Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01507/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01507-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
DayDanyon Corporation
Appellant
Department of Defense
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DAYDANYON CORPORATION,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-1507

______________________ 

Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract 

Appeals in Nos. 57611, 57681, 57717, Administrative 

Judge David W. James Jr.

______________________ 

Decided: January 9, 2015 

______________________ 

JOSEPH A. CAMARDO, JR., Camardo Law Firm, PC, of 

Auburn, New York, for appellant.

A. BONDURANT ELEY, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department 

of Justice, of Washington, DC, for appellee. With her on 

the brief were JOYCE F. BRANDA, Acting Assistant AttorCase: 14-1507 Document: 39-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/09/2015
2 DAYDANYON CORPORATION v. DEFENSE

ney General, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., Director, and 

MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., Assistant Director. 

______________________ 

Before DYK, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

DYK, Circuit Judge. 

DayDanyon Corporation (“DayDanyon”) appeals a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals 

(the “Board”) granting summary judgment to the government on DayDanyon’s claim that the ordering deadline of 

the contract at issue was December 24, 2010, and that the 

government breached the contract by failing to order the 

guaranteed minimum quantity of Collapsible Joint Modular Intermodal Containers (“JMICs” or the “containers”) 

by that date. Because the Board correctly interpreted the 

contract ordering period as ending on April 23, 2011, we 

affirm. 

BACKGROUND

On April 23, 2009, the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (“DSCP”), now known as Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support (“DLATS”), awarded Contract No. 

SPMSED-09-D-0001 (the “contract”) to DayDanyon for 

JMICs for use by the Naval Sea Systems Command. The 

contract provides, in relevant part:

This is a[n] Indefinite Quantity Contract. Orders 

may be issued on this contract for a period of 

TWO YEARS.

. . . 

After First Article Test approval, the required delivery for production quantities under this contract is 120 days after the date of the resulting 

delivery orders.

Case: 14-1507 Document: 39-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/09/2015
DAYDANYON CORPORATION v. DEFENSE 3

The Guaranteed Minimum is a total of 500 containers, whether placed for a single CLIN, or combination of CLINS that collectively total 500 

containers. The guaranteed minimum is 500 containers per year. Since this is a two year base 

contract the minimum quantity is multiplied by 2.

J.A. 196. The contract also incorporated several Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) provisions, including FAR 

52.216-22 INDEFINITE QUANTITY (OCT 1995), which 

provides, in relevant part:

(d) Any order issued during the effective period of 

this contract and not completed within that period 

shall be completed by the Contractor within the 

time specified in the order. The contract shall 

govern the Contractor’s and Government’s rights 

and obligations with respect to that order to the 

same extent as if the order were completed during 

the contract’s effective period; provided, that the 

Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract after Two Years[.]

J.A. 211; see also 48 C.F.R. § 52.216-22.1

1 The contract also incorporated FAR 52.216-18, 

ORDERING (OCT 1995), which provides, in relevant part:

(a) Any supplies and services to be furnished under this contract shall be ordered by issuance of 

delivery orders or task orders by the individuals 

or activities designated in the Schedule. Such orders may be issued— 

FROM: DATE OF CONTRACT AWARD

THROUGH: TWO (2) YEARS

 

Case: 14-1507 Document: 39-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/09/2015
4 DAYDANYON CORPORATION v. DEFENSE

On April 29, 2010, DSCP approved DayDanyon’s First 

Article Test sample, and authorized DayDanyon to begin 

production of the JMICs. On May 3, 2010, DSCP issued 

two delivery orders for a total of 500 units under the 

contract, each with a delivery date of August 31, 2010, 

120 days following receipt of the order. As of November 

23, 2010, the contracting officer had extended the delivery 

date of the orders to two dates in March 2011. DayDanyon did not deliver any JMICs to DSCP by the March

2011 delivery dates.

