Court Opinion

ID: 9900172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 22:01:38.599731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:01.462791
License: Public Domain

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
 Appeal of -                                  )
                                              )
 Gilbert Solutions, LLC                       )    ASBCA No. 63508
                                              )
 Under Contract No. W91WRZ-22-P-0001          )

 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:                    Barbara A. Duncombe, Esq.
                                                   Brandon E. Dobyns, Esq.
                                                   Stephen Darby, Esq.
                                                    Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
                                                    Indianapolis, IN

 APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:                   Scott N. Flesch, Esq.
                                                    Army Chief Trial Attorney
                                                   CPT Natalie W. McKiernan, JA
                                                   Robert B. Neill, Esq.
                                                    Trial Attorneys

                 OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE TAYLOR
                       PURSUANT TO BOARD RULE 12.2

        The United States Army (Army or government) awarded a firm-fixed price
commercial items contract to Gilbert Solutions, LLC (Gilbert) to purchase four portable
restroom trailers for delivery to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (R4, tab 1). The government
issued a contracting officer’s final decision (COFD) terminating the contract for cause
(R4, tab 50). Gilbert timely appealed the COFD and elected to proceed on the appeal
under the Board’s Small Claims (Expedited) procedures, Board Rule 12.2. The Contract
Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. § 7106(b)(4)-(5), as implemented by Board Rule 12.2,
provides that this decision shall have no precedential value and in the absence of fraud,
shall be final, and conclusive, and may not be appealed or set aside. We find this contract
was void ab initio due to Gilbert’s material misrepresentations in its bid. As the contract
is deemed void ab initio, there is no CDA contract in being, and we are deprived of
jurisdiction to consider Gilbert’s appeal of the termination for cause. Consequently, the
appeal is denied.

                                  FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Army’s Request For Quotes

      On January 19, 2022, the Army posted Request for Quotation (RFQ) W91WRZ-
22-R-0002 on the Unison Marketplace (Unison) for four four-station ADA compliant
restroom trailers for use by the Office of Military Commissions (OMC) (R4, tab 2). The
RFQ listed the total target price as $227,000 with a delivery date of 60 calendar days
after the seller’s receipt of the order from the buyer (id. at 1). The RFQ further indicated
it was for commercial items and included the following item description:

              The ADA Restroom Trailer + 4 Station ǀ Maui Series - 1
              women’s suite with 2 stalls, 1 men’s suite with 1 stall and 1
              urinal, and 1 ADA unisex suite, each with a separate entrance.
              * ·Each standard stall needs to contain a privacy stall pedal
              flush china toilet, sink with cabinet, and shatterproof mirror. ·
              This trailer features a hydraulic lift system for the trailer to
              lower to the ground with the push of a button! · The ADA-
              compliant unisex suite includes (1) ADA toilet, wheelchair-
              accessible sink, shatterproof mirror, and grab rails for
              assistance. · Suite also allows for the required 66’ turning
              circle, · Climate controlled with A/C · 140-gallon fresh water
              tank and 750-gallon waste tank. · Non-Skid Flooring (coin
              rubber) · Hands Free Paper Towel Dispenser- 3 **Must be
              capable of sustaining long term use**

(Id. at 2)

       The RFQ required offerors to attach the proposed unit’s layout with their
quotations to give the Army the opportunity to verify the unit met the specified
requirements (R4, tab 2 at 2). The listed suggested seller was Comforts of Home (id.
at 1). The RFQ also included the standard bidding “Meet or Exceed” requirement
language that, “Sellers MUST enter exactly what they are bidding (including make,
model, and description) into the blank description field in order for the bid to be
considered” (id. at 2). The RFQ indicated the bids closed on February 1, 2022 (id. at 1).
The RFQ included a solicitation as an attachment (id. at 2).

