ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACTAPPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Great America Construction Company ) ) Under ContractNo. W56SGK-13-C-0002 ) APPEARANCE FORTHEAPPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCANo. 60831

Mr. Mansour Alamyar

Vice President and PM Raymond M. Saunders, Esq.

Army ChiefTrial Attorney CPT Douglas A. Reisinger, JA

Trial Attorney OPINION BYADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE O'CONNELL Theparties agreedto submitthis dispute for AFN 1,298,000 (about $18,700) underBoardRule 11. Theparties agreed to a briefing schedule that called for simultaneous opening briefs due on 15 September 2017. The government filed a brief but appellant did not. TheBoard attemptedto contact appellantto inquire whether it intended to file a briefbut appellanthas notrespondedto the Board's emails and the telephone number on file for appellant is no longervalid. We deny the appeal. FINDINGS OF FACT Appellant entered into a contract with an award date of25 October 2012 for sanitation and maintenance support services at a facility in Afghanistan (R4, tabs 1, 3). The base contract period expired on 30 April 2013 (R4, tab 3 at 34). On 28 April 2013, a contract specialist informed appellant that the government would not exercise an option to extend the contract (R4, tab 25). The contracting officer and appellantthereafter signed a memorandumthat stated in relevantpart: You are hereby notifiedthat your contract period of performance will expire on 30 April 2013. Unless otherwise notified in writingbythe Contracting Officer (KO), you are not authorized to continueperformance beyondthis date. Funding is not available beyond this period, unless otherwise indicated bythe KO. The Contracting Officer'sRepresentative (COR) does not havethe authority to authorize service or commit the Government in any other manner. Any service provided beyondthis date shall be considered "atno additional cost" to the Government. The Government shall not be held liable for services rendered outside the scope ofthe contract period ofperformance. (R4, tab 30 at 2) More than six months later on 17 November 2013, appellant signed a release that states as follows:

(R4, tab 51) I hereby certify that the subject contract is paid in full. The undersigned contractor hereby releases the US Government, its officers, agents[,] and employees ofand from all liabilities, obligations, claims, appeals, and demands which it now has or hereafter may have, whether known or unknown, administrative orjudicial, legal or equitable arising under or in any way related to the services provided.

Nearly three years later, on 1August 2016, appellant submitted a certified claim to the contracting officer in which it contended that a contracting officer, whom it did not identify, had requested an additional month ofservices. Appellant stated that it had performed those services but did not state when it had performed them. (R4, tab 56) The contracting officerdenied the claim on 29 September 2016 (R4, tab 62). Appellantthen filed a timely appeal with the Board. Appellant attached an email to its complaint. The email dated 27 September 2013, is purportedly from "Debra J. Parker, Acquisition Analyst, CACI Contractor Supportto CENTCOM." The email purports to state that a "COR" approved an extra month ofservices at AFN 1,298,000. The email does not identify the COR or specify the dates ofservice. Nor has appellantproduced a written order for the extra services. The government has submitted an affidavit from Ms. Parker. She testified that she did not submit the email in question (pointing to irregularities in grammar and the absence ofphrases she typically employed) and that she was not an employee ofthe U.S. Government at the time period in question (ex. G-1). We find hertestimony to be credible.

2We find that appellant has not proven that it performed one month ofadditional services, norhas it proven that an authorized representative ofthe government ordered the extra work. DECISION Our finding that appellant has not proven that it performed the extra work in question is fatal to this appeal. 

### See Wilner v. UnitedStates, 24 F.3d 1397, 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en bane). However, we further observe thatthe weight ofthe evidence indicates that appellant completed the contract work, received payment in full, and signed a release ofclaims more than seven weeks afterthe purported email from Ms. Parker in which she allegedly confirmed performance ofthe extra work. Accordingly, even ifappellant had performed the extra work, it released the government from liability. 

### BellBC!Co. v. UnitedStates, 570 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

The appeal is denied. Dated: 13 February 2018

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals CONCLUSION

3 

# '~1)C~~ IHAELN. O'CONNELL < Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I concur

# ~ Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract AppealsI certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Opinion and Decision ofthe Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals in ASBCA No. 60831, Appeal ofGreat America Construction Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

4 JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals