MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED; DENIED AS TO QUANTUM: May 26, 2011 
CBCA 449 
NAVIGANT SATOTRAVEL, 
Appellant, 
v. 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 
Respondent. 
James H. Roberts, III of Van Scoyoc Kelly PLLC, Washington, DC, counsel for 
Appellant. 
Michael J. Noble, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, 
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges BORWICK , HYATT , and KULLBERG . 
KULLBERG , Board Judge. 
1Appellant, Navigant SatoTravel (NST) , appealed the decision by the General Services
Administration’s (GSA’s) contracting officer (CO) that directed NST to remit industrial 
funding fee (IFF) payments in connection with an order for travel services issued by the 
Army Contracting Agency-ITEC4 (DoD) for Defense Travel Region 6 (DTR6). The 
1 NST was acquired by Carlson Wagonlit Travel and is now referred to as either 
Carlson SatoTravel or CWTSato Travel. Transcript at 35. 

 
           
                 
              
          
              
 
             
                   
            
              
              
           
                 
                 
            
            
        
               
    
          
          
                
              
        
           
            
               
          
      
              
             
      
          
2 CBCA 449 
proceedings in this appeal were bifurcated. Board’s Conference Memorandum and Order 
(Mar. 8, 2007) at 3. In the entitlement phase of this appeal, the Board conducted a hearing 
and issued a decision that denied the appeal as to entitlement; the Board subsequently denied 
NST’s motion for reconsideration. Navigant SatoTravel v. General Services Administration , 
CBCA 449, 09-1 BCA ¶ 34,098, reconsideration denied , 09-2 BCA ¶ 34,207. 
2 The Board’s 
decision as to entitlement held that NST was responsible for paying IFF to GSA for certain 
transactions under DoD’s order for travel services. Only the issue of quantum, the amount 
of IFF to be remitted, is before the Board. A hearing in the quantum phase of this appeal was 
held on November 30, 2010. Both parties submitted briefs after the hearing. 
On June 28, 2010, appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of 
jurisdiction. The Board deferred issuing a decision on appellant’s motion, and a ruling on 
appellant’s motion is included with this decision. Board’s Conference Memorandum and 
Order (July 7, 2010) at 2. For the reasons set forth below, we deny appellant’s motion to 
dismiss this appeal. We deny this appeal as to quantum and find that NST is liable for 
payment of IFF to GSA in the amount of $302,881.50, plus interest. 
Facts 
On March 24, 2004, the Federal Supply Service (FSS) of GSA issued solicitation 
number FBGT-RK-040001-B (solicitation), Travel Services Solutions. Appeal File, 
Exhibit 28. 
3 The types of services to be provided under the solicitation were classified by 
special item numbers (SINs). Id. at 6.  Those travel-related services under the statement of 
work relevant to this appeal included: travel agent services/travel management center 
services (SIN 599-2), new products/services (SIN 599-99), and contract support items 
(SIN 599-1000). Id. at 7-20. The contract performance period was for five years from the 
date of award with three option periods of five years each. Id. at 1. 
Paragraph C.19 of the solicitation, General Services Administration Regulation 
(GSAR) 552.238-74, Industrial Funding Fee and Sales Reporting (JUL 2003) (48 CFR 
552.238-74 (2003)), required the contractor to “accurately report the dollar value, in U.S. 
dollars and rounded to the nearest whole dollar, of all sales under this contract by calendar 
2 The Board previously denied NST’s motion for summary relief during the 
entitlement phase of this appeal. Navigant SatoTravel v. General Services Administration , 
CBCA 449, 08-1 BCA ¶ 33,821. NST’s second motion for summary relief during the 
quantum phase of this appeal was also denied. Navigant SatoTravel v. General Services 
Administration , CBCA 449, 10-1 BCA ¶ 34,462. 
3 All exhibits are found in the appeal file, unless otherwise noted. 

 
                  
                
               
               
          
           
        
          
        
          
         
          
          
    
                 
               
         
           
            
   
                 
   
        
             
            
            
            
                
              
               
               
         
              
                
             
