Court Opinion

ID: 9900096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 22:00:32.992844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:59.567303
License: Public Domain

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

    Appeal of -                                )
                                               )
    Incircle Management, Inc.                  )     ASBCA No. 62684
                                               )
    Under Contract No. W912BV-20-P-0059        )

    APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:                    Mr. HB Jung
                                                      President

    APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:                  Michael P. Goodman, Esq.
                                                      Engineer Chief Trial Attorney
                                                     Stephanie J. Milburn, Esq.
                                                      Engineer Trial Attorney
                                                      U.S. Army Engineer District, Tulsa

                   OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE EYESTER
                          PURSUANT TO BOARD RULE 11

       Incircle Management Inc. (Incircle) appeals the termination for cause by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or government) of its purchase order for the
cleaning of park facilities. According to the government, Incircle failed to provide
numerous, required cleaning services at Canton Lake, Oklahoma. The Board has
jurisdiction over the termination pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7101.

       The parties elected to waive a hearing and submit the appeal on the record
pursuant to Board Rule 11. Because the government has established the validity of the
default termination, and Incircle has failed to demonstrate the default was excusable, the
appeal is denied.

                                   FINDINGS OF FACT

      1. The government issued request for quotations (RFQ) No. W912BV-20-Q-0046
on February 19, 2020, for spring and summer cleaning services at Canton Lake,
Oklahoma (R4, tab 4A at 1, 6-7). According to the bid schedule, the services were
Schedule I, Appendix A – Cleaning (id. at 7).

       2. Appendix A was part of the RFQ’s statement of work (SOW), which also
included a general section, exhibits and attachments (R4, tab 4H at 2). 1 According to the

1
    The Board issued an order requiring the agency provide a complete copy of the
         solicitation, including all attachments.
SOW, the purchase order’s general purpose was the “cleaning of park facilities such as
toilets, picnic/camping sites, and grounds keeping” (id. at 4). More specifically, per the
performance requirements, the contractor was to clean all waterborne toilets, vault toilets,
showers, change houses, picnic shelter, camping sites, and perform grounds keeping and
refuse collection (id. at 20-21). Appendix A provided further detail and defined the term
“clean” to require the contractor “sweep, wash, wipe, or brush facilities to ensure that
dirt, dust, rocks, debris (tree limbs, rocks, driftwood, etc.), trash, garbage, ashes, fecal
matter, urine, soap scum, biological formations and resultant stains, dead insects, insect
nests . . . insect webs, bird droppings, and residue from cleaning agents are removed” (id.
at 35).

        3. In addition, per Appendix A, the contractor was required to empty refuse
containers; distribute toilet tissue after cleaning the bathroom; remove litter and debris in
a five-foot area around the facilities; remove vandalism and graffiti; replace burned out or
broken lights; perform second cleanings on weekends and holidays; clean picnic shelter
floor slabs, table seats and tops; remove all material from fireplaces; and clean all table
shelters, cookers, and fire rings (R4, tab 4H at 31-33). The contractor was to clear refuse
and debris visible from a distance of 25 feet from public use areas (PUAs), 2 access roads,
fishing areas, embankment roads and the Amphitheater in an area bounded by an
imaginary line 20 feet outside the limits of mowing (id. at 20, 33). The contractor was to
pick up highly visible items beyond the area of mowing, including at the embankment
road (id. at 33-34). The purchase order included an inventory list of toilets, showers,
picnic and camping shelters, change houses, grounds/trails, refuse cans, etc., to be
cleaned (id. at 38).

       4. In addition, the contractor was to provide the necessary personnel within the
specified time limits, provide an on-site supervisor and safety plan, and transport and
furnish equipment such as mops, cleaning compounds and disinfectants (R4, tab 4H at 5,
7-8, 31). Per Appendix A, the contractor was to begin work by 7 a.m. and complete work
by 3 p.m.; however, toilets requiring second cleanings needed the first cleaning by
11 a.m. and the second cleaning between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. (id. at 31).

        5. Services would be considered deficient if they failed to meet these performance
requirements (R4, tab 4H at 4). The contracting officer’s representative (COR) would
determine whether services were deficient during the quality assurance inspections and
“[t]he results of inspections” would not be “changed as a result of satisfactory re-
performance” (id. at 7).