On April 6, 2011, DayDanyon sent the contracting officer a certified claim for $720,700.00, alleging that DSCP 

breached the contract by failing to order the guaranteed 

minimum of 1,000 JMICs by December 24, 2010. According to DayDanyon’s claim, although the contract had “a 

J.A. 210; see also 48 C.F.R. § 52.216-18. And FAR 52.216-

9007, CONTRACT AND DELIVERY ORDER 

LIMITATIONS (JUL 2006), which provides, in relevant 

part:

(a) Delivery orders will specify delivery no less 

than 120 days from the date of the order.

. . . 

(c) Guaranteed Minimum

(1) The Government guarantees that it will order 

under this contract . . . the following minimum, as 

applicable:

. . . 

(ii) Base period of two or more years.

500 EA TOTAL (Quantity) multiplied by two[.]

J.A. 211; see also 48 C.F.R. § 52.216-9007. 

 

Case: 14-1507 Document: 39-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/09/2015
DAYDANYON CORPORATION v. DEFENSE 5

two year base period running through April 23, 2011,” 

DSCP was required to order the 1,000 JMICs by December 24, 2010, 120 days prior to the conclusion of the base 

period, because the contract provided that “delivery 

orders will specify delivery no less than 120 days from the 

date of the order,” and because DayDanyon “shall not be 

required to make any deliveries under this contract after 

[t]wo [y]ears.” J.A. 522 (quoting J.A. 211). The contracting officer responded that DayDanyon’s claim was “premature” because “[t]he two year base period for [the 

contract] expires on April 23rd, 2011.” J.A. 526. On April 

20, 2011, the contracting officer terminated the contract

for default, leading to a default termination claim submitted by DayDanyon on July 11, 2011. On May 18, 2011, 

DayDanyon filed another claim, which was materially 

identical to the April 6, 2011, claim. On July 15, 2011, 

the contracting officer denied the May 18, 2011, claim, 

explaining that because the contract was terminated on 

April 20, 2011, prior to the April 23, 2011, expiration of 

the base period, the government was not required to order 

the remainder of the guaranteed minimum quantity of 

JMICs.

DayDanyon appealed to the Board, which consolidated DayDanyon’s appeals of three separate claims: (1) the 

default termination claim, No. 57681; (2) the April 6, 2011 

claim, No. 57611; and (3) the May 18, 2011, claim, No. 

57717. The Board dismissed the May 18, 2011, claim as 

duplicative of the April 6, 2011, claim. On the default 

termination claim, the Board denied the government’s 

motion for summary judgment.2 On DayDanyon’s breach 

2 The government did not appeal the denial of 

summary judgment in DayDanyon’s default termination 

claim, and proceedings with respect to that claim remain 

ongoing before the Board. We need not and do not decide 

 

Case: 14-1507 Document: 39-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/09/2015
6 DAYDANYON CORPORATION v. DEFENSE

claim, relating to the government’s failure to order the 

requisite number of JMICs, the Board granted the government’s motion for summary judgment because it 

rejected DayDanyon’s interpretation of the contract to 

require the government to order 1,000 JMICs by December 24, 2010, as opposed to April 23, 2011.

DayDanyon appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(10).3 We review the Board’s legal 

determinations, including interpretations of contracts, de 

whether the government properly terminated the contract 

for default.

3 Our jurisdictional statute provides jurisdiction to 

this court over “an appeal from a final order or final 

decision” of the Board. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(10). In this 

case, despite the ongoing Board proceedings over the 

default termination claim, we have jurisdiction to review 

the separate breach of contract claims. See Dewey Elecs. 

Corp. v. United States, 803 F.2d 650, 653–54 (Fed. Cir. 

1986) (“In this case, multiple claims are involved and, 

while there might be a question as to whether the remanded claims meet the finality requirement, the claims 

involved in this appeal were decided with finality.” (citations omitted)); see also Brownlee v. Dyncorp, 349 F.3d 

1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Although [28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(10)] requires that the Board’s decision be ‘final,’

we have held that the concept of finality in this context is 

more flexible than, for example, the ‘rigid district court 

concept of finality’ required by 28 U.S.C. § 1291.”) (quoting Dewey, 803 F.2d at 655)); Elkins v. Gober, 229 F.3d 

1369, 1373–74 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“This court has held, 

when reviewing decisions of agency boards of contract 

appeals, that a litigant’s individual claims for relief may, 

in certain circumstances, be separable for purposes of 

appellate review.” (citations omitted)). 