3 CBCA 449 
quarter.” Exhibit 28 at 35. The contractor was required to pay IFF to GSA at a rate set for 
each type of reported sale by remitting “IFF to FSS in U.S. dollars within 30 calendar days 
after the end of the reporting quarter; final payment shall be remitted within 30 days after 
physical completion of the last outstanding task order or delivery order of the contract.” Id. 
at 36. Paragraph C.19 at subparagraph (d) further provided: 
Failure to remit the full amount of the IFF within 30 calendar 
days after the end of the applicable reporting period constitutes 
a contract debt to the United States Government under the terms 
of FAR Subpart 32.6.  The Government may exercise all rights 
under the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, including 
withholding or setting off payments and interest on the debt (see 
FAR clause 52.232-17 . Interest). Should the Contractor fail to 
submit the required sales reports, falsify them, or fail to timely 
pay the IFF, this is sufficient cause for the Government to 
terminate the contract for cause. 
Id. at 36-37. Paragraph C.20 of the solicitation stated that the IFF for travel agent and travel 
management services under SIN 599-2 was $1.50 per transaction. Id. at 37. The solicitation 
also incorporated by reference Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.232-17 
(48 CFR 52.232-19 (2003)), Interest (JUN 1996). Id. at 57. 
On May 5, 2004, GSA awarded to NST contract GS-33F-0020-P (FSS contract) under 
the solicitation. Exhibit 29.  NST agreed to provide services under SINs 599-2, 599-9, and 
599-1000. Id. at 2. NST’s IFF rate for services under SIN 599-2 was $1.50 per transaction. 
Id. 
On September 2, 2004, DoD issued request for quotations W91QUZ-04-T-0016 for 
DTR6 travel services. Exhibit 1. Subsequently, DoD issued to NST order number 
W91QUZ-05-F-0005 (order) for DTR6 travel services on October 29, 2004. Exhibit 2. 
Under that order, NST provided travel services that included automated services through the 
Defense Travel System (DTS) web portal, DTS services in which assistance was provided 
(DTS “touched”), and services by “traditional” methods. Id. at 45. Each of those types of 
travel services was priced by NST under contract line items (CLINs) and sub-CLINs for a 
base period (November 29, 2004, to March 31, 2005) and two option periods (April 1 to 
September 30, 2005, and October 1 to November 28, 2005).  Exhibit 1 at 2-46. DTS, DTS 
“touched,” and “traditional” travel services were provided under CLINs 0001-0003 for the 
base period, CLINs 0016-0018 for the first option period, and CLINs and 0031-0033 for the 
second option period. Exhibit 2 at 3-8, 18-21, 32-35. The performance period for the DTR6 
order was ultimately extended to March 31, 2006. Exhibit 7; Transcript at 21. 

 
            
              
               
               
         
              
        
             
 
                
           
            
            
               
            
                  
               
              
             
                 
           
 
              
                
      
       
 
        
           
        
        
       
         
          
        
            
4 CBCA 449 
On October 19, 2005, GSA informed NST that it would conduct a “contractor 
assistant visit” to ensure that sales were being reported and that IFF was being remitted. 
Exhibit 3. GSA subsequently determined that DoD had issued to NST its order for DTR6 
travel services under NST’s FSS contract, but NST had failed to remit IFF as required under 
the terms of its FSS contract with GSA.  Exhibits 4-7. In an electronic mail message dated 
January 23, 2006, NST advised GSA that it will “be disputing GSA’s position through the 
proper channels and will not report or remit anything pertaining to the DTR6 contract until 
SatoTravel has exhausted any and all legal remedies and a formal determination is made.” 
Exhibit 6. 
On March 21, 2006, GSA’s CO issued a decision that directed NST to pay IFF in the 
amount of $292,609.50 for SIN 599-2 transactions (DTS, DTS “touched,” and “traditional” 
travel services) under DoD’s order for DTR6 travel services during the period from 
November 29, 2004, through January 31, 2006. Exhibit 8. The CO determined the amount 
of IFF by multiplying the IFF rate, $1.50 per transaction, times the number of SIN 599-2 
transactions, 195,073, which was based upon information in a document that DoD had 
obtained from NST. Id. ; Transcript at 20-22, 47. At the time the decision was issued, the 
CO had no information as to the number of SIN 599-2 transactions after January 31, 2006. 
Transcript at 20-21. The CO’s decision also advised NST that the demand for payment 
represented “only known sales at this time [and] [a]dditional demands may be made which 
represent the IFF on sales later learned of and/or reported.” Exhibit 8 at 2. 
In response to written discovery from the Government, NST represented that the 
number of SIN 599-2 transactions (DTS, DTS “touched,” and “traditional” travel services) 
under DoD’s order for DTR6 travel services for the period from November 29, 2004, through 
January 31, 2006, was 189,446. Exhibits 200, 201. In order to respond to GSA’s discovery, 
NST stated that it did the following: 
The answers regarding transaction counts were based upon 
extract reports we ran from the data in the back office database 
called SatoStar [where] the DTR 6 contract (and other 
government contracts . . . were handled by SatoTravel). We ran 
these reports for the purpose of responding to the 
interrogatories. We do not have hard copies. 
The invoice documents were produced from the SatoStar 
database. The invoices for ancillary services would have been 
entered into SatoStar at the time of creation by our accounts 
receivable department that existed at the time for SatoTravel, 
but the department no longer exists as it did at the time the 