      6. In response to the RFQ, Incircle submitted a seven-page quotation, most of
which consisted of the pricing on the bid schedule stating the services were Schedule I,

2
    A PUA included the “[p]arks, as well as overlooks, nature and hiking trails, access
        points, and other areas used by the public for recreation” (R4, tab 4H at 4).

                                               2
Appendix A – Cleaning, (R4, tab 4B). In its quotation, Incircle stated it would
implement a work schedule and inspection plan for accuracy, consistency and timeliness
of the requirements during weekdays, weekends, and holidays (id. at 2). We find that
Incircle submitted its quotation based on the cleaning requirements set forth in the SOW,
including Appendix A.

        7. On March 29, 2020, USACE issued fixed-priced purchase order No. W912BV-
20-P-0059 to Incircle in the amount of $58,295.60, with a one-year period of performance
starting March 1, 2020, and four one-year option periods (R4, tab 4C at 1, 3). The
purchase order did not contain any statement of work (see id.). The purchase order,
however, did set forth the following contract line item numbers (CLINs): CLIN 0001 for
the initial cleaning of showers and toilets prior to the opening season; CLINs 0002-0004,
CLINs 0006-0007, and CLINs 0009-0010 for the cleaning of the PUAs at Big Bend,
Canadian, Blaine, Fairview, Longdale, Riverside, and Sandy Cove parks, respectively; and
CLIN 0005, CLIN 0008, and CLINs 0011-0012 for the cleaning at the Dam Embankment,
the Overlook, Thunder Hill Road, and Amphitheater, respectively (id. at 3-8). We find
that, at a minimum, the purchase order required Incircle perform initial cleaning of
showers and toilets, and cleaning of the PUAs at the parks and other specified areas.

       8. The purchase order incorporated by reference Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) clause 52.246-4, INSPECTION OF SERVICES – FIXED PRICE (AUG 1996)
and explained that the services were to be inspected by the government at the destination
(R4, tab 4C at 34). The purchase order also incorporated by reference FAR 52.212-4,
CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2018),
which states in pertinent part:

               (m) Termination for cause. The Government may terminate
               this contract, or any part hereof, for cause in the event of any
               default by the Contractor, or if the Contractor fails to comply
               with any contract terms and conditions, or fails to provide the
               Government, upon request, with adequate assurances of
               future performance.

(Id. at 54).

       9. Incircle met with the COR on April 6, 2020, to discuss the cleaning
requirements (see R4, tab 5A at 76-79; tab 5B at 1). At that time, the public restrooms at
the parks were closed and therefore cleanings were not taking place as regularly
scheduled, although they still needed some cleaning, including an initial cleaning (R4,
tab 5B at 1, 7). On that same day, the COR sent a “second” cleaning schedule for use
when the restrooms reopened to the public and additional cleanings were needed (id.
at 1). The “second” cleaning schedule stated that second cleanings were to be performed
between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., and that “[a]ll restrooms, waterborne and vault toilets,

                                              3
are to be cleaned using the same contract specifications as original cleanings.” According
to the schedule, there would be 47 second cleanings; 43 conducted on Saturday and
Sunday from April 13-September 7, and four on specific holidays. (Id. at 3)

       10. On April 8, 2020, the COR emailed Incircle and stated that a trash can at Big
Bend by the Romtec bathroom had no liner but contained trash, and that the schedule in the
statement of work was in effect except for the bathrooms as they were still closed. The
COR explained that spot cleaning the bathrooms to remove bugs was still necessary. (R4,
tab 5B at 7) Incircle responded: “Got it. I will make sure we provide the services as you
expected” (id. at 8). On April 13, 2020, the COR notified Incircle via email of the
following issues identified during the inspection: there was still trash in the can at Big
Bend by the Romtec bathroom but no liner; there was trash in the Canadian Park areas A
and B; the bathrooms at the Overlook needed an initial cleaning; there was trash along the
roads at Blaine, Sandy Cove, and Riverside parks; there was trash by the group shelter
at Longdale Park; the bathrooms at Fairview Park needed an initial cleaning; and the fire
rings and campsite grills needed cleaning (id. at 11).