        The solicitation indicated it was for commercial items in accordance with Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.6 (R4, tab 2a at 1). It further stated potential
offerors were to quote on the specified items IAW FAR 52.211-6, BRAND NAME OR
EQUAL (SEP 1999) (id.). The solicitation’s item description was the same as the RFQs,
including a reference to “The ADA Restroom Trailer + 4 Station” | Maui Series” (id.).
The solicitation also stated, “Technical and Delivery time, when combined, are
significantly more important than cost or price” (id. at 3). The solicitation specified the
government would evaluate the offeror’s quote against the government’s minimum
requirements as specified in the solicitation to determine whether the quote was
acceptable (id. at 2). Finally, the solicitation stated that the government may accept an
offer before its specified expiration time unless a written notice of withdrawal was
received before award (id. at 3).
                                             2
        Ms. Joslyn Skinner is a logistics management specialist at Guantanamo Bay
(tr. 1/93). Ms. Skinner developed the item description for the RFQ based upon her online
research of portable latrines (tr. 1/96). Ms. Skinner identified a portable latrine on the
portablerestrooms.com website that had the same style and basic characteristics as the
one currently in place at Guantanamo (tr. 1/99; R4, tab 53). Comforts of Home
manufactured that trailer (tr. 2/53). Portable Restrooms placed the designator
SKU #CHS408999 on the Comforts of Home ADA plus four restroom trailer and called
it the “Maui Series” (R4, tab 53 at 1). Other dealers sell the same Comforts of Home
trailer but identify it by different nomenclature (tr. 2/24-25).

2. Gilbert’s Offer

        Gilbert submitted a bid in response to the RFQ (R4, tab 3). 1 Gilbert bid a total
price of $329,600 with a 60-day delivery (id. at 3). In its bid, Gilbert referenced part
number CHS408999 and provided a description of the Comforts of Home four ADA
restroom trailer (id. at 5). Mr. Justin Gilbert, one of Gilbert’s founders, testified he
obtained that description from the Portable Restroom Trailers website (tr. 2/117). In
accordance with the RFQ requirements, Gilbert also included a floor layout of its
proposed trailer with its bid (R4, tab 3a). Mr. Gilbert further testified he also obtained
that floor layout from the Portable Restroom Trailers website (tr. 2/119). The layout is
identical to the layout for SKU # CHS408999 found on Portable Restrooms website
(compare R4, tab 53 at 4, with R4, tab 3a). The layout had a marking indicating the
trailer’s length to be 23 feet and 6 inches long, semi-private men’s and women’s suites, a
turn radius in the ADA compliant unisex suite of 66 inches and a 140-gallon fresh-water
tank (R4, tab 3a). At the time Gilbert submitted its bid, the build time for a Comforts of
Home trailer was eight to nine months (tr. 2/55).

       On February 2, 2022, Sergeant First Class (SFC) Jeremy Zelbst, the contracting
officer, requested photos from Gilbert of the latrine trailers they quoted in their bid and
confirmation they could meet the 60-day delivery timeline (R4, tab 54 at 1). Following
receipt of that email, Mr. Gilbert apparently made an inquiry to Ready2Go trailers
regarding obtaining the Comforts of Home trailer (R4, tab 55 at 1, tab 84 at 2). Gilbert
had not spoken with Ready2Go before submitting its bid in Unison (tr. 2/118). Mr. Lee
Currie, a sales representative for Ready2Go, informed Mr. Gilbert that the Comforts of
Home trailer would not be available until mid-August so suggested an alternative trailer
manufactured by UltraLav (see R4, tab 84 at 2; tr. 2/55). The UltraLav trailer was
smaller with a 20-foot-long box, four private restroom suites, each with a separate
entrance on opposite sides of the trailer, and an ADA compliant restroom suite with a 60-
inch turning radius (R4, tab 55a). Ready2Go identified the trailer by its stock number

1
    Unison refers to a contractor’s submission in response to an RFQ as a “bid” rather than
         a “quote.”
                                              3
HH-412501-A (R4, tab 55 at 2). Gilbert apparently decided to deliver the smaller trailer
to the government since the Comforts of Home trailer was not available within the
delivery time frame (see R4, tab 84 at 2).

