ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACTAPPEALS
Appeals of

-- ) ) Clean by Lucy, Inc. ) ) UnderContractNo. W9124M-05-D-0014 )

APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA Nos. 58432, 58441, 58442

Leonard W. Childs, Jr., Esq.

Childs & Associates Savannah, GA
Raymond M. Saunders, Esq.

Army ChiefTrial Attorney CPT MeganE. Mahaney, JA

Trial Attorney1

OPINION BYADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE THRASHER

These appeals arise from CleanbyLucy, Inc. (CBL), performing 31 task orders {TOs) under an Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (ID/IQ) contract in support ofthe renovation and modernization ofbarracks on Fort Stewart, Georgia. On 17 September 2012, CBL filed 17 appeals with the Board. Fourteen ofthe appeals were decidedunder the Board's expedited procedures (Rule 12.2) in ourdecision on 14 June 2013 (ASBCA No. 58331 etal.). Our decision in the expedited appeals has no precedential value. Therefore, we are not boundbythat decision orourfindings offact in that decision. However, we consider it reasonable that the evidentiary record produced in arriving at that decision, including the transcript ofthe first hearing, underthe circumstances involved with these appeals, be consideredpart ofthe evidentiary record in the instant appeals. The evidentiaryrecord from that decision involved a hearing on 6 and 7 May 2013 that produced a two-volume hearingtranscript; a Rule 4 file; and a stipulation of fact between the parties regarding authority ofMr. Terrence Johnson. TheRule 4 file in the first set ofappeals, as supplemented, is the sameRule 4 as in the instant appeals. Much ofevidence produced at the first hearing directly addresses issues found in these three appeals. However, the parties have withdrawnthe stipulation offact regarding Mr. Johnson's authority entered into during the first hearing. Consequently, it is not part ofthe record in these appeals. A hearing was held and only entitlement is at issue. The Boardhasjurisdiction overthe dispute pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) of 1978, 41 

## u.s.c. §§ 7101-7109.

1 At various times during these appeals, the government was also represented by MAJ Joseph K. Venghaus, JA, Erica S. Beardsley, Esq., MAJ James P. Leary, JA, and MAJ Ildiko Szentkiralyi, JA.FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Fort Stewart and HunterArmy Airfield, Georgia, were notified in 2005 that
a large group ofArmy troops were scheduled to return from operations in Iraq within 90 days and would be billeted at Fort Stewart and HunterArmy Airfield. At the time, Fort Stewart and HunterArmy Airfield did not have the existing capacity to house these troops in existing barracks. Althoughthere were several empty barracks on the bases, the barracks required substantial renovation before they would be habitable. As
aresult, this mission imperative generated a requirement for Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield to renovate 33 existing barracks within 90 days to accommodate the returning troops. This project was generally referred to as the barracks reset project (resetproject).2

2. Rather than contractingwith a single general contractorto manage the overall reset project, the government chose to manage the resetproject directly by employing an acquisition strategy wherethe governmentwould contract directly with individual contractors for specific segments ofthe renovation project, such as heating and cooling, painting, flooring, etc. (tr. 2/152-55; R4, tab 1 at 2).3 As aresult, the government assumed responsibility for scheduling the various contractors and managing any scheduling conflicts between the contractors that might arise. In this regard, the solicitation pertinent to these appeals (and subsequent contract) incorporated by reference FAR52.236-8, OTHER CONTRACTS (APR 1984), which put CBL on notice that other contractors might be working withinthe same area oftheir work (R4, tab 1at 450).

3. The government issued invitations for bids toperform the various segments ofthe barracks reset project. Pertinentto these appeals, was a solicitation for an ID/IQ contract, to provide services for the removal and installation offloor coverings for the buildings at Fort Stewart and HunterArmy Airfield (flooring contract). The flooring contract was structured for a one-yearperiod with four optionperiods and was a competitive 8(a) set aside. (R4, tab 1at 1, 3, 78, 153, 228, 303)

4. By 2005, United Grounds Maintenance (UGM) had approximately 20 years ofexperience performing small government contracts at Fort Stewart and HunterArmy Airfield (ASBCA No. 58331 etal. (58331), tr. 1/107-08). However, this was UGM's first bid on an ID/IQ contract and on any contract ofthismagnitude (58331, tr. 1/78). At that time, CBL was a small business specializing in cleaning and was owned by Ms. Lucy Brown. Although CBL was already certified by the Small Business

2 This background information is undisputed and the record support is throughout the transcripts ofboth hearings. 3 Unless otherwise noted citation to transcripts are for the hearing in ASBCA Nos. 58432,58441,58442.
2Administration (SBA) as a minority, woman-owned 8(a) contractor, this was its first bid on a government contract (tr. 11175). Afterreviewing the solicitation for the flooring contract, Mr.Jerry Burkhalter, a UGMrepresentative, approached Ms. Brown proposing that the two businesses work togetherto compete for Solicitation No. W9124M-05-B-0006-0004 (tr. 1/175-76).4 Ms. Brown agreed with the proposal and a bid was submittedby CBL (R4, tab 1at 3).

Site Visit

5. On 13 July 2005 CBL participated with otherpotential bidders in apre-bid site visit. The potential bidders were driven around Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield to view various buildings (tr. 2/45, 52-54). However, the potential bidders
were not told ofthe reset project during the site visit (tr. 2/50).

ContractAward

6. CBL bid and was awarded Contract No. W9124M-05-D-0014 on 26 July 2005. The contractrequired CBL toprovide an indefinite quantity ofvarious services related to the buildings at Fort Stewart and HunterArmy Airfield, includingthe removal ofthe existing floor covering and replacement with newvinyl tile. (R4, tab 1 at 3, 264)

ContractAuthority to Administer CBL 's Performance under the TOs

7. The government issued a notice ofaward letter on 28 July 2005 that, among otherthings, identified the contracting officer (CO), contracting officer's representative (COR) and the contract administrator. Ms. DeborahAustin was designated the CO and the letter stated she was the only individual with authority to bindthe government. (R4, tab 264) Mr. Joey Waters was appointed the COR and Mr.Terrence Johnson the contract administrator (id. at 2). Pertinent to these appeals, Mr. Johnson signed every TO and virtually every TO modification as the "CONTRACTING/ORDERING OFFICER" (R4, tabs 5-31). In addition, he was on the worksite with CBL virtually every day providing direction and resolving issues as part ofhis responsibilities in administeringthe TOs (tr. 21167). Mr. Johnson was also responsible for ensuring CBL submitted the proper paperwork to bepaid (58331, tr. 21144-45).

