ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS ) ) ) ) )

Similar documents
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) Service Rodriguez, Barragan, S.L. ) ASBCA No ) Under Contract No. N C-4003 )

Mr. Daniel W. Chattin Chief Operating Officer

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) Sarang-National Joint Venture ) ASBCA No ) Under Contract No. N C-0055 )

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) Freeport Technologies, Inc. ) ASBCA No ) Under Contract No. HHM D-0014 )

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS ) ) ) ) ) OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CLARKE

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

PDTATAC/vap 18 November UTD/CTD for MAP 91-09(E)/CAP 77-09(E) -- Clarify Per Diem for Departure & Return Days and Quick Reference Tables

PDTATAC/tlp 28 August UTD/CTD for MAP 55-09(E)/CAP 51-09(E) -- Updates References for the New DoDI ; cancels DoDI and DoDI 1327.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2010 CA 1875 BOBBY J LEE VERSUS

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Case 1:17-cv APM Document 29 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PDTATAC/dlw 14 December UTD/CTD for MAP (E)/CAP (E) -- Storage of POV During Contingency Operations

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Saman Khoury v. Secretary United States Army

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington, D.C Floating Plant SUBSISTENCE, QUARTERS, and ALLOWANCES

United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

PER DIEM, TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE COMMITTEE 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 04J2501 Alexandria, VA

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

PDTATAC/vap 25 February SUBJECT: UTD/CTD for MAP 24-13(I)/CAP 24-13(I) -- Updates Chapters 1-3 References in Appendices

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. No YASER ESAM HAMDI AND ESAM FOUAD HAMDI, AS NEXT FRIEND OF YASER ESAM HAMDI, PETITIONERS

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE

STEVEN HARDY and MARY LOUISE HARDY, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Appellants, No. 1 CA-CV

Case 1:05-cv CKK Document 262 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Revised to 1 February 2011 JFTR/JTR Change. PDTATAC/tlw 29 December UTD/CTD for MAP (I)/CAP (I) Mileage Rates

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

DDTC Issues Overly Expansive Interpretation of the ITAR for Defense Services (and Presumably Technical Data)

CHAPTER 5: PERMANENT DUTY TRAVEL PART A: UNIFORMED MEMBERS ONL

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

Boutros, Nesreen v. Amazon

Subj: ACCEPTANCE AND USE OF VOLUNTARY SERVICES IN THE NAVY

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS FINAL DECISION

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA COA

Department of Defense INSTRUCTION. SUBJECT: Reserve Component Incapacitation System Management

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DoD Financial Management Regulation Volume 9, Chapter 2 + August 2003

Case 1:15-cv APM Document 48 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Proposals due May 18 th, 2018 at 4:30 PM. Indicate on the Sealed Envelope Do Not Open with Regular Mail.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0981n.06. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Case 3:06-cv DAK Document 24 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

PER DIEM, TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE COMMITTEE 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 04J2501 Alexandria, VA

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

1. All evidence necessary for review of the issue on appeal has been obtained, and the VA has satisfied the duty to

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS FINAL DECISION

Department of Defense

U.S. Department of Labor

Public Law th Congress An Act

Bell, C.J. Eldridge Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia,

PPC TRAVEL EVACUATION ORDER GUIDANCE 2018

Duty: Pipeline construction. Citation Nr: Decision Date: 07/19/11 Archive Date: 07/29/11 DOCKET NO A ) DATE ) )

McIntosh, Sarah Miles v. Randstad

WebTPAX Upgrade What s New Plus 2016 Transfer Season and PCS Settlement Guidance

Request for Proposal. Internet Access. Houston County Public Library System. Erate Funding Year. July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D01-501

DOD MANUAL DOD ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ACCREDITATION PROGRAM (ELAP)

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

PER DIEM, TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE COMMITTEE 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 04J2501 Alexandria, VA

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO On Appeal from the Board of Veterans Appeals

CNICINST A N1 4 Dec 2013

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO On Appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals. (Decided August 11, 2016)

Department of Defense INSTRUCTION

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.

Hurricane Evacuation Entitlements. And Filing Your Travel Claim

Department of Defense INSTRUCTION

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE

Stewardship Policy No. 16

DRAFT. CHAPTER 11: Special Circumstances Travel

Nidia Cortes, Virgil Dantes, AnneMarie Heslop, Index No Curtis Witters, on Behalf of Themselves and Their RJI No.: ST8123 Children,

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

JOINT FEDERAL TRAVEL REGULATIONS, VOL. 1 (JFTR) CHANGE JULY 2012

PER DIEM, TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE COMMITTEE 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 04J2501 Alexandria, VA

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Administrative Regulation SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. Business and Noninstructional Operations FEDERAL GRANT FUNDS

United States Court of Appeals

Defense Travel Management Office. Defense Travel System. Special Circumstances Travel (SCT) Guide

Defense Travel Management Office

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY

STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW BOARD P.O. BOX JUNEAU, AK 99802

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE

BOARD OF FINANCE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES

NOTICE OF COURT ACTION

3/19/2014 RAC TEAM UM TEAM FINANCE HIM

Transcription:

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of- Trace Systems, Inc. Under Contract No. W91B4N-I0-C-5007 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: ASBCA No. 57574 Michael H. Ferring, Esq. F erring & DeLue LLP Seattle, WA APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. Army Chief Trial Attorney MAJ Samuel Gregory, JA Stephanie B. Magnell, Esq. Trial Attorneys OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE PARK-CONROY ON GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT At issue is the government's motion for summary judgment relating to interpretation of contract provisions it asserts do not require reimbursement ofrest and recuperation (R&R travel expenses. Appellant submitted a reply to the government's motion to which the government has responded. We deny the motion for the reasons that follow. STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION Appellant Trace Systems, Inc. (Trace was awarded Contract No. W91B4N-I0-C-5007 on 1 May 2010 by the Bagram Regional Contracting Center, Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan. The base period ofthe contract was one year, Contract Line Items (CLINs 0001-0008, at the estimated amount of$i,740,515.16, with four one-year option periods, CLINs 1001-4008. (R4, tab I at 1-22 The Statement of Work (SOW explained that the government was "seeking to augment its military staffwith highly qualified civilian contract subject matter experts" (SMEs to provide network infrastructure support and audio visual support for the establishment ofthe Camp Sabalu Detention Facility in Parwan at Bagram, Afghanistan (R4, tab 1 at 49-50, 1.1-1.5. The scope ofwork required Trace to provide five SMEs: two network infrastructure technicians, two closed-circuit television (CCTV technicians, and one C4 support specialist (R4, tab 1 at 51, 3. Each ofthe SME

positions was awarded on the basis of its own firm, fixed-price monthly unit CLIN (CLINs 0001-0005. (R4, tab 1 at 3-5, 51 The SOW provided in 2.1 HOURS OF OPERATION: (R4, tab 1 at 50-51 2.1.1 The Contractor shall provide services as required by the supported forces up to 24 hours per day, seven (7 days per week. All positions are required to work seven (7 days per week, 12 hours per day for a total of 84 hours per week for all personnel. 2.1.2 All contracted positions described herein will also be on call during non-active work hours, 2417, for emergency operational support as required... 2.1.3 LEAVE AND R&R The on-site contractor manager designated by contractor will coordinate with the SMEs and the Government to ensure minimal break in service as a result ofpersonnel taking leave or R&R. The SOW provided in 3.7 TRAVEL COSTS: (R4, tab 1 at 56-57 Official travel to and from Bagram, Afghanistan will be a separate cost from the labor cost and will be invoiced to the government at contractor incurred costs with no additional contractor markup. Actual travel expenses will be in accordance with the most current Joint Federal Travel Regulation [JFTR]. Receipts must be submitted with InVOIce... "Travel," CLIN 0007, was awarded at an estimated single lot unit price of $60,000.00. The description ofclin 0007 was as follows: (R4, tab 1 at 6 Travel to and from Afghanistan. Actual travel expenses will be in accordance with the most current Joint Federal Travel Regulation. Receipts must be submitted with invoice, regardless ofthe receipt amount. 2