 
        
       
          
          
          
 
         
      
                
             
               
   
                
                
          
              
        
        
 
         
        
         
             
            
        
        
               
               
              
                 
       
              
             
5 CBCA 449 
invoices were created. [A CWTSato Travel employee] then 
researched the SatoStar database to determine if payments 
against the invoices were posted. He then produced a screen 
shot of the applicable payment as shown in SatoStar. Any 
checks issued by the Government or bank statements to prove a 
wire transfer into the applicable bank accounts to reflect actual 
payments made by the Department of Defense would be in 
storage files stored at Iron Mountain. 
Exhibit 200 at 11. GSA does not dispute that the number of SIN 599-2 transactions from 
November 29, 2004, through January 31, 2006, was 189,446 instead of 195,073, which was 
set forth in the CO’s March 21, 2006, decision. Exhibits 8, 204; Transcript at 32. 
Additionally, NST represented, in response to GSA’s written discovery, that the number of 
SIN 599-2 transactions for the period from February 1, 2006, to the end of the order was 
12,475. Exhibit 205. Mr. Marc Stec, an NST vice president, testified that the number of 
transactions represented in NST’s responses to GSA’s written discovery was accurate. 
Transcript at 36-41. DoD, as a customer, was not required to document such transactions 
under the DTR6 order. Id. at 32. 
Discussion 
The Board’s decision on entitlement stated the following: 
The only work under the order for DTR6 travel services 
for which GSA seeks IFF are DTS, DTS “touched,” and 
“traditional” travel agent services, which are under CLINs 0001, 
0002, and 0003 for the base period and the corresponding 
CLINs for the option periods. . . . NST is responsible for paying 
IFF at the rate set forth under SIN [599]-2 of its FSS contract, 
$1.50 per transaction, for those transactions under DTR6 that 
include DTS, DTS “touched,” and “traditional” travel services. 
Navigant SatoTravel , 09-1 BCA at 168,605. GSA contends that it is entitled to recover IFF 
at a rate of $1.50 per transaction for 189,446 SIN 599-2 transactions for the period from 
November 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006, and for 12,475 SIN 599-2 transactions for the 
period from February 1, 2006, to the end of the DTR-6 order. GSA is also claiming interest 
on the amount of IFF due. 
Before the hearing of this appeal, NST moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on 
the grounds that GSA’s claim was not certified and lacked complete and supporting data. 

 
                
             
               
       
                 
             
     
                
             
             
              
    
     
         
 
      
         
     
      
       
    
          
 
               
              
                
              
                 
               
   
             
              
6 CBCA 449 
In its posthearing brief, NST argues that the Board lacks jurisdiction in this appeal in that the 
CO’s decision, dated March 21, 2006, was issued before the performance period for the 
DTR6 order ended, which was March 31, 2006, and the CO’s decision was also issued before 
the due-date of May 1, 2006, for reporting IFF for the last quarter of the order, January 1 to 
March 31, 2006. Even if the Board finds that it has jurisdiction in this appeal, NST argues 
that GSA should recover no IFF because GSA has produced no documentation from DoD 
in support of its claim. 
In its motion to dismiss, NST argued that GSA did not certify its claim, and the Board 
should dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction by finding that the requirement for 
certification applies to the Government as well as contractors. The Contract Disputes Act 
(CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (as codified by Pub. L. No. 111-350, 124 Stat. 3677, 
3816-26 (2011)), states the following: 
(1) REQUIREMENT GENERALLY.– For claims of more 
than $100,000 made by a contractor, the contractor shall certify 
that– 
(A) the claim is made in good faith; 
(B) the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best 
of the contractor’s knowledge and belief; 
(C) the amount requested accurately reflects the contract 
adjustment for which the contractor believes the Federal 
Government is liable; and 
(D) the certifier is authorized to certify the claim on behalf of 
the contractor. 
Id. § 7103(b). The CDA requirement for the certification of claims applies only to claims 
brought by contractors, and the Government is not required under the CDA to certify its 
claims against a contractor. See Tecom, Inc. v. United States , 732 F.2d 935, 937 (Fed. Cir. 
1984); Mutual Maintenance Co. , GSBCA 7496, 85-2 BCA ¶ 18,098, at 90,857. NST errs 
in arguing that the Board should require GSA to certify its claim in this appeal in order for 
this Board to have jurisdiction, and its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction for this 
reason is denied. 
NST argues in its posthearing brief that the Board lacks jurisdiction in this appeal 
because the CO’s March 21, 2006, decision was premature and speculative in that it was 

