The agency has responded in opposition to the appellant s petition. Id. , Tab 3. Because the settlement agreement contains an ambiguous term, we must remand the appeal so that the parties may present further evidence of their understanding of that term at the time the agreement was entered into. A settlement agreement is a contract, the interpretation of which is a question of law. The Board looks first to the terms of the agreement itself in order to determine the intent of the parties at the time they contracted.
Parol evidence is considered only if the language of the contract is ambiguous.
For purposes of this agreement, priority consideration means that appellant will be placed in a vacant position for which he is qualified. . . . . That the agency s offer of priority consideration as previously described, is a one-time offer, and that if he declines any position for which he is qualified that all entitlement to priority consideration beyond the initial offer and declination is voided. IAF, Tab 10. CID at 3. Thus, he essentially found the question of whether the agency was required to offer the appellant the GS-11 District Conservationist position to be moot.