       11. Although the purchase order did not include a SOW, on April 17, 2020,
Incircle provided its accident prevention plan for cleaning services; the SOW attached to
the RFQ had required such a plan (R4, tab 5B at 17). The plan’s description of work
included “cleaning toilets, showers, change houses, grounds, restrooms, picnic and
camping sites, fishing areas, courtesy docks, dump stations, bulletin boards, embankment
road, amphitheater, refuse collection and report[ing] stinging insects and nests” (id.
at 18). We find, based on Incircle’s meeting with the COR, subsequent emails on work
to be performed, and its accident prevention plan, that Incircle understood the purchase
order’s requirements for cleaning services was based on the SOW which was included in
the RFQ but not in the purchase order.

        12. On April 20, 2020, the COR asked Incircle to “clean all picnic and camp sites
with how the Scope of Work has it.” Further, the COR explained that all the fire rings
and grills at the camp sites needed to be cleaned out from burned wood and ash build-up
and the Amphitheater needed cleaning of debris. In response, Incircle stated “Got it. We
will clean them this week.” (R4, tab 5B at 25-26)

        13. On April 26, 2020, Incircle sent the COR three quality control reports stating
that all items/tasks had been inspected at the various parks for April 5-25, 2020 (R4,
tab 5B at 28-31). According to Incircle’s quality control reports, the fire rings, cookers,
tables, insects, etc. had been inspected at the picnic/camping areas, screened shelters, and
group shelters. The quality control reports stated that the floors, sinks, toilets, showers
and presence of insects, etc. had all been inspected at the restrooms. Finally, the reports
stated that all trash cans, park roads and grounds, etc. had been inspected. (Id. at 29-31)

                                             4
       14. The COR emailed Incircle on April 27, 2020 and thanked them for cleaning
out the Amphitheater. However, the COR also expressed concern regarding Incircle’s
quality control reports. In this regard, the COR explained that while Incircle’s reports
showed the fire rings, cookers and tables had been inspected, the COR noticed during his
inspection that the majority of fire rings, cookers and some tables in the group shelters
were not cleaned per the specifications. Further, the COR noted burned out light bulbs in
certain shelters, uncleaned large grills at the shelters, trash along the highways, and trash
around the Sandy Cove shelter, among other things. The COR believed Incircle was not
performing work in the required timeframe of 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. as he had only noticed and
heard from others that Incircle was cleaning in the mornings. (R4, tab 5B at 33) In
response, Incircle stated it would hire another individual so there would be two
employees starting in May and that it would “cover fully starting May” (id. at 35).

       15. On April 28, 2020, the COR requested and Incircle provided a park cleaning
schedule (R4, tab 5B at 40, 43, 45). The work schedule showed, for example, that toilets
would be cleaned and trash would be emptied every day at the parks and Overlook between
the hours of 7 a.m. and 3 p.m. (id. at 45). We find that Incircle understood that cleaning
was required every day at the parks, as set forth in the RFQ’s SOW and specifications.

       16. The parks at Canton Lake reopened on May 20, 2020 (R4, tab 5C at 33).
Similar issues with failure to remove trash and clean shelters and bathrooms arose both
before and after the parks’ reopening. While Incircle’s quality control reports showed all
items/areas inspected, the COR’s inspections showed deficiencies. For example, on May
4, 2020, the COR’s inspection, which was provided to Incircle, stated the grills at Sandy
Cove contained partially burned material, there was trash around the shelter, the
Longdale shelter had not been cleaned, and the men’s bathroom at Sandy Cove was not
cleaned that day (id. at 4-5). The COR called Incircle’s supervisor about the Longdale
shelter, who stated he believed another individual “would take care of it on Sunday
because [the supervisor] noticed people using it on Saturday” (id. at 5). The COR’s
inspection on that day and the next noted that there were many spider webs and insects
along the walls, light fixtures and windows at the bathrooms (id. at 5, 11).

       17. On May 6, 2020, the COR notified Incircle that two trash cans at the cemetery
had not been collected for some time as the trash bags were melting from the heat (R4,
tab 5C at 16). In response, Incircle stated that the purchase order did not require cleaning
those two trash cans. The COR responded by stating that Table A-3, Facilities Inventory
for Cleaning Services Summer Period set forth an inventory of seven trash cans for the
Canadian Park, including one at the cemetery. The COR further stated that there were
currently two trash cans at the cemetery, but he was “taking 1 can out . . . to make the
inventory count on the contract current.” (Id. at 21) Incircle also asked whether the three
trash cans at the Amphitheater were part of the Canadian Park inventory, and the COR
explained they were not initially. However, the COR informed Incircle he was removing
the requirement to empty three other trash cans so the Amphitheater cans would be part

                                              5
of the total seven trash cans to be emptied. The COR also stated that he would complete
a new count to make sure the inventory list was current and if there were changes, they
could work it out. (Id. at 23) The COR also removed two extra trash cans from Blaine
Park and two from the fish jetties so that the total trash cans to be emptied matched the
inventory list on the statement of work (id. at 26, 29). We find the COR required Incircle
empty only the number of trash cans set forth in the RFQ’s inventory and that even if the
COR had previously required Incircle to empty additional trash cans, the record shows
Incircle was deficient in performing most if not all of those services.

       18. On May 21, 2020, Incircle submitted an updated work schedule and notified
the COR it had two onsite representatives, and that one representative would be at the
various parks each day of the week (R4, tab 5C at 41). The work schedule showed that
Incircle would clean the toilets and empty the trash every day at each of the parks (id.
at 42). Incircle continued to submit quality control reports for May 2020 showing all
areas had been inspected (see id. at 47, 54, 56). On May 26, 2020, the COR notified
Incircle that Park Rangers had emailed pictures of bathrooms during Memorial Day
weekend, which showed unreplenished toilet paper rolls and trash in the cans (id. at 48,
50-52). Further, the COR informed Incircle that none of the Big Bend camp sites had
been cleaned, including the fire rings and grills (id. at 48).

       19. On June 1, 2020, the COR emailed Incircle and stated that the grounds
keeping at Thunder Road was deficient, small trash was piling up at the camp sites and
shelters, there was purple goo on the tables at Sandy Cove, and there were customer
complaints about the bathrooms due to spider webs and dead insects. The COR
specifically told Incircle he did not want “any dead insects, spider webs, dirt, fecal matter
on the toilets . . . .” (R4, tab 5D at 4) The COR attached pictures showing all of these
issues (id. at 5-13, 16-19). Incircle picked up the trash along Thunder Road (id. at 20).
The COR performed a campsite clean-up and bathroom inspection on June 2 at Big Bend
Park and found no worker on site and that no park cleaning had occurred for an uncertain
amount of time (R4, tab 6B at 6).

        20. On June 11, 2020, the COR informed Incircle that there were stains in the
toilets at Big Bend, Canadian, and Sandy Cove parks, and the Overlook, and there were
urine and other stains around the toilets at Canadian Park (R4, tab 5D at 44, 46). The
COR attached numerous pictures of uncleaned and stained toilets (with what appears to
be urine and fecal matter) and floors stained with urine and other material, which were
taken during the quality control inspection (id. at 48-63). The COR also attached pictures
showing spider webs at the various windows and a burned out light (id. at 64-67). We
find that despite the fact Incircle informed the government it would clean the parks every
day, especially the bathrooms, it failed to do so.

       21. The COR reinspected areas noted as issues for grounds keeping and noticed
several missed areas, which he documented with pictures (e.g., discarded fishing pole)

                                              6
(R4, tab 5D at 68-70, 72-74). There was also graffiti on the tables and seat at the
Longdale Park (id. at 71). A June 17, 2020 deficiency report noted trash at multiple
campsites and broken glass at one of the sites (id. at 81). More deficiencies were noted in
the June 22, 2020 quality assurance reports, which included pictures of trash (e.g., beer
and soda cans, water bottles) (id. at 87-125).

        22. On June 25, 2020, the government issued unilateral, no-cost Modification
No. P00001, which incorporated the statement of work from Section C of the solicitation,
as well as SWT Form 982 (Quality Assurance Report), SWT Form 990 (Quality Control
Inspection Log), the Job Hazard Analysis, Work Schedule for Park Cleaning, and the
Canton Lake map (R4, tab 4D at 1; see also R4, tab 4H). The next day, the government
issued a cure notice stating that Incircle failed to provide: experienced and skilled
personnel that worked the required hours; an on-site supervisor that could be reached
between the required hours; all required cleaning services (bathroom cleaning, removal of
trash from campsites, campsite cleaning, weekend cleaning, and re-work of deficient
areas); and adequate quality control inspections (R4, tab 5D at 177-78). The notice
warned the government could terminate the purchase order for cause and provided
Incircle 10 days to improve its performance (id. at 178).