 
                
                
                   
              
            
              
       
             
                 
                 
               
                
              
                
        
              
              
               
               
              
                
          
                
              
                 
             
              
           
             
             
              
       
               
                  
              
               
            
                
7 CBCA 449 
issued before the end of the DTR6 order, March 31, 2006, and before the due date of 
May 1, 2006, for reporting IFF transactions for the last quarter of the DTR6 order, January 1 
to March 31, 2006. Appellant’s Brief at 2, 9. Whether a CO’s decision as it relates to a claim 
against a contractor is premature requires an inquiry into “whether the underlying facts in the 
case have been sufficiently developed; and whether a dispute existed between the parties 
before the final decision of the contracting officer was rendered and whether such a dispute 
is necessary under the CDA for a valid claim to exist.” Job Line Construction, Inc ., EBCA 
C-9408177, 95-1 BCA ¶ 27,429, at 136,692 (1994). NST’s electronic mail message dated 
January 23, 2006, advised GSA that it would not report or pay IFF until it had exhausted its 
legal remedies, so payment of IFF was a matter in dispute at the time the CO issued her 
March 21, 2006, decision. The CO’s decision sought IFF for SIN 599-2 transactions on the 
basis of information that had been provided by NST to DoD. The facts necessary to support 
the CO’s decision were sufficiently developed at the time the CO’s decision was issued such 
that the Board has jurisdiction in this case, and the Board finds no merit in NST’s argument 
that the CO’s decision was premature or speculative. 
GSA seeks to recover IFF for SIN 599-2 transactions under the DTR6 order for the 
periods from November 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006, and from February 1, 2006, to 
the end of the DTR-6 order, March 31, 2006, even though the CO’s decision only claimed 
IFF for transactions through January 31, 2006. The CDA states that “[e]ach claim by the 
Federal Government against a contractor relating to a contract shall be the subject of a 
written decision by the contracting officer.” 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(3). In the case of a 
government claim, generally, this Board’s jurisdiction requires a claim by the Government, 
a CO’s decision, and an appeal of that decision. M.G.C. Co. , DOT CAB 1553, 85-1 BCA 
¶ 17,777, at 88,781 (1984). This Board, however, has recognized that “[w]hether a matter 
placed before a board of contract appeals is a new claim or part of the claim which was 
presented to the contracting officer turns on whether the matter raised before the Board 
differs from the essential nature or basic operative facts of the original claim.” Walsh/Davis 
Joint Venture v. General Services Administration , CBCA 1460, 10-2 BCA ¶ 34,479, 
at 170,056-57, reconsideration denied , 10-2 BCA ¶ 34,498 (Board was not deprived of its 
jurisdiction to determine costs for supplying precast concrete face mix for the three buildings 
not mentioned in appellant’s claim where the analysis was the same with regard to those 
buildings that were set forth in appellant’s claim). 
GSA’s claim for IFF for the period from February 1 to March 31, 2006, arises from 
the same set of facts as the claim asserted in the CO’s decision for IFF for the period from 
November 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. The Board has already determined that NST 
is required to pay IFF for SIN 599-2 transactions under the DTR6 order for DTS, DTS 
“touched,” and “traditional” travel agent services, and the Board’s decision as to entitlement 
is equally applicable to the period from February 1 to March 31, 2006. As discussed above, 

 
                  
                 
                 
           
              
       
            
            
           
                
              
            
          
              
                
              
           
        
             
            
              
             
            
                 
        
              
     
      
       
        
         
          
          
