THIS OPINION WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER 
AND IS BEING RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN ITS ENTIRETY 
ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2007 
RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY RELIEF DENIED;
 
APPELLANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY RELIEF GRANTED IN PART:
 
September 12, 2007
 
CBCA 470
 
ADMIRAL ELEVATOR,
 
Appellant, 
v. 
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 
Respondent. 
W. Charles Bailey, Jr., of Simms Showers LLP, Baltimore, MD, counsel for 
Appellant. 
Seth Binstock and Lucinda E. Davis, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security 
Administration, Baltimore, MD, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges DANIELS  (Chairman), HYATT , and DeGRAFF . 
DANIELS , Board Judge. 
This case involves a contract between Admiral Elevator (Admiral) and the Social 
Security Administration (SSA) for maintenance of elevators and escalators at SSA facilities. 

  
 
  
 
 
 
   
    
      
      
 
 
    
 
    
 
 
2 
CBCA 470 
The issue to be decided, on cross-motions for summary relief, is which of the parties is 
responsible for whatever loss Admiral suffered because some of the elevators were 
unavailable for maintenance for much longer than SSA had projected.  Because the agency 
directed the contractor to price its offer on the basis of the agency’s projections and the 
contractor complied with this direction, we hold that the agency is responsible for the loss. 
Because we lack information at this stage of the proceedings as to the extent of the loss, we 
reserve determination of quantum until later. 
Uncontested Facts
1 
On December 20, 2002, SSA issued a request for proposals (RFP) for elevator and 
escalator maintenance and service at SSA’s Woodlawn, Maryland, headquarters building 
complex and its Baltimore, Maryland, Metro West facility.  Respondent’s Statement of 
Uncontested Facts (RSUF) ¶ 1; Appellant’s Statement of Uncontested Facts (ASUF) ¶ 1; 
Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at P.04. 
The RFP envisioned that the contract would cover a base period and as many as four 
option periods. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at P.10. Each of these periods would be one year in 
duration.  Id., Exhibit 2 at 51. The RFP mandated that each offeror provide a “per-unit” price 
for each elevator and each escalator during each of the periods.  Id. , Exhibit 1 at P.17-P.20; 
ASUF ¶ 2. 
The RFP’s section B-6, “Contractor Personnel,” set a floor on the number of 
personnel who would be assigned to the maintenance work: 
Not less than two (2) qualified elevator maintenance mechanics must be on 
duty and physically present at all times to provide the services specified in this 
contract between the hours 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 
excluding Federal Holidays, at the SSA Main Complex buildings.  The Metro 
West Complex shall have continuous coverage for services between the hours 
6:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Monday through Friday excluding Federal Holidays. 
Not less than two (2) qualified full-time (8 hours/day) elevator maintenance 
mechanics are to be on duty and physically present i.e., overlapping shifts of 
1 Each of these facts was asserted by at least one of the parties to be uncontested, 
and that assertion was not challenged by the other party.  In a few instances, we have quoted 
from a document at greater length than a party quoted in its proposed uncontested facts. 

 
  
   
  
   
 
 
   
  
   
  
   
   
     
     
3 
CBCA 470 
6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. and 11:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. to provide the services 
specified in this contract. 
RSUF ¶ 2; Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 36 of RFP.  This provision was incorporated into the 
contract which was awarded to Admiral.  RSUF ¶ 2. 
Notwithstanding the requirement that a minimum number of mechanics be physically 
present, the number of elevators to be maintained was to vary during the course of the 
contract.  The RFP’s section B-1, “Scope of Work,” explained: 
During the course of this contract, elevators and escalators will be taken out 
of service for building renovations and elevator modernization.  The contractor 
will not be required to provide service for said equipment during any building 
renovation or modernization project. The price for units not in service will be 
deducted from the contract on a monthly basis.  The following schedule shows 
the anticipated time frame the equipment will be out of service.  All time 
frames are approximate. 
"	 The Operation building is scheduled to be renovated in August 2003. 
The entire building renovation project will be for approximately 24 
months. . . .  Only fifty percent (50%) of the equipment in the 
Operations building will be out of service at any one time.  The elevator 
maintenance contractor, under this contract, will be responsible for the 
maintenance/repair of Operation[s] building elevators in service.  After 
the renovation[] work is completed, the contractor, under this contract, 
shall then be responsible for maintaining the elevators/escalators for the 
entire building. 
!	 An elevator modification project is schedule[d] for the NCC [National 
Computer Center] . . . , Supply Building . . . and West High Rise . . . for 
the period January 2003 through April 2004.  The elevator 
modernization contractor will be responsible to maintain these elevators 
until the modification is complete for a particular elevator plus a one-
year warranty period. The warranty completion dates will be different 
for each elevator. 
The elevator maintenance contractor, under this contract, will not be 
responsible for these elevators during the[ir] respective 
modification/warranty periods. 

     
    
     
  
  
 
   
   
   
   
   
    
CBCA 470 
4 
! All labor hour requirements for on site mechanics, as described in 
the specifications of this contract, shall remain the same during any 
and all renovation/moder[niz]ation work. 
RSUF ¶ 2; Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 21-22 of RFP.  These provisions were incorporated into 
the contract which was awarded to Admiral.  RSUF ¶ 2. 
SSA based the approximate time frame for the Headquarters Complex construction 
and renovation on information provided by the General Services Administration (GSA), 
which was responsible for issuing and administering the contracts for that work.  RSUF ¶ 3. 
After reading the RFP, prospective offerors posed questions about the per-unit pricing 
structure.  In amendment 2 to the RFP, SSA responded to one of these questions as follows: 
The offeror is to insert the monthly price (labor, parts, materials and any other 
costs) for maintaining each elevator/escalator in Table A.  Section B-1, Scope 
of Work, advises offerors of the approximate time frames certain elevators will 
not be maintained under the proposed contract. The Government will notify 
the contractor in writing of the elevators not to be maintained under the 
contract and the time frames.  This will result in the contractor adjusting its 
monthly invoices by deducting the monthly maintenance amount(s) for the 
particular elevator(s) listed in Table A. 
RSUF ¶ 5; ASUF ¶¶ 4, 5; Respondent’s Exhibit 1 at 001897; Appellant’s Exhibit 4 at 
001897. 
Prospective offerors continued to question the pricing structure.  In amendment 3 to 
the RFP, SSA provided the following question and answer: 
Question: 
After reviewing amendment[s] No[s]. 1 and 2 of the referenced solicitation it 
appears that there is still a conflict regarding labor requirements and line item 
deductions that may be used during the term of this contract as described 
below. 
As it is currently stated now, . . . the minimum on-site labor hour requirements 
will not change regardless [of] equipment being removed from the contract 
and line item deductions being utilized. 

 
  
   
 
 
   
 
 
  
5 
CBCA 470 
As an example, if the current pricing structure remains the same, the SSA 
could remove all equipment at the Headquarters complex and still require the 
contractor to provide 2 mechanics on-site 12 hours a day with no means to 
invoice for this labor cost. . . . 
If the contractor is not permitted to reduce on-site labor proportionately to the 
equipment being maintained under this contract, then some means of pricing 
must be incorporated into the pricing sheets to account for the on-site labor 
separately from the individual equipment line item pricing. . . . 
Response: 
. . . . 
The information on the renovation work i.e., estimates regarding when the 
elevators will be out of service/not required to be maintained under the 
proposed contract was stated in order to assist offerors in their management 
plans for contract operations and contract pricing.  The Government will 
provide the contractor, in writing, the listing [of] elevators [for which] 
maintenance and repairs are not required/to be suspended with specified dates. 
As stated previously, to perform all of the contract requirements, the contractor 
must have the flexibility to augment the on site work force on an as needed 
basis.  The requirement for on-site elevator mechanics is not sufficient to 
satisfactorily perform all of the requirements. 
The example in the above question states that the Government could remove 
all equipment at the Main Complex and still require on site mechanics.  It is 
NOT the intention of the Government to take significant amounts of 
equipment from the contract that would result in lack of work/insufficient 
amount of work for the contractor’s on-site elevator mechanics.  It is again 
emphasized that the contractor, at various times, will need to provide 
additional personnel, other than the on-site personnel, to satisfactorily perform 
the services.  It is intended that there will always be a sufficient number of 
elevators to be maintained and repaired/requirements to be performed by the 
on site elevator mechanics. 
ASUF ¶ 6; Appellant’s Exhibit 4 at 001895-96. 

 
 
 
      
   
 
      
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
   
6 
CBCA 470 
Even after issuance of amendment 3, one prospective offeror, Elevator Control 
Service (ECS), questioned the SSA contracting officer about the required pricing structure. 
This firm asked, “[H]ow do contractors recoup costs spread over line items that are 
deducted?”  The firm suggested that SSA ask offerors to propose a single line item for fixed 
on-site labor, so that the line items for the various elevators and escalators would consist of 
variable costs only.  ASUF ¶ 7; Appellant’s Exhibit 5. 
The contracting officer asked the leader of an SSA Office of Acquisition and Grants 
audit team for advice as to the letter from ECS.  The team leader responded: 
The creation of an additional line item for fixed labor costs as recommended 
by ECS could help offerors with their pricing[;] however, it does not appear 
to be a material issue to me. 
By definition, fixed labor costs will not change as the number of elevators 
change[s;] therefore, I agree with ECS that per unit monthly maintenance 
charges will increase as elevators are taken out of service (fewer elevators to 
absorb fixed costs) and decrease when these elevators are placed back in 
service.  However, ECS knows that there are 54 elevators, and has a pretty 
good idea of the number of elevators that could be out of service at any given 
time.  ECS, therefore, should be able to predict with some degree of 
confidence the maximum impact that the removal of elevators would have on 
the fixed cost portion of the monthly maintenance unit price.  ECS therefore 
can protect itself by pricing this risk into its bid prices.  All offerors can do 
this. 
ASUF ¶¶ 8-10; Appellant’s Exhibit 7. 
Similarly, in deposition testimony, an SSA contracting officer who was involved in 
this project agreed that it would be reasonable for a contractor to rely on SSA’s estimated 
time frames in constructing its proposal.  ASUF ¶ 12. 
In response to the RFP, Admiral submitted a proposal which included a monthly 
charge for each piece of equipment which would be covered by the contract.  RSUF ¶ 7. 
Admiral used SSA’s out-of-service time estimates as the basis for constructing its proposal. 
ASUF ¶ 11. 
SSA accepted Admiral’s proposal by awarding a contract to the firm on May 12, 2003. 
The contract has an effective date of June 1, 2003 and is for services over a five-year period 

  
 
     
      
     
    
       
 
            
     
   
 
  
  
 
7 
CBCA 470 
(one base year and four option years).  SSA has exercised all options through the date of this 
opinion.  RSUF ¶ 9. 
Although the renovation and construction work on the Headquarters Complex under 
contracts administered by GSA was supposed to have started in January 2003, it actually 
began around the time that Admiral started work under the contract at issue in this case (June 
2003).  RSUF ¶ 10.  The time required for completion of the renovation and construction 
exceeded -- in some instances by many months -- the estimates provided in the RFP which 
led to Admiral’s contract.  RSUF ¶ 11; ASUF ¶¶ 13-15.  Two SSA employees could not 
explain in their depositions why the work under the GSA contract took so long to complete. 
ASUF ¶¶ 16-17. There is no question, however, that Admiral was in no way responsible for 
any of the delays.  ASUF ¶ 18. 
Admiral was at all times ready to perform its duties under its contract.  ASUF ¶ 19. 
Because of the delays in renovating elevators under the GSA contract, and the concomitant 
unexpectedly lengthy removal of elevators from Admiral’s maintenance responsibility, 
however, Admiral incurred costs which it did not recover. ASUF ¶ 20.  On January 26, 2006, 
Admiral submitted to an SSA contracting officer a claim for “loss revenue.”  In the claim, 
Admiral asserted that it was entitled to lost revenue from the date that each piece of 
equipment was supposed to be returned to Admiral’s maintenance responsibility, per the 
estimated construction renovation schedule in the RFP (and resulting contract), through the 
date on which each piece was actually returned to Admiral’s responsibility. RSUF ¶ 12; 
ASUF ¶ 21.  The total amount claimed for the period through January 31, 2006, was 
$158,722.  Appeal File, Exhibit 5. 
This claim was not certified when it was filed. Appeal File, Exhibit 5.  On or about 
November 29, 2006, Admiral certified the claim. Respondent’s Motion for Summary Relief 
at 7. 
The contracting officer denied the claim.  In doing so, he explained: 
SSA’s decision not to return the elevator/escalator units to service (due to 
building renovation) amounts to a constructive partial termination for 
convenience of Admiral Elevator’s contract . . . .  As a result, the total amount 
of the claim is denied and is not payable because when there is a termination 
for convenience or constructive termination for convenience, anticipatory 
profit or lost revenue [is] not due to a contractor. 