        On February 4, SFC Zelbst requested confirmation from Gilbert that the offered
latrines quoted on the subject bid contained paper towel dispensers and had a hydraulic
lift system (R4, tab 4 at 3). Mr. Gilbert responded indicating Gilbert was getting
confirmation from their supplier regarding the hydraulic lift (id. at 2). Mr. Gilbert also
provided SFC Zelbst with the product description for the HH-412501-A trailer including
a box size of 20’ x 6’ with four private suites (id.). In that email, Mr. Gilbert did not
explicitly state Gilbert was substituting a different trailer model from the one identified in
its bid (id.). SFC Zelbst testified that he was looking for Gilbert’s response concerning
the paper towel dispensers and hydraulic lift and missed Mr. Gilbert’s reference to the
different trailer characteristics (tr. 1/50).

        Mr. Gilbert testified that he had a phone conversation with SFC Zelbst before
receiving the February 4 email (tr. 2/79). During that call, Mr. Gilbert testified he
informed SFC Zelbst that the Comforts of Home trailers would not be available within
the required timeline, but alternative trailers were available (id.). He further testified his
February 4 email was a follow-up to the phone conversation (tr. 2/80). SFC Zelbst
testified he never had any conversations with Mr. Gilbert about the bid specifications or
changing the contract requirement (tr. 1/80). He further testified that Gilbert never told
him they were substituting a different trailer for the one that was described in their bid (tr.
1/58). Furthermore, SFC Zelbst testified that Gilbert did not provide either a verbal or
written notice to the government that it intended to withdraw its bid prior to contract
award (tr. 1/39).

        The available record supports SFC Zelbst’s recollection. In his February 4 email,
SFC Zelbst attempted to confirm the characteristics of “the latrines quoted on the subject
bid” (R4, tab 4 at 3). SFC Zelbst would not have attempted to confirm the characteristics
of the latrines offered in Gilbert’s bid if Gilbert had already informed him that the
Comforts of Home trailer was not available, and they were substituting a different
product. Moreover, Mr. Gilbert’s February 4 email does not reference a prior phone call
(R4, tab 4 at 2). If such a call had occurred, the follow-on email would likely have
referenced that call.

        In addition, SFC Zelbst emailed the OMC on February 7 indicating Gilbert had
just informed him that its vendor had two trailers in stock and were estimating eight
weeks for the other two (R4, tab 59 at 4). In his correspondence with the OMC,
SFC Zelbst did not mention Gilbert was now offering a different trailer. The OMC, on
February 9, clearly thought they were getting the Comforts of Home trailer from Gilbert
as evidenced by the floorplan they attached to their acceptance email (R4, tab 58 at 1,
13). The OMC accepted Vendor E’s offer over a different bidder because they thought

                                              4
that vendor was delivering the same trailer with a much shorter shipping time (R4, tab 58
at 1; tr. 1/109-10). Gilbert was Vendor E (tr. 1/54). We find Mr. Gilbert’s testimony
regarding a phone conversation with SFC Zelbst allegedly informing him of the change
in the offered trailer before the February 4 email, not credible.

        On February 7, 2022, Gilbert confirmed the trailer would come with the hydraulic
lift system, and that they had “just talked to our vendor to confirm all specifications and
we are good to go” (R4, tab 4 at 1). On February 8, Ready2Go sent Gilbert an email
indicating it could produce all four trailers within ninety days, but sixty days would be an
“empty promise” (R4, tab 56). Gilbert did not update the government on the production
timelines (tr. 1/52). On February 9, SFC Zelbst requested Gilbert provide its updated
SAM registration (app. supp. R4, tab 4 at 1). Gilbert responded with a screen shot of
their SAM registration and a copy of the manufacturer’s specifications for the HH-
412501-A trailers (id. at 2). SFC Zelbst testified that he does not believe he opened the
attachment for the specifications, because he was interested only in seeing the SAM
registration (see tr. 1/58).

3. Contract Award

        On February 11, 2022, SFC Zelbst notified Gilbert to, “Please go ahead with the
latrines quoted in UNISON Buy 1090912_01. Your quote was for 4 latrines at a total
price of $329,600.00” (R4, tab 42e at 2). On February 14, the Army awarded Contract
No. W91WRZ-22-P-0001 (the contract) to Gilbert (R4, tab 1). Gilbert signed the
contract on February 15, 2022 (R4, tab 24c). The total contract award was for $329,600
(R4, tab 1 at 1). The contract had an April 19, 2022, delivery date (id. at 7).

       SFC Zelbst checked contract award block number 29 to indicate the government
was accepting Gilbert’s Unison bid (R4, tab 1 at 1; tr. 1/60). Block number 29 referenced
the February 2, 2022, date since that was the date SFC Zelbst generated the report of all
responsive Unison bids the day after bids closed (tr. 1/40-41). The contract included a
specification identical to that listed in the RFQ but did not reference the Maui Series or
the model number (R4, tab 1 at 6). The specification indicated one women’s suite with
two stalls, one men’s suite with one stall and one urinal, and one ADA unisex suite with a
66-inch turning circle (id.). The specification also indicated each trailer should have a
140-gallon fresh-water tank and a 750-gallon waste tank (id.).

        On February 14, 2022, Gilbert signed a “Bill of Sale” with Ready2Go for the four
HH-412501-A UltraLav trailers for a total price of $271,670 (R4, tab 61). The HH-
412501-A UltraLav trailer was manufactured by Wells Cargo – Ultralav (R4, tab 62;
tr. 1/18-19). The HH-412501-A UltraLav trailer was 20 feet long and 6 feet wide with
one axle as opposed to two, four separate private suites with separate entrances (two on
each side), a 60-inch turning circle for the ADA suite, a 105-gallon fresh-water tank and

                                             5
a 320-gallon waste tank (R4, tab 47a). At the time Gilbert signed the “Bill of Sale”,
Ready2Go had not yet manufactured any of the trailers (tr. 2/15).

4. Government’s Confirmation of Gilbert’s Offer

        In early May 2022, the OMC requested the trailer’s salient characteristics from the
contracting officer since they wanted to submit the installation project request (R4, tab 12
at 4-5). On May 10, 2022, SFC Shanaye Davis, the administrative assistant liaison
between the OMC and contracting office, requested the specification/data sheet for the
latrines from Gilbert (R4, tab 64 at 1). SFC Davis indicated she already had the trailer
floor layout from Gilbert’s Unison bid (tr. 1/164). Mr. Matthew Gilbert, the second
Gilbert partner, responded by sending her a floor layout for a 23-foot by 6-foot trailer
with pictures of a trailer (R4, tabs, 7, 7A). Mr. Gilbert testified he sent SFC Davis that
floor layout because it was the one in Unison, or he pulled it from the internet (tr. 2/153).
SFC Davis indicated she already had the floor layout but needed the manufacturer’s
specification sheet (R4, tab 83 at 1). On May 12, Mr. Gilbert provided everything Gilbert
had received on the trailer from Ready2Go to SFC Davis (R4, tab 8 at 1-2). The
documents pertained to the UltraLav and not Comforts of Home trailer (R4, tabs 8a-8e).
SFC Davis responded to Mr. Gilbert’s submission indicating the parties have “an issue”
since the contract was awarded based on the floor plan Gilbert uploaded to Unison, but
the documents Mr. Gilbert submitted were for a different trailer (R4, tab 8 at 1). SFC
Davis indicated those floor plans were “not acceptable” (id.).

       Mr. Gilbert responded to SFC Davis that Gilbert was able to “correct the floor
plan to semi-private mens and womens bathrooms” (R4, tab 9 at 1-2). SFC Davis asked
Mr. Gilbert if the floor plan was going to be identical to the Comforts of Home trailer
since that is what Gilbert submitted during the solicitation, and that was the floor plan
upon which the OMC office based the contract award (R4, tab 9 at 1). Mr. Gilbert
responded with a single word— “Yes” (R4, tab 10). Mr. Gilbert testified that his use of
the word “yes” in his email was intended to show agreement only with the trailer’s floor
layout and not the trailer dimensions (tr. 2/159).