The Purpose and Authority provisions contained in the Introduction to the JFTR establish that the JFTR "pertains to per diem, travel and transportation allowances...of Uniformed Service Active Duty and Reserve Component members" (JFTR at Intro-i. The Purpose and Authority provisions contained in the Introduction to the Joint Travel Regulation (JTR establish that the JTR "pertains to per diem, travel and transportation allowances... of DoD civilian employees and civilians who travel using DoD funding" (JTR at Intro-i. The JFTR R&R regulations are found in Chapter 7, "TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CATEGORIES," Part J, paragraph U7300, "FUNDED R&R LEAVE TRANSPORTATION." The JTR R&R regulations are found in Chapter 7, "TRAVEL UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES," Part 0, paragraph C7750 "FUNDED R&R LEAVE TRANSPORA TION." Subparagraphs A. "Policy" of Part J ofthe JFTR and Part 0 ofthe JTR both incorporate Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI 1327.06, which establishes the R&R leave program for government-funded transportation from the R&R duty location to the designated leave R&R locations and requires that the restrictions outlined in DoDI 1327.06 apply, unless otherwise directed by applicable regulation (JFTR at U7J-l; JTR at C70-1. The JFTR and JTR both state at Item 1. ""Limitations." ofparagraph E. "Transportation" that "R&R transportation is only for" uniformed members and civilian employees (JFTR at U7J-4; JTR at C70-4. "APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS & ACRONYMS" to both the JFTR and JTR contains the following definition of"travel, OFFICIAL" in "Part 1: DEFINITIONS:" 1. Authorized travel and assignment solely ICW [in connection with] business ofthe DoD or the GOV'T. 2. Official travel may be performed: a. Within/in the vicinity ofa PDS [Permanent Duty Station]; b. To/from the actual residence to, from or between PDSs; and c. To, from, at, and between TDY assignment locations. 3

3. The below are not official travel. Travel: a. Any delays for personal reasons/convenience, b. By a circuitous route, (JFTRJJTR, App. A at AI-44-45 c. By transportation modes other than authorized/approved, d. For additional distances, or e. To places ICW personal business. "APPENDIX U: AUTHORIZED REST AND RECUPERATION (R&R LOCATIONSIDESTINATIONS" to both the JFTR and JTR includes Afghanistan as an authorized R&R duty location (JFTR/JTR, App. U at U-l. On 22 July 2010, the Army reimbursed Trace $15,191.80 for mobilization air travel incurred in June 2010 for four of its contract employees (gov't ex. 2 at 1. On 5 November 2010, Trace submitted Invoice No. 1317, which included R&R air travel expenses from Afghanistan to the United States and return in the total amount of $5,051.20 for two ofthe contract employees (R4, tab 3. The contracting officer did not pay these R&R travel expenses (R4, tab 5. By a letter dated 28 January 2011, Trace submitted a written claim seeking an interpretation ofthe contract as it related to the non-payment oftravel-related expenses and requested a contracting officer's final decision (R4, tab 6. On 22 March 2011, the contracting officer issued a final decision in which she determined that "R&R travel is not considered official travel and cannot be billed under CLIN 0007 Travel" (R4, tab 9. This timely appeal was docketed on 28 March 2011. The Army filed a motion for summary judgment on 21 June 2011. In a declaration submitted in support oftrace's reply to the Army's motion, Mr. John Wallace, Trace's Vice President offinance, states that the cost of air travel tickets is highly variable, depending upon how far in advance the tickets are purchased and that the initial mobilization travel tickets are the most expensive. Mr. Wallace believes that the $60,000.00 provided in CLIN 0007 was "reasonable to cover one year's travel costs, including R&R for five employees." (Wallace deci. ~ 5 He further states that on a similar contract with the same contracting office, the government paid R&R travel expenses for its employees and that this was consistent with Trace's experience on similar contracts (Wallace deci. ~~ 3,4. 4

DISCUSSION In order to prevail on its motion for summary judgment, the government must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue ofmaterial fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387, 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1987. The government asserts, and we agree, that there are no material facts in dispute relating to its motion. The undisputed facts establish that the contract specified long working hours in a hostile environment in Afghanistan and anticipated the SME's would take R&R. Afghanistan is an authorized R&R duty location. Both section 3.7 ofthe contract specifications and CLIN 0007 provided for reimbursement oftravel expenses in accordance with the JFTR. Contract section 3.7, unlike CLIN 0007, included the word "official" when describing travel and reimbursement oftravel expenses to and from Afghanistan. The contract specifications do not define "official travel." The legal issues raised in the government's motion relate to matters of contract interpretation, the applicable standards for which are familiar. First, we are to determine whether there is only one reasonable interpretation ofthe plain language ofthe contract. C. Sanchez and Son, Inc. v. United States, 6 F.3d 1539, 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1993. Ifthe contract is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, it contains an ambiguity and we then proceed to determine whether that ambiguity is patent. Metric Constructors, Inc. v. NASA, 169 F.3d 747,751 (Fed. Cir. 1999. The government asserts that the plain meaning ofthe contract terms limits R&R travel expenses to those incurred in connection with official travel and that reimbursement ofr&r expenses for Trace's employees is not authorized by either the JFTR or JTR because Trace's employees are neither uniformed service members nor DoD employees. The government's argument continues that the contractual reference to the JFTR was an "inelegant way" of alerting Trace that official travel expenses would be allowed so long as they adhered to the JFTR guidelines, such as those prohibiting luxurious travel (mot. at 6. Finally, the government questions whether the $60,000.00 limitation on travel in CLIN 0007 was sufficient to reimburse Trace for all of its travel expenses, including R&R. Trace replies that the contract specifies that travel expenses will be in accordance with the JTR and that the JTR provides for reimbursement ofr&r travel expenses. It does not explain why it cites to the JTR when the contract specifically incorporated the JFTR. In any event, Trace goes on to contend that official travel is not defined in the contract and that under the circumstances present here in which its employees are required to work seven days a week in a hostile environment, it is reasonable to interpret R&R travel as official travel. Trace characterizes the government's contention that its 5