   
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
   
    
 
8 
CBCA 470 
When the Government terminates a private contractor pursuant to a 
termination for convenience clause in a contract, recovery is limited to costs 
incurred and profit on the work done[;] recovery of anticipated profit is 
precluded.  See generally , Maxima Corp. v. United States , 847 F.2d 1549 (Fed. 
Cir. 1988). 
The termination for convenience clause in [the] contract
[2] . . . gives SSA the 
broad right to terminate for convenience and precludes Admiral Elevator’s 
recovery of anticipatory profits or lost revenue as requested in the . . . claim 
. . . .  For the reasons set forth above, Admiral Elevator’s claim is denied. 
RSUF ¶ 13; Appeal File, Exhibit 11. 
Discussion 
Each party has asked the Board to resolve this appeal by granting its own motion for 
summary relief and denying the opposing party’s motion. Resolving a dispute on a motion 
for summary relief is appropriate when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter 
of law, based on undisputed material facts.  The moving party bears the burden of 
demonstrating the absence of genuine issues of material fact.  All justifiable inferences must 
2 This provision reads: 
The Government reserves the right to terminate this contract, or any part 
hereof [sic], for its sole convenience.  In the event of such termination, the 
Contractor shall immediately stop all work hereunder and shall immediately 
cause any and all of its suppliers and subcontractors to cease work.  Subject to 
the terms of this contract, the Contractor shall be paid a percentage of the 
contract price reflecting the percentage of the work performed prior to the 
notice of termination, plus reasonable charges the Contractor can demonstrate 
to the satisfaction of the Government using its standard record keeping system, 
have resulted from the termination.  The Contractor shall not be required to 
comply with the cost accounting standards or contract cost principles for this 
purpose.  This paragraph does not give the Government any right to audit the 
Contractor’s records.  The Contractor shall not be paid for any work performed 
or costs incurred which reasonably could have been avoided. 
RSUF ¶ 2; Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 45 of RFP. 

   
 
   
   
        
   
     
 
   
 
 
 
   
         
   
            
 
    
  
9 
CBCA 470 
be drawn in favor of the nonmovant.  Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317 (1986); 
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242 (1986).  When both parties move for summary 
relief, each party’s motion must be evaluated on its own merits and all reasonable inferences 
must be resolved against the party whose motion is under consideration.  First Commerce 
Corp. v. United States , 335 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003); DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. 
Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2001).  The mere fact that the parties have 
cross-moved for summary relief does not impel a grant of one of the motions; each motion 
must be independently assessed on its own merit.  California v. United States , 271 F.3d 
1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
. 
The contract at issue here required Admiral to have at least two mechanics on duty at 
all specified times, but it did not state unqualifiedly how many elevators and escalators those 
mechanics (and others who might be assigned to contract work) would have to maintain.  The 
uncertainty as to the number of elevators to be maintained resulted from the fact that while 
Admiral’s contract was in effect, various elevators were to be renovated under a separate 
contract with the General Services Administration and were not to be available for 
maintenance by Admiral. 
This arrangement posed difficulties for pricing the contract.  SSA directed offerors 
to provide a per-month price for each elevator and escalator, so that if a piece of equipment 
was not to be maintained in a particular month, the price for that item would be deducted 
from contract payments for that month.  
In the same solicitation provision which described the pricing scheme, the agency 
provided information about the renovation effort.  It provided a schedule “show[ing] the 
anticipated time frame the equipment will be out of service” and said the “time frames are 
approximate.”  As to the Operations Building, the “renovation project will be for 
approximately 24 months. . . . Only fifty percent (50%) of the equipment in the . . . building 
will be out of service at any one time.” As to the National Computer Center, Supply 
Building, and West High Rise, the project was scheduled “for the period January 2003 
though April 2004” and the maintenance contractor would not be responsible for maintaining 
any of these elevators “until the modification is complete for a particular elevator plus a one-
year warranty period.”  
The estimates as to the duration of renovation work turned out to be incorrect.  The 
renovation project started later than anticipated and ended much later.  The principal question 
in this case, as presented in the cross-motions for summary relief, is which of the parties 
should bear the financial impact of the errors in the estimates. 