        The government continued to request the trailer’s “salient characteristics” from
Gilbert (R4, tab 14). On May 19, 2022, Mr. Gilbert provided the government with the
“updated floor plan” for the UltraLav trailer with semi-private suites (R4, tabs 15, 15a).
Mr. Gilbert testified he prepared this mockup drawing (tr. 2/161). The government
responded to Mr. Gilbert that this email still did not contain the requested “salient
characteristics” (R4, tab 16). On May 19, 2022, Mr. Gilbert again provided the trailer’s
“salient characteristics” to the government (R4, tabs 18, 18a). These documents showed
a Ready2Go trailer with a stock #AA-412501-A, four suites—one ADA-compliant and
three standard—with a box size of 22 feet by 6 feet and 4 inches (R4, tab 18a).
Mr. Gilbert testified that he sent this picture to the government because it was the first

                                             6
picture of a trailer similar in size and layout, he found on the Ready2Go website
(tr. 2/210).

5. The Government’s Rejection of the Delivered Trailers and Termination for Cause

        The first two trailers were delivered to Guantanamo Bay on August 9, 2022 (R4,
tab 76 at 1). The OMC office rejected the trailers because they did not meet the contract
specifications (R4, tab 29 at 1). On August 23, 2022, the government sent Gilbert a
“Show Cause Notice” alleging the delivered trailers did not meet the prescribed length
(R4, tab 30a). Gilbert responded by requesting the government show them in the contract
where the trailers did not meet the specifications (R4, tab 49 at 3). The government
responded that the contract was awarded based on Gilbert’s proposal and floor layout
provided in response to the UNISON RFQ (id. at 2). The delivered trailer did not match
that floor layout (id.).

       Gilbert responded that the delivered trailer met the contract requirements (R4,
tab 49a). Moreover, Gilbert maintained it notified both SFC Zelbst and SFC Davis that it
was providing a shorter trailer (id. at 1). On September 9, 2022, the government sent
Gilbert a termination for cause notice pursuant to the termination for cause clause at
FAR 52.212-4(m) (R4, tab 50). 2 The basis for the termination remained a failure to meet
the contract specifications (id.).

                                        DECISION

        The government contends this contract was void ab initio due to Gilbert’s
misrepresentations in its bid (gov’t br. at 47-50). A contract is void or voidable when its
award resulted from misrepresentations in the contractor’s bid. See J.E.T.S., Inc.,
ASBCA No. 28642, 87-1 BCA ¶ 19,569 at 98,917; aff’d J.E.T.S., Inc. v. United States,
838 F.2d 1196 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (voiding a contract due to misrepresented small business
qualification in contractor’s bid). The severe remedy of voiding a contract is necessary
when a contractor materially misrepresents information in its bid due to the potential
injury to the public interest by actions which compromise the integrity of the government
contracting process. J.E.T.S., 842 F.2d at 1200; see also United States v. Miss. Valley
Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520 at 564 (1961).

       In the Hollymatic Corp. appeal, we recently denied a contractor’s appeal of a
termination for cause of a commercial items contract since we determined the contract
was void ab initio due to the contractor’s misrepresentation of its product during the
source selection. Hollymatic Corp., ASBCA Nos. 61920, 61956, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,823

2
    Terminations for cause under FAR 52.212-4(m) are treated the same as terminations for
        default under FAR Part 49. See O-Tech Sols., LLC., ASBCA Nos. 61898, 62095,
        23-1 BCA ¶ 38,338 at 186,166.
                                             7
at 183,668. This appeal is similar. Here, Gilbert misrepresented the trailers it intended to
provide the government at the time it entered the contract.

