DENIED:  August 17, 2009 
CBCA 920 
PM SERVICES COMPANY, 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 
Respondent. 
Kevin M. Kraham and Jeffrey J. Sun of Littler Mendelson, P.C., Washington, DC, 
counsel for Appellant. 
Helen Henningsen, Office of Regional Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, 
Milwaukee, WI; and Philip Kauffman and Phillipa L. Anderson, Office of General Counsel, 
Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
GOODMAN , Board Judge. 
Appellant, PM Services Company, has appealed a contracting officer’s final decision 
denying a claim in the amount of $42,891.76 for work appellant alleges was outside the 
scope of its contract with respondent.  Appellant elected to proceed pursuant to Board Rule 
52, Small Claims Procedure (48 CFR 6101.52 (2008)). This decision is rendered pursuant 
to that rule by the presiding judge in summary fashion, is final and conclusive, and has no 
value as precedent. The parties elected to have the appeal decided on the written record.  The 
parties each submitted two record submissions and responded to one Board inquiry.  The 
presiding judge has considered the record in this appeal and denies the appeal. 

     
  
  
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
2 CBCA 920 
Factual Summary 
On October 1, 2001, appellant was issued task order 797-R2-0005 (the task order) 
under its existing contract no. V797P00-FDF1-0018.  The task order required appellant to 
perform operations, maintenance, and incidental repairs for the Medical Treatment Facility 
(MTF) on the Minot Air Force Base (MAFB) in North Dakota.  The initial performance 
period of the task order was October 1, 2001, through September 30, 2002, and established 
a firm-fixed price for the services required based upon the square footage of the MTF 
MAFB. Respondent had the option to extend the task order for four additional option 
periods.  The task order read in relevant part: 
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS.  The Contractor shall provide all 
personnel, equipment, tools, vehicles, materials, supervision, transportation 
and services necessary to effectively, economically, and satisfactorily perform 
all operations, maintenance, and incidental repairs of Government Medical 
Treatment Facilities (MTF), to include both the Patient Care Areas and Non 
Patient Care Areas located at Minot MTF ND.  Maintenance services shall 
include all corrective, preventive maintenance, and emergency maintenance 
with a total cost of $2,500 (Parts Only) or less per occurrence.  Incidental 
repairs are repairs of systems or components not exceeding $2,000.  This 
contract is designed for the maintenance, scheduled and unscheduled, 
incidental repair, and operations activities necessary to keep medical facilities 
in good working order.  Maintenance includes regularly scheduled adjustments 
and inspections, preventive maintenance tasks, and emergency response and 
service calls for incidental repairs.  All tasks shall be executed in a consistent 
manner by individuals who are qualified, careful and efficient in trade and in 
strict accordance with prevailing industry standards. 
Respondent’s Appeal File, Exhibit 1. 
The following paragraph of the “Performance Requirements” is pertinent to this 
appeal: 
n.  Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning: Services are required for the 
operations, maintenance, and incidental repairs of HVAC components and 
coordination of repairs of moving components by the HVAC Contractor. 
Work includes incidental repair and maintenance of dampers, ducts and 
hinges, diffusers, insulation, drain pans, piping, seals, weather stripping, 
electrical wiring to motor control centers and disconnects, air conditioning unit 
enclosures (including access panels), chillers, air-handlers, boilers, HVAC 

 
 
   
     
   
 
        
   
 
 
  
  
  
      
  
   
 
    
3 CBCA 920 
water treatment systems, and all other components of the heating, ventilation 
and air conditioning systems. Includes maintaining required humidity levels 
and required Air Balances in critical patient care areas. The contractor is 
required to inspect and service in accordance with the manufacturer’s 
recommendations, prevailing industry standards and local, state, national, and 
international (where applicable) codes. 
Respondent’s Appeal File, Exhibit 1. 
At issue here is work performed by appellant on variable air volume (VAV) boxes. 
As described by respondent’s chief of engineering for its Health Facilities Division, Air 
Force Medical Support Agency, a VAV box is included within the air distribution system of 
the HVAC system.  The purpose of the VAV box is to pull conditioned air from the ducts and 
redirect the air at a prescribed volume into a space or room to maintain a specific temperature 
within that space or room. VAV boxes at the MTF MAFB are pneumatically controlled by 
thermostats.  They are an integral part of the HVAC system. Affidavit of David Christiansen 
(March 20, 2009) ¶ 9. 
Respondent exercised the task order option periods through 2006.  From the 
commencement of the task order in  October 2001 until June 2006, appellant performed work 
required on the HVAC system to correct temperature and ventilation problems.  Under these 
work orders, appellant performed work on the VAV boxes, thermostats, and other parts of 
the HVAC system. Of these work orders, sixty-six specifically note that appellant performed 
maintenance on VAV boxes prior to June of 2006.  Affidavit of Marc Cypert (March 31, 
2009); Respondent’s Appeal File, Exhibit 29. 
Prior to June 2006, the engineering staff at MTF MAFB became aware as the result 
of an upgrade in the HVAC system (not performed by appellant) that VAV boxes were not 
functioning properly.  On June 30, 2006, the contracting officer directed appellant to repair 
the VAV boxes to restore the system to its proper functioning. 
Appellant performed the work as directed by the contracting officer.  On February 8, 
2007, appellant submitted a claim requesting $42,891.76, alleging that the work was outside 
the scope of the task order.  The contracting officer denied the claim and appellant appealed 
the contracting officer’s final decision to this Board. 
Discussion 
The task order required appellant to operate, service, and maintain the HVAC and all 
of its components at a fixed price.  The task order contained a non-inclusive list of the 

   
    
      
    
    
 
      
 
 
 
 
  
__________________________________ 
4 CBCA 920 
components of the HVAC system, concluding with the statement “and all other components 
of the heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems.” While the list did not specifically 
include “VAV boxes,” there is no question that the VAV box is a component of the HVAC 
system. 
Appellant asserts that according to the manufacturer’s literature the VAV box does 
not require maintenance and therefore any problems arising could not have been the result 
of lack of maintenance of the VAV boxes. Appellant also maintains that the VAV boxes are 
not listed as an “inventory item” by the Defense Medical Logistics Standard Support 
(DMLSS), the automated maintenance support system used by the Government.  These 
assertions ignore appellant’s obligations to repair any component of the HVAC system, of 
which the VAV boxes were a part.  If the problems were corrected by repair to the VAV 
boxes, then such repairs were within the scope of the task order. 
During the term of the task order, until June 2006, appellant performed at least sixty-
six work orders for repairs of VAV boxes.  Appellant distinguishes the work which it was 
ordered to perform after June 2006 as outside the scope of the contract for several reasons. 
Appellant asserts that the work performed after June 2006 was considerably more than the 
work performed in the sixty-six prior task orders.  However, this work on the VAV boxes 
was required as a component of the HVAC system, and there was no quantitative limit 
specified in the task order.  Appellant states that respondent paid separately for repairs to 
VAV boxes in 2000.  However, the work in 2000 was performed before the fixed price task 
order was issued in 2001. As such, evidence of payment procedures for similar work prior 
to the task order is not relevant to the instant appeal. 
Accordingly, the work at issue in this appeal was within the scope of the task order 
requirement to maintain and repair all components of the HVAC system and was not extra 
work as alleged by appellant. 
Decision 
The appeal is DENIED . 
ALLAN H. GOODMAN 
Board Judge