4 The precise legal relationship between CBL and UGMresulting from their agreement is unclear. CBL'sproposal is not in the record and the awarded contract does not mention UGM. However, CBL filed the underlying claim in these appeals as a subcontractor sponsorship claim with UGM's attached request for equitable adjustment (REA) stating it is a subcontractorto CBL (R4, tab 257 at 1-5). Likewise, CBL's notice ofappeal describes UGM as "an interested subcontractor" (Bd. corr.).
38. Mr. Burkhalterwas theproject superintendent for CBL and was delegated authority to act on behalfofthe company (R4, tab 2; 58331, tr. 11109). Mr. Burkhalter directed the work on a day-to-day basis and interacted with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Waters at the worksites. Ms. Tammy Wilds5 was CBL's chiefadministrative officer and among otherresponsibilities prepared invoices and associated documents for payment (58331, tr. 1/26-27). She prepared all the invoices and associated documents submitted for payment under all 30 TOs at issue and signed as a witness for Ms. Lucy Brown's signature on all paymentreleases submitted (58331, tr. 1141-51).

Issuance of Task Orders

9. All work under the contract was performedpursuantto bilateral TOs (R4, tab 1at 452). The contractprovided for a structured, orderly procedure for awarding TOs under the contract that anticipated the parties would negotiate the TO requirements within theparameters ofthe contract. This process, known as "scoping," would begin by informing the contractor in writing ofan anticipated requirement, a site visit would be conducted and the parties would negotiate a TO for the work to be performed. (R4, tab 1 at 379-80) Paragraph 2.1 ofthe Technical Provisions, stated that "[a]s the need exist [sic] for performance underthe terms ofthis contract, the Contracting Officer orhis/her authorized representative will notify the Contractor, in writing, ofan existing requirement" (R4, tab 1at 379). The contract further stated that withintwo working days ofreceiving written notification ofa requirement from the CO or an authorized representative, appellant would conduct a site visit, establish "verbal contactwith the Contracting Officer orhis/herrepresentative to further define the scope ofthe requirement," then submit aproposal to the government (R4, tab 1at 379-80,**~** 2.2.2). The contract anticipated the government and contractorwould meet to measure the rooms where the work would be performed and determine which line items applied. The parties would then negotiate the requirement and then
a requirements request would be generated and a TO issued. (58331, tr. 1I139-41) However, because ofthe compressed schedule demands ofthe project, the orderly process for negotiating and awarding TOs underthe contractwas impossible and was never implemented. Noproposals were requested by the governmentnorwere any proposals submitted by CBL on the barracks resetproject (tr. 2/132-33). Although there was no "scoping", the government entered the date ofthe pre-award potential bidder's site visit, 13 July 2005, on every TO as the date ofthe scoping meeting, which was 12 days before the award ofthe contract on 26 July 2005 (58331, tr. 11161).

10. Nine days after award, on 4 August 2005, the government began issuing the 30 TOs to CBL for the removal ofexisting floor coverings and the replacement with
new vinyl tile in all single solider barracks located at Fort Stewart. The TOs relevant to

5 Ms. Wilds was Ms. Tammy Price at the time ofthis contract (58331, tr. 1146).
4the instant appeals are TO Nos. 0001-0028, 0031, and 0032 (58432, tr. 2/184).6 The majority ofTOs were quickly issued in successive groups in early August 2005; 29 of the 31 TOs were issued between 4 August 2005 and 12 August 2005.7 The last two
were TO 0026, Building 634, which was issued on 23 September 2005 and TO 0028, Building 636, which was issued on 30 November2005. Each TO correspondedto a barracks building to be renovated and established both the work to be performed as well
as aperiod ofperformance for that specific task. (R4, tabs 5-31, 34, 35, 64, 110)

11. The contract included FAR52.216-19, ORDERLIMITATIONS (OCT 1995) that stated in pertinentpart: (b) Maximum order. The Contractor is not obligated to honor:
(1) Any order for a single item in excess of$500,000;
(2) Any order for a combination ofitems in excess of $500,000; or (3) A series oforders from the same ordering office within 10 calendar days thattogether call for quantities exceeding the limitation in subparagraph (1) or (2) above.
(R4, tab 1at 452) TOs 1-25, 27, 31 and 328were issued within a IO-calendar day periodwith a face value in excess of$1 million. Despite the fact CBL was not required to acceptthese orders underthe contract, all were bilaterally executed. (R4, tabs 5-30, 34-35)

12. The barracks were three stories tall and contained various numbers ofunits in various combinations and modules. In total, the TOs related to work in 2,412 separate housing units, requiring approximately 800,000 square feet offloor covering. The total work was required to be completed in aperiod of90 days and was undertaken in conjunction with a number ofother contractors working on the reset

6 The parties stipulated duringthe hearingthat TO Nos. 0001-0028, 0031 and 0032
are relevant to ASBCA Nos. 58432 and 58441, while only TO Nos. 0009, 0022, 0023, and 0032 are relevant to ASBCA No. 58442 (tr. 2/184). 7 4 August 2015 (3 TOs), 3 August 2015 (2 TOs), 8August 2015 (6 TOs), 9 August (4 TOs), 10 August 2015 (9 TOs), 11August2015 (3 TOs) and 12 August (2 TOs). 8 TO 26 was issued on 23 September 2005 and TO 28 was not issued until 30 November 2005 (R4, tabs 64, 110).
5project such as HVAC maintenance, furniture moving, cleaning and painting. (58331, tr. 1/37; R4, tab 257 at 4)
Performance of the Work

13. Ms. Austin testified that issuance ofthe first TO constituted notice to proceed
on the reset project (tr. 1/55). Consequently, work began on 4 August 2015 and the individual TOs included specific periods ofperformance staggered to accomplish the total work within the 90-day reset deadline (R4, tabs 5-30, 34-35, 64, 110).

14. Althoughthe government was aware ofthe barracks resetproject at the time of the solicitation, it did not inform CBL ofthe project until after award (58331, tr. 1/111; 58432, 2/152-55). Ms. Wilds testified that CBL was the last contractor issued TOs on the barracks reset project because they would be the last contractorworking on each site, due to the coordination ofthe scheduling ofall the other contractors on site. CBL began to hear from other contractors about the overall scope ofthe resetproject after contract award. 