        The common law defense of fraud in the inducement may be established either by
proof of fraud or material misrepresentation. Hollymatic, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,823 at 183,665
(citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS §164(1) (1981)). The Board may not
make findings of fraud, but we may make findings as to the material facts relating to
material misrepresentations, and how those facts affect the contract. Id. at 183,665;
Aydin Corp., Microwave Div., ASBCA No. 34054, 89-1 BCA 21,206 at 106,997 (“When
a contractor makes a material misrepresentation of fact that is relied on by the
Government in entering into a contract, the Government has the common law right to
rescind the contract.”); Supreme Foodservice GmBH, ASBCA No. 57884 et al., 16-1
BCA ¶ 36,387 at 177,384; Servicios y Obras Isetan S.L., ASBCA No. 57584, 13-1 BCA
¶ 35,279 at 173,162.

        Three requirements must be met in addition to a misrepresentation to render a
contract voidable: (1) the misrepresentation must have been fraudulent or material;
(2) the misrepresentation must have induced the recipient to make the contract; and
(3) the recipient must have been justified in relying on the misrepresentation.
Hollymatic, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,823 at 183,665 (citing Servicios y Obras Isetan S.L., 13-1
BCA ¶ 35,279 at 173,162; RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 164(1) (1981)).

1. Material Misrepresentation

        A misrepresentation is defined as, “an assertion that is not in accord with the
facts.” L.C. Gaskins Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 58550 et al., 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,780
at 179,286 (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS §159 (1981)). In this case,
Gilbert represented in its bid that it could deliver the Comforts of Home trailers within
60 days (R4, tab 3 at 1). Gilbert provided the part number CHS408999 and both a
description and layout of the Comforts of Home trailer (id. at 5). Gilbert apparently
submitted its bid without first checking to see if those trailers were available for delivery
within the required time frame (see tr. 2/118). If it had, Gilbert would have discovered
the Comforts of Home trailer was not available until mid-August (see R4, tab 84 at 2;
tr. 2/55).

       After it discovered the Comforts of Home trailer would not be available until
mid-August, Gilbert decided to deliver a smaller trailer manufactured by UltraLav instead
of withdrawing its bid (R4, tab 84 at 2). The UltraLav trailer had a 20-foot box, four
private restroom suites, each with a separate entrance on opposite sides of the trailer, and
an ADA compliant restroom suite with a 60-inch turning radius (R4, tab 55a). Gilbert
decided to provide this different product to the government even though it was aware of
the RFQ’s standard “Meet or Exceed” requirement that required it to provide the same
product as bid (tr. 2/119).

                                              8
        On February 14, 2022, the government awarded Gilbert the contract for the
Comforts of Home trailer (R4, tab 1). The contract included a specification similar to the
one listed in the RFQ indicating the trailer should have one women’s suite, one men’s
suite and one ADA unisex suite with a 66-inch turning circle (R4, tab 1 at 6). The
specification also indicated each trailer should have a 140-gallon fresh-water tank and a
750-gallon waste tank (id.). Gilbert signed the contract with the government for the
Comforts of Home trailer even though it intended to provide a different trailer than the
one in its Unison bid (see R4, tab 35f).

       On the same day the government awarded it the contract for the Comforts of
Home trailer, Gilbert signed a bill of sale with Ready2Go to purchase the smaller
UltraLav trailers (R4, tab 61). The UltraLav trailers differed significantly from the
Comforts of Home trailers (compare R4, tab 53, with R4, tab 55a). Gilbert clearly
intended to provide a product to the government materially different from the one in its
bid.

       Moreover, the government in contract block 29 indicated it was accepting the
contractor’s offer dated February 2, 2022, in response to the solicitation (R4, tab 1 at 1).
Gilbert contends it did not make an offer on February 2, 2022 (app. br. at 4). Since the
Unison bids closed on February 1, 2022, Gilbert concludes the government must have
accepted Gilbert’s later amended quote (id.). We disagree.

       Mr. Gilbert admitted he had no conversations with SFC Zelbst prior to February 4,
2022 (tr. 2/123). As such, Gilbert made no offers to the government on February 2.
Moreover, SFC Zelbst testified he used the February 2nd date in contract block 29 since
that was the day after the Unison bids closed (tr. 1/40). After February 1, bidders could
no longer alter their bids (tr. 2/76).