 
 
  
 
 
     
 
 
   
 
   
  
 
 
 
10 
CBCA 470 
SSA views the contract as a fixed price instrument under which Admiral bore the risks 
of the estimates being incorrect.  Admiral understood the unique aspects of the arrangement, 
SSA maintains.  It knew that the time frames during which elevators were to be removed 
from its maintenance duties were “approximate” and therefore cannot recover as if those time 
frames had been promised to be certain. SSA, following its contracting officer’s theory, 
contends that a “partial constructive termination for convenience of the contract by the 
Government” limits any recovery to costs incurred for work performed; because Admiral 
performed no maintenance work on various elevators at the times they were taken out of 
service, the contractor incurred no costs as to those elevators during those times. 
Admiral urges that because SSA instructed offerors to use the agency’s time estimates 
as a basis for constructing their proposals, and then “breached its promises” that the 
renovations would be completed as promptly as anticipated and that there would always be 
enough units in service sufficient to cover the contractor’s costs of keeping the requisite 
number of mechanics on site, the agency must bear the risk of the contractor’s losses. 
Admiral characterizes the erroneous estimates as misrepresentations and, citing to T. Brown 
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena , 132 F.3d 724, 728-29 (Fed. Cir. 1997), maintains that it should 
prevail because it honestly and reasonably relied on those misrepresentations in the contract 
documents to its detriment. 
In our judgment, Admiral’s view of the case is correct.  Before any proposals were 
submitted in response to SSA’s RFP, prospective offerors asked questions about the per-unit 
pricing structure contemplated by that solicitation.  In response to one of those questions, the 
agency in solicitation amendment 3 provided important information: 
The information on the renovation work i.e., estimates regarding when the 
elevators will be out of service/not required to be maintained under the 
proposed contract was stated in order in order to assist offerors in their 
management plans for . . . contract pricing. . . . 
It is NOT the intention of the Government to take significant amounts of 
equipment from the contract that would result in lack of work/insufficient 
amount of work for the contractor’s on-site elevator mechanics.  It is again 
emphasized that the contractor, at various times, will need to provide 
additional personnel, other than the on-site personnel, to satisfactorily perform 
the services.  It is intended that there will always  be a sufficient number of 
elevators to be maintained and repaired/requirements to be performed by the 
on site elevator mechanics. 

 
     
   
   
   
 
 
 
   
  
   
   
 
 
   
    
   
  
  
 
  
11 
CBCA 470
 
This response makes clear that SSA intended that offerors use the agency’s estimates 
as a basis for their contract pricing and additionally expected offerors to construct their 
pricing on the assumption that the costs of the mandated on-site personnel would be 
recovered, under the per-unit, per-month pricing structure, no matter how many elevators 
were to be maintained in any particular month.
3   Internal communications among SSA 
employees involved in the procurement and the deposition testimony of an SSA contracting 
officer confirm the agency’s expectations as to use of the estimates by offerors.  This case 
is consequently like several others in which the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and 
its predecessor Court of Claims found an agency responsible for the losses which a contractor 
suffered because, in pricing the contract, it reasonably relied on material, incorrect agency 
representations in solicitations. Among these cases are Brown , 132 F.3d at 729 (erroneous 
representation as to soil content, due to incorrect washed sieve analysis); Summit Timber Co. 
v. United States , 677 F.2d 852 (Ct. Cl. 1982) (erroneous representation as to boundaries 
within which timber could be cut, due to incorrect markings); Everett Plywood & Door Corp. 
v. United States , 419 F.2d 425 (Ct. Cl. 1969) (erroneous representation as to volume of 
timber available for cutting in oddly-shaped area, due to incorrect estimates by inexperienced 
personnel); and United Contractors v. United States , 368 F.2d 585 (Ct. Cl. 1966) (erroneous 
representation as to subsurface conditions, due to incorrect soil borings).  Indeed, the 
contractor’s position is even stronger in this case than it was in those, because here the 
contractor not only was expected to rely on the key information, but also was told to rely on 
that information. 
Whether SSA was negligent in estimating the amount of time that elevators would be 
removed from Admiral’s maintenance responsibilities is immaterial.  Similarly, the date on 
which SSA knew that the estimates were incorrect -- whether before the renovation work 
began or after it was completed -- is unimportant.  What is critical is that the agency’s 
representations were erroneous, that the agency directed offerors to rely on them in 
constructing their pricing schemes, and that the successful offeror did indeed rely on those 
misrepresentations.  See Summit Timber , 677 F.2d at 859. 
3 By way of contrast, the Court of Appeals found that an offeror could not 
reasonably rely on the information provided by an agency in a solicitation where the 
solicitation stated, “The Government in no way warrants the data contained in the AMP Data 
Library.  The Government will not reimburse the Contractor for any cost incurred as a result 
of using data provided in the data library or allow a schedule slippage due to defects in the 
data provided.”  Grumman Aerospace Corp. v. Wynne , No. 2006-1482, slip op. at 3, 9-10 
(Fed. Cir. Aug. 17, 2007). 

