Charles F. Day & Associates LLC ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                 ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
    Appeals of --                                )
    )
    Charles F. Day & Associates LLC              )        ASBCA Nos. 60211, 60212, 60213
    )
    Under Contract No. WlSQKN-11-C-0157          )
    APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:                        Jeffrey L. Roth, Esq.
    Allen L. Anderson, Esq.
    Ryan G. Blount, Esq.
    F&B Law Firm, P.C.
    Huntsville, AL
    APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:                       Raymond M. Saunders, Esq.
    Army Chief Trial Attorney
    MAJ Stephen P. Smith, JA
    CPT Meghan E. Mahaney, JA
    Trial Attorneys
    OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE PROUTY
    This appeal involves employees of appellant, Charles F. Day & Associates LLC
    (CFD), performing services for the United States in Iraq above and beyond the written
    requirements of the above-captioned contract (the contract) during a critical moment
    of our war effort. For this, CFD may be owed recognition but not additional
    compensation. A significant portion of the evidence presented by CFD was not
    presented to the contracting officer when CFD submitted its claims and we do not
    possess jurisdiction over appeals resting upon such new factual bases. Moreover, we
    cannot compensate the company for expenses that it would have incurred even had it
    not performed out of scope work, and must deny it the damages it seeks in this appeal.
    FINDINGS OF FACT
    I.     The Award of the Contract and its Terms
    The United States Army's Picatinny Contracting Center of the Picatinny
    Arsenal in New Jersey (the government) released the solicitation for the contract on
    April 7, 2011 (supp. R4, tab 564) 1• The contract which came from this solicitation was
    generally for providing support personnel relating to artillery - much of it overseas in
    Iraq and Afghanistan (see R4, tab 1). The appeal before us involves two contract line
    1
    The solicitation number was WlSQKN-11-R-COOl (R4, tab 2 at 5).
    item numbers (CLINs) in this larger contract. The first of these CLINs, CLIN 0005
    (CLIN 5), was for the provision of three field service representatives (FSRs) to do
    work in Iraq on M109A5 self-propelled 155mm howitzers (the self-propelled
    howitzers) (R4, tab 1 at 8, 36). The second CLIN at issue, CLIN 0006 (CLIN 6).
    was for ten FSRs to do work on M198 towed 155mm howitzers (the towed howitzers).
    also in Iraq (id. at 9, 36). Of note, the contract included two option years for the FSRs
    I
    referenced in CLINs 5 and 6 (id. at 15-16 (option year 1), at 22-23 (option year 2)).
    A. The Work Required of the FSRs
    Several contract provisions described the work to be performed by these FSRs.
    Section 6 of the performance work statement (PWS) provided in part that the
    contractor would provide the 13 FSRs set forth by CLINs 5 and 6:
    [W]ith primary focus on providing technical assistance;
    over-the-shoulder training; and onsite maintenance support
    of 24 [self-propelled howitzers] refurbished by the Maine
    Military Authority (MMA) and 120 [towed howitzers]
    refurbished by Joint Manufacturing & Technology Center
    (JMTC), Rock Island Arsenal. (24 [self-propelled]
    Howitzers are scheduled to arrive in Iraq by March 2011.
    [Deliveries of the towed howitzers] ... are scheduled to
    commence February 2011 with deliveries of 8 howitzers
    per month thru April 2012)[.]
    (R4, tab 1 at 36)
    Section 6.1.1 of the PWS provided that the three FSRs working on the
    self-propelled howitzers would primarily be located in Taji, Iraq, in support of the
    Iraqi 9th Mechanical Division, though they would also support the howitzers during
    live fire exercises in Besmaya, Iraq (R4, tab I at 36). Section 6.1.2 of the PWS
    provided that the FSRs working on the towed howitzers would also have a primary
    location of Taji, along with supporting their howitzers during live fire exercises in
    Besmaya (id.).
    The PWS also included a section on "deprocessing" the towed howitzers (R4,
    tab 1 at 36-37). "Deprocessing," in this context, simply means taking howitzers that
    were packed for shipment to Iraq and received there and making them operational
    (tr. 1/19-20, 22-23, 2/60-61 ). It is generally not considered to be a particularly
    difficult process (id.), and Mr. Andrews, one of CFD's lead FSRs, testified that,
    nominally, the howitzers covered by the CLINs could each be deprocessed by one
    FSR working one day, although it could take longer if they were in poor condition
    (tr. 2/60-61). In any event, section 6.2 of the PWS provided that the FSRs would
    2
    deprocess 80 2 towed howitzers at Camp Taji as they arrived from their refurbishment
    by the Rock Island Arsenal (R4, tab 1 at 36). This section of the PWS repeated the
    anticipated schedule from paragraph 6, noted above, with 8 towed howitzers to be
    delivered a month from February 2011 to April 2012 (id.).
    The section of the PWS about deprocessing, section 6.2.1, entitled, "Specific
    FSR/Deprocessing Support Tasks," went into some detail about the actions that would
    be accomplished during the deprocessing and also included subparagraph g, that in
    full, stated: "Provide [self-propelled howitzer] and [towed howitzer] Technical
    Assistance" (R4, tab I at 36-3 7).
    B. The Hours to be Worked by the FSRs
    The hours to be worked by the FSRs were set forth in two locations in the
    solicitation. CLINs 5 and 6 both included the annotation "4680 hours/year/person
    when deployed" (R4, tab I at 8-9). The PWS states, in section 5.1, "Hours of Duty":
    On-site FSRs shall provide support as required to support
    the mission, including working extra hours, after-hours,
    and on weekends. The Contractor shall allocate 90 hours
    per work week for the FSRs deployed in .. .Iraq ....
    (R4, tab 1 at 36)
    The 90-hour workweeks for deployed FSRs (4,680 hours per year in the CLINs
    also equates to 90 hours per week multiplied by 52 weeks in a year) caused a potential
    contractor (not CFD (see tr. 1/44-45)) to submit a question to the contracting officer
    (CO) prior to contract award:
    REF PWS paragraph 5.1 page 33 - Hours of Duty requires
    FSR's [sic] to perform a 90-hour work week. This would
    require working 13-hour days seven days per week.
    Sustained performance at this rate is extremely difficult.
    Our experience is that most everyone works a 72 hour
    week, 12 hours a day 6 days a week. Please clarify the
    anticipated work schedule for those deployed in
    Afghanistan and Iraq.
    2   We cannot reconcile the PWS referring to 80 towed howitzers needing to be
    deprocessed, while other portions of the PWS refer to FSRs being responsible
    for 120 towed howitzers and the delivery schedule references 15 months of
    deliveries at 8 towed howitzers per month, which multiplies to 120 towed
    howitzers. Fortunately, we need not resolve this seeming conflict.
    3
    (App. supp. R4, tab 23 7 at 4) In response, the CO wrote: "Answer: The 90 hour work
    week allows for FSRs to be on call to provide support to units as necessary" (id.). This
    question and response joined all other questions and responses submitted by
    contractors as part of the solicitation process and were formally incorporated into the
    solicitation as a modification to the solicitation dated April 25, 2011 (app. supp. R4,
    tab 257 at 2, item 5). Other questions and answers incorporated into the solicitation
    included one that asked what would happen to the FSRs after they had deprocessed the
    howitzers and whether they would "remain on [the] ground to continue FSR support to
    other M 198 Howitzers." The response to this question was, "Yes. The FSRs remain
    on the ground." (App. supp. R4, tab 237 at 8) The response to another question stated
    that the self-propelled and towed howitzer mission in the contract was "to train Iraqi
    forces" (id.); and, in response to a question inquiring about "essential contracting tasks
    which are not clearly delineated in Para. 4.2.1.1," the CO responded that "[t]he
    essential tasks are 'supporting fielded L W 15 5 howitzers in Iraq and Afghanistan'. As
    indicated in 4.2.1.1. There are services provided by FSRs in Iraq and Afghanistan."
    (Id. at 11)
    Section 6.4 of CFD's proposal in response to the solicitation 3 addressed work
    hours and stated in relevant part:
    CFDay complies with the hours for the Iraqi based M 198
    and MI09A5 FSRs, while deployed. The duty hours for
    all tours of duty identified in this contract will be complied
    with by CFDay, with the understanding that these may
    change to ensure the government's ability to continue its
    mission. The operational needs of the Combatant
    Commander will determine the duty hours for our FSRs
    and may reflect the same duty hours as the military
    personnel they are supporting. CFDay FSRs have always
    worked to accomplish mission essential tasks, to ensure the
    government's ability to execute its mission. CFDay has
    allocated 90 hours per week for the Iraq based FSRs which
    allows for them to be on call to provide support to units as
    necessary.
    (App. supp. R4, tab 259 at 43)
    On its face, CFD's proposal also appeared to include 90-hour workweeks for its
    CLINs 5 and 6 FSRs. To work through one example: Mr. Joseph Andrews was noted
    as a CLIN 5 FSR whose hourly rate was $27.86. At 40 hours a week times 52 weeks a
    3   The proposal was dated May 9, 2011 (app. supp. R4, tab 259 at 1).
    4
    year (2,080 hours 4) multiplied by $27.86, we generate $57,948.80, which is the same
    number CFD provides for Mr. Andrews' salary. The overtime rate is listed as 90% of
    the base pay and is multiplied by the 2,600 hours expected for regular time and
    overtime to sum to 90 hours a week (50 hours a week times 52 weeks a year) to yield
    $65,192.40 overtime pay per year. (See app. supp. R4, tab 259 at 96)
    At the hearing, CFD's chief executive officer Dr. Charles Day, attempted to
    explain away the inclusion of 90-hour workweeks in CFD's proposal by stating that
    the 90% multiplier for overtime hours, rather than the 150% multiplier that CFD
    supposedly used for its employees was a reflection that CFD discounted the number of
    hours of overtime that it expected to pay its FSRs since it expected to be more efficient
    than the contract contemplated (tr. 3/20-22). This explanation is superficially
    attractive, but founders upon additional examination. First, and foremost, with the
    exception of its two team leads, CFD did not pay its FSRs any overtime premium, but,
    instead, paid them the rate for straight time 5 (see, e.g., app. supp. R4, tab 469 at 21-24
    (payroll sheets for the FSRs)). With the 90% multiplier applied to the 50 hours per
    week of time above 40 hours, we calculate 85 hours per week of straight time - almost
    exactly the 84 hours of straight pay that CFD paid its non-supervisory FSRs.
    At the hearing, and repeated in CFD's post-trial brief, Dr. Day testified that it
    would have been "unethical" to charge the government for 4,680 hours per year per
    FSR in its proposal because it would not have needed to work those hours to perform
    the contract (tr. 3/37; see app. hr. at 10). How CFD reconciles this statement with its
    proposal, that facially does charge the government for 4,680 hours per FSR per year, is
    not explained.
    Of note, on June 6, 2011, Dr. Michael Santens, CFD's chief operating officer.
    sent an email to the government stating that CFD had miscalculated the hours it would
    pay its employees for both a contract modification on a pre-existing contract and for its
    response to the solicitation at issue here (R4, tab 2 at 2). Two days later, on June 8,
    2011, Dr. Santens withdrew the June 6 letter, stating that, "[w]e are capable and
    willing to perform at the price submitted on both our proposals" (id.). The CO,
    Mr. Albert Rinaldi, responded to Dr. Santens on June 9, asking for verification of the
    prices in the proposal (R4, tab 2 at 1). On June 13, 2011, Dr. Santens emailed a letter
    to the CO, stating that it withdrew its email regarding miscalculation of labor rates and
    "confirm[ ed]" its price proposal in response to the solicitation (id. at 5).
    4
    The table als9 includes the number 2,080 over the "salary" column. It includes the
    number 2,600 over the "Overtime Pay" column (app. supp. R4, tab 259 at 96).
    5
    Civilians deployed to Iraq did not necessarily get paid the time-and-a-half overtime
    premium that the casual reader might expect. See, e.g., CACI International,
    Inc. & CACI Technologies, Inc., 
    ASBCA No. 60171
    , 16-1 BCA ii 36,442 at
    177,613-14.
    5
    C. Contract Award, Modification 1, and its (Non)Effect on FSR Hours
    The contract was awarded to CFD, and on June 30, 2011, Mr. Rinaldi executed
    it. Dr. San tens executed it on CFD's behalf the same day. (R4, tab I at I)
    On July 12 and 19, 2011, Dr. Santens and Ms. Rachael Houle (the then-CO)
    executed Modification No. POOOO I (Mod I) to the contract (R4, tab 3 at I). As set forth
    in section A of this modification, the purpose of Mod I was to change certain dates of
    performance. With respect to the CLINs at issue here, 5 and 6, the purpose was set
    forth as, "[c]hange the Performance Completion Dates for CLINs 0005 and 0006 from
    07 July 2011 - 07 July 2012 to 22 July 2011 - 23 July 2012" (R4, tab 3 at 2).
    Section A further stated that "[a]ll other terms and conditions remain the same'' (id.).
    The text that followed the portion of Mod I modifying CLINs 0005 and 0006
    was similar to the text of the CLINs in the original solicitation except that the dates
    were changed as noted above and the original line, "4680 hours/year/person when
    deployed" was omitted (R4, tab 3 at 8). A similar omission was found for CLINs
    0002, 0003, and 0004, which also included expected hours per FSR per year in the
    original contract (see R4, tab 1 at 7-8), but did not include it in Mod 1 (see R4, tab 3 at
    7-8). Notably, CLIN 0003 was for an FSR to Australia and, in the original, noted
    2,080 hours per year (R4, tab 1 at 7), which computes to 40-hour workweeks.
    Dr. Day testified at trial that the omission of the hours in Mod 1 reflected the
    government's agreement with CFD's purported understanding that its deployed FSRs
    were not really expected to work 90-hour workweeks for a year (e.g., tr. 1/66-68).
    There was no evidence presented at the hearing of any communication between the
    government and CFD that demonstrated this supposed mutual understanding, although
    Dr. Day testified that his assumption was based on communications involving a
    different contract. Contrary to Dr. Day's assumption, the government provided
    testimony that the omission in annual hours from the modifications revising the CLINs
    merely reflected the fact that these were unchanged and that it was unnecessary to
    reflect the unchanged portion of the CLINs in the Mod 1 text (tr. 4/38-39). 6 Notably,
    the portion of the PWS that provided for 90-hour workweeks for the deployed FSRs
    was not affected by Mod 1 (see generally R4, tab 3).
    We find, factually, that the government's omission of hours in the text of
    Mod l's revision of CLINs 5 and 6 was not intended to change the text of the original
    6   This is consistent with the way the texts of CLINs 0002, 0003, and 0004 were treated in
    that the text in the modification omitted the hours (see R4, tab 3 at 1-8), and it was
    clear that the parties had not intended to modify or delete the hour requirement.
    6
    contract with respect to the hours that CFD FSRs were expected to work and that there
    was no understanding between the parties that it did.