        23. On June 29, 2020, the COR issued another quality assurance report stating the
Canadian Park bathrooms were not cleaned, there was fecal matter on the toilets, the
floors were stained, and trash cans were unemptied. Further, there were water rings on
the toilets, dead insects and webs on the walls, and stains on the shower floors. (R4,
tab 5D at 182-83) The COR noted similar issues with the bathrooms at Big Bend Park,
Sandy Cove Park, and the Overlook. There were also issues with uncleaned fire rings
and grills at Big Bend Park, as well as trash and refuse at the Longdale, Blaine, Big Bend,
and Canadian parks. (Id. at 183) The COR attached pictures showing overfilled trash
cans at Longdale Park, trash in the fire rings, uncleaned grills, numerous dead insects in
the bathrooms, stained floors, and uncleaned and stained toilets (id. at 185-221, 222-26).
The COR wrote to Incircle on one of the pictures that there was fecal matter, other
biological formations, and water rings on the toilets because they were not getting
cleaned daily and therefore, they were below standards (id. at 221).

       24. In response to the cure notice, on July 2, 2020, Incircle stated it provided the
personnel necessary to perform, the employees performing the cleaning were also the on-
site supervisors, and it provided quality control reports and work schedules. Incircle
further stated that while “[t]here were deficiencies of service, [] we didn’t fail to clean.
We provided re-perform[ance] and completed the service.” (R4, tab 5E at 6) Further,
Incircle explained that it performed work outside the required hours because the
government required it to perform “non-contract” work such as: cleaning nine additional
refuse containers every day for which the government did not pay Incircle; grounds
keeping of additional non-PUAs; and removal of refuse and debris outside the
requirements of the purchase order (id. at 7-8).

                                             7
        25. More issues arose in July 2020. Incircle was keeping its supplies in chase
ways at the Big Bend and Canadian parks after it was told it could not. Some supplies
blocked the maintenance hallways, and other supplies, such as lights, were found sitting
on the plumbing in the bathrooms. (R4, tab 5E at 17-19) Without going into too much
detail, the bathrooms, and especially the toilets, were still not getting cleaned at the Big
Bend, Canadian and Sandy Cove parks (id. at 23-24). In addition, Incircle failed to
provide timely work schedules or changed schedules last minute (id. at 28).

       26. According to other July COR reports, Incircle employees stated they were not
provided with proper equipment, and one stated the mop he was using to clean the floors
was falling apart (R4, tab 6C at 5). In late July, some of the bathroom issues seemed to
have been remedied, but others remained; and there was highly visible trash at the
Amphitheater, Longdale Park, and Thunder Road (R4, tab 5E at 31). On July 25, 2020,
Incircle provided a new work schedule, again showing the bathrooms would be cleaned
every day at the parks (id. at 39-40).

       27. On July 27, 2020, the COR notified Incircle that the same trash he
documented at the parks from the prior week was still highly visible; bathrooms were not
cleaned per the specifications; an Incircle employee stated the cleaning agent Incircle
provided was ineffective in removing water stains; the shower floors at Canadian Park
were not cleaned or mopped; three lights were burned out at the Canadian Park
bathrooms; and Incircle workers were not using step ladders to replace lights but caught
standing on a plastic bucket or metal trash can, which presented a safety hazard (R4,
tab 5E at 42-43). We find that Incircle failed to clean the parks in accordance with the
terms of the purchase order, as modified.

        28. On August 6, 2020, the COR sent another quality report to Incircle again
outlining all the deficiencies in the work, including dead insects, worsening water rings,
unsterilized or uncleaned toilets, and trash at the various locations, including the shelters
(R4, tab 5F at 4-6). On August 7, 2020, Incircle wrote the contracting officer disputing
the COR’s interpretation of highly visible refuse. According to Incircle, the COR wanted
all trash removed, including little plastic items or cigarette butts that Incircle believed
was not highly visible. Incircle requested clarification on the matter. (Id. at 7) In
response, on August 13, 2020, the contracting officer explained that per the purchase
order, the described items fell within the grounds keeping areas of the parks and should
be picked up while the trash pick-up of highly visible items only applied to “the area
bounded by an imaginary line 20 feet outside the limits of mowing” (id. at 13).

       29. On August 14, 2020, the contracting officer prepared a memorandum
outlining the bases for termination for cause of Incircle’s purchase order (R4, tab 3). The
memorandum explained that the COR had issued multiple quality assurance reports
(including seven reports after issuance of the cure notice) documenting deficient work

                                              8
and Incircle failed to acknowledge the majority of these reports or provide required
reperformance (id. at 1).