       Furthermore, the UltraLav trailer described in Gilbert’s February 4 email to
SFC Zelbst had four private suites (R4, tab 55a). Gilbert subsequently incurred
substantial extra expense in retrofitting the UltraLav trailer to provide semi-private suites
with entrances on the same side (gov’t br. at 38). Gilbert would not likely have incurred
those additional costs if it thought the trailer the government had agreed to buy was the
UltraLav trailer with private suites described in its February 4 email. We find the
government’s reference to Gilbert’s February 2, 2022, offer in contract box 29 indicated
the government accepted the offer Gilbert included in its Unison bid to provide the
Comforts of Home trailer and not any subsequent modification to that bid.

        Comment (c) to the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 162 (2)
states: “a misrepresentation is material if it would be likely to induce a reasonable person
to manifest his assent” or “if the maker knows that for some special reason it is likely to

                                              9
induce the particular recipient to manifest his assent.” 3 See Hollymatic, 21-1 BCA
¶ 37,823 at 183,668. Gilbert is an experienced government contractor that had
participated in numerous Unison contract awards prior to the one at issue in this appeal
(see tr. 2/72-73). Gilbert likely knew the government would not award it the contract if it
told them it intended to offer a trailer different from the one specified in the RFQ.
Gilbert did not provide either a verbal or written notice to the government that it intended
to withdraw its bid even though it discovered the Comforts of Home trailer was not
available within the required delivery time (tr. 1/39).

        In response to the contracting officer’s question concerning whether their offered
trailer contained paper towel dispensers and had a hydraulic lift system, Gilbert provided
SFC Zelbst with the HH-412501-A trailer product description that included a box size of
20 feet by 6 feet (R4, tab 4 at 2). Gilbert contends this email notified the contracting
officer of its intent to provide a product different from its bid, and the contracting
officer’s failure to respond to the email indicated his acceptance of the amended offer
(app. br. at 5). The email, however, nowhere indicated this product description was for a
trailer different from its bid.

        Moreover, SFC Zelbst testified that he was looking for Gilbert’s response
concerning the paper towel dispensers and hydraulic lift and missed that the listed
specifications differed from the RFQ requirements (tr. 1/50). Similarly, Gilbert did not
sufficiently notify the contracting officer that it intended to change its bid when it
provided SFC Zelbst with a screen shot of its SAM registration and the UltraLav
manufacturer’s trailer specifications (app. supp. R4, tab 4 at 2). SFC Zelbst testified that
he does not believe he opened the email attachment for the specifications because he was
interested in seeing only the SAM registration (tr. 1/58).

       Even if SFC Zelbst had agreed to accept a different trailer, which we do not find,
he would have had no authority to do so. A contracting officer cannot allow a contractor
to substantially change the terms of its proposal after the time to submit proposals has
closed. See FAR 15.208(b), SUBMISSION, MODIFICATION AND WITHDRAWAL
OF PROPOSALS (DEC 1999) (proposal modifications received at the designated
government office after the time specified in the receipt of proposals are “late” and
cannot be considered unless a limited exception applies). We have previously held a
specification deviation in a contractor’s proposal affecting price, quality or quantity
offered is a major deviation which cannot be waived. Dongbuk R&U Eng’g Co., ASBCA
No. 58300, 13-1 BCA ¶ 35,389 at 173,638. As we said in Dongbuk, relying on the Court
of Claims explanation in Prestex Inc. v. United States, 320 F.2d 367, 371-72 (1963):

3
    A material misrepresentation does not require a finding of intent to mislead. We make
        no such finding in this case.
                                             10
              [T]he Comptroller General repeatedly has held that a
              specification deviation in a contractor’s proposal affecting
              price, quality or quantity offered is a major deviation which
              cannot be waived. 39 Comp. Gen. 570 (1960); 36 Comp.
              Gen. 251 (1956); 30 Comp. Gen. 179 (1950). The effect of
              statutes and regulations pertaining to the letting of public
              contracts is that the contract awarded must be the contract
              advertised and, if not, the government is not bound because
              its contracting agent cannot bind the government beyond his
              or her actual authority. The rejection of nonresponsive bids is
              necessary if the purposes of the competitive procurement are
              to be attained, that is, to give everyone an equal right to
              compete for Government business, to secure fair prices, and
              to prevent fraud.