    D. Contract Terms Regarding the FSRs' Status in Iraq
    As civilian employees of a government contractor during a time of great change in
    Iraq (as will be discussed herein, the American military presence in Iraq - temporarily -
    formally ended during the time of contract performance), the FSRs were in a potentially
    awkward position. Paragraph 4.1.1.1 of the contract provided some guidance on the
    matter, though not much that was particularly definite:
    Depending on the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) or
    other international agreements, all Contractor employees
    may be subject to the customs, processing procedures,
    laws, agreements and duties of the country in which they
    are deploying to and the procedures, laws, and duties of the
    United States upon re-entry. Contractor shall verify and
    comply with all requirements.
    (R4, tab 1 at 30)
    II.      Contract Performance and the Dispute About the Scope of Work
    Performance on the contract duly began in July 2011, though CFD only
    provided the two senior FSR's at first, with the 11 others required by the contract
    coming several months later - 10 in September 2011 (tr. 2/24; R4, tab 9 at 1-2), and
    the final FSR in October 2011 (app. supp. R4, tab 558 at 4).
    The FSRs performed some work on the trucks used to haul the howitzers that
    was beyond the scope of the contract, but, according to one of CFD's two lead FSRs,
    Mr. J. Andrews, such work was minor, like changing batteries to get them to start
    (tr. 2/50-51 ). They also performed significant, depot-level maintenance on the
    howitzers based upon the condition in which they arrived in Iraq and some damage
    done to them by Iraqis during training (tr. 2/53-56). In the absence of this heavy
    maintenance, Mr. Andrews estimated that only 8 FSRs would have been necessary to
    complete the work, not the 13 actually on site (tr. 2/59).
    In general, the attitude of CFD's FSRs on the ground in Iraq was to
    uncomplainingly do whatever needed to be done to ensure success of the mission in
    Iraq (tr. 2/49-50, 3/85-86). To that end, they were not particularly concerned about
    what duties were specifically set forth in the contract (one of the lead FSRs never read
    the contract (see tr. 2/22), and the other only did so summarily (tr. 3/71-72)), and they
    pitched in to help other contractors with their duties, just as other contractors' personnel
    7
    sometimes helped the CFD FSRs perform their duties (tr. 3/102). The CFD FSRs
    generally expected to work 12 hour shifts, seven days a week as one did in Iraq 7
    · (tr. 3/115-16). The regular rhythm of the workday (up at 5:00 a.m., breakfast around
    6:00, escorted travel to the "yard" where work was performed, followed by escorted
    travel to and from lunch and then work at the yard until approximately 6:00 p.m.
    (see tr. 2/42), was consistent with the expected 12-hour days, and security
    considerations generally diminished the flexibility of CFD employees to come and
    go at will from their worksites (tr. 3/75-78, see also 3/140-41 (Iraqi military largely
    controlled access to worksites), 1/78 (transportation issues effectively imposed 12-hour
    workdays on the FSRs)).
    Although CFD management was generally aware of the type of work
    actually being performed by its FSRs in Iraq (see tr. 2/25, 49, 121-22), not until
    sometime in late December 2011 did anybody from CFD ever complain 8 about
    performing allegedly "additional" work, and that came about in a telephone call where
    Army Colonel (COL) James Romero, apparently from the Office of Security
    Cooperation - Iraq, informed Dr. Day that the potential evacuation of the FSRs from
    Iraq at the end of that month (pursuant to the withdrawal of American military as
    discussed below) could be disastrous to the military mission and could cause the
    government to terminate the contract for default. Dr. Day, in this phone call, explained
    his view that the FSRs had responsibilities as limited by his interpretation of the
    contract, while COL Romero countered that the duties of the FSRs were to do what the
    government told them to do. It was at this point that Dr. Day recognized a disconnect
    between his view of the contract and the government's view (tr. 1/117-20). After his
    discussion with COL Romero (who Dr. Day never dealt with again), he contacted
    Ms. Ethington, the COR, and informed her of the divergent views of the contract.
    Ms. Ethington appeared to largely hew to COL Romero's view of the contract
    7
    Testimony that CFD did not expect most of its FSRs to work more than 40 hours a
    week in Iraq (e.g., tr. 2/166), is not consistent with the question submitted to the
    CO about work hours, nor the statement in CFD's proposal indicating that the
    duty hours would fit with the "operational needs of the combatant commander''
    and "may reflect the same duty hours as the military personnel" (app. supp. R4.
    tab 259 at 43), nor the Board's extensive experience involving contractors
    working hours in Iraq.
    8 As early as December 7, 2011, in an internal government email, the CO' s
    representative (COR), Ms. Joyce Ethington, noted that CFD FSRs were
    performing out of scope work, but there was no indication in that email that
    CFD was complaining about extra incurred costs associated with that work or
    requesting to be relieved of the work (app. supp. R4, tab 476). At about the
    same time, the government internally considered modifying the SOW to include
    support work by the FSRs at Besmaya, which was seen as incurring no
    additional costs except travel (supp. R4, tab 580; tr. 4/101-03).
    8
    (tr. 1/121-22). Immediately after this phone call, Dr. Day sent an email to
    Ms. Ethington stating, for the first time that, "[t]he reports I am getting lead me to
    believe we are performing maintenance support that is likely included in another
    companies [sic] NET scope" (R4, tab 31 at 2). In the context of the discussion, our
    view of the evidence was that Dr. Day raised this matter not for financial reasons, or to
    request the work be reduced, but to defend the quality of the work that his employees
    were providing and to argue that they should be allowed to evacuate to Kuwait for
    safety reasons without any negative effects on CFD's contract (see R4, tab 31).
    Dr. Day testified that he raised the issue with the CO, Mr. Rinaldi, sometime in
    October or November of 2011, and that Mr. Rinaldi explained that he bought "hours."
    not specified work, from the FSRs (tr. 1/141-46). We believe that Dr. Day is mistaken
    in his timing because there is simply no documentary evidence of it, nor corroborating
    evidence, and the December 22, 2011 email appears as if the subject were just then
    being raised by Dr. Day, as opposed to a matter he had raised a few months earlier
    (see R4, tab 31 ). This interpretation is supported by Mr. Rinaldi' s testimony that
    he only spoke with Dr. Day in the presence of others and did not do so until
    December 2011 (tr. 4/107-08, 127).
    III.   The Temporary Evacuation of the FSRs from Iraq
    On December 31, 2011, the SOFA between the United States and Iraq expired,
    and the United States withdrew all combatant military forces from Iraq before this
    deadline (tr. 1/114-15, 2/113-14). The government oflraq also required all civilian
    contractors working for the United States in Iraq to have work and travel visas (tr.
    1/114-15).
    Because of concerns regarding security and the fact that the Iraqi government
    had not yet provided the work visas to the FSRs, CFD withdrew them to Kuwait from
    Iraq prior to the December 31 deadline (tr. 1/114-15, 2/114 ). There, they waited for
    their visas and returned to Iraq within a few weeks (tr. 2/116).
    IV.    Modification of the Contract to Descope the Number ofFSRs
    On March 12, 2012, Dr. Day sent an email to Martin Kane (a senior business
    manager for the Army on the contract (see tr. 4/94-95)), asking for the government to
    take a number of steps to help CFD financially. As Dr. Day's letter explained, CFD
    had built its cost estimate for the FSRs upon prior experience that showed that they
    would not need to work the entire 90 hours per week called for in the contract and that
    the difference in that projected cost and the cost of paying the FSRs for the 84 hours
    per week that they were actually working had "put me in the red to the point the
    business is at risk." (R4, tab 66 at 1) He asked for a number of remedial actions by
    the government, including paying for CFD's overtime for FSRs that worked more than
    9
    30 hours of overtime per week (id. at 1-2). Other remedial requests in this letter were
    to increase the payment of Defense Base Act insurance and to include "G&A" costs
    for travel as a direct cost (id.). We do not perceive these other remedial requests as
    related to the alleged "overtime" of the FSRs, but part of previous communications
    that CFD had apparently had with the government relating to underbidding the
    contract on those issues (see tr. 4/138).
