ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Great America Construction Company ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W56SGK-13-C-0002 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60831 

Mr. Mansour Alamyar 

Vice President and PM 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

CPT Douglas A. Reisinger, JA 

Trial Attorney 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE O'CONNELL 

The parties agreed to submit this dispute for AFN 1,298,000 (about $18,700) 

under Board Rule 11. The parties agreed to a briefing schedule that called for 

simultaneous opening briefs due on 15 September 201 7. The government filed a brief 

but appellant did not. The Board attempted to contact appellant to inquire whether it 

intended to file a brief but appellant has not responded to the Board's emails and the 

telephone number on file for appellant is no longer valid. We deny the appeal. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

Appellant entered into a contract with an award date of 25 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 appellant thereafter signed a memorandum that 

stated in relevant part: 

You are hereby notified that your contract period of 

performance will expire on 30 April 2013. Unless 

otherwise notified in writing by the Contracting Officer 

(KO), you are not authorized to continue performance 

beyond this date. Funding is not available beyond this 

period, unless otherwise indicated by the KO. The 

Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) does not have 
the authority to authorize service or commit the 

Government in any other manner. Any service provided 

beyond this date shall be considered "at no additional cost" 

to the Government. The Government shall not be held 

liable for services rendered outside the scope of the 

contract period of performance. 

(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 of and 

from all liabilities, obligations, claims, appeals, and 

demands which it now has or hereafter may have, whether 

known or unknown, administrative or judicial, legal 

or equitable arising under or in any way related to the 

services provided. 

Nearly three years later, on 1 August 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 of services. Appellant stated that it 

had performed those services but did not state when it had performed them. (R4, 

tab 56) The contracting officer denied the claim on 29 September 2016 (R4, tab 62). 

Appellant then 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 

Support to CENTCOM." The email purports to state that a "COR" approved an extra 

month of services at AFN 1,298,000. The email does not identify the COR or specify 

the dates of service. Nor has appellant produced 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 of phrases she typically employed) and that she was not an employee of the 

U.S. Government at the time period in question (ex. G-1). We find her testimony to be 

credible. 

2 
We find that appellant has not proven that it performed one month of additional 

services, nor has it proven that an authorized representative of the 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. United States, 24 F.3d 1397, 1401 (Fed. 

Cir. 1994) ( en bane). However, we further observe that the weight of the evidence 

indicates that appellant completed the contract work, received payment in full, and 

signed a release of claims more than seven weeks after the purported email from 

Ms. Parker in which she allegedly confirmed performance of the extra work. 

Accordingly, even if appellant had performed the extra work, it released the government 

from liability. Bell BC! Co. v. United States, 570 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 

The appeal is denied. 

Dated: 13 February 2018 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

CONCLUSION 

3 

'~1)C~~ IHAELN. O'CONNELL < 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

~ 

I concur 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60831, Appeal of Great 

America Construction Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

4 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals