MOTION FOR SUMMARY RELIEF DENIED: May 28, 2010 
CBCA 449 
NAVIGANT SATOTRAVEL, 
Appellant, 
v. 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 
Respondent. 
James H. Roberts, III and Carrol H. Kinsey, Jr. 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. 
Appellant, Navigant SatoTravel (NST), moves for summary relief in the quantum 
phase of this appeal. NST appealed the decision by the General Services Administration’s 
(GSA’s) contracting officer that directed NST to remit industrial funding fee (IFF) payments 
in connection with an order for travel services issued by the Army Contracting 

   
 
 
 
       
    
 
    
 
              
      
 
     
 
2 CBCA 449 
Agency-ITEC4 (DoD) for Defense Travel Region 6 (DTR6). 1   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, motion for 
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.  NST contends that GSA has no quantum recovery in that DoD did not fund or 
pay IFF, and GSA contends that NST is raising an argument that should have been presented 
during the entitlement phase of this appeal.  We deny the motion.  
Background 
Only those facts that are necessary for a discussion of appellant’s motion are set 
forth.
3   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. 
4 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 matter 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.  
Paragraph C.19 of the solicitation, General Services Administration Regulation 
(GSAR) 552.238-74, Industrial Funding Fee and Sales Reporting (JUL 2003),
5 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 quarter.”  Exhibit 28 at 35.  The 
1 The proceedings in this appeal were bifurcated.  Board’s Memorandum of 
Conference Call and Order (Mar. 8, 2007) at 3. 
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. 
3 The Board’s decision on entitlement set forth a detailed set of findings of fact. 
Navigant SatoTravel , 09-1 BCA at 168,598-603. 
4 All exhibits are found in the appeal file, unless otherwise noted. 
5 48 CFR 552.238-74 (2003). 

 
 
    
  
 
        
      
 
     
 
 
  
  
     
 
 
  
3 CBCA 449 
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.  The IFF for travel agent 
services was $1.50 per transaction.  Id . at 37. 
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, and on October 29, 2004, DoD issued to NST order number 
W91QUZ-05-F-0005 (order) for DTR6 travel services. Exhibits 1, 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 
“traditional” methods 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 2-43.  Each of the types of services for the base and option periods was priced 
by NST under contract line items (CLINs). 
6 Id. 
On October 19, 2005, GSA informed NST that it would conduct a “contractor 
assistant visit” to insure 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.  On March 21, 2006, GSA’s 
contracting officer issued a decision that directed NST to pay IFF in the amount of 
$292,609.50 for SIN-2 transactions (DTS, DTS “touched,” and “traditional” travel services) 
under its order from DoD for DTR6 travel services.  Exhibit 8.  The contracting officer 
determined the amount of IFF by multiplying the IFF rate, $1.50 per transaction, times the 
number of SIN-2 transactions, 195,073.  Id . 
6 NST proposed unit prices for DTS, DTS “touched,” and “traditional” travel 
services under CLINs 0001-0003 for the base period and the related CLINs for the option 
periods (CLINs 0016-0018 and 0031-0033).  Exhibit 2 at 3-8, 18-21, 32-34. 

 
     
 
   
  
 
 
 
        
 
 
  
 
    
4 CBCA 449 
Discussion 
In its motion for summary relief, NST argues that “GSA is entitled to a quantum 
amount of zero Industrial Funding Fees because claimant GSA has not, and cannot, show or 
sustain its burden of proof that the customer agency responsible for IFF, [DoD], obligated, 
reserved, funded, or paid any amount of money for IFF relating to the order that [DoD] 
placed with NST.”  Appellant’s Motion for Summary Relief at 6.  GSA argues that NST is 
improperly arguing an issue that should have been raised during the entitlement phase of this 
appeal.  
Although NST’s statement of undisputed facts asserts that GSA has admitted that 
DoD cannot document that it obligated or paid funds for IFF, GSA has shown that it has 
made no such admission in discovery, and, moreover, GSA has objected to doing so on the 
grounds of relevance.  Appellant’s Motion for Summary Relief at 1; Respondent’s Response 
to Appellant’s Motion for Summary Relief at 5.  NST’s argument that the Board should grant 
its motion for summary relief because GSA cannot meet its burden of proof, therefore, is not 
a basis for this Board to grant summary relief because GSA, in order to prevail, need not 
show that DoD obligated or paid funds for IFF.  
It is well recognized that “[w]hen a Board bifurcates proceedings and one party 
attempts to relitigate matters during quantum proceedings that were covered in entitlement 
proceedings, res judicata and the doctrine of law of the case apply.”  Gilroy-Sims & 
Associates , Ltd. , GSBCA 8720, et al., 90-3 BCA ¶ 23,132, at 116,147-48 (citing Maitland 
Brothers Co. , ASBCA 29825, 85-3 BCA ¶ 18,234, at 91,555).  The Board’s decision on 
entitlement stated the following: 
For purposes of meeting its burden of proof, it is only necessary 
for GSA to establish that: (1) GSA awarded to NST an FSS 
contract that required NST to pay IFF; (2) DoD issued to NST 
an order to provide DTR6 travel services under NST’s FSS 
contract; (3) NST accepted that order and provided such services 
to DoD that were transactions requiring the payment of IFF; and 
(4) NST has failed to remit to GSA those IFF payments.  GSA 
has met its burden of proof.  
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 

 
  
              
   
  
        
 
 
  
______________________ 
_______________________ _______________________ 
 
5 CBCA 449 
IFF at the rate set forth under SIN-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.  
NST’s present motion for summary relief simply reargues the question of GSA’s 
burden of proof as to its contractual duty to remit IFF, which is an entitlement issue. 
Although NST frames its motion as a quantum issue, NST simply raises an entitlement issue 
in a different context.  Throughout the entitlement phase of this proceeding, NST argued that 
DoD’s order for DTR6 travel services was an open-market contract and not an order under 
its FSS contract.  Navigant SatoTravel , 09-1 BCA at 168,603.  The Board’s decision on 
entitlement recognized that any failure by NST to collect IFF from DoD as a result of its 
administration of the order for DTR6 travel services was not a defense to its obligation to 
remit IFF to GSA, and NST, consequently, is now precluded from arguing during the 
quantum phase of this appeal that its obligation to remit IFF to GSA is conditioned upon 
DoD funding or paying IFF.  
Decision 
Appellant’s motion for summary relief is DENIED . 
H. CHUCK KULLBERG 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
ANTHONY S. BORWICK CATHERINE B. HYATT 
Board Judge Board Judge