 
    
  
 
  
 
          
  
 
  
     
    
   
  
 
       
 
  
  
   
    
  
12 
CBCA 470 
The concept of a “partial constructive termination for convenience” has no application 
to the situation in which the parties found themselves here.  The Court of Appeals has 
explained that “a governmental breach of contract may be construed as a termination for the 
convenience of the government when changed circumstances justify the reallocation of risk 
to the contractor.”  Maxima Corp. v. United States , 847 F.2d 1549, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1988). 
“The purpose of the [termination for convenience] clause is not to authorize unilateral 
renegotiation of a contract after it has been fully performed.”  Id. at 1555. Here, no 
circumstances existed which might have justified the reallocation of risk to Admiral.  The 
sole purpose of the purported partial termination was for SSA to unilaterally renegotiate the 
contract, after years of performance by Admiral which were sufficiently good that SSA 
exercised its options to continue the contract, so as to reduce SSA’s financial liability. 
On the basis of the above analysis and conclusions, we deny SSA’s motion for 
summary relief and grant Admiral’s cross-motion to the extent that we agree that the 
contractor is entitled to recover its damages.  What those damages are remains uncertain, 
however.  Admiral has requested, at various times, that it be awarded three different amounts 
of money. In its claim, the contractor asked for $158,722, the amount it says it would have 
received  under the contract’s per-unit, per-month pricing structure, through January 2006, 
for maintaining elevators which were renovated if those elevators had been returned to 
service as promptly as SSA had anticipated. In its complaint in this appeal, the contractor 
said that it suffered lost labor costs in the amount of “at least $171,945.73” during fiscal year 
2005 and an additional “at least $60,505.68” from January through May 2006 “in performing 
its contractual duties once the elevator[s] and/or escalators had been renovated and returned 
to service.”  In its motion for summary relief, Admiral asks the Board to “award it at least 
$114,710.58 ” in unpaid overhead costs resulting from SSA’s failure to return elevators to 
service as promptly as expected.  Each of these amounts is predicated on a different set of 
calculations, and it is not clear which amount or which set of calculations Admiral believes 
is most appropriate.  We will have to leave for later, on the basis of a fully-developed record, 
a determination of the precise amount that Admiral should receive. 
In making this determination, our objective will be to put Admiral in just as good a 
position as the one in which it would have been -- no better and no worse -- had the elevators 
been returned to the contractor’s maintenance responsibility at the times they would have 
been, had SSA’s estimates been correct.  White v. Delta Construction International, Inc. , 285 
F.3d 1040, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2002).  This result will treat Admiral fairly, given its pricing of 
the contract in accordance with SSA’s instructions.  No specific methodology for establishing 
the amount of recovery is prescribed; we will accept any workable, sensible approach which 
meets the goal we have set out.  Hi-Shear Technology Corp. v. United States , 356 F.3d 1372, 

 
     
 
 
      
 
     
  
    
_________________________ 
_________________________ _________________________ 
13 
CBCA 470 
1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (referencing Rumsfeld v. Applied Cos. , 325 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 
2003), and Everett Plywood). 
We note, as to the determination of amount, SSA’s suggestion that we have no 
jurisdiction to consider whether Admiral should receive overhead costs because the claim 
presented to the contracting officer involved only lost profits.  The premise behind this 
suggestion is faulty.  The claim presented to the contracting officer was based on per-unit, 
per-month charges for elevator maintenance.  Those charges involved whatever labor, 
materials, overhead, and profit Admiral had factored into its prices -- not solely lost profits. 
To the extent that the contractor includes any or all of those elements in the amount it 
attempts to justify as we proceed with the case, we will consider those elements. 
Decision 
SSA’s motion for summary relief is DENIED . Admiral’s cross-motion for summary 
relief is GRANTED IN PART . The presiding judge will contact the parties to establish a 
schedule for further proceedings in the case. 
STEPHEN M. DANIELS 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
CATHERINE B. HYATT MARTHA H. DeGRAFF 
Board Judge Board Judge