 

Case: 14-1507 Document: 39-2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/09/2015
DAYDANYON CORPORATION v. DEFENSE 7

novo. Rockies Express Pipeline LLC v. Salazar, 730 F.3d 

1330, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). 

DISCUSSION

The parties do not dispute that the contract required 

the government to order 1,000 JMICs prior to the termination of the contract, and that the government only 

ordered 500 JMICs before December 24, 2010. Instead, 

the dispute is over the date by which the government was 

required to order the additional 500 JMICs. DayDanyon 

contends that the applicable deadline was December 24, 

2010, 120 days prior to the end of the two-year ordering 

period provided in the contract. The government responds that the deadline was April 23, 2011, the end of 

the two-year ordering period.

DayDanyon’s contention is refuted by the plain language of the contract, which clearly provides for a twoyear ordering period. See Bell/Heery v. United States, 

739 F.3d 1324, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“When interpreting 

a contract, if the provisions are clear and unambiguous, 

they must be given their plain and ordinary meaning.” 

(citations and quotation marks omitted)). The contract 

unambiguously provides that “[o]rders may be issued on 

this contract for a period of TWO YEARS.” J.A. 196. This 

language is repeated in the contract’s incorporation of 

FAR 52.216-18, which provides that “orders may be 

issued” from the “DATE OF CONTRACT AWARD [April 

23, 2009]” through “TWO (2) YEARS.” J.A. 210; see also

J.A. 211 (checking the box adjacent to “Base period of two 

or more years.”). 

The contract is ambiguous, however, as to orders 

placed by the government within 120 days of the conclusion of the two-year ordering period. This is because FAR 

52.216-22(d) is subject to two plausible interpretations. 

On the one hand, the first sentence of FAR 52.216-22(d) 

provides that orders placed during the effective period of 

Case: 14-1507 Document: 39-2 Page: 7 Filed: 01/09/2015
8 DAYDANYON CORPORATION v. DEFENSE

the contract but not completed during the effective period 

“shall be completed by the Contractor within the time 

specified in the order,” i.e., within 120 days. J.A. 211. 

Under this reading, the proviso that the “Contractor shall 

not be required to make any deliveries under this contract 

after Two Years,” id., simply emphasizes that the contractor need not deliver orders that are placed by the government after April 23, 2011, the end of the two-year 

ordering period. On the other hand, as the government 

argues, the proviso could also be read to suggest that 

although the government may place orders at any time 

during the two-year ordering period, DayDanyon “shall 

not be required,” id., to make any deliveries placed within 

120 days of April 23, 2011. We need not resolve this 

ambiguity as to whether the contractor is obligated to 

deliver orders placed within 120 days of the end of the 

two-year period, because regardless of which of the above 

interpretations is correct, the contract cannot mean what 

DayDanyon says it means—that the contract prohibits 

orders placed after December 24, 2010, 120 days prior to 

the conclusion of the two-year period. 

As the Board found, DayDanyon’s interpretation, 

which reduces the effective ordering period of the contract 

from two years to twenty months, would render the 

contract’s incorporation of FAR 52.216-22(d) meaningless. 

See Bell/Heery, 739 F.3d at 1331 (“A contract must also 

be construed as a whole and in a manner that gives 

meaning to all of its provisions and makes sense.” (citations and quotation marks omitted)).

Thus, under the plain language of the contract, the 

government had until April 23, 2011, two years from the 

date of the contract award, to order the guaranteed minimum number of JMICs from DayDanyon whether or not 

DayDanyon was obligated to deliver beyond the two-year 

period. And as the Board found, because the government 

was not required to order the guaranteed minimum 

Case: 14-1507 Document: 39-2 Page: 8 Filed: 01/09/2015
DAYDANYON CORPORATION v. DEFENSE 9

amount of containers by December 24, 2010, the contractor’s claim was properly rejected.

AFFIRMED

Case: 14-1507 Document: 39-2 Page: 9 Filed: 01/09/2015