       30. That same day, the contracting officer terminated the purchase order for cause
because Incircle failed to provide contractually required services (R4, tab 2). The
modification terminating the purchase order reduced the total funded value from
$58,295.60 to $37,386.59 (R4, tab 4E at 1). On September 11, 2020, Incircle appealed
the termination decision to the contracting officer, who later informed Incircle he would
not change his decision (R4, tab 5G at 1, 3). On September 18, 2020, Incircle filed its
notice of appeal with the Board disputing the termination for cause.

                                        DECISION

       Pursuant to the relevant default clause, in this appeal FAR 52.212-4, CONTRACT
TERMS AND CONDITIONS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2018), the government
may terminate a contract for cause “in the event of any default by the Contractor, or if the
Contractor fails to comply with any contract terms and conditions, or fails to provide the
Government, upon request, with adequate assurances of future performance.” (Finding 8)
We have explained before that the principles underlying terminations for default apply
equally to terminations for cause issued pursuant to the commercial items FAR 52.212-4
clause. Axxon Int’l, LLC, ASBCA No. 61549, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,564 at 182,393. A
termination for default is a government claim. Securiforce Int’l Am., LLC v. United States,
879 F.3d 1354, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Therefore, the government bears the burden of
proving that its termination was justified. Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 828
F.2d 759, 765 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Axxon, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,564 at 182,393.

       The government terminated the purchase order because Incircle failed to provide
contractually required services (R4, tab 2). Specifically, the contracting officer
concluded the COR had issued multiple quality assurance reports documenting deficient
work and Incircle failed to acknowledge the majority of these reports or provide required
reperformance (R4, tab 3).

       As noted, initially, the purchase order failed to include an SOW setting forth the
specifications for cleaning at the parks. We found that the purchase order, however,
required Incircle nonetheless still perform an initial cleaning of showers and toilets, and
cleaning of the PUAs at the parks and other specified areas (finding 7). According to the
Merriam-Webster online dictionary, “clean” means “free from dirt or pollution.”
Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, MERRIAM-WEBSTER, https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/clean (last visited Aug. 10, 2023). Despite the order’s language
and the common definition of the term, we found that Incircle failed to clean several
areas at the park (finding 20). FAR 52.212-4(m), permits the contracting officer to
terminate the purchase for “any default” and we conclude that here, Incircle was in

                                             9
default. See United Healthcare Partners, Inc., ASBCA No. 58123, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,374
at 177,314.

       Further, we found that based on Incircle’s quotation, initial meeting with the COR,
emails on work to be performed, and submission of its accident prevention plan, that
Incircle understood the purchase order’s requirements for cleaning services was based on
the SOW included in the RFQ but not originally in the purchase order (findings 6, 11). In
addition, Incircle provided work schedules stating that it would clean toilets and empty
trash every day at the parks and Overlook during the required timeframes and was failing
to do so (findings 15, 20). Despite this understanding, course of performance, and
Incircle’s commitment, Incircle was not performing cleaning services, including cleaning
of the bathrooms.

       Incircle itself noted in response to the cure notice that “[t]here were deficiencies
of service,” but claimed it provided re-performance and completed the services (R4,
tab 5E at 6). However, contrary to Incircle’s assertions on reperformance, the record
shows that bathrooms, trash cans, park shelters, etc. were uncleaned over the course of
several months (findings 15, 20).

        Incircle’s performance issues continued after the government amended the
purchase order to include the SOW. In this regard, the record is replete with
documentation, including pictures, of uncleaned bathrooms, toilets, trash cans, park
shelters, fire rings, etc. We found that Incircle failed to meet the terms of the purchase
order (finding 27). Accordingly, we conclude that Incircle failed to meet the definition of
clean set forth in Appendix A, which required the contractor “sweep, wash, wipe, or
brush facilities to ensure that dirt, dust, rocks, debris (tree limbs, rocks, driftwood, etc.),
trash, garbage, ashes, fecal matter, urine, soap scum, biological formations and resultant
stains, dead insects, insect nests . . . insect webs, bird droppings, and residue from
cleaning agents are removed” (R4, tab 4D at 31). In addition, Incircle failed to meet
other requirements set forth in Appendix A, including emptying refuse containers;
removing litter and debris; removing graffiti; replacing burned out lights; performing
second cleanings on weekends and holidays; and cleaning shelters, cookers, and fire rings
(id. at 28-29). Incircle also failed to provide sufficient mops and cleaning compounds
and meet the required hours of performance (see id. at 7). Further, while Incircle claims
it re-performed the work, the SOW explained that “[t]he results of inspections,” such as
deficiencies found, would not be “changed as a result of satisfactory re-performance”
(R4, tab 4H at 7). Incircle’s work was deficient.