    The government did not agree to increased payments to CFD, but did agree to
    descope the contract by reducing the number of FSRs by six, so long as there was a
    corresponding pro-rata decrease in the amount paid to CFD (see R4, tab 71 at 2-3;
    tr. 1/147-48). CFD agreed to this change and the parties thus executed Modification
    No. P00005 (Mod 5) on April 3, 2012 for CFD and April 4, 2012 for the government
    (R4, tab 75 at 1). The net reduction in price was $282,876.40 (id. at 4). CFD also
    requested, as part of the modification process, that the additional option years for
    CLINs 5 and 6 be removed (R4, tab 71 at 3, tab 73 at 2), but Mr. Rinaldi declined to
    make that contract change, although he did represent that the government would not
    exercise the options (R4, tab 73 at 1). In the correspondence leading to the execution
    of Mod 5, Dr. Day stated that he considered the deletion of the options for CLINs 5
    and 6 to be "an integral part of our proposal," but that he "underst[ ood] your
    reluctance to delete them from the contract" (R4, tab 74 at 5).
    CFD has argued that it did not agree to Mod 5 of its own free will and that it
    succumbed to economic duress (app. br. at 38-41). The written and other evidence
    presented does not support such a factual finding. With respect to Dr. Day's testimony
    that his company was in financial distress due to higher than anticipated costs for the
    contract (see tr. 1/146 (Dr. Day stating that the company was facing bankruptcy),
    148-49), we find it highly plausible and have no reason to doubt this testimony. It is
    with respect to the threats allegedly conveyed by the CO that we believe there is
    exaggeration. Dr. Day testified that Mr. Rinaldi told him that he could find CFD
    in default for sending its FSRs to Kuwait and that he might exercise his option to
    require the FSRs for following years (tr. 1/147-48, 2/142-44). Dr. Day further
    testified that he considered Mr. Rinaldi to be threatening his company's financial
    well-being - effectively, "extortion" (tr. 2/144). Mr. Rinaldi's testimony is that he had
    no recollection of such a conversation (tr. 4/108) and that in his career as a CO he had
    never defaulted a contractor and would have never considered doing so in the CFD
    contract unless there was "no performance" (tr. 4/119). Indeed, under questioning from
    the presiding judge, Mr. Rinaldi was adamant that he would never have threatened CFO
    with default under the circumstances (tr. 4/140). There is no contemporaneous written
    documentation supporting Dr. Day's version of events and a review of the
    correspondence between the parties at the time of Mod 5 (e.g., R4, tabs 71, 73-74) show
    the parties to be engaged in a respectful and professional dialogue, somewhat
    inconsistent with Dr. Day's testimony of perceived extortion. Ms. Patricia Martel, the
    CFD employee who handled much of this correspondence on behalf ofCFD,
    10
    complained internally that a termination for convenience would be more appropriate
    than the descoping modification, but expressed no other complaints about the way the
    government handled it, nor did she hear of any threats to terminate the contract for
    default (tr. 5/17-18). Moreover, before filing its claims more than two years later, CFO
    never complained to the CO about Mod 5 being unfair (tr. 4/130). In sum: CFO found
    itself in a very difficult financial spot and did not get the exact relief that it wished for.
    but the government's behavior was not the "extortion" now alleged by CFO.
    V.     Conclusion of CLINs 5 and 6
    After the execution of Mod 5, CFO sent the six descoped FSRs home. In an
    email dated April 26, 2012, Mr. Rinaldi formally notified Ms. Martel that the Army
    would not be exercising the options involving the Iraq FSRs (R4, tab 88 at 1). By
    mid-July, 2012, the remainder of the FSRs on CLINs 5 and 6 had completed their
    work on the CLINs and departed Iraq (R4, tab 212 at 4). There is no allegation that
    CFO was not paid the complete amount for the CLINs, as amended by Mod 5.
    VI.    CFD's Claims to the CO
    On December 30, 2014, CFO submitted a document captioned as "Request
    for Equitable Adjustments" to the then-CO, Ms. Houle (R4, tab 212). This document
    delineated three separate "claims" in the aggregate amount of$1,583,827 (R4, tab 212
    at 12 9) and was accompanied by three separate certifications by Dr. Day, using
    language comporting with the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) (id. at 8, 10-11). We will
    refer to the three claims in the document as CFD's "claims" herein because, despite
    the document's label, it essentially conveyed three CDA claims to the C0. 10
    CFD's Claim 1 was for "Work on vehicles not included in [the] SOW." 11 In
    this claim, CFD alleged that its FSRs put in 1,104 hours of work on 7 ton trailers; 156
    hours of work on a vehicle known as a HETT (apparently, heavy equipment transport,
    see app. br. at 17); and 1,560 hours working on Ml 13 armored personnel carriers - all
    vehicles not set forth in the contract's PWS and summing to 2,820 hours. CFO also
    alleged that it put in approximately 4,320 hours of work on 270 other vehicles in Iraq
    that were not covered by the contract. This would add up to 7, 140 extra hours of
    work, which CFO multiplied by its $88.50 rate for its FSRs, leading to a quantum of
    9
    The page number here is not the page number of the Request for Equitable
    Adjustment document, but of the pages in tab 212 of the Rule 4 file - two
    higher than the number on the document, itself.
    10
    A document entitled as a request for equitable adjustment can be considered a claim
    under the CDA, regardless of its title, if it otherwise meets the requirements of a
    claim. Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 
    60 F.3d 1572
    , 1577-78 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
    ,
    11
    The "SOW" (statement of work) is used interchangeably with the PWS in CFO's claims.
    11
    $631,890. (R4, tab 212 at 8-9) CFD largely, but not completely, abandoned this claim
    at trial (tr. 2/203, 3/34 ), with Dr. Day retracting earlier testimony withdrawing the
    claim but conceding that he realized, after the fact, that it "was significantly
    overstated" (tr. 3/34 ).
    Claim 2 was for "Maintenance of Motor Pool." In it, CFD alleged that it was
    required by the Army commander to keep, on average, two FSRs at the motor pool
    waiting for work. According to CFD, this work, in part, was used to return the towed
    howitzers to usable status after they had been handed to the Iraqis and damaged. CFD
    estimated that the motor pool time was 2 employees at 12 hours a day for 10.5 months.
    or 7,560 hours, which CFD multiplied times its $88.50 rate, summing to $669,060.
    (R4, tab 212 at 10)
    CFD's third and final claim was for "Restoration of funds deleted by MOD 7.'·
    In this claim, CFD alleged that, since CLINs 5 and 6 were firm-fixed-price contracts
    and CFD had completed all the work required of them, it should not have had to suffer
    the decrease in price caused by the descoping of the six FSRs by Mod 5. 12 This
    amount, as noted above, was $282,877. (R4, tab 212 at 11)
    Nowhere in the entire claim document submitted by CFD was there any
    allegation that CFD employees were required to perform any out of scope work to
    deprocess howitzers that had arrived in-theater in worse condition than should have
    been anticipated (see R4, tab 212). Dr. Day conceded as much in his testimony at the
    hearing (see tr. 2/226), but explained that the reason the information was not in his
    claim was that, it was not until discovery in the present appeal that there was enough
    clarity to press forward with that allegation, though he believed the government knew
    about it all along (tr. 2/226-28).
    The CO denied CFD's claims in a decision emailed to CFD on June 25, 2015,
    re-sending it on July 10, 2015, because Dr. Day had not responded (R4, tab 225 at 1).
    Generally, Ms. Houle argued that there had been no constructive change to the
    contract and CFD thus had no entitlement to compensation (id.).
    On September 18, 2015, CFD appealed Ms. Houle's June 25, 2015 decision
    to the Board. The complaint repeated the three claims in the December 30, 2014
    claim, and we docketed the appeals as ASBCA Nos. 60211, 60212, and 60213 for
    claims 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
    12
    We do not know why CFD refers to contract Modification No. P00007 (dated
    May 24, 2012) as, to the best of our review, that modification does not involve
    the descoping in question (see R4, tab 95), which was accomplished by Mod 5.
    In the end it does not matter: all parties know and understand the point CFD
    was attempting to make.
    12
    DECISION
    I.      Preliminary Matters
    Before we reach the merits of the dispute before us, we must address two
    preliminary matters raised by the government. First, in its opening brief, the
    government challenges our jurisdiction to consider the portion of the case presented by
    CFD at the hearing relating to the condition of the howitzers that they were required to
    deprocess, alleging that the basis is so different than the claim presented to the CO
    (effectively, a superior knowledge claim) that it should be dismissed (gov't br. at 20-25 ).
    Second, in a separate filing, the government demands that we strike two appendices to
    CFD's brief (gov't mot. to strike). We grant both requests.
    A. We do not Possess Jurisdiction over CFD's Assertions that the Howitzers
    were in Materially Worse Condition than Represented by the PWS
    We recognize that information known to the parties often changes from that
    known at the time that the claim was submitted to the CO as discovery and trial
    preparation bring facts more into focus. To that end, we are relatively liberal in
    permitting appellants to present additional evidence and arguments not presented to
    the CO and to alter the legal bases for claims as well as the amount of damages. See,
    e.g., Madison Lawrence, Inc., 
    ASBCA No. 56551
    , 
    09-2 BCA 134,235
     at 169,207;
    Newell Clothing Co., 
    ASBCA No. 24482
    , 
    80-2 BCA 114,774
     at 72,916 (changed
    amount of claim and the production of additional data). On the other hand, a claim on
    one matter does not support jurisdiction over an appeal on another, see Scott Timber
    Co. v. United States, 
    333 F.3d 1358
    , 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003), and a claim must be
    specific enough and provide enough detail to permit the CO to enter into a dialogue
    with the contractor. E.g., Holk Dev., Inc., ASBCA Nos. 40579, 40609, 
    90-3 BCA 123,086
     at 115,938-39.
    The seminal case governing whether a claim submitted to a CO can support
    a somewhat different appeal under the CDA is Scott Timber. In Scott Timber, the
    Federal Circuit held that appeals of CO final decisions "do[] not require rigid
    adherence to the exact language or structure of the original administrative CDA claim
    [so long as they] arise from the same operative facts, claim essentially the same relief.
    and merely assert differing legal theories for that recovery." Scott Timber, 
    333 F.3d at 1365
    ; see also Relyant, LLC, 
    ASBCA No. 59809
    , 18-1BCA137,085 at 180,534;
    Maersk Line, Ltd., ASBCA Nos. 59791, 59792, 
    16-1 BCA 136,405
     at 177,512. Stated
    somewhat differently, the Federal Circuit has held that the test for "[m]aterially
    different claims" is whether they "will necessitate a focus on a different or unrelated
    set of operative facts." Lee's Ford Dock, Inc. v. Secretary of the Army, 
    865 F.3d 1361
    ,
    13
    1369 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quotingPlaceway Constr. Corp. v. United States, 
    920 F.3d 903
    ,
    907 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
    Here, although the government asserts that the claim at trial was for superior
    knowledge (see gov't br. at 20), we agree with CFD that it is not presenting such a
    cause of action (see app. reply br. at 1-2) and that the legal theory is the same as in its
    claim: CFD is seeking recovery for allegedly out of scope work performed by its
    FSRs on the contract (id.). The operative facts, however, are different. CFD's (much
    reduced) first claim, is limited to work on non-howitzer vehicles, meaning that the
    only claim addressing out of scope work on howitzers is the second claim, which
    asserts that the government required CFD to keep two employees at the motor pool,
    waiting on call to perform garage work (including howitzers damaged after they were
    deprocessed and turned over to the Iraqi army), a duty allegedly not required by the
    PWS. 13 What the second claim does not state is that CFD was required to do
    substantially more work than expected to deprocess the guns when they arrived. Does
    this factual difference matter, given the big picture? On the facts here, it does. CFD
    states in its opening brief that, "[p]erhaps the most significant reason for these [out of
    scope] repairs was the howitzers not arriving in -10/20 condition due to inadequate
    refurbishment at the depot," and then spends significant time detailing all of the ways
    that the howitzers were "trashed" when they arrived in Iraq for the CFD FSRs to
    deprocess (see app. br. at 18). These facts are different and unrelated to the motor
    pool claim (which complained of duty location and damage done to the howitzers by
    Iraqis after deprocessing) and, under any reading of Scott Timber, the "most
    significant" factual basis for a claim must be provided to the CO for his or her
    consideration before we possess jurisdiction over it. This conclusion is buttressed by
    the Spartan nature of the motor pool claim's facts with respect to out of scope work -
    at most, it consisted of a parenthetical about working on howitzers damaged by the
    Iraqis in training, while the majority of the very short claim complained of the
    requirement that some FSRs be present at the motor pool (see R4, tab 212 at l 0).
    There would be no factual basis for the CO to engage in any kind of discussion with
    CFD about out of scope deprocessing work, which CFD now argues is the lion's share
    of its appeal. Cf Holk, 90-3 BCA ,i 23,086 at 115,938-39 (requiring claim to have
    sufficient detail to permit a dialog with the CO). Indeed, the size of the appeal has
    blossomed since CFD submitted its claims for $1,300,950 for out of scope work (half
    of which was for the now-diminished vehicles claim) to $2,903,151 for out of scope
    work (app. br. at 49). This provides further support for our finding that the most
    substantial factual basis for CFD's appeal was not brought before the CO in CFD's
    claims.
    13   The "motor pool" location allegations were not raised at the hearing or in CFD's
    post-hearing brief, but were, instead, subsumed by its general argument about
    out of scope work.
    14
    CFD argues that it informed the government, outside of the claim, of its out
    of scope work and that our law allows us to consider correspondence between the
    contractor and the government in determining the scope of a claim ( app. reply br.
    at 4-5). CFD is correct that we do not consider claims in a vacuum and should
    consider pre-claim correspondence between the parties in determining the claim· s
    meaning. See, e.g., The Public Warehousing Company, 
    ASBCA No. 56022
    , 11-2
    BCA, 34,788 at 171,228. But we do not read the law to allow the use of outside
    correspondence to create additional claims not submitted to the CO; rather, the cases
    involve using correspondence to elaborate on a claim document or to put it into
    context. See, e.g., id.; Vibration and Sound Solutions Ltd., 
    ASBCA No. 56240
    , 09-2
    BCA, 34,257 at 169,270; General Constr. Co., a Div. of Wright Schuchart, Inc.,
    
    ASBCA No. 39983
    , 91-1 BCA, 23,314 at 116,917. In any event, we have reviewed
    all of the citations to the record provided in CFD's brief to support its contention that
    pre-claim correspondenc~ would have alerted the government to the deprocessing
    component of its claim (see app. reply br. at 4-5) and find that the correspondence and
    discussions failed to do so. To be sure, there is significant evidence that CFD
    complained that it was performing out of scope work repairing howitzers damaged
    after being turned over to the Iraqis, but none of its communications set forth the idea
    that significant out of scope work alleged was based upon the poor condition in which
    the howitzers were delivered to Iraq. 14 Indeed, in a "request for statement of work
    clarification" letter attached to a March 16, 2012 email from CFD to the government
    (and cited by CFD in support of this argument), CFD wrote at length about
    deprocessing as something required to be done under the contract, but never stated that
    the deprocessing was a problem or that the howitzers were requiring excessive work
    on deprocessing (R4, tab 67 at 6-8).
