ASBCA 61185

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) PROTEC GmbH ) ASBCA No. 61185 ) Under Contract No. W912CM-14-P-0008 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Paul D. Reinsdorf, Esq. Attorney at Law Frankfurt/Main, Germany Steven J. Kmieciak, Esq. Seyfarth Shaw LLP Washington, DC APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. Army Chief Trial Attorney Dana J. Chase, Esq. Trial Attorney OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SWEET This appeal involves a contract between the Regional Contracting Office, Wiesbaden (government) and appellant PROTEC GmbH (PROTEC) to maintain and repair equipment at U.S. Army Garrison, Wiesbaden. The government refused to pay some invoices. PROTEC submitted a claim seeking to have the government pay the unpaid invoices. The contracting officer (CO) issued a final decision (COFD) denying that claim, which PROTEC appeals. The government argues that it properly refused to pay the unpaid invoices because, inter alia, 1 PROTEC submitted electronic reports and invoices late, which prevented the government from verifying that PROTEC properly performed the billed-for services. PROTEC responds that the government suffered no prejudice from the late electronic reports and invoices because timely paper reports, the maintenance schedule, and the contracting officer representative's (COR's) role in arranging emergency repairs allowed the government to verify performance. PROTEC also argues that it submitted the invoices late because of delays receiving signed work certificates from the government and invoices from suppliers. 1 Because we find that PROTEC' s late submission of reports and invoices justified the government's refusal to pay the unpaid invoices, we do not address the government's other proffered reasons for not paying the unpaid invoices.  ·The government properly refused to pay the unpaid invoices because PROTEC failed to submit timely electronic reports and invoices. The lack of timely electronic reports and invoices prevented the government from verifying the work because PROTEC did not submit the paper reports on time, follow the maintenance schedule, or arrange all repairs through the COR or the fire inspector. For repairs in particular, timely reports and invoices were necessary to verify the time and material charges. Nor did government work certificate signature delays or supplier invoice delays cause-let alone justify-the late unpaid invoice submissions. Because the government properly refused to pay the unpaid invoices, the appeal is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT I. Contract 1. On December 20, 2013, the government awarded Contract No. W912CM-14-D-0008 (0008 Contract) to PROTEC for the maintenance and repair of electronic doors, gates, scanners, sauna compact system and electric/hydraulic barriers, and bollards at U.S. Army Garrison, Wiesbaden (R4, tab 3). The 0008 Contract consisted of two main types of services-preventative maintenance and on-call emergency repairs (id. at 51-53). 2. PROTEC had to submit a maintenance schedule within ten days of contract award (R4, tab 3 at 54). 3. Only the COR or the fire inspector could place an emergency repair call, to which PROTEC had to respond within four hours (R4, tab 3 at 53). 4. The 0008 Contract provided that the government would monitor PROTEC's performance in accordance with a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) (R4, tab 3 at 47). The QASP detailed the surveillance and evaluation of PROTEC's performance (supp. R4, tab 204). Under the QASP, the government would document deficient performance in non-conformance reports (NCRs) (id. at 4-6). 5. The 0008 Contract required PROTEC to submit an electronic on-call emergency report within two days of performing an emergency repair, and an electronic condition report (collectively, reports) within seven days of performing maintenance (R4, tab 3 at 54-55). 6.