       Incircle does not specifically dispute these facts or challenge USACE’s
assertion that it did not meet several of the purchase order’s requirements such as the
specifications for clean bathrooms. We conclude the government has met its burden that
the termination was justified.

                                              10
        The burden of proof now shifts to Incircle to prove that its default was excusable.
In this regard, FAR 52.212-4(f) states that the contractor “shall be liable for default
unless nonperformance is caused by an occurrence beyond the reasonable control of the
Contractor and without its fault or negligence. . . .” (Emphasis added).

       Incircle contends that it was forced to clean nine additional trash cans and to
grounds keep additional non-PUAs, and that it raised these issues to the COR who
later admitted these services were not required by the purchase order (app. br. at 1-4).
According to Incircle, this alleged breach and misconduct by the government tainted
the termination (id. at 2). We have found, however, the COR required Incircle empty
only the number of trash cans set forth in the SOW’s inventory and that even if the COR
had previously required Incircle to empty additional trash cans, the record shows Incircle
mostly failed to perform those services (finding 17). Further, Incircle has not shown how
emptying additional trash cans prevented it from cleaning other areas of the park over the
course of several months.

        With respect to the grounds keeping of non-PUAs, Incircle circled two areas on a
map showing the project boundaries (app. br. at 3). Incircle states it was told to clean the
E645 and N2466 roads it circled, which it states were outside the project boundaries (id.
at 2-3). There is nothing in the record supporting Incircle’s bare assertions. Rather, the
record shows that Incircle failed to clean, by any definition of the term, the parks (and
especially the bathrooms). Further, Incircle has not shown how this alleged extra work
prevented it from cleaning other areas of the park over the course of several months.

       Finally, Incircle argues that the cure notice was defective because it was issued just
prior to the modification incorporating the SOW (app. br. at 4). Incircle argues the
defect lies in the notice’s statement that Incircle failed to comply with the purchase
order’s specifications, which had only just been added (id.). Incircle also argues the
termination, which relies on the cure notice, is also defective (id. at 5).

        This argument is flawed. As noted, the purchase order included the commercial
item clause FAR 52.212-4, on which the termination is based. FAR 12.403,
TERMINATION, addresses the government’s requirements when terminating a
commercial item contract for cause. Specifically, FAR 12.403(a) explains that the
termination paragraphs in FAR 52.212-4 “contain concepts which differ from those
contained in the termination clauses prescribed in part 49” and therefore “the requirements
of part 49 do not apply when terminating” commercial item contracts; rather, contracting
officers are to follow the procedures in FAR 12.403 but may use part 49 as guidance to the
extent there is no conflict. FAR 12.403 does not require the contracting officer issue a cure
notice before terminating the contract or purchase order for cause. See FAR 12.403(c);
United Healthcare Partners, Inc., 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,374 at 177,313 (cure notice not required
in commercial item contract containing FAR 52.212-4). Accordingly, Incircle has failed to
show that the default was excusable.

                                             11
         And regardless, here, we have found that the purchase order required Incircle
provide cleaning services, which it failed to do in many instances, and Incircle
understood the purchase order’s requirement for cleaning was based on the SOW (prior
to its inclusion) and failed to provide the required services. Therefore, the cure notice
was not defective. Further, the termination was based on instances of deficient
performance after the government modified the purchase order to include the SOW and
therefore, as noted above, the termination was reasonable and supported by the record.

                                     CONCLUSION

       Based on the foregoing, the appeal is denied.

       Dated: October 3, 2023

                                                  LAURA J. EYESTER
                                                  Administrative Judge
                                                  Armed Services Board
                                                  of Contract Appeals

 I concur                                         I concur

 RICHARD SHACKLEFORD                              OWEN C. WILSON
 Administrative Judge                             Administrative Judge
 Acting Chairman                                  Vice Chairman
 Armed Services Board                             Armed Services Board
 of Contract Appeals                              of Contract Appeals

     I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62684, Appeal of Incircle
Management, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

       Dated: October 3, 2023

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

                                            12