travel costs would ultimately exceed the $60,000.00 contractual limit ifr&r costs were included as factual speculation. Finally, Trace points to the Wallace declaration regarding R&R travel reimbursement under previous contracts as evidence of a prior course ofdealing. We do not agree with the government's contention that the JFTR and JTR do not apply to Trace's employees. Section 3.7 of the contract specifications and CLIN 0007 both provide that the JFTR will be applicable to travel expenses to and from Afghanistan. Thus, the parties expressly agreed that reimbursement of these travel expenses would be subject to the JFTR. Although R&R travel is not specifically addressed in the contract, the R&R travel regulations set forth in Chapter 7, Part J, paragraph U7300 ofthe JFTR and Chapter 7, Part 0, paragraph C7750 ofthe JTR authorize government-funded R&R transportati on. Despite its initial assertion that the JFTR and JTR do not apply, the government nevertheless contends that R&R travel reimbursement is subject to the transportation limitation contained in subparagraph U7300-E.l of the JFTR, which in tum refers to subparagraph C7750-El ofthe JTR. The transportation limitation reflected in U7300-E.l ofthe JFTR and C7750-E.l of the JTR broadly states that R&R transportation is only for uniformed service members and civilian employees. This is generally consistent with the Purpose and Authority provisions ofthe JFTR and the JTR. The difficulty with the government's argument on this point, however, is that the contract makes the JFTR applicable to reimbursement of Trace's travel expenses, thus treating Trace's employees in the same manner in which uniformed service members and civilian employees are treated. The contract does not make any exception for government-funded R&R transportation, which is authorized by both the JFTR and JTR. "Official travel," as used in section 3.7 ofthe contract, is not defined and the government also turns to the JFTRlJTR definition of''''tra VEL, OFFICIAL" contained in Appendix A to the JFTRlJTR to support its interpretation ofthe contract. This definition, however, does not specifically address R&R travel. Thus, when all ofthe contract provisions are considered, we conclude that both the government's contention that R&R travel is not reimbursable because it is not official travel and Trace's argument that R&R travel is reimbursable to be within a "zone of reasonableness." Metric, 169 F.3d at 751. Further, we are satisfied that the lack of any statement in the contract regarding whether R&R travel is official travel or is otherwise reimbursable was neither a glaring conflict or obvious error, such that it created a patent ambiguity. See Comtrol, Inc. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1357, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002. The remaining arguments relate to the Wallace declaration and the $60,000.00 estimate oftravel expenses. The respective arguments made by the parties relating to the Wallace declaration are ofno consequence because the declaration lacks sufficient 6

factual specificity regarding the prior contracts. And, finally, we agree with Trace that the government's contentions regarding whether $60,000.00 is sufficient to reimburse Trace for all travel expenses, including R&R, are speculative. On the issue ofcontract interpretation, we conclude the contract was ambiguous with respect to whether R&R travel expenses would be reimbursed and that the ambiguity was latent, not patent. CONCLUSION The government's motion for summary judgment is denied. Dated: 20 October 2011 Administrative Judge Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals I concur I concur Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofcontract Appeals ~.6J6.AcL.J c~~ EUNICE W. THOMAS Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofcontract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Opinion and Decision ofthe Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 57574, Appeal of Trace Systems, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated: 7 CATHERINE A. STANTON Recorder, Armed Services Board ofcontract Appeals