THIS OPINION WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
IS BEING PUBLICLY RELEASED IN ITS ENTIRETY ON MARCH 30, 2021
DISMISSED: March 15, 2021
CBCA 6128, 6129
PURDY ENTERPRISE, LLC,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
Respondent.
Doug P. Hibshman and Nicholas T. Solosky of Fox Rothschild LLP, Washington, DC,
counsel for Appellant.
Jonathan English and Julie Cannatti, Office of General Counsel, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges SOMERS (Chair), BEARDSLEY, and RUSSELL.
BEARDSLEY, Board Judge.
Purdy Enterprise, LLC (Purdy) timely appealed from the decisions of two Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) contracting officers, both denying Purdy’s
claims for payment under HUD field service management (FSM) contracts.  The appeals
were consolidated.  Purdy filed a motion for summary judgment, and HUD filed a motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which we could grant relief or, in the alternative, for
summary judgment.  We grant HUD’s motion to dismiss and deny Purdy’s motion for


CBCA 6128, 6129 2
summary judgment.  HUD’s motion for summary judgment is moot and, thus, denied.  We,
therefore, dismiss the appeals.
Background
HUD awarded contracts to multiple contractors under two FSM programs — FSM
3.10 and FSM 3.8.  The appeals at issue here arise out of FSM 3.10 contracts
DU204SA-17-D-05 (D-05) and DU204SA-17-D-06 (D-06) (the “Purdy contracts”).1  D-05
covers Area 4A (Indiana and Kentucky), and HUD awarded this contract on May 8, 2017. 
D-06 covers Area 5A (North Carolina and South Carolina), and HUD awarded this contract
on May 22, 2017.  The contracts require Purdy to provide management, maintenance,
preservation, and inspection services to, as well as secure and perform cosmetic
enhancements and repairs for, HUD properties.2  Relevant here, Purdy performs two primary
types of services under the Purdy contracts: (1) on-going property management services, and
(2) routine property inspections.  These contracts operate on a hybrid fixed-price and cost-
reimbursable contract line item number (CLIN) basis.3  Pursuant to CLINs 0005 (HUD-
Owned Vacant), 0006 (Custodial), and 0007 (Vacant Lot), Purdy performs ongoing property
management services on a monthly fee basis for the three HUD property types.  The 
1 These appeals are two of seven appeals before the Board involving FSM 3.10
contracts.  While the seven appeals (CBCA 6128, 6129, 6174, 6175, 6176, 6177, and 6351)
involve five different contractors, all seven appeals present substantially similar issues of law
and fact, and “the Purdy contract terms mirror the contract terms of the other FSM
contracts.”  As a result, for purposes of judicial efficiency and by agreement of the parties,
the Board stayed the five other appeals involving FSM 3.10 contracts pending resolution of
these two appeals involving the Purdy contracts.  
2 HUD-owned properties are “vacant land and occupied-conveyance properties”
that “HUD owns by reason of payment of an insurance claim or another acquisition method.” 
Custodial properties are “borrower owned [vacant] property . . . which HUD, through the
Contractor, has taken possession of following default and vacancy or abandonment.”  The
contracts state that vacant lots are to be “maintained at all times in a manner that result in
properties that are clean, safe and sanitary.”  Otherwise, the contracts do not define vacant,
vacant lots, or vacant properties.
3 Section B of both contracts contains CLINS for each year of performance,
making a total of forty-five CLINs for the base year and four option years.  Each year has its
own set of CLINS, identical except for the number designation, the estimated quantities, and
total prices.  For convenience, we refer to the relevant CLINs by their base-year numbers.

