DENIED:  June 4, 2010 
CBCA 1554, 1579 
THUNDERHOOF RANCH, 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
Respondent. 
Wayne L. Kucera, Thunderhoof Ranch, Roundup, MT, appearing for Appellant. 
Gerald R. Moore, Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Billings, MT, 
counsel for Respondent.
 
Before Board Judges DANIELS  (Chairman), SOMERS , and SHERIDAN . 
SOMERS , Board Judge.
 
These appeals arise from three contracts for the removal and construction of fencing. 
Appellant, Thunderhoof Ranch, contends that the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM), should pay appellant liquidated damages for late payment of invoices 
under the contract.  These appeals are submitted for decision on the record under Board 
Rule 19 (48 CFR 6101.19 (2009)).  For the reasons set forth below, we deny the appeals.  

  
 
      
  
   
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
     
   
2 CBCA 1554, 1579 
Background 
BLM entered into a series of contracts with Thunderhoof Ranch.  The contracts 
required appellant to remove barbed wire fencing and to construct new fences around 
property near Malta, Montana. The parties entered into the first contract on September 10, 
2007.  That contract required appellant to build what is referred to as the “Flat Creek Fence” 
for $5883, later increased to $6294 by contract modification.  
On May 15, 2008, the parties entered into a second contract, which required appellant 
to remove and rebuild the “Black Creek Coulee Fence” for $53,864, later increased to 
$55,509.   On July 25, 2008, the parties entered into a contract requiring appellant to remove 
and rebuild the “North Willow Creek Boundary Fence” for $11,063, later increased to 
$11,094.  
Each of the three contracts required the contractor to deliver fencing materials to the 
designated site and to erect a barbed wire fence with those materials.  Each contract 
incorporated by reference the clause found in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) at 
section 52.232-27, entitled “Prompt Payment for Construction Contracts (SEP 2005).”  Each 
contract also incorporated by reference FAR 52.232-25, “Prompt Payment.”  The two clauses 
are similar.  The Prompt Payment clause requires payment of proper contract invoices within 
thirty days of receipt from the contractor.  The Prompt Payment for Construction Contracts 
clause also requires payment of final invoices within thirty days, but it has a provision 
requiring progress payments to be made within fourteen days.  BLM applied the Prompt 
Payment for Construction Contracts clause to these contracts.  
Appellant submitted claims for liquidated damages arising for late payments on 
invoices under the three contracts.  In CBCA 1554, appellant appealed the contracting 
officer’s February 25, 2009, final decision, denying appellant’s claim of $29,470.83 for 
liquidated damages for late payments arising under the Black Creek Coulee Fence contract. 
CBCA 1579 arises from the contracting officer’s March 4, 2009, final decision, which denied 
appellant’s claims of $8912.52 for liquidated damages for late payments under the Flat Creek 
Fence contract and of $18,815.32 for late payments under the North Willow Creek Boundary 
Fence contract.   
CBCA 1554 
Appellant received progress payments under the contract based upon invoices 
submitted to the contracting officer’s representative (COR).  The COR would forward the 
invoices to the contracting officer. Upon approving the amount to be paid, the contracting 
officer would forward the approved voucher to the National Operations Center in Denver, 

    
  
 
   
  
 
 
 
  
 
     
     
 
    