### It was not until thepre-construction meeting on 9 August 2015, after award and the first TOs were already issued, that the government provided CBL any information on the barracks resetproject. (Tr. 2/152-55)

ASBCANo. 58432: Acceleration-Reduction ofNumber ofDays

15. Contract clause 52.000-4039, TIME ALLOWED FOR COMPLETION OF TASK ORDERS (4 DEC 02), provided a formula to assist in determining a suggestedtimeframe for completion ofa TO (R4, tab 1at 438). The equation contained in clause 52.000-4039 stated that thetotal days recommended as a guideline for "estimating Task Ordercompletion time"
was 30-days, plus (0.00009 x the task orderprice in dollars), plus any extra days determined by the government to be necessary (id.). Clause 52.000-4039, at paragraph a, also stated that "[t]his formula is for information only and may be used bythe Government as a guideline for estimating Task Order completion time, along with other factors. Performance time will be negotiated for each Task Order." (R4, tab 1at 438) Ms. Austin testified that the performanceperiods were negotiated. However, she was not actually involved in issuingthe TOs and hertestimony on this point appears to be based upon the fact each ofthe TOs were executed as bilateral agreements, signedby Mr. Burkhalter. (Tr. 1/52-54) In contrast, Ms. Wilds testifiedthere was no negotiation between the parties about the performance period as contemplated by the contract (tr. 21146-47). We find Ms. Wilds' testimony credible and supported by the record. Therecord establishes the TO performance periods
were developed by the governmentto accommodate the 90-day deadline; the TO performance periods were staggered to meet the 90-day deadline, with the majority of performance periods being 10 days perbarracks (T0). 9 We find the performance periods
were not negotiated but were unilaterally issued by the government.

9 The initial TOs 0001-0003, issued on 4 August 2005, included a 14-dayperformance
616. A pre-performance meetingwas held on 9 August 2005. Amongthe attendees at thatmeeting were Mr. Johnson, Ms. Wilds, Mr. Burkhalter and Ms. Brown. (R4, tabs 3, 4) Mr. Burkhaltertestified that duringthe meetinghe told the governmentrepresentatives that they "[were not] anticipating 31 barracks at one time, orthis much work" and the government's response by Mr. Johnson was the "troops were cominghome, and we had to get thisjob done, youknow. Whateverwe had to do,just do it." (58331, tr. 11123-24) Likewise, Ms. Wilds testified that during the meeting CBL discussed how challengingthe schedule would be and the government's response:

We talked aboutthe fact that we were goingto have to work aroundthe clockto get this work accomplished, and thatwewere going to have to hire newpeople, because our crew, our normal crew, couldn'tperformthis much workthis fast, and that's when we were told that we knewthatthis was a lot, thatthe troops were cominghome, and this was the first phase ofthis contract, and it hadtobe completed ontime because the troops had to have somewhereto live when they got home, soto goto work and get it done.
(Tr. 21138-39) She did notraise the issue ofthe performanceperiod with the CObut did so with both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Waters (tr. 2/150). The government did not present any evidence torebut Mr. Burkhalter's and Ms. Wilds' testimony regarding noticeto the government on this issue.

ASBCANo. 58441: Transport and Storage ofMaterials

17. Unlike most ofthe other contractors on site, CBL was required to meet several material storage requirements (tr. 2/39). Ms. Wilds explained in hertestimony thatthe nature ofthe flooring workrequired special storage mandatedby the product's manufacturerto meetthe requirements ofthe contractjusttoprotectthe materials from the elements andpreparethem for installation (tr. 2/38-39). The contractTechnical Provisions provided detailed storage and installation compliancerequirements for the installation offlooring (R4, tab 1at 387-434). The sections applying to installation of resilient flooring and carpetrequired that the materials be stored in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations (R4, tab 1 at 389,**~** 1.4, at 396,**~** 1.3). The manufacturer's recommendations required the materials be acclimatized to the area
period for each; TO 0005, issued on 5 August 2005, included a 26-day performanceperiod; TO 0007, issued on 8 August 2005, included a performanceperiod of40 days; andTO 0031, issued on 12 August 2005, included a performanceperiod of27 days.
7where the flooring would be installed. Ms. Wilds explained how meeting the acclimatization requirements during the reset projectpresented unique challenges because ofthe "large quantity ofthe work at one time," contrastingthis projectwith all other work they had performedbefore and after, stating:
Q Where do you store materials generally? On the job order contracting that you had before, how did you go about handling that?

A It'sreally hard to compare the two, because prior to this barracks task and after this barracks task, we have
neverhad anything that was similarto this. We performed this same contract until the very end. We've neverhad anything similarto this arise.

Before we worked on this contract, when we were underthe basic ordering agreement, we neverhad this. All the materials

-- 

### Q What is "this"that you'retalking about?

A This large quantity ofwork at one time. Priorto this, underthe basic ordering agreement, everything was one building at a time. You orderyour materials. They
come into your warehouse. You take them to thejob site. You leave them for 48 hours, 72 hours, whateverthe manufacturerrecommends for themto be climatizedto that building, and then you come in and install them.

Afterthis rush barracks thing was over, we performed 199 more task orders. I mean, I'mnot sure exactly, butthere was
-- it was 200 task orders. It was never like this again. Always the materials come in for
one ortwo buildings, whateveryou've got to be going
on. You take

-- they come into yourwarehouse. You take them to thejob site, and you climatize them to the building.

With this, we had two orthree trucks, semi trucks, a day coming in, bringing materials. They had to be taken to
ourwarehouse in Glennville, and brought here

.... 8(Tr. 2/27-29) A When you brought these materials bythe trailer to thejob site, in orderto get that much material into the building to be climatized in the amount oftime that you needed, the materials needed to have beenhere the day before. Butwe couldn'thave them here the day before, because ourtruck was back and to from Glennville.

So when you're thinking about how many buildings you're doing at one time, ifyou had a site

-- an on-site warehouse, you could bring your materials there. You couldtake them directly to the building and getthem climatized, in the amount oftime that you had. With the materials being offsite, you had to bring them here, throw them in the building, and hope to God they got climatized before it was time toputthem down.