Dongbuk, 13-1 BCA ¶ 35,389 at 173,638.

       Here, the contracting officer should have rejected Gilbert’s modified proposal as
nonresponsive if he knew Gilbert no longer planned to offer a trailer that met the RFQ
requirements. Such an action would be necessary to protect the integrity of the bidding
process. Other bidders may have offered similar trailers at a lower price if they knew the
government was willing to accept a different trailer from the one advertised. We find the
contracting officer was unaware of Gilbert’s intention to offer a different product prior to
contract award, and even if he had known of that intention, he had no authority to waive
the specifications after bid closure.

2. Gilbert’s Bid Misrepresentation Induced the Government to Enter Into the Contract

        The government clearly relied upon Gilbert’s bid representation that it intended to
provide the government with the Comforts of Home trailer. On February 9, 2022, the
OMC office advised the contracting office that they were accepting Gilbert’s bid because
it provided the exact same trailer as another offeror but could be delivered sooner (R4,
tab 58 at 1). The floor layout OMC included with its acceptance email to contracting was
for the Comforts of Home trailer (R4, tab 58 at 13). If OMC, the requiring activity, knew
Gilbert intended to provide a different trailer, it likely would have awarded the contract to
a different vendor.

3. The Government was Justified in Relying on Gilbert’s Misrepresentation

       The government’s reliance on Gilbert’s bid representation was reasonable.
Arguably, the government should have been put on notice that there could be an issue
with the delivery date since no other bidder offered the Comforts of Home trailer within
the required 60-day delivery schedule (tr. 1/83). The contracting officer, however,

                                             11
apparently sent an email to Gilbert to confirm they could meet the 60-day delivery
timeframe (R4, tab 54 at 1). Gilbert responded that they were “good to go” and that the
vendor had “two trailers in stock and is estimating 8 weeks for the other two, so I am in
deliberations with them now on how that could be expedited since you need these trailers
within the 60 days” (R4, tab 4 at 1). Based upon this reassurance, we find it was
reasonable for the government to rely upon Gilbert’s bid.

        We conclude Gilbert made a material misrepresentation in its bid and entered into
the contract knowing it could not provide the requested product within the required time
frame. The government relied upon the appellant’s misrepresentation and awarded it the
contract. The government is entitled to receive the product specified in the contract.
Jack Stone Co. v. United States, 344 F.2d 370, 376 (Ct. Cl 1965); Def. Sys. Co., ASBCA
No. 50918, 00-2 BCA ¶ 30,991 at 152,973. We further conclude the government would
likely have found Gilbert not to be technically acceptable and, consequently, not awarded
it the contract had Gilbert not misrepresented its product to the government.

       Accordingly, we conclude appellant’s material representations in its bid resulted in
this contract being void ab initio. This is a severe remedy, but it is premised upon the
“potential for injury to the public interest by actions which compromise the integrity of
the Federal contracting process.” Servicios y Obras Isetan S.L., 13-1 BCA ¶ 35,279
at 173,162 (citing Miss. Valley, 364 U.S. at 564-65).

                                     CONCLUSION

        Since we find the contract is deemed void ab initio, we need not address
appellant’s other arguments. Since the contract has been determined to be void ab initio,
there is no CDA contract in being, therefore, we are deprived of jurisdiction to consider
appellant’s appeal of the termination for cause. Consequently, appellant’s appeal is
denied.

       Dated: June 22, 2023

                                                  ARTHUR M. TAYLOR
                                                  Administrative Judge
                                                  Armed Services Board
                                                  of Contract Appeals

                                            12
       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. 63508, Appeal of Gilbert
Solutions, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

      Dated: June 22, 2023

                                                PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS
                                                Recorder, Armed Services
                                                Board of Contract Appeals

                                           13