       
8 CBCA 449 
there is no dispute as to the number of SIN 599-2 transactions for which IFF is due under the 
DTR6 order, including the period from February 1, 2006, to the end of the order. Under such 
circumstances, a determination of the amount of IFF to be paid for the last two months of the 
DTR6 order is based upon the same analysis that the Board applied to the rest of that order, 
and a determination of quantum for IFF due for the period from February 1 to 
March 31, 2006, is within this Board’s jurisdiction. 
GSA is entitled to recover IFF for SIN 599-2 transactions under the entire 
performance period of the DTR6 order for DTS, DTS “touched,” and “traditional” travel 
services, and the only remaining issue is the amount of IFF that NST is required to pay.  As 
the party asserting the claim, GSA has the burden of proof in this case. See Southwest 
Welding & Manufacturing Co. v. United States , 413 F.2d 1167, 1176 n.7 (Ct. Cl. 1969); 
Flooring Co. , GSBCA 8297, 89-3 BCA ¶ 22,167, at 111,548; Mutual Maintenance Co. , 
85-2 BCA at 90,857. In order to meet its burden of proof the Government must prove each 
element of its claim by a preponderance of evidence. Bay Shipbuilding Co. v. Department 
of Homeland Security , CBCA 54, et al., 07-2 BCA ¶ 33,678, at 166,740. It has been 
recognized that a party asserting a claim has met its burden of proof by presenting 
corroborating evidence in support of that claim. See Singleton Contracting Corp. , 
IBCA 1838, 87-3 BCA ¶ 19,967, at 101,091. 
There is no dispute that during the DTR6 order there were 189,446 SIN 599-2 
transactions from November 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006, and 12,475 SIN 599-2 
transactions from February 1 to March 31, 2006, which is a total of 201,921 transactions. 
In response to GSA’s written discovery, NST disclosed the number of SIN 599-2 transactions 
during the DTR6 order, and that number of transactions was corroborated through the 
testimony of Mr. Stec during the hearing. At an IFF rate of $1.50 per transaction, GSA is 
entitled to recover IFF in the amount of $302,881.50. 
Additionally, GSA contends that it is entitled to recover interest on the amount of IFF 
that is due.  With regard to the collection of interest by the Government on a debt related to 
a contract, the following has been recognized: 
We note that generally, Government contracts include a 
clause which mandates that the contractor pay interest on 
amounts due to the Government at rates established under the 
Contract Disputes Act of 1978. 48 CFR 32.614-1(a), 52.232-17. 
Where this clause is included in the contract, the clause–and not 
the Debt Collection Act–is the authority for the Government to 
assess and collect interest due. 

 
          
              
                 
                
               
              
               
               
 
             
              
           
             
              
                  
              
               
               
             
              
               
                 
             
             
                 
             
              
   
9 CBCA 449 
Advanced Injection Molding, Inc. v. General Services Administration , GSBCA 16504-R, et 
al., 05-2 BCA ¶ 33,097, at 164,064 (citing Westchester Fire Insurance Co. v. United States , 
52 Fed. Cl. 567, 584-87 (2002)). In this case, paragraphs C.19 and C.20 of the FSS contract 
set forth the requirements for an FSS contractor to report and remit IFF on a quarterly basis. 
Paragraph C.19 further provided that failure to pay IFF within thirty calendar days at the end 
of the applicable reporting period would result in a debt to the Government, and interest 
would run on the amount of that debt. The FSS contract also incorporated by reference 
FAR 52.232-17. Under that clause, a debt would bear simple interest at the rate established 
under the CDA, 41 U.S.C. § 7109, “from the date due until paid unless paid within 30 days 
of becoming due.” FAR 52.232-17(a). Accordingly, the recovery of interest on those 
amounts of IFF due is subject to the terms of NST’s FSS contract with GSA. 
Finally, NST contends that the Board should award zero quantum because no 
documentary evidence in support of GSA’s claim has been provided from DoD, and GSA 
relies only upon information produced by NST. Appellant’s Brief at 15-18. NST’s argument 
ignores the fact that its FSS contract required it to report its sales and pay IFF on the basis 
of those sales, and there was no corresponding requirement for DoD to document such sales. 
The Board has no reason to question NST’s representation as to the number of SIN 599-2 
transactions relevant to the issue of quantum in this appeal. As discussed above, NST has 
represented through discovery that the number of SIN 599-2 transactions for the entire DTR6 
order was 201,921, and that information was obtained as a result of extensive research on 
NST’s part in order to respond to GSA’s discovery request. NST’s vice president, Mr. Stec, 
testified under oath at the hearing as to the accuracy of that number of transactions. GSA has 
not disputed that number. Finally, NST offers no explanation as to how additional 
supporting data from DoD, assuming such data existed, would change the result in this 
appeal. For those reasons, GSA has met its burden of proof, and NST has no grounds for 
objecting to the fact that GSA has proven quantum based upon evidence obtained through 
discovery. See Shostak Construction Corp. , VABCA 3671, et al., 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,791, at 
133,250-51. 

 
            
             
             
      
  
 
 
    
   
10 CBCA 449 
Decision 
Appellant’s MOTION TO DISMISS for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED . The appeal 
is DENIED AS TO QUANTUM . Appellant shall pay the Government the amount of 
$302,881.50 plus interest for SIN 599-2 transactions under the DTR6 order for DTS, DTS 
“touched,” and “traditional” travel services. 
______________________ 
H. CHUCK KULLBERG 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
_______________________ _______________________ 
ANTHONY S. BORWICK CATHERINE B. HYATT 
Board Judge Board Judge