CBCA 6128, 6129 3
contracts also required that HUD pay for routine, biweekly property inspections performed
by Purdy.  
The issue in these appeals is “which CLIN specifies the compensation for routine, bi-
weekly inspections of custodial properties,” and the answer hinges on the interpretation of
CLINs 0005, 0005AA, and 0006.  In both contracts D-05 and D-06, CLIN 0005 is titled “On-
Going Property Management (PM) fee, HUD-Owned Vacant,” and CLIN 0006 is titled
“Inspection, Initial Services, On-Going (PM) for Custodial Properties.”  CLIN 0005AA is
titled “On-Going Property Inspection HUD-Owned Vacant.”  Each CLIN is divided into
three columns titled “Supplies or Services,” “Unit,” and “Unit Price.”  For CLIN 0005AA,
the service identifed is “Property Inspection,” the unit is “Bi-Weekly,” and the unit price is
“$34.00” for D-05 and “$33.00” for D-06.  For CLIN 0005, the service identified is “HUD-
Owned Vacant,” the unit is “monthly,” and the unit price is “$117.00” for D-05 and “105.00”
for D-06.  For CLIN 0006, the service identified is “Custodial Properties,” the unit is
“monthly,” and the unit price is “$117.00” for D-05 and “105.00” for D-06.  The estimated
quantities for CLIN 0005 were “20900” for D-05 and “12960” for D-06, and for CLIN
0005AA, the estimated quantities were “41800” for D-05 and “25920” for D-06.  For CLIN
0006, the estimated quantities were “234” for D-05 and “198” for D-06.
As part of solicitation amendment 2, HUD published questions and answers (Q&A)
in which it responded to three questions about CLIN 0005AA with one answer:
[CLIN] 0005AA is a subset of the routine services (CLINs 0005, 0006, and
0007), and failure to perform the routine inspections has a greater cost impact
to HUD then [sic] the amount of the inspection itself due to the additional
holding costs and increased risk for vandalism or other damages absent the
routine inspection(s).
These Q&As, however, were not incorporated into the contracts.
In both contracts, the performance work statement (PWS), section 5.2.3.2, Routine
Inspections, stated:
The Contractor shall routinely inspect and take all actions necessary to ensure
that HUD properties are maintained in Ready to Show Condition.  The
Contractor shall inspect the property every two weeks, where intervals
between inspections shall be at least ten (10) calendar days and not more than
fourteen (14) calendar days.  Property inspections performed in accordance to
this schedule will begin on day eight (8) of property assignment.

CBCA 6128, 6129 4
The Contractor is required to conduct routine inspections and report inspection
results on FSM Property Inspection Form (Attachment 7).  Notwithstanding
the allowance of one day to upload documents generally, as noted elsewhere,
the routine inspection reports must be uploaded within the 10th and 14th day
interval.  The contractor will receive credit for performing an inspection only
if they perform and report inspection results, upload completed FSM Property
Inspection Form with photo documentation as required by HUD, completely
populate all required fields in P260, and upload a copy of the sign-in sheet
clearly identifying the FSM inspector, date, and purpose of the visit into P260
during the 10th and 14th day weekly inspection intervals.
The Contractor, as part of their property management plan documentation,
shall submit an itemized account of the services performed for property
management.  The failure of the Contractor to perform (1) any routine
inspection, and/or (2) the proper upload of required documentation within the
required timeframe [sic] will be considered a complete failure by the
Contractor in performing the required property inspection.
PWS section 5.2.6, Custodial Properties, contained almost identical language to PWS section
5.2.3.2.
The Contractor shall inspect the property every two weeks, where intervals
between inspections shall be at least ten (10) calendar days and not more than
fourteen (14) calendar days.  Property inspections performed in accordance to
this schedule will begin on day eight (8) of property assignment.
The Contractor is required to conduct routine inspections and report inspection
results on FSM Property Inspection Form (Attachment 7).  Notwithstanding
the allowance of one day to upload documents generally, as noted elsewhere,
the routine inspection reports must be uploaded within the 10th and 14th day
interval.  The contractor will receive credit for performing an inspection if they
perform and report inspection results, upload completed FSM Property
Inspection Form with photo documentation as required by HUD, and
completely populate all required fields in P260 during the 10th and 14th day
weekly inspection intervals.
Both contracts D-05 and D-06 had a commencement date of June 1, 2017, followed
by a sixty-day start-up phase ending on July 31, 2017.  HUD paid Purdy for routine
inspections of custodial properties and HUD-owned vacant properties performed in August
2017, pursuant to CLIN 0005AA.  HUD had paid for routine inspections of custodial 