18. The contract states thatthe"[c]ontractor shall coordinateuse ofthe site for access, staging, and parking with the Contracting Officer" (R4, tab 1at 381,**~** 5.9). The contract also incorporates by reference FARclause 52.236-10, OPERATIONS AND STORAGE AREAS (APR 1984), which requires CO approval to store materials, including temporary buildings, on government premises (R4, tab 1at 450). Ms. Wilds and Mr. Burkhalterdirected the request to store materials on site to Mr. Johnson and Mr. Waters shortly after award. Ms. Wilds describedthat meeting and the response they received as follows:
[W]e explainedthat we were going to be gettingtruckloads ofmaterial in at the time, and we explained thatwe didn't have a semi truck and trailerto haul the materials down here, and we asked ifwe couldrent one ofthose containers andputdown here, a storage container and put down here. And Joey Waters looked around and said, We've got so much going on at all these buildings, there's not anywhere toput it.

And he said, you know, We've got all the different contractors; the furniture movers are moving in and out. We can't get in their way. We've gotthe painting

9(Tr. 2/36) contractors are out here. You know, there'sjusttoo much activity in the area for you all to sort materials here.

And Jerry said, Well, you know, we're goingto have to haul these back and to. AndJoey said, Well, I understand that, butthat's what's going to have to be done because we cannot allowyou to store this. There's nowhere for you to go.

19. Ms. Wilds also testified that, as a result oftheirrequest being denied, CBL
was required to store the materials several miles 10 away at CBL'swarehouse facility in Glennville, Georgia. This required having the materials delivered tothe warehouse and then making several trips a day back and forth to Fort Stewart. This also necessitated acquiring a tractor-trailertruck, hiring a driver and locating an employee at the warehouse to transport the materials to Fort Stewart. (Tr. 2/36-37)

ASBCA No. 58442: Access to Buildings: 629, 631, 632 and 633 11

20. The barracks were referred to as "pinwheel barracks" because they were designed and constructed in a non-linear modular fashion with a courtyard surrounded by three to four towers. Each floor within the towers had an exterior landing with four rooms perlanding. These landings were not enclosed at the time ofthis contract. (Tr. 2/84) CBL was required to remove the existing flooring in each room, dispose ofthe debris and then bring in the new materials to rooms to lay the new flooring. Ms. Wilds testified that CBL's bid strategy was to adapt a forklift to directly access the exterior landings on each floor, thereby reducing the laborrequired and expediting debris removal and delivery materials to the rooms. This approach was successfully used on every barracks except buildings 629, 631, 632, and 633. (Tr. 2/60-61)

21. Ms. Wilds also testified there were many contractors simultaneously performing work on the barracks in the same areas where CBL was working. In most
cases CBL was able to work around other contractors working in the same area except in the case ofbuildings 629 (TO 22), 631 (TO 32), 632 (TO 23) and 633 (TO 9) where another contractor (pipeline contractor) was renovatingthe high pressure water lines servicingthe barracks. Thepipeline contractorwas staging equipment and materials in the area and had dug a series oftrenches nextto these buildings. Ms. Wilds estimated the trenches were approximately six to eight feet wide and eightto ten feet deep. (Tr. 2/59)

10 Glennville, Georgia, is approximately 25 miles from Fort Stewart. 11 This claim is also referred to as the Government Failure to Cooperate claim.
1022. Duringhertestimony, Ms. Wilds referred in detail to three maps to explain why CBL could not use a forklift to access the exterior landings because ofthe pipeline contractor (exs. G-1, A-1, A-2). 12 She explainedthat a main road ran in front ofthese barracks butthebarracks were back from the road. However, a forklift could gain access to the buildingsby entering one ofthe parking lots next to the buildings, jumping a curb and driving through a grassy area nextto the building to access the landings. The only other option for direct access to the building was to use an access road that ran behind the buildings. (Tr. 2/57-59; ex. G-1) Ms. Wilds testifiedtheir forklift could only access building 629 from one oftwo parking lots because ofthe configuration ofbuilding. One parking lot was blocked because the pipeline contractorwas using it as a staging area for its materials and equipment and the other lot was blockedby the work (trenches) beingperformedby the pipeline contractor. In the case ofbuildings 631, 632 and 633, Ms. Wilds testifiedthat access to the buildings
was blockedby the pipeline trenches because they completely surrounded the buildings. (Tr. 21117-19) As a result, CBL's forklift could not access the landings in buildings 629, 631, 632, and 633 because ofa combination ofthe layout ofthe barracks and the pipeline contractorworking in the same area.
23. The governmentrelied solely upon the testimony ofMr. Carl Steen to refute Ms. Wilds' testimony. Atthe time ofhis testimony, Mr. Steen was the Chiefof the Contract Construction Branch at Fort Stewart, responsible for all construction on the base (tr. 2/82). Mr. Steen testified that he was familiar withthe buildings at issue and, using a current utilities map ofthe area (ex. G-1; R4, tab 284), opined whether CBL wouldhave been prevented from accessing eachbuilding with a forklift. Mr. Steen testified that only one side ofbuilding 629 would have beenblockedby excavation ofthe high-temperature water lines, that only a maximum oftwo sides of building 631 would have beenblockedby excavation ofthe high-temperature water lines and only one side ofbuilding 632 wouldhave been blocked by excavation ofthe high-temperature water lines. (Tr. 2/91-92)

24. Although Mr. Steen testified as to facts and his opinions, Mr. Steen admittedthat he was notpresent at Fort Stewart during theperformance ofthis contract and was not involved withtheproject. In addition, he was not qualified as an expertwitness bythe government during the hearing. (Tr. 2/99-100, 102-03) Consequently, we disregard the opinions expressedbyMr. Steen. Onthe otherhand,
we find Ms. Wilds' testimony credible and find CBL was unable to access the buildings with their forklift because ofthe activities ofthepipeline contractor.