    As noted above, at trial, Dr. Day indicated that he did not discuss the
    deprocessing problems in the claim because he did not have sufficient detail at the
    time (see tr. 2/226-28). CFD does not appear to raise that argument here, and we
    would not have found it compelling if it had since CFD was plainly in the best position
    to know what its employees were working on. Moreover, the requirement that there be
    the denial of a valid claim before we may exercise our jurisdiction over an appeal, see
    Reflectone, 
    60 F.3d at 1575
    , makes no exceptions when an appellant did not know of a
    claim.
    14   The closest any of the cited evidence comes to this was Ms. Ethington's testimony
    that some of the howitzers were shipped "short of some components or spare
    parts" (tr. 3/177), and a similar internal government statement in an email
    regarding howitzers being shipped short of parts which were later sent to Iraq
    (app. supp. R4, tab 585 at 2). This is not remotely equivalent to the allegations
    being advanced now.
    15
    Accordingly, we hold that we do not possess jurisdiction over that part of the
    appeal that seeks damages for the extra work required by CFD's FSRs as a
    consequence of the condition in which the howitzers were delivered to Iraq for
    deprocessing. We do, however, maintain jurisdiction over the damages caused by
    alleged out of scope work by requiring FSRs to wait at the motor pool and repairing
    howitzers damaged by the Iraqi Army. 15 We also possess jurisdiction over claim 1,
    involving work on non-howitzer vehicles and claim 3, seeking compensation for
    allegedly improper descoping of FSRs through Mod 5.
    B. We Grant the Government's Motion to Strike Appendices 1 and 2 to CFD's
    Opening Post-Trial Brief
    Attached to CFD's opening post-trial brief are three appendices, though only
    the first two are at issue. The first, 96 pages long, is Department of the Army
    Pamphlet 700-142, entitled "Instructions for Materiel Release, Fielding, and Transfer,"'
    and is dated June 25, 2010. The second document, 75 pages long, is Army Regulation
    700-142, entitled "Type Classification, Materiel Release, Fielding, and Transfer,"
    dated June 2, 2015. The government moves that they be struck because they were not
    timely submitted and because they address the subject matter of deprocessing over
    which, the government argued, we do not possess jurisdiction (gov't mot. to strike).
    CFD opposes the motion, arguing that we possess jurisdiction over deprocessing
    matters and that the appendices were merely being provided as a courtesy to the Board
    since they reflect legal authority, not new evidence (app. opp'n to mot. to strike). We
    have addressed the jurisdictional issue above; moreover, CFD's "legal authority''
    argument is not well taken under the context in which the documents are being
    offered.
    Because we do not possess jurisdiction over the portion of the appeal to which
    the appendices appear to be material, we may strike them as irrelevant. We also strike
    them for their untimely submission. Board Rule 13 governs the evidence that we may
    consider in an appeal, with Rule 13( c) providing that, "[ e]xcept as the Board may
    otherwise order, no evidence will be received after completion of an oral hearing."
    Rather than request that we make an exception to the prohibition against the
    submission of post-hearing evidence (which Rule 13(c) permits and we would have
    considered), CFD argues that it is not providing evidence, but merely providing us
    with helpful legal authority (app. opp'n to mot. to strike at 2). Not so.
    We do not intend to enter into a deep semantic dive here, but observe that
    whether a document is "evidence" or whether it is "authority" depends upon for what
    15
    Fortunately, as discussed below, we need not make the almost impossible
    calculation of exactly how much of the allegedly out of scope work was related
    to the condition in which the howitzers were delivered.
    16
    purpose it is being employed. Here, the documents are being utilized by CFD to
    support Dr. Day's testimony about the meaning of the term, "deprocessing" in the
    contract (see app. opp'n to mot. to strike at 2). That is, they are purportedly being
    used as evidentiary support for Dr. Day's interpretation of a contract term. 16 They are
    not used as legal authority instructing us how to interpret contract terms nor are they
    being used in the same sense as a statute or regulation setting forth legal rights and
    obligations. Thus, the two documents are being presented as evidence and, as such,
    are untimely. The motion to strike appendices one and two is granted.
    II.      CFD is Not Entitled to Damages for a Constructive Change to the Contract
    CFD's theory for why it should be entitled to relief for performing out of scope
    work upon the contract is that the government constructively changed the contract by
    requiring its employees to perform such out of scope work (app. br. at 29-30). It
    appears to us (as it did to COR Ethington and others in the government) highly likely
    that CFD FSRs performed some duties outside of the scope of the PWS while they
    were in Iraq, although perhaps not nearly as much as alleged since the terms "technical
    support" and "maintenance support" in the PWS are very broad, 17 as are the
    descriptions of FSR responsibilities contained in the CO's answers to contractor
    questions about the solicitation. It also appears to us likely that responsible
    government employees knew of such out of scope work and that the CO had some
    awareness of it, given CFD's complaints about it beginning in December 2011. We
    need not make such firm findings, however, because we conclude that any out of scope
    work did not increase CFD's costs beyond what it was required to incur performing
    the contract.
    A. To be Actionable, a Constructive Change Must Increase a Contractor's Costs
    The theory of constructive change is to compensate a contractor for work that
    might properly have been directed through the contract's changes clause, but which
    was not. See Zafer Taahhut Insaat ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, 
    833 F.3d 1356
    ,
    16
    Were they used as legal authority in Dr. Day's testimony, of course, such testimony
    would have been improper, for fact witnesses do not testify about legal
    conclusions. E.g., Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 
    550 F.3d 1356
    .
    1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
    17
    CFD provided testimony that "technical assistance" was limited to answering
    technical questions during deprocessing (see tr. 1/140-42, 2/126-27). There
    is no textual support for this allegation in the contract (which references
    "technical support" both in the section specifically about deprocessing and in
    the more general paragraph 6), and it is contradicted by the CO's answer to the
    question stating that the FSRs would remain in Iraq after deprocessing was
    complete.
    17
    1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016). To be eligible for damages under this theory, it must be proved
    that a contractor "performed work beyond the contract requirements, and ... that the
    additional work was ordered, expressly or impliedly, by the government." Bell/Heery
    v. United States, 
    739 F.3d 1324
    , 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014). To obtain compensation under
    a contract's changes clause, the contractor must prove increased costs compared to
    what is otherwise required by the contract, see, e.g., Norcoast Constructors, Inc ..
    
    ASBCA No. 12751
    , 72-2 BCA, 9699 at 45,285 (proper equitable adjustment is "'the
    difference between the cost of the work required by the contract and the cost of the
    changed work, plus profit"), and, consistent with the paradigm that a constructive
    change is treated like recourse to the changes clause, we have required an increase in
    costs for there to be recovery. E.g., S-TRON, ASBCA Nos. 45893, 46466, 96-2 BCA
    , 28,319 at 141,397.
    B. CFD was Contractually Required to Provide 13 FSRs for 90 Hours per Week
    for at Least a Year, Potentially Three
    The reason that CFD is entitled to no damages is that no reasonable reading of
    the contract is consistent with its theory that its deployed FSRs would work little
    overtime and that after completion of deprocessing and light assistance to the Iraqis, its
    FSRs could come home. To the contrary, a careful reading of the contract finds the
    more appropriate interpretation to be that CFD was required to provide the 13 FSRs
    for 4,680 hours each under CLINs 5 and 6.
    To decide CFD's contractual obligations, we begin with the law of contract
    interpretation. Under basic principles of the law, a contract is interpreted "in terms of
    the parties' intent, as revealed by language and circumstance." United States v.
    Winstar Corp., 
    518 U.S. 839
    ,911 (1996) (citations omitted). Generally, this process
    begins and ends with the language of the contract. TEG-Paradigm Environmental,
    Inc. v. United States, 
    465 F.3d 1329
    , 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2006). And in reviewing this
    language, the Board should read the contract "as a whole and [interpret it] to
    harmonize and give reasonable meaning to all its parts," if possible, leaving no words
    "useless, inexplicable, inoperative, insignificant, void, meaningless or superfluous."
    Precision Dynamics, Inc., 
    ASBCA No. 50519
    , 05-2 BCA, 33,071 at 163,922; see
    also Hercules, Inc. v. United States, 
    292 F.3d 1378
    , 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("contract
    must be construed to effectuate its spirit and purpose giving reasonable meaning to all
    parts of the contract"); Hunkin Conkey Constr. Co. v. United States, 
    461 F.2d 1270
    ,
    1272 (Ct. Cl. 1972) (rejecting contract interpretation that would render a clause in the
    contract meaningless).
    Turning to the terms of the contract, as discussed earlier in this opinion,
    contrary to CFD's allegation (see app. reply br. at 11 ), the modifications to CLINs 5
    and 6 did not, in fact, eliminate the hours required of the FSRs. Also, there is no
    textual basis or support for CFD's characterization of the 4,680 hours per FSR or the
    18
    number of FSRs as mere estimates that it could ignore if it could perform more
    efficiently (see tr. 1/47, 3/37; see generally app. reply br. 19-23). 18
    At the hearing, and to a lesser degree in its post-trial brief, CFD made much of
    the question and answer incorporated into the contract that stated that the FSR' s
    needed only be "on call" for 90 hours per week, meaning that they would not actually
    work such long hours and that the government should thus be liable for any overtime
    they incurred working out of scope (see, e.g., app. reply br. at 11 ). This argument does
    not hold up well under examination as this single question response cannot bear all the
    weight that CFD places upon it. First, the context of the question was about the
    sustainability of 90-hour workweeks as far as personnel went, not about how much
    salary costs would be incurred by the contractor. Moreover, the CO's answer to the
    question repeated that the workweek was a 90-hour one and never suggested
    otherwise. 19 Second, given the general work set-up in Iraq, it is not at all clear that
    anything other than the 12-hour days generally spent at the worksite would have been
    practicable even if the FSRs were not fully employed performing work strictly within
    the PWS. 20 These were the hours that CFD's employees expected to be working when
    they went to Iraq; it is what they were generally paid for; and it is what CFD promised
    the government it would provide when it successfully bid on the contract. Indeed, it is
    hard to escape the conclusion that CFD recognized these contractual obligations when
    Dr. Santens informed the government that it had underbid the contract in May 2011.
    Why CFD withdrew Dr. Santen's statement has never been satisfactorily explained.
    With respect to the notion that the FSRs could have all come home after the last
    howitzer was deprocessed (see tr. 3/56-57; app. br. at 32; app. reply br. at 11-12), this
    idea is contrary to the language of the contract. First, the contract provided that there
    would be up to two option years with the full complement of FSRs at 4,680 hours per
    year per FSR. If the contract were to be completed after the delivery and deprocessing
    of a finite number of howitzers, options for tens of thousands of FSR-hours stretching
    more than two years past the last delivery of a howitzer would not have been needed -
    18
    In his testimony, Mr. Rinaldi made a single statement that the hours set forth in the
    contract were "forecasted," but that was in the context of his explaining his
    view that the contract "bought hours" (tr. 4/64 ).
    19 CFD also presents an underdeveloped argument that actually requiring the hours set
    forth in CLINs 5 and 6 would create a forbidden personal services contract (see
    app. reply br. at 18 n. l 0, at 19 n.12). This is incorrect. A personal services
    contract is not created by minimum manning requirements, but by continuous
    government supervision of contractor employees. See Sterling Services, Inc.,
    
    ASBCA No. 46824
    , 
    94-2 BCA 126,912
     at 134,006.
    20
    To be sure, Mr. Rinaldi agreed that the phrase, "on call," did not mean to be on site
    7 days a week for 12 hours (tr. 4/25), but, for practical reasons, the duty hours
    appeared to be just that.
    19
    at the very least they speak to a radically different understanding of the role of the FSR
    than that suggested by CFD here. 21 Any doubt to the significance of the option years
    should have been laid to rest by the CO's response to the question about what would
    happen to the FSRs after conclusion of the deprocessing, which agreed with the
    questioner that the FSRs would "remain on the ground" and support other howitzers.
    It was an unreasonable interpretation of the contract on CFD's part to ignore the hours
    set forth in CLINs 5 and 6 and to believe that it was essentially free to leave after
    completion of the deprocessing mission and the provision of other, minimal support. 22
    Again, this interpretation is not what CFD promised to the government when it bid on
    the contract.
    CFD argues that the PWS would be unnecessary if the 90-hour workweek
    language were kept in the contract (app. reply br. at 11-12), but that is not so. First,
    the PWS was part of the solicitation which included the 90-hour workweeks, so it
    plainly was intended to be part of the contract. Moreover, the PWS does have very
    important consequences even with a required 90-hour workweek: CFD's FSRs could
    have easily refused to perform any extra-PWS work if they so chose with no adverse
    consequences to themselves or the company, and CFD had no obligation to provide
    FSRs who could perform work beyond the PWS's dictates. Thus we do not read the
    contract to make the PWS redundant or unnecessary.
    Accordingly, we conclude that the terms of the contract required deployment of
    the FSRs to Iraq for the full one-year term set forth in the CLINs, regardless of when
    the deprocessing work was completed. We further find that the expectation that the
    FSRs be "on call" for 90 hours per week did not effectively relieve CFD of its
    contractual obligation to provide the government 4,680 hours of annual work per FSR.
    We also find, as a practical matter, that the routine of performing the contract would
    have imposed 12-hour days at the worksite even if the FSRs were performing no out of
    scope work.
    21
    Another indication of the radically divergent role of the FSR seen by CFD and the
    contract's terms is the number of hours. If deprocessing, as Mr. Andrews
    testified, took approximately one FSR day and there were only 144 howitzers
    requiring deprocessing, even accounting for some problems, the contract
    required an order of magnitude more FSR hours than CFD asserts should have
    been required.
    22
    CFD has argued, or at least implied, that terms like "technical support" and
    "maintenance support" in the PWS indicate very little work beyond
    deprocessing (app. br. at 31). As noted above, we read them otherwise and see
    the terms as potentially very broad, encompassing a great deal of work,
    especially given the hours contemplated by the contract and the CO's responses
    to potential bidders' questions.
    20
    I
    Because there is no evidence supporting a finding that extra-PWS work
    performed by CFD's FSRs increased CFD's costs beyond its contractual obligations.
    we deny ASBCA Nos. 60211 and 60212.
    III.      Bilateral Modification 5 is Binding upon CFO and is Dispositive to Claim 3
    
    ASBCA No. 60213
     (claim 3) is based upon the notion that CFO fully performed
    CLINs 5 and 6 and should have been paid the full contract price for them rather than the
    discounted payment it agreed to when the parties decreased the number of FSRs through
    Mod 5 in early April 2012. Though Mod 5, as a bilateral modification, would normally
    obviate this claim, 23 CFO argues that it is invalid, having been secured through duress
    (app. br. at 38-40). CFO also argues that it received no consideration for Mod 5,
    providing an additional basis to find the modification ineffective (id. at 41-42). As
    discussed below, CFO has not met the high threshold necessary to prove duress. and
    Mod 5 certainly had consideration.