CBCA 6128, 6129 5
properties and HUD-owned vacant properties pursuant to CLIN 0005AA for other FSM 3.10
and FSM 3.8 contracts as early as January 2016.  After August 2017, however, HUD refused
to continue to pay for routine inspections performed on custodial properties.  On
September 7, 2017, HUD changed the protocols set up in its billing system so that routine
inspections under CLINs 0006 and 0007 would not be reimbursed separately or in addition
to the on-going project management fee provided for under those CLINs.  HUD explained
that its payment system had been “erroneously programmed” to pay for each inspection
individually.
HUD continues to assess liquidated damages of fifty dollars per property per day (up
to $500 per property) under CLIN 0005AA against Purdy due to its failure to timely perform
routine inspections of custodial, vacant lot, and HUD-owned vacant properties.
Purdy submitted two certified claims to two different contracting officers — Charles
W. Hoyle, Jr. for D-05 (Area 4A) and Sharon L. Washington for D-06 (Area 5A).  Purdy
claimed that the contract and HUD’s accepted practices required that HUD pay Purdy under
CLIN 0005AA for routine inspections of custodial properties.  Purdy pointed to the CLIN
structure and labels, HUD’s published Q&A, HUD’s assessment of liquidated damages, and
HUD’s prior payment for routine inspections of custodial properties under CLIN 0005AA
to support its interpretation of the CLINs.  Purdy’s claims do not assert that either contracting
officer improperly delegated management tasks during contract performance or abdicated his
or her decisionmaking authority.
On March 2, 2018, each contracting officer issued a final decision denying Purdy’s
claim for damages for routine property inspections of custodial properties.  The final
decisions were nearly identical.  Purdy timely filed its appeals.  Its amended, consolidated
complaint lays out three counts: first, that HUD breached each contract by failing to
separately reimburse Purdy for routine inspections on custodial properties under CLIN
0005AA; second, that HUD contracting officers breached the contracts by abdicating
decisionmaking authority; and third, that HUD breached its duty of good faith and fair
dealing by failing to pay Purdy in accordance with the express terms and conditions of the
Purdy contracts.
Discussion
The primary dispute in these appeals is whether HUD must reimburse costs for routine
inspections of custodial properties under CLIN 0006 or CLIN 0005AA.  We grant the motion
to dismiss because the facts alleged, even with reasonable inferences drawn in Purdy’s favor,
do not support “a facially ‘plausible’ claim to relief.”  TranBen, Ltd. v. Department of
Transportation, CBCA 5448, 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,635 (quoting Cambridge v. United States, 558 

CBCA 6128, 6129 6
F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).  We agree that the contract language does not support
Purdy’s contention that HUD must pay the unit price in CLIN 0005AA for routine
inspections of custodial properties.  We conclude that CLIN 0005AA is limited by its title
to only inspections on HUD-owned vacant properties, and CLIN 0006 sets forth the
compensation for routine, biweekly inspections of custodial property.
Purdy’s FSM 3.10 contracts have substantially similar contract terms to HUD’s FSM
3.8 contracts and contain the same CLINs 0005, 0005AA, and 0006 that the Board and the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit examined in P.K. Management Group, Inc. v.
Department of Housing & Urban Development, CBCA 6185, 19-1 BCA ¶ 37,417, aff’d, P.K.
Management Group, Inc. v. Secretary of Housing & Urban Development, 987 F.3d. 1030
(Fed. Cir. 2021).  These appeals and P.K. Management Group involve attempts to obtain
payments for ongoing routine inspections of custodial properties under CLIN 0005AA rather
than CLIN 0006.
While there are some factual differences (different contracts executed years apart,
different pre-bid Q&A, and different pre-dispute conduct by HUD) between the P.K.
Management Group and Purdy appeals, the only differences in the contract language at issue
are the unit prices, estimated quantities, and total amount of the fees paid for each CLIN. 
None of these differences, however, matter in deciding the motion to dismiss or impact the
interpretation of CLIN 0005AA and CLIN 0006.
In P.K. Management Group, the Board held that “the plain contract language does not
obligate HUD to pay the unit price in CLIN 0005AA (or in the corresponding CLINS for
option years) for routine inspections of custodial properties.”  The Federal Circuit agreed
with the Board that the FSM 3.8 contract was unambiguous and held “that the plain meaning
places compensation for routine inspections of Custodial properties under CLIN 0006 rather
than CLIN 0005AA.”  P.K. Management Group, Inc., 987 F.3d. at 1033.  CLIN 0005AA
applies only to the same properties, HUD-owned vacant, as CLIN 0005; and CLIN 0006
“governs the compensation for routine inspections of Custodial properties” through a
monthly fee.  Id. at 1032.
Like in P.K. Management Group, Inc., we find that the contracts are not ambiguous
“regarding the pricing of inspections of custodial properties.”  19-1 BCA ¶ 37,417.  CLIN
0006 covers on a monthly basis what its title says it does, “Inspection, Initial Services, [and]
On-Going PM for Custodial Properties” (emphasis added), while CLIN 0005AA covers what
its title says it does, “On-Going Property Inspection HUD-Owned Vacant” (emphasis added).
In order to accept [Purdy’s] position that CLIN 0005AA sets the unit price of
inspections of custodial properties, we would need to read the words “HUD-