25. Ms. Wilds also testified that this issue was never directly raised to the CO but it was raised with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Waters. Both men came outto the site in response to notice ofthe problemto try and determine ifthere was another way to gain

12 Exhibit G-1 is a blow-up copy ofRule 4, tab 284.
11access to the buildings. After inspectingthe site, they could not find anotherpoint of
access for the forklift. (Tr. 2178, 121-22) The government then told CBL, "justkeep doing what [you are] doing, and try to get some more people so that we [can] speed it up, and let's finish and get out of[this] area, because we're bogged down" (tr. 2/122). As a result, CBL hired more people and was forced to hand carry debris out ofthe buildings and bring materials into the buildings by carryingthem up the stairs in the buildings (tr. 2/120). The government did not attempt to refute Ms. Wilds' testimony
on these points. Consequently, we find that CBL notified the government oftheir inability to gain access to the buildings with their forklift and was directed by the government to continue with the work manually and to hire more people to compensate in an attempt to speed up the work. Additionally, the government did not proffer any evidence ofwhat, ifany, actions the government took to try and preventthe pipeline contractor from interfering with CBL'sperformance. The final progress reports show the work on these buildings was completed by 10 December 2005 (R4, tabs 111, 153, 162, 164). 13
PaymentInvoices andReleases

26. CBL submitted apayment invoice for every TO at issue in the instant appeals (R4, tabs 97-98, 103, 108-09, 123-24, 195-209, 213, 218, 234-39). A TO was issued for all work on a specific building and the TO related to all workperformed on the identified building. The contract included local clause 52.000-4005, INVOICE CONSTRUCTION (29 JUL 03)which states, in pertinentpart, thatthe invoices should be submitted to an office at Fort Stewart and the "[i]nvoices shall cite the contract number, delivery/task order number (ifapplicable), contract line item/subline item numbers, quantity, price and total amount ofinvoice. Contractor shall furnish the required certification/release JAW FAR 52.232-5 (c)/(h), 'Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts."' (R4, tab 1at 443) Each invoice was forwarded for payment as part ofa package that included two other documents, a general release and a certification (58331, tr. 1/152-53). Each ofthe documents, the invoice, the release and certification, were separate documents (58331, tr. 1/155). The certificate addressed two separate issues; it certified that the person signingthe payment release was authorized tobindthe company andprovided a certificationrequired by FAR 52.232-5(c) for any request for progress payments under a fixed-price construction contract. 14

13 Bldg. 629, 18 November 2005; Bldg. 631, 30 November 2005; 632, 26 November 2005; and Bldg. 633, 10 December 2005. 14 FARclause 52.232-5(c) requires a certification that: "(1)The amounts requested
are only for performance in accordance with the specifications, terms, and conditions ofthe contract; (2) All payments due to subcontractors and suppliers from previous payments received underthe contracthave been made, and timely payments will be made from the proceeds ofthe payment covered by
1227. The general release was required by FAR 52.232-5(h)(3) that states in pertinent part that a request for final payment must include a, "release ofall claims against the Government arising by virtue ofthis contract, otherthan claims, in stated amounts, that the Contractor has specifically excepted from the operation ofthe release." The payment invoice form includes a statement that a "'Contractor's Release' statement MUSTbe completed beforeFINAL PAYMENT under this contract will be made." In fact, each final payment invoice submittedby CBL included an attached general final paymentrelease ofclaims (paymentrelease) that stated it was the "CONTRACTOR'S RELEASE STATEMENTUNDER CONTRACT: W9124M05D0014." (R4, tab 218 at 1, 4) The language ofeach general release followed the same form:

(Id. at 4) In consideration ofthe premise and the sum of $ lawful money ofthe United States of America (hereinafter called the "Government") $ ofwhich has already been paid and $ ofwhich is to be paidby the Governmentunderthe above-referenced contract, the undersigned Contractor does, and by the receipt ofsaid sum, shall for itself, its successors and assigns, remise, release and forever discharge the Government, its officers, agents, and employees, ofand from all liabilities, obligations, and claims whatsoever in law and in equity under or arising out ofsaid contract.

28. Ms. Wilds prepared all the invoice documents for Ms. Brown's signature. She explained that all herprevious experience with contracts at Fort Steward involved paymentby submitting a company invoice, mostbeingpaidby government credit card because ofthe low dollar value ofthe contracts. Consequently, this was her first experience preparing and submitting invoices tothe Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) and she was not familiar with the forms. (58331, tr. 1147; 58432, tr. 2/157-58) Because ofherunfamiliarity with the required forms, Ms. Wilds worked closely with Mr. Johnson on all the invoices and paymentreleases were submitted as instructed by Mr. Johnson (58331, tr. 1/47).

this certification, in accordance with subcontract agreements and the requirements ofchapter 39 ofTitle 31, United States Code; and (3) This request for progress payments does not include any amounts which the prime contractor intends to withhold orretain from a subcontractor or supplier in accordance with the terms and conditions ofthe subcontract."

1329. Ms. Wilds testified that the first invoice she prepared did not include the release form orcertification and was rejected; Mr. Johnson told herthey had to be included for the invoice to be paid (58331, tr. 1146; 58432, tr. 2/168). She also explained why all invoices were labeled "final" despite the fact the first seven invoices filed were for interim payment, not final payment, indicating a remainingbalance due afterpayment (R4, tabs 97-98, 103, 108-09, 123-24). 15 These, she explained, were paid and labeled final but showed a remaining balance because they were actually interim payments toprovidethe contractor money because offinancial strain on cash flow (tr. 11125-26, 131). These invoices were submitted in late 2005, with the last two, buildings 632 and 633 being submitted on 30 December 2005 (R4, tabs 97-98, 103, 108-09, 123-24). All the remaining invoices, exceptTO 33 (Bldg. 280) were submitted in January and February 2006 (R4, tabs 195-209, 213, 218, 234-39). Ms. Wilds explained that all invoices were labeled final because ofspecific direction from Mr. Johnson that the billings must be designated as "final" orthey would not be processed for payment (58331, tr. 1172-73).

30. All paymentrelease documents submitted underthe resetproject, at issue in this appeal, referenced the overall ID/IQ contractbut not a specific associated TO. Although notpart ofthis claim, the record indicates the first invoice submitted for paymentunderthe contract onthe reset project was for carpet installation in Building 1129 at Hunter Airfield, which lists both the contract and the associated TO (R4, tab 40). Ms. Wilds' unrebuttedtestimony indicates she was instructedto include the contract numberby Mr. Johnson (58331, tr. 1148-49).

