 29, and 30, we must rule on FEMA’s objection to appellant’s supplement to the
appeal file, which we have restyled as respondent’s motion in limine.
The purpose of a motion in limine is “to prevent a party before trial from encumbering
a record with irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative matters.”  J.R. Roberts Corp., DOT BCA
2499, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,645, at 132,558 (quoting Baskett v. United States, 2 Cl. Ct. 356, 367-68
(1983)); see Palmerin v. City of Riverdale, 794 F.2d 1409, 1413 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Pretrial
motions are useful tools to resolve issues which would otherwise ‘clutter up’ the trial.”). 
“Such a motion enables a [tribunal] to rule in advance on the admissibility of documentary
or testimonial evidence and thus expedite and render efficient a subsequent trial.”  J.R.
Roberts, 94-2 BCA at 132,558 (quoting Baskett, 2 Cl. Ct. at 368).
Approximately eight months prior to this motion, on January 27, 2022, the Board
issued a decision on the parties’ motions for summary judgment.  See Teams Systems
International, LLC v. Department of Homeland Security, CBCA 7145, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,045. 
The Board found that the contract terms related to restocking were unambiguous and
interpreted the contract accordingly.  Id. at 184,757.  However, the Board denied the motion
because there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether TSI suffered actual harm
when FEMA reduced the task order quantity.  Id.  TSI did not request reconsideration.1  
TSI, by its submission of proposed exhibits 28, 29, and 30, seeks to have the Board
reopen and reconsider the conclusions that it reached in its January 2022 decision.  At the
time that the Board made its decision, TSI had every opportunity to submit these reports but
did not.  The three proposed exhibits essentially go to how the Board should interpret the
contract, which we already did in our January 2022 decision.  These proposed exhibits,
however, would not have changed that decision because the contract is not ambiguous, and
the Board’s focus has always been on whether TSI actually incurred restocking fees.
That TSI wants at this late stage to introduce new evidence to reargue our
interpretation of the contract set forth in the January 2022 decision, this time arguing trade
practice, is neither timely nor acceptable.  The reports clearly are extrinsic evidence.  The
Board did not find the contract language at issue to be ambiguous, and so no extrinsic
evidence was needed to assist in our interpretation.  See Master’s Transportation v. General
Services Administration, CBCA 6565, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,001, at 184,552 (“We see no need to
examine extrinsic evidence, such as industry standards, when the contract’s requirements are
unambiguous.”); Sam’s Electric, GSBCA 8497, 89-3 BCA ¶ 22,166, at 111,544 (“Although
1 Shortly before the Rule 19 briefs were due, FEMA filed a second motion for
summary judgment.  The Board deferred ruling on the late-filed motion for summary
judgment, electing instead to decide the case pursuant to Rule 19.  

CBCA 7145 4
evidence of trade usage may be admitted to ascertain the parties’ intent, it cannot overcome
an unambiguous contract provision.” (citing WRB Corp. v. United States, 183 Ct. Cl. 409
(1968))).  “[A] court should accept evidence of trade practice only when a party makes a
showing that it relied reasonably on a competing interpretation of the words when it entered
into the contract.”  Metric Constructors, Inc. v. National Aeronautics & Space
Administration, 169 F.3d 747, 752 (Fed. Cir. 1999).  TSI’s interpretation of Metric
Constructors as requiring the Board to consider evidence of trade practice to create an
ambiguity where an ambiguity does not exist is incorrect.  We, therefore, exclude the reports
of Messrs. Reed, Larson, and Washburn from the appeal file and the record.
Decision
Respondent’s objection to the proposed appeal file exhibits 28, 29, and 30, which the
Board restyled as a motion in limine, is GRANTED.  Proposed exhibits 28, 29, and 30 are
excluded from the appeal file and are not part of the record.
     Patricia J. Sheridan     
PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN
Board Judge
We concur: 
    Erica S. Beardsley            Jerome M. Drummond    
ERICA S. BEARDSLEY JEROME M. DRUMMOND
Board Judge Board Judge