CBCA 6128, 6129 7
owned vacant” out of CLIN 0005AA and ignore the words “Inspection” and
“for Custodial Properties” in CLIN 0006.  Doing so would violate the rule of
construction requiring us to “give[] a reasonable meaning to all parts of an
instrument” and not to “leave[] a portion of it useless, inexplicable,
inoperative, void, insignificant, meaningless or superfluous.”  Jane Mobley
Associates, Inc. v. General Services Administration, CBCA 2878, 16-1 BCA
¶ 36,285, at 176,954 (citing Hol-Gar Manufacturing Corp. v. United States,
351 F.2d 972, 979 (Ct. C1.1965)).
Id.  Purdy’s argument “would make the title of CLIN 0005AA inexplicable.”  P.K.
Management Group, Inc., 987 F.3d. at 1033.
Another indication that CLIN 0005AA only applies to HUD-Owned Vacant
properties is its connection with CLIN 0005.  Neither party disputes that CLIN
0005 (entitled “On-Going Property Management (PM) Fee, HUD-Owned
Vacant”) applies only to HUD-Owned vacant properties, and the two CLINs
are linked by both their numbering and titles. . . . [T]he most sensible
interpretation is that provisions with related numbering apply to the same
properties, particularly when both have titles that say “HUD-Owned Vacant.”
[Purdy’s] interpretation would require us to deem the CLIN numbering system
and titles meaningless.
Id. at 1032.  “Only CLIN 0006 refers to Custodial properties, and we hold that this CLIN
governs the compensation for routine inspections of Custodial properties.”  Id.
Purdy asserts several arguments to support its reading of the contracts’ terms.  We and
the Federal Circuit find none of these arguments persuasive.  Purdy argues that the
description of services in CLIN 0005AA does not contain a “property-specific limitation.”
We note “that the service column in every CLIN other than 0005AA identifies a type of
property, such as ‘HUD-Owned Vacant’ or ‘Vacant Lot,’ whereas the service in CLIN
0005AA is simply ‘Property Inspection.’”  P.K. Management Group, Inc., 19-1 BCA
¶ 37,417.  Purdy reads the lack of a reference to a property type as proof that CLIN 0005AA
covers routine inspections for all property types.  We disagree.  “CLIN 0005AA and its
option-year successors are the only sub-CLINs in the contract.  The parent CLIN is CLIN
0005, which lists ‘HUD-Owned Vacant’ as the property type in the service column.  The
words ‘HUD-Owned Vacant’ are then repeated in the title of CLIN 0005AA.  The unit price
stated in CLIN 0005AA is subject to an express ‘property-specific limitation.’”  Id.

CBCA 6128, 6129 8
Purdy points to PWS section 5.2.3.2 and 5.2.6 and the term “credit” found therein to
support its interpretation of the contracts.  As the Board held in P.K. Management Group,
Inc., regarding this same contract provision, 
[PWS section 5.2.3.2] does not “unambiguously indicate” that HUD will pay
a separate price for anything, as it does not mention payment and is not in the
price section of the contract, i.e., the CLINs.  Rather, the fixed monthly price
in CLIN 0006 includes inspections of custodial properties, which [Purdy]
needs to perform and document in accordance with the PWS.  Cf. Financial
& Realty Services, LLC v. General Services Administration, CBCA 5354, 16-1
BCA ¶ 36,472 (single judge) (involving a fixed-price contract for property
management and lease administration services).
Relatedly, [Purdy] argues that reading the contract as including the price of
inspections of custodial properties within the fixed unit price of CLIN 0006
would render the word “credit” in PWS 5.2.3.2 “meaningless” as to CLIN
0006, since the contract has no “mechanism for clawing back ‘credit’ for a
Routine [inspection] that is not performed.” . . . The PWS explains in detail
how [Purdy] can get “credit” from HUD for performing whatever property
inspections the contract requires, regardless of how those inspections are
priced under the applicable CLINs.  [Purdy] gets “credit” for inspecting or it
does not.  There is no need to claw credit back.  Even if we found this use of
the word “credit” ambiguous (which we do not), this would not suffice to
undermine all of the plain language of CLINs 0005, 0005AA, and 0006.
Id.  The Federal Circuit did not find this argument persuasive either and held that “‘credit’
does not equate to payment.  One can receive credit for a required task without being
individually paid for that task.”  P.K. Management Group, Inc., 987 F.3d. at 1033.  This
same analysis defeats Purdy’s argument that PWS section 5.2.6, which includes the identical
“credit” language found in PWS section 5.2.3.2, “only makes sense if HUD pays for each
routine inspection on a per inspection basis” instead of as part of the fixed monthly price of
CLIN 0006.
Purdy’s other arguments about CLIN 0005AA require us to consider parol or extrinsic
evidence.  Purdy points to HUD’s answer to questions published as part of the contract
solicitation that identifies CLIN 0005AA as a “subset of the routine services (CLINs 0005,
0006, and 0007).”  There is no support for Purdy’s assertion that the Q&A “is part of the
Purdy Contracts.”  19-1 BCA ¶ 37,417 (distinguishing Gould, Inc. v. United States, 935 F.2d
1271, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 1991), and A-Son’s Construction, CBCA 3491, 15-1 BCA ¶ 36,089,
which are also cited by Purdy).  “Because the Contract is unambiguous, we follow the plain 

