DENIED:  September 27, 2012 
CBCA 2554 
AIRCLAIMS, INC., 
Appellant, 
v.
 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
 
Respondent. 
Jonathan Macy of Airclaims, Inc., Miami, FL, counsel for Appellant. 
R. Clark Miller, Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Boise, ID, counsel 
for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges DANIELS  (Chairman), HYATT, and SHERIDAN. 
HYATT, Board Judge. 
Airclaims, Inc. appeals the contracting officer’s denial of its claim for compensation 
for travel status time incurred by its employees under a firm fixed-price contract for services 
in connection with the pre-purchase inspection of used aircraft. The parties have submitted 
the case for a decision on the written record without a hearing.
1 Because the contract did not 
require the Government to reimburse Airclaims for the costs claimed, we deny the appeal. 
1 A telephonic oral argument was also held on May 13, 2012. 

 
   
     
  
     
     
    
    
      
  
    
        
   
     
     
     
       
         
       
       
     
      
     
    
     
2 CBCA 2554 
Findings of Fact 
The Department of the Interior (DOI), National Business Center, Aviation 
Management Service (the Service) provides procurement services for the Aviation 
Management Directorate, which supervises all departmental functions related to aircraft and 
aircraft services, including acquisition, training, and safety. The Service also provides 
similar procurement services to other federal agencies through interagency agreements.  
On August 19, 2010, the Service issued a request for proposals (RFP) for contractor-
provided pre-purchase inspection services for used aircraft under consideration to be 
acquired by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). NNSA, a separately 
organized agency within the Department of Energy, is responsible for the management and 
security of the nation’s nuclear weapons, including transport of nuclear weapons and 
components and special nuclear materials in support of national security needs. 
Section B1.1 of the RFP, summarizing the scope of the contemplated contract, stated 
that “the resulting contract will be a firm fixed-price contract plus reimbursable travel 
expenses to conduct various stages of the pre-purchase inspection process for an indefinite 
quantity of Boeing 737-400 aircraft” over a period of three years. The solicitation provided 
that pre-purchase inspections could be required anywhere in the world.  Exhibit 1. 
2 
The solicitation included five contract line items (CLINs) that covered the various 
phases of the pre-purchase inspection process. The contract defined the line items associated 
with the pre-purchase inspection process to include “[a]ll personnel, preparation and 
planning, tools and equipment required to conduct the various stages of pre-purchase 
inspection(s) on used Boeing 737-400 aircraft.” Exhibit 11. (CLIN 0001, line item (1.1) was 
for the review of records and physical inspection of the aircraft and the preparation of a 
written report.  Exhibit 1.
3 
Airclaims responded to the RFP on September 19, 2010, offering to perform pre­
purchase inspection services under CLIN 1.1 for a fixed price of $11,625 per inspection and 
adding that a separate charge would be included for necessary travel expenses, such as 
lodging, per diem, and local transportation incurred in performing the services. Exhibit 4. 
2 All exhibits are included in the appeal file. 
3 The other phases included airworthiness flight evaluation, contract compliance 
evaluation and maintenance oversight, maintenance bridging, and a minimum guarantee that 
services totaling at least $10,000 would be ordered. Exhibit 1. These phases are not 
relevant to the subject dispute. 

 
     
     
     
       
     
      
     
        
      
    
     
      
        
         
    
        
    
     
        
  
    
    
     
           
              
       
3 CBCA 2554 
On October 4, 2010, the Service issued an amendment to the solicitation requesting 
offerors to specify for CLIN 1.1 the number of personnel to be used for each phase of the 
pre-purchase inspection process and to provide a daily rate inclusive of all personnel for 
each day. The amendment explained that “[t]his rate may be added to awarded contracts and 
will allow the Government to order services by the day.”  Exhibit 6. 
Airclaims responded to the amendment on October 11, 2010, quoting a daily rate of 
$3875 for services to be provided under CLIN 1.4. This amount provided for one surveyor 
and one technical records expert, “to allow the Government to order [or deduct] services by 
the day.” Airclaims did not change the rate it had originally quoted to perform the CLIN 1.1 
fixed price pre-purchase inspection services, which it identified as including “3-4 days onsite 
+ travel/report writing time.”  Exhibit 6. 
On November 2, 2010, the DOI contracting officer and other Government 
representatives convened a pre-award conference call with Airclaims at which the 
Government took notes. One of the subjects addressed in this conference concerned the 
CLIN 1.4 daily rate. The Service explained that it wanted the flexibility to terminate an 
inspection and pay a daily rate if it made an early determination not to purchase the aircraft. 
Exhibit 10. Later that day, the contracting officer emailed a draft contract to Airclaims 
which included changes based on the pre-award conference. The pricing for CLIN 1.1, 
however, continued to be $11,625 per unit as described in the Airclaims offer.  Exhibit 9. 
On November 3, 2010, the parties executed contract number D11PD30224. 
The issues in this appeal arise under CLIN 0001, which addresses the records and 
physical inspection stage of the pre-purchase inspection process. In relevant part, CLIN 
0001states: 
CLIN 0001 Unit Estimated 
Quantity Unit Price 
CLIN 1.1 Pre-Purchase 
Inspection - Records and Physical 
Inspection (Phase I) as described 
in your offer and Section B2 
Each 12 $ 11,625 
. . . .
 
CLIN 1.4 *Daily Rate Phase I 

  
   
 
              
        
    
       
     
        
         
         
        
      
     
        
   
      
         
    
4 CBCA 2554 
1 Airclaims Surveyor Day TBD $ 3875 
1 Airclaims Technical Records 
Specialist 
. . . .
 
* Orders for services may be priced on a daily bases [sic] by phase or as negotiated. 
Daily rates are paid during travel days and work days. 
Exhibit 11. The pricing for CLIN 1.1 incorporates appellant’s offer, which provided, in 
relevant part, as follows: 
Duration:  3-4 days onsite + travel/report writing time 
Resources: 1 Airclaims surveyor, with support from 
Airclaims technical records specialist 
Fixed/unit price: $ 11,625 per aircraft 
The contract also stated that Airclaims would be reimbursed for all travel expenses required 
to perform the work ordered under the contract in accordance with the Federal Travel 
Regulation (FTR).  Id. 
Within one month of contract award, respondent issued three orders for services. On 
November 30, 2010, DOI ordered one unit from CLIN 1.1 at the price of $11,625 for the 
inspection of a Boeing 737-400 in Casablanca, Morocco. The order also authorized the 
payment of up to $5000 for travel expenses authorized under the FTR and $4044 for per 
diem expenses in accordance with the appropriate FTR per diem rates. Exhibit 14. A 
second order was placed on December 1, 2010, under CLIN 1.1 at the unit price of $11,625, 
for pre-purchase inspections for Boeing 737-400 aircraft located in the Netherlands and in 
Roswell, New Mexico. The order authorized the payment of up to $10,000 for travel 
expenses in accordance with the FTR and $9456 for per diem expenses.  
The subject dispute arose when Airclaims requested additional compensation for the 
six days that its employees spent traveling to and from the inspection locations at the daily 
rate of $3875 prescribed in CLIN 1.4. By email message dated January 26, 2011, Airclaims 
submitted its final invoice for the orders DOI placed against the contract. Exhibit 24. The 
invoices totaled $98,691.29. 

     
       
        
        
      
  
      
      
     
         
   
       
       
         
   
      
   
      
       
       
     
     
    
  
      
     
    
    
       
      
  
5 CBCA 2554 
The contracting officer initially rejected several items contained in Airclaims’ 
invoice, most notably a charge in the amount of $7750 for two days of time Airclaims’ 
employees spent waiting in Morocco to inspect the aircraft at the daily rate of $3875 and a 
charge for six days of travel time at the daily rate of $3875. Exhibit 25. The contracting 
officer requested that Airclaims submit a new invoice to reflect the contracting officer’s 
objections to disputed items.  Id. 
Airclaims complied with the contracting officer’s request on February 25, 2011. 
Exhibit 29. By email message dated March 7, 2011, Airclaims explained that its offer 
“didn’t reflect the travel costs in the ‘fixed/unit price’ line item and only included the aircraft 
inspection and report writing costs.” Id. Airclaims then renewed its request that the 
contracting officer approve reimbursement for the time its employees spent traveling to and 
from the inspections. By email message dated March 23, 2011, the contracting officer 
agreed to reimburse Airclaims for the two days of “wait time” in recognition of the Service’s 
“delay in having the aircraft ready and available for [] inspection.” Exhibit 30. The 
contracting officer declined, however, to authorize additional payment to Airclaims for the 
time spent traveling to and from the inspections because the contract did not provide that 
DOI would reimburse Airclaims for the time its employees spent traveling under CLIN 1.1. 
Id. 
On April 1, 2011, Airclaims filed a claim with the contracting officer in the amount 
of $23,250 for six days of travel time under CLIN 1.1 purchase orders at the rate of $3875 
per day. On July 15, 2011, the contracting officer issued a final decision denying the claim. 
This appeal followed. 
Discussion 
The sole issue on appeal is whether CLIN 0001 of the contract requires that the 
Service pay Airclaims separately for the days that its employees spent traveling to and from 
the pre-purchase inspections ordered under CLIN 1.1. As discussed below, we conclude 
that it does not.
4 
4 The claim presented to the contracting officer was in the amount of $23,250 
for the six days of travel status time. In its complaint and brief, Airclaims seeks the amount 
of $31,029.13, the amount it claims is remaining on the invoice. Respondent believes that 
the additional monies represent the two days of time awaiting access to records for aircraft, 
for which the Government has already paid appellant, and an amount for washing an 
employee’s personal vehicle, which Airclaims agreed was not payable. In any event, since 
the claim as presented was for the total of six days of time in travel status at the daily rate, 

 
        
      
     
      
      
     
      
  
       
  
   
   
    