    A. CFO has Not Proven that it Entered Mod 5 under Duress as Legally Defined
    We entertain no doubt that CFO was in acute economic distress in March 2012
    as the payroll expenses for the FSRs outstripped the amount of its receipts for the
    work. Though this might seem to be "duress" as the term is commonly used, the facts
    do not support a finding of the kind of duress that would support setting aside Mod 5.
    The leading Federal Circuit case on economic duress is Rumsfeld v. Freedom
    NY, Inc., 
    329 F.3d 1320
     (Fed. Cir. 2003). In Freedom NY, the court set forth a
    three-part test for setting aside an agreement for being entered under duress:
    To render a contract unenforceable for duress, the party
    "must establish that ( 1) it involuntarily accepted [the other
    party's] terms, (2) the circumstances permitted no other
    alternative, and (3) such circumstances were the result of
    [the other party's] coercive acts."
    
    Id. at 1329
     (brackets in original) (quoting Dureiko v. United States, 
    209 F.3d 1345
    ,
    1358 (Fed. Cir. 2000) and citing other cases); see also Tacoma Boatbuilding Co.,
    
    ASBCA No. 50238
    , 00-1 BCA ii 30,590 at 151,069 (similar test).
    23
    The government refers to Mod 5 as an accord and satisfaction in its brief
    (gov't br. at 34). Technically, that is not what Mod 5 really is (it was not
    intended by the parties to effect resolution of a legal dispute, but, rather, to
    relieve financial pressure on CFO), but it would, nevertheless, operate to
    eliminate the contractual basis for claim 3. See Supply & Service Team GmbH,
    
    ASBCA No. 59630
    , 17-1 BCA ii 36,678 at 178,600.
    21
    Coercion, in the third component of duress here, "requires proof of wrongful
    action by the government." Freedom NY, 
    329 F.3d at 1330
    . And proof of wrongful
    action, the Federal Circuit elaborated,
    [R]equires a showing that the government's action ... was
    ( 1) illegal, (2) a breach of an express provision of the
    contract without a good faith belief that the action was
    permissible under the contract, or (3) a breach of the
    implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
    
    Id.
     (citations omitted). CFD has not proved coercion as defined by the law.
    CFD has made no allegation that the government engaged in any illegal act.
    Instead, depending on how one counts them, it alleges two or three actions that are
    arguably contrary to the terms of the contract or a breach of good faith and fair
    dealing. First, it alleges that Mr. Rinaldi threatened to terminate the contract for
    default, which would have been ruinous to CFD (app. br. at 39). As we found above.
    Mr. Rinaldi made no such threat. At most, COL Romero conveyed this threat once in
    December 2011, but it should have been very clear to CFD that he was "speaking out
    of school," had no authority to make such a threat, and that the officials who had such
    authority were not contemplating it. CFD also argues that Mr. Rinaldi threatened to
    exercise the option years on the contract, which would have been ruinous to it (id.).
    Since there is no contractual reason that the government should have been foreclosed
    from exercising this contractual right, we find that alleging this to be a coercive act is a
    non sequitur.
    Perhaps, inartfully, CFD is making the argument that, by interpreting the
    contract as he did, that the government bought hours from the FSRs, Mr. Rinaldi
    implicitly threatened default if CFD packed up its FSRs and came home. This seems to
    be the best argument that CFD could make, but it, too, fails. To be coercive, even an
    incorrect contract interpretation by the government must be made "without a good faith
    belief that the action was permissible under the contract." Freedom NY, 
    329 F.3d at 1330
    . Here, as discussed above, the CLINs set forth the hours required by the contract.
    the questions and answers provided that the FSRs would remain in Iraq after the
    deprocessing, and CFD's own bid reflected the FSRs working 4,680 hours per year.
    Dr. Day even testified that, when he spoke with Mr. Rinaldi about the purchase of
    hours, Mr. Rinaldi referred him to a portion of the FAR which, according to Dr. Day,
    backed Mr. Rinaldi's interpretatio.n of the contract provisions at issue (tr. 1/143-44).
    Despite CFD's argument that Mr. Rinaldi's interpretation of the contract was so self-
    evidently wrong that it must have been the product of bad faith (see app. br. at 40), the
    evidence supports a very different finding. Any mistake in contract interpretation
    (which we do not find occurred in any event) was not in bad faith.
    22
    A violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, too, can support a finding
    of coercion, see Freedom NY, 
    329 F.3d at 1330
    , but CFD does not elaborate on how
    the government's actions breached that duty here, 24 except its general allegations of
    bad faith contract interpretation and threats by the government (see app. br. at 39-40).
    We have found, factually, that there was no bad faith contract interpretation by the
    government and that CFD's allegations that there was an atmosphere of threats and
    "extortion" surrounding the execution of Mod 5 are unsupported and contradicted by
    the evidence, to say the least. We find that there was no violation of the duty of good
    faith and fair dealing as set forth by the controlling law. See, e.g., Relyant, 18-1 BCA
    ,-; 37,085 at 180,539 (citing, inter alia, Metcalf Constr. Co. v. United States, 
    742 F.3d 984
    ,990 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Centex Corp. v. United States, 
    395 F.3d 1283
    , 1304
    (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
    We finally note that economic pressure caused by a company's own flawed
    business decision does not support a finding of duress. See Fruhauf Southwest
    Garment Co. v. United States, 
    111 F. Supp. 945
    , 951 (Ct. Cl. 1953). That is what we
    have here. Mod 5 may have been entered by a company in economic distress but it
    was not entered under duress as the law defines that term.
    B. The Agreement to Descope FSRs through Mod 5 was Supported by Ample
    Consideration
    CFD's final argument regarding Mod 5 is that it was entered without
    consideration, making it ineffective (see app. br. at 41-42). As CFD would have it,
    since it had no obligation to provide FSRs after the deprocessing work was completed,
    it gained nothing from the government's agreement to descope them (id.). This
    argument, of course, rests upon a faulty contract interpretation: as discussed above the
    questions and answers incorporated into the contract clearly provided that the FSRs
    were obligated to remain in Iraq for the period of performance, even after deprocessing
    was complete. The descoping action in Mod 5, by allowing CFD to cease paying the
    salaries of those FSRs no longer required by the modified contract, was to CFD's
    benefit (CFD was certainly in favor of Mod 5 at the time it executed it). That benefit
    constitutes consideration. See, e.g., Supply & Service Team, 17-1 BCA ,-; 36,678 at
    178,602.
    Because Mod 5 was effective, we deny 
    ASBCA No. 60213
     (claim 3).
    24
    CFD's brief does not cite any cases providing the elements of this duty, nor does it
    purport to apply them to this case.
    23
    CONCLUSION
    For these reasons, 25 we deny the appeals.
    Dated: November 29, 2018
    J. REIDPROUTY
    Administrative Judge
    Vice Chairman
    Armed Services Board
    of Contract Appeals
    I concur                                             I concur
    RICHARD SHACKLEFORD                                  MICHAEL T. PAUL
    Administrative Judge                                 Administrative Judge
    Acting 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 Nos. 60211, 60212, 60213,
    Appeals of Charles F. Day & Associates LLC, rendered in conformance with the
    Board's Charter.
    Dated:
    JEFFREY D. GARDIN
    Recorder, Armed Services
    Board of Contract Appeals
    25
    CFD made allegations in its complaint regarding alleged breach involving the
    government's alleged failure to provide security after the expiration of the SOFA
    (amended and restated compl. ,i,i 45-46). Since these were not presented in its
    claims, in the evidence at trial, or in its post-trial brief, we deem them waived.
    24