CBCA 6128, 6129 9
meaning without considering extrinsic evidence or related arguments.”  P.K. Management
Group, Inc., 987 F.3d. at 1033 (citing Northwest Title Agency, Inc. v. United States, 855 F.3d
1344, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
Purdy also asks us to consider its understanding as to payment for routine inspections
at the time of its bid, HUD’s payment history on the other FSM 3.10 and FSM 3.8 contracts,
and HUD’s erroneous programming of its payment system.  Like we said in P.K.
Management Group, Inc.,
we need not examine how HUD paid for inspections of custodial properties
under this contract, or under other FSM contracts, before the claim period,
since evidence of past practice could be relevant only if the applicable price
terms were ambiguous.  E.g., JBG/Federal Center, 18-1 BCA at 180,276.
19-1 BCA ¶ 37,417 (distinguishing the ambiguous contract language in Alvin, Ltd. v. United
States Postal Service, 816 F.2d 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).  Since the price terms are clear and
unambiguous, we “may not resort to extrinsic evidence to interpret it.”  Id. (quoting Premier
Office Complex of Parma, LLC v. United States, 916 F.3d 1006, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).  For
this same reason, we will also not look to the parties’ conduct, such as assessing liquidated
damages under CLIN 0005AA, to assist us in interpreting the unambiguous contract terms. 
The Board also need not apply the doctrine of contra proferentem to construe the contracts
because of the lack of ambiguity in the contract terms.  HPI/GSA-3C, LLC v. Perry, 364 F.3d
1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (rule of contra proferentem used only to choose between
competing interpretations of an ambiguous contract provision (citing Hills Materials Co. v.
Rice, 982 F.2d 514, 516 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
Lastly, Purdy argues that contracting officer Charles Hoyle “breached the Purdy
Contracts and violated FAR 1.602 by unreasonably, arbitrarily, and capriciously abdicating
his decision-making authority” because “he did not direct, manage, or oversee essential
Contract administration matters, including payments to Purdy and the assessment of
liquidated damages.”  Purdy contends that Mr. Hoyle breached the Purdy contracts by
allegedly failing to reach an independent conclusion regarding payment for routine
inspections on custodial properties.  Since Purdy’s claim under the Contract Disputes Act,
41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7109 (2018), alleged no facts supporting a theory of breach by
“abdication of authority,” as we’ve noted before, that theory is a “new claim” beyond our
jurisdiction in this appeal.  P.K. Management Group, Inc., 19-1 BCA ¶ 37,417 (citing K-Con
Building Systems, Inc. v. United States, 778 F.3d 1000, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).

CBCA 6128, 6129 10
Decision
The Board grants HUD’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, denies Purdy’s
motion for summary judgment, and denies HUD’s motion for summary judgment as moot. 
The appeal is DISMISSED.
   Erica S. Beardsley     
ERICA S. BEARDSLEY
Board Judge
We concur:
   Jeri Kaylene Somers        Beverly M. Russell     
JERI KAYLENE SOMERS BEVERLY M. RUSSELL
Board Judge Board Judge