   
 
        
    
   
   
        
       
       
       
     
       
     
       
     
      
    
    
6 CBCA 2554 
Contract interpretation begins with an examination of the plain language of the 
contract. LAI Services, Inc. v. Gates, 573 F.3d 1306, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing M.A. 
Mortenson Co. v. Brownlee, 363 F.3d 1203, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The contract must be 
read as a whole, giving reasonable meaning to all its parts. Gould, Inc. v. United States, 935 
F.2d 1271, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 1991). If the plain language of the contract is unambiguous on 
its face, the inquiry ends, and the contract’s plain language controls. Hunt Construction 
Group., Inc. v. United States, 281 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002). But if the contractual 
language at issue is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous, 
and it is the Board’s task to determine which party’s interpretation should prevail. 
Gildersleeve Electric, Inc., v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 16404, 06-2 BCA 
¶ 33,320, at 165,210. 
Airclaims maintains that it is entitled to additional reimbursement from DOI because 
the contract states, “Airclaims will be paid for [its] services which include travel fees and 
expenses.” DOI counters that the contract, construed as a whole, does not provide for 
separate reimbursement of the travel time of appellant’s employees under an order issued 
pursuant to CLIN 1.1.  Rather, the relevant language of the contract obligates the Service 
only: (1) to pay $11,625 per unit ordered from CLIN 1.1; and (2) to reimburse Airclaims for 
travel and per diem expenses pursuant to the FTR.  A review of the contract language and 
the assertions of Airclaims simply does not support its interpretation. The contract language 
is not ambiguous and Airclaims’ alternative interpretation is not reasonable. 
CLIN 1.1 of the contract provides that orders for Airclaims’ Phase I services “as 
described in [Airclaims’] offer” are to be paid at the fixed unit price of $11,625. The very 
terms of Airclaims’ offer lead to the conclusion that Airclaims had calculated travel time 
into its proposed fixed unit price of $11,625. The Airclaims proposal, which was 
incorporated into the written contract, stated that Airclaims would require “3-4 days onsite” 
for its employees to complete the inspection process and would spend additional time for 
“travel/report writing.” Based upon this statement, Airclaims offered to perform CLIN 1.1 
services for the unit price of $11,625. The language of the proposal as incorporated into the 
contract and which includes travel and report writing time, leads to the conclusion that 
Airclaims’ expected costs of performing these services, including compensation for time 
spent by employees in travel status, were calculated into its proposed fixed unit price of 
$11,625. 
Further, the contract explicitly provided that Airclaims is to be reimbursed for all 
travel expenses in accordance with the FTR. CLIN 1.1, therefore, distinguished the costs 
totaling $23,250, that is the only claim which the Board may consider. 

     
      
   
       
    
       
    
    
   
       
  
     
      
      
     
  
   
       
 
      
    
       
      
7 CBCA 2554 
of performing the contract, which include employees’ time on travel status, from the direct 
costs of travel, such as the cost of transportation, lodging, and per diem.  
Finally, Airclaims’ reliance on CLIN 1.4 to support its claim to recover the daily 
travel rate to compensate for its employees’ time spent in travel status is not supported by 
the plain terms of the contract and the correspondence generated on this subject. No 
provision of the contract requires DOI to reimburse Airclaims separately for time its 
employees spent traveling under CLIN 1.1. Although CLIN 1.4 provides for a daily rate to 
be paid for Phase I services under CLIN 0001, that rate applies only when the Service issues 
an order for CLIN 1.4 services. The dispute at issue here arose under respondent’s order for 
CLIN 1.1 services. 
Airclaims asserts that the Service “unilaterally decided, long after the contract was 
executed and services were rendered, that they were not going to pay Airclaims for their 
work.” The record, however, shows that the Service has satisfied its contractual obligation 
to pay Airclaims for the services rendered and for its employees’ travel expenses in 
accordance with the FTR. Moreover, when the Service determined that it had caused a delay 
in the inspection process due to the failure to make the aircraft records available for 
inspection in a timely manner, it reimbursed Airclaims for the waiting time incurred by its 
employees. The Service’s actions over the course of contract performance have been 
consistent with the plain language of the contract. 
This is one of those cases where the language is plain and the contractor has not 
shown any ambiguity that supports its proposed interpretation of the contract. Under a firm 
fixed-price contract, the contractor bears the risk that the price it charges the Government 
is sufficient to cover all costs of performance. See, e.g., Dalton v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 98 
F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1996); IAP World Services, Inc. v. Department of the Treasury, 
CBCA 2633 (Aug. 13, 2012). That Airclaims inaccurately estimated or failed to include in 
its price, the time its employees would spend traveling to the aircraft to be inspected is not 
an oversight for which either the law or the contract affords relief. 

__________________________________ 
_______________________________ _________________________________ 
8 CBCA 2554 
Decision 
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is DENIED . 
CATHERINE B. HYATT 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
STEPHEN M. DANIELS PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN 
Board Judge Board Judge 

  
9 CBCA 2554