31. Ms. Austin testified that she preparedthe Rule 4 file and that the final payment invoices and paymentreleases wereplaced in the Rule 4 file as they were found in the contract files (58331, tr. 11170-71). She explained that although the invoices andpaymentreleases werephotocopiedtogether for the Rule 4 file, they were separate stand-alone documents (tr. 11148). Ms. Austintestifiedthatthe only way to identify which specific TO was associated with a particularpaymentrelease was by the dollar amounts stated on the TO but conceded it is possible there could be amounts
on invoices that are identical (58331, tr. 1/154-55; 58432, tr. 1/160). All the amounts stated in the releases correlated to the amounts invoiced for each TO with the exception ofTO 6 (Bldg. 717), where no amountwas stated (R4, tab 97). In**ad~ition,** the final payment invoices and paymentreleases submitted for TOs 25 and 27 reflect identical amounts invoiced (R4, tabs 108-09). Ms. Austin did nottestify directly about herunderstanding ofthe effect ofall the releases; she was only asked about a specific release associated with TO 0003, which she consideredtobe the final release ofclaims for that TO (58331, tr. 11144-45).

15 The record does not include an invoice filed by CBL for the remaining balance indicated on these initial invoices.
1432. All paymentreleases at issue were executedby Ms. Brown, as CBL's president, and Ms. Wilds, 16 as witness to Ms. Brown's signature. Upon review ofthe language contained in the releases, Ms. Brown testified that herreading ofthe document indicated that "once I signed this, this is whatthey pay me, and the Government doesn't owe me anything else" (tr. 11205). However, later when asked if it was her understanding at the time ofsigning the release whether she was releasing any claims, she stated, "No, sir. I was under the impression that they were partial payments." (Tr. 11211) Ms. Brown also testified that while she never intended to release claims on any ofthe TOs, that she did not "necessarily go through reading" the releases before she signed them "ifTammy [Ms. Wilds] said, This is an invoice we need to sign, I glanced over it, looked at the amount, and signed" (id.). Ms. Brown further testifiedthat she never asked the government any questions regarding the releases, "exceptto find out what it was" (tr. 11213). Ms. Wilds also testified that she
was aware ofthe release language but only considered the requests for payment to be submittals for progress payments, not a release ofall claims that might be due CBL (58331, tr. 1/51).

33. Mr. Johnson's testimony confirmedthat as the ordering officerhe was responsible for ensuring CBL submitted invoices for final payment, to review the invoices to ensure the work invoiced was complete, and to forward to DFAS to make
sure CBL was paid. He also did not considerthe final paymentpaperwork to release any claims butto be a payment mechanism. (58331, tr. 2/144-45) Although each final payment invoice was signedby Mr. Johnson as checked for administrative compliance, eachwas authorized for payment by the CO (R4, tabs 97-98, 103, 108-09, 123-24, 195-209, 213, 218, 234-39). 17
Modification Releases

34. The government issued written modifications to the TOs as work progressed. The modifications generally fell into three categories: added work to be performed; were administrative in nature (e.g., corrected mistakes, added or subtracted funds etc.); orpartially terminatedthe TOs to reconcile the contract record with the work actually performed.

35. Between 21-28 September 2005 all the TOs were modified to incorporate additional work (R4, tabs 60-62, 64-88, 90-93). The additional work included such items as, installing skim coat on the floors and removing existing items and replacing them, such as gypsum wall board, insulation, deteriorated metal framing, and wood. In addition, each modification included atime extension to accommodate the

16 Ms. Wilds signed the release documents as Ms. Tammy Price, her name at the time. 17 Four ofthe first seven invoices filed were authorized for paymentby 

### Mr. Jerry Cox (R4, tabs 97-98, 108-09). Theremainder were authorized by Ms. Austin.
15additional work. Each ofthe modifications adding additional work included arelease, stating:

(Id.) Release ofclaims: In consideration ofthe modification agreed to herein as completed and equitable adjustments for the additional work required above, the contractor hereby releases the government from any and all liability underthis contract for further equitable adjustment attributable to such facts or circumstances giving rise to the aforesaid changes without exception.

36. Performance ofthe work on all TOs was essentially completedby 30 November2005. Between 25 January and 20 April 2006 modifications were issued to reconcile the contract records with the work actually completed on all the TOs except TO 0009 (R4, tabs 78-88, 90-93, 96, 110, 181-94, 210-12, 214-17, 241, 250, 256). These modifications were no costpartial terminations ofthe work underthe TOs adjusting the quantities and funds associated with each TO. Each ofthese modifications included arelease, stating:

(Id.) Release ofclaims: In consideration ofthe modification agreed to herein as completed and equitable adjustments for the termination required above, the contractor hereby releases the government from any and all liability under this contract for further equitable adjustment attributable to such facts or circumstances giving rise to the aforesaid changes without exception.

CBL 's Claims

37. Although the exact time is unclear, Ms. Wilds testifiedthatthroughout performance CBL would complain to Mr. Johnson and Mr. Waters aboutthe three issues that gave rise to these appeals and they were assured by them that it would be addressed at the end ofthe contract (tr. 2/163-64). Ms. Austin testified she was not
aware ofpossible claims until 6 October 2005 during a meeting held to discuss various issues (tr. 1/109; R4, tabs 100-01). CBL informed Ms. Austin by letter on 3 January 2006 ofits intention to file a claim under the contractbut no specific issues were identified (R4, tab 125). 

### It was not until 9 August 2011 that CBL filed a request for equitable adjustment (REA) asserting 17 claims totaling $1,461,913.20 and including a CDA certification (R4, tab 257). Among the claims were the three at issue in the

16instant appeal: CBL sought $399,728 arising from the government's alleged reduction in the number ofdays allowed under the contract to complete required work under individual TOs (Acceleration Claim) (id. at 21-22); $81,718.80 associated with the transport and storage offloor coverings (Transportation and Storage Claim) (id. at 43-45); and $111,893.40 for extra costs incurred as a result ofalleged interference by the government's pipeline contractor (Access to Buildings Claim) (id. at 45-49).
Contracting Officer's FinalDecision (COFD)

38. Ms. Austin responded to CBL's claim with a COFD on 13 August 2012, denying CBL's claim in its entirety based upon the fact CBL had requested final payment on all TOs, with an executed final release included with eachrequest, and that, "[n]oproposal by the Contractor for an equitable adjustment shall be allowed if asserted after final payment under this contract" (R4, tab 258 at 1 ).

39. CBL filed its notice ofappeal by letter dated 17 September 2012 and
was initially docketed as ASBCA No. 58331. CBL's complaint identified 17 factually distinct claims. Accordingly, all claims were assigned discrete appeal numbers but consolidated under ASBCANo. 58331 as ASBCANos. 58331, 58429-58444. On 11 February 2013, CBL electedto proceed under BoardRule 12.2, Small Claims (Expedited) procedure, on all appeals except ASBCA Nos. 58432, 58441 and 58442. A hearing was held on the expedited appeals on 6 and 7 May 2013 and a decision rendered on 14 June 2013 (ASBCANo. 58331 etal.). The remaining three appeals are addressed in this decision.

DECISION

Do the PaymentReleasesBarAppellant's Claims?

The government argues appellant invoiced for final payment on all 31 TOs and each submittal included a general release, executed by CBL, and as a result all outstanding claims underthe 31 TOs are barred byrelease (gov'tbr. at 1). Our findings establish appellant invoiced for payment on all 31 TOs and each submittal included a general release. However, seven ofthe invoices, submitted from 3 October2005 through 30 December 2005, were not requests for final payment (findings 26, 29).

A release is a contract whereby a party abandons a claim or relinquishes aright that could be asserted against another and mustbe interpreted in the same manner as any other contract term orprovision. Consequently, ourexamination begins with the plain language ofthe paymentreleases to determine the intent ofthe parties and extrinsic orparol evidence ofthe parties' intent may only be examined iftheplain language ofthe release is ambiguous. BellBC!Co. v. UnitedStates, 570 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

17Although the parties assert the plain language ofthe release documents are unambiguous, they differ in their interpretation ofthe scope ofthe releases. The government argues that each release is a part ofthe payment submittal and, ifviewed within the context ofall the documents within the invoice package, unambiguously evidences an intentto release any claims associated withthe TOreferenced in the payment invoice. As a result, the government interprets the language ofthe releases that refers to all claims "underor arising out ofsaid contract"torefer to the TO not the basic contract. (Gov'treply br. at 5) In the alternative, the government argues that if the term "contract" in the phrase "under or arising out ofsaid contract" only refers to the basic contract, such language is broad enough to encompass TOs as "underor arising out of'the basic contract. Consequently, execution ofany one ofthe releases would preclude appellant from entitlement on any ofits claims. (Id. at 8 n.4)
Appellant also argues thatthe language ofthe releases are unambiguous; they only reference the basic contract with no mention ofa TO (app. reply br. at 18). In otherwords, appellant interprets the phrase "under or arising out ofsaid contract" to referto the only contractreferenced, i.e., the basic contract. In support ofthis interpretation, appellant distinguishes between claims involving issues underthe said basic contract andthose relating to issues underthe TOs:
Appellant was additionally convinced

-- and remains convinced

-- that none ofits original claims and/or its remaining claims addressed issues arising out ofthe IDIQ Base Contract. Rather, Appellant's claims arose from thework and effort expended in performance of individual Task Orders.

In large measure the IDIQ Base Contract was the Unit Price Schedule establishing unitprices applyingto the various categories ofTask Orderwork. Given the complete absence ofany claims relatingtothe IDIQ Base Contract, i.e., claims relating to unitprices, audit issues, funding, and/or other administrative matters or details, Appellant was willing to execute and submit a "Contractor's Release StatementUnder Contract No. W9124M05D0014," i.e. the IDIQ Base Contract, consistent with the format demanded by the Government at the direction ofMr. Johnson. Indeed, matters and concerns arising from the IDIQ Base Contract simply were not issues for claim. Appellant was therefore able to comply with the Government's insistence onthe inclusion ofa Contractor's Release Statement ofthe IDIQ Base Contract with each Task Order invoice submitted for paymentwhile

18still retaining its right to make claims for additional work under those existing Task Orders. (App. reply hr. at 20-21) (Citations omitted) Appellant also argues that the TOs are separate documents and, therefore, are extrinsic evidence that may not be used to interpretthe unambiguous releases (app. reply hr. at 19). Likewise, appellant rejects the government's argumentthatthe release document should be interpreted within the context ofthe total invoice submittal packages noting thatthe release document is a stand-alone document and to consider the related documents would be to impermissibly consider extrinsic evidence to interpret an unambiguous document (id.).

The evidence supports appellant's positionthat our examination should be focused upon the releases as stand-alone documents and contradicts one ofthe government's proposed interpretations ofthe release language. Eachpaymentrequest included three separate documents, the invoice, the contractor's release and a certification thatthe signatory possessed the authority to bind the companyby the release and progress paymentrepresentations (finding 26). Although these documents
were prepared and submitted together as a package, the CO'suncontroverted testimony established each document was a stand-alone document and there was no way to identify the release associated with the other documents in the package without correlatingthe amount listed in the release with an associated invoice. She also stated that it is possible some TOs might include identical amounts, which is the case in at least two ofthe TOs. (Finding 31) Contrary to both parties' arguments, we conclude the releases are ambiguous. Examination ofthe release documents in isolation reveals their scope is ambiguous. The releases state in pertinent part that,
[T]he undersigned Contractor does, and by the receipt of said sum, shall for itself, its successors and assigns, remise, release and forever discharge the Government, its officers, agents, and employees, ofand from all liabilities, obligations, and claims whatsoever in law and in equity under or arising out ofsaid contract. (Finding 27) The only contract identified on the face ofthe release is the basic contract (finding 30). The parties have proposedtwo different interpretations ofthe scope ofthe phrase "under or arising out ofsaid contract" (included in each release) that are within the zone ofreasonableness given aplain reading ofthe language. States Roofing Corp. v. Winter, 587 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Ifa contract is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, as here, it is ambiguous. 

### Hills

19Materials Co. v. Rice, 982 F.2d 514, 516 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Given the release language is ambiguous we examine the extrinsic evidence to ascertain the parties' intent. 

### Bell BC!, 570 F.3d at 1341.

Our examination ofthe evidence leads us to reject appellant's argument that the releases were intended to only release the contract, notthe work performed under the TOs (app. br. at 11-18). Instead, we conclude the 31 release documents were filled out and executed for submittal with an invoice for payment on each TO as found in the recordbased upon both Ms. Austin's testimony related to how she prepared the Rule 4 file and Ms. Wilds' testimony related to how she prepared and submitted the invoices and attached documents for payment (findings 28-31).