3 CBCA 1554, 1579 
Colorado, which paid the vouchers by electronic funds transfer to the account designated by 
Thunderhoof Ranch.  The parties agree that four payments under this contract were late under 
the terms of the contract. The record indicates that the Government added interest to each 
of the late payments as required by the Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3901-3907 
(2006).
1 
CBCA 1579 
The Flat Creek Fence contract called for one final payment to the contractor upon 
completion of the work.  On July 10, 2008, BLM received appellant’s invoice for final 
payment for $6294.  However, appellant had not submitted its payrolls as required by the 
contract, so payment could not be made for the full amount. Rather than reject the request 
for payment, BLM treated the request as one for a progress payment and paid appellant 
$5670, the amount owed minus a 10% retainage to be held until the required payroll 
paperwork had been submitted.  BLM paid the $5670 within the time period required by the 
contract.  Once appellant submitted the payroll information and invoice on July 18, 2008, 
BLM began processing the final payment of $624.  Payment did not occur until 
September 19, 2008, which was thirty-two days beyond the thirty days set by FAR 52.232.27. 
BLM paid a total of $672.33, the amount due plus $51.33 in interest under the Prompt 
Payment Act.  Appellant acknowledged receipt of the interest payment. 
Under the second contract in CBCA 1579, the North Willow Creek Boundary Fence 
contract, BLM paid three progress payments to appellant, and each payment was late. 
Accordingly, BLM paid interest pursuant to the Prompt Payment Act on each of those 
payments.  The first invoice, submitted on October 8, 2008, called for payment of $9893. 
BLM paid that amount plus interest of $42.78 on November 21, 2008. The second invoice 
sought final payment of $1201, which included an amount owed on the original contract and 
an additional amount of $31 owed under a modification to the contract.  BLM paid appellant 
$1170 plus $6.67 in interest calculated in accordance with the Prompt Payment Act.  BLM 
sent a separate payment of $31 to appellant for the modification. It apparently did not pay 
interest because the amount owed was less than $1.  
1 The Government mistakenly underpaid appellant $10 on the final payment due 
under the contract.  The Government ultimately corrected the error, paid appellant the $10, 
but did not pay interest, which had accrued to the de minimis amount of $.13.   

 
      
 
 
 
    
             
  
 
  
   
  
 
 
 
         
   
 
4 CBCA 1554, 1579 
Discussion 
Appellant contends that it should have been paid damages calculated under the 
Liquidated Damages clause of the contract, rather than interest calculated under the Prompt 
Payment Act.  The terms of the Liquidated Damages clause, however, do not support 
appellant’s argument.  The Liquidated Damages clause states as follows: 
52.211-12 Liquidated Damages - Construction 
(a) If the Contractor fails to complete the work within the time 
specified in the contract, the Contractor shall pay liquidated 
damages to the Government in the amount of $247.57 for each 
calendar day of delay until the work is completed or accepted. 
(b)  If the Government terminates the Contractor’s right to 
proceed, liquidated damages will continue to accrue until the 
work is completed.  These liquidated damages are in addition to 
excess costs of repurchase under the Termination clause. 
Appeal File, Exhibits 11, 14 at 8, 9.  The clause provides relief to the Government should a 
contractor fail to perform work within the time designated in the contract. Nothing in the 
clause suggests that the contractor would be entitled to liquidated damages from the 
Government under any circumstance.  
A contractor has a remedy when the Government fails to pay in a timely fashion.  The 
Prompt Payment Act provides that when a business concern provides a property or service 
to a government agency, it presents an invoice to the agency for payment.  The agency must 
make payment by the “required payment date,” which is “30 days after a proper invoice for 
the amount due is received,” unless another date is provided by contract or by statute for the 
particular kind of property or service provided.  Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. General Services 
Administration, CBCA 1306, 09-1 BCA § 34,052, at 168,407, citing 31 U.S.C. 
¶ 3903(a)(1)-(6)).  If the agency does not make payment by the required payment date, it 
must pay the contractor not only the principal amount due, but also an interest penalty. 
Interest begins to run on the date after the required payment date; it ceases to run when the 
first of the following events occurs: payment is made, a claim for interest is filed under the 
Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 610-613, or one year passes from the required payment 
date.  09-1 BCA at 168,407-08 (citing 31 U.S.C. §§ 3902(a), (b), 3907(b)).  
In this case, the Government paid interest on the late payments.  Appellant has not 
alleged nor has it provided evidence suggesting that the Government did not properly 

      
 
 
       
___________________________ 
________________________ __________________________ 
5 CBCA 1554, 1579 
calculate the interest paid under the Prompt Payment Act. It simply alleges that it should be 
paid more using the formula set forth in the Liquidated Damages clause in the contracts.  The 
Liquidated Damages clause does not address the situation at issue in these appeals, however. 
It requires payment from the contractor to the Government, and only when the contractor 
fails to complete work within a specified time.  Appellant seeks payment from the 
Government to it, and timely completion of work is not at issue. 
Because we find that appellant’s position is not supported by the contract or the law, 
we deny the appeals.  
Decision 
The appeals are DENIED . 
JERI KAYLENE SOMERS 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
STEPHEN M. DANIELS PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN 
Board Judge Board Judge