As a rule, a general release, whether associated with final payment or not, which is not qualified on its face, bars any claims based upon events occurring before execution ofthe release. Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. UnitedStates, 812 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Appellant responds that release is an affirmative defense and, in this instance, the government has "failed in its burden" in provingthe general releases
were knowingly and intentionally executedto relinquish CBL's rights to outstanding claims related to work underthe TOs (app. supp. br. at 9-10). We conclude the government has met its burden ofshowing aprima facie case ofrelease. The government has established that appellant executed unqualified releases in relation to every TO. Additionally, our findings confirm the contractprovided notice to appellant that it could specifically reserve any claims from the general release (finding 27). Despite this, appellant's execution ofthe releases were unqualified, i.e., there was no express reservation ofclaims. Consequently, the burden shifts to appellant ofproving any exceptions to release and exceptions to release are strictly construed against the contractor. Mingus, 812 F.2d at 1394. Exceptions to release include: fraud, mutual mistake; economic duress, Rumsfeldv. FreedomNY, Inc., 329 F.3d 1320, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and, consideration ofa claim after execution ofthe release. Konitz Contracting, Inc., ASBCANo. 53433, 02-1BCA,-r31,845at157,364 (citingJG. Watts Construction Co. v. UnitedStates, 161 Ct. Cl. 801, 807 (1963)). There is no evidence in the record to supportthe exceptions offraud, mutual mistake, economic duress or consideration ofany claims after execution ofthe release. Appellant argues in its supplemental brief, in the alternative, thatthe releases are ambiguous and consideration ofthe extrinsic evidence establishes that, "the intent ofthe Parties was to get the Appellantpaid" and there was no "intentwhatsoeverto effect releases ofclaims" (app. supp. br. at 6). We understand appellant's argumentto raise the issue ofthe existence ofevidence ofapre-release understanding ofreservation ofclaims. We have recognized that a release might notbe binding where the conduct ofone party led the otherparty to believe its claims would be considered after execution ofarelease. JDVConstruction Inc., ASBCA No. 37937, 89-3 BCA,-r 22,012 at 110,665;Able Products Co., ASBCA No. 24221, 80-2 BCA ,-r 14,733 at 72,693 (government oral

20assurance claim would be processed afterrelease was signed) (citingJulius Goldman 's Egg City v. UnitedStates, 556 F.2d 1096 (Ct. Cl. 1977)). However, this exception requires that specific identifiable claims exist priorto execution ofthe release and that
some conduct on the part ofthe government leads the contractorto believe its claims will be considered after execution ofthe release. Neither ofthese two prerequisites exist in the record ofthe instant appeals.

Reservation ofa claim does not require the existence ofaperfected claim but it does require more than a lone statement ofintentto assert a claim. Mingus, 812 F.2d at 1394-95. Appellant proffered evidence that when appellant questioned the government during performance about the actions forming the basis ofthese appeals, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Waters responded that the work had to be completed and these issues would be addressed at the end ofthe contract (finding 37). The CO testified that the first time she became aware there might be any claims was at the 6 October 2005 meeting but no specific claims were identified at thattime. Appellant's only express notice that it intendedto file any claims was its January 2006 letter. However, that letter only stated an intentto file claims, there were no specifics regarding the potential claims. (Finding 37) The fact that Mr. Johnson and Mr. Waters may have suspected appellant might file claims orthe notice to the CO ofappellant's "intent"to file claims are not specific enough to meet the legal standard to preserve appellant's claims after executing the releases. Additionally, even ifthere were an existing claimpriorto executing the releases, appellant has also failed to carry its burden to prove conduct by the governmentthat would lead appellantto reasonably conclude its future claims would notbe barredby execution ofthe releases. Ourfindings estaplish that appellant, Ms. Brown and Ms. Wilds, did not intend the releases to bar its claims but instead consideredthe release a necessary step in obtaining payment (finding 32). Clearly, a pre-release understanding cannot be based upon a contractor's intent alone. Mingus, 812 F.2d at 1394-95. There mustbe some action on the part ofthe government, either express or implied, to lead appellant to believe its claims will notbe extinguishedby execution ofthe general release. JDVConstruction, 89-3 BCA

### ii 22,012;Able Products, 80-2 BCA

### ii 14,733. Although ambiguous, there is some evidencethat the government employee that directed appellant in preparing and submitting the invoices also did not considerthe releases to bar future claims; Mr. Johnson'stestimony could be construed to support the view thathe did not considerthe releases to barclaims but instead saw them only as apayment mechanism (finding 33). Assuming arguendo that
was the case, it still does not supportthe conclusion thatthere was apre-release understanding between the parties. There is no evidence Mr. Johnson's beliefs were ever communicated to appellant or that there were any other actions taken by the governmentthat would lead appellantto reasonably conclude its claims would not be barred by the release.

21Therefore, we conclude appellant has failed to prove there was apre-release understanding between the parties excepting its claims from the general releases. Appellantpoints out and our findings establish that 7 ofthe 30 payment invoices were not final payment invoices but were requests for interim payment (app. br. at 7-9, 18-20; finding 29). This fact, whetherthe invoices were submitted for interim or final payment, does not change the result in these appeals. Each ofthe interim payment invoices contained a general unqualified release, which would have released the government from all claims arising before execution ofthe release (findings 26, 29). The facts giving rise to both appellant's acceleration claim (ASBCA No. 58432) and transportation and storage claim (ASBCANo. 58441) arose early in performance ofthe TOs. Consequently, both claims would fall within the scope ofthe general releases and, thus bebarred. Regardingthe access to buildings claim (ASBCA No. 58442), only two ofthe interim invoices are associated with this appeal, TO 9 (Bldg. 633) and TO 23 (Bldg. 632) (finding 29). The facts giving rise to this appeal continued throughoutperformance at these buildings. However, the record indicates the releases associated with these two invoices were executed on 30 December 2005, after completion ofwork on the buildings (findings 26, 29). Consequently, any claims would be barredbythe releases accompanying the invoices for payment.

CONCLUSION

Forthe reasons stated, these appeals are denied.

Dated: 1March 2016

I concur

Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals


### 22 Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals

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 Nos. 58432, 58441, 58442, Appeals ofCleanby Lucy, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter.

Dated:

23 JEFFREYD. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals