CBCA 7315

GRANTED IN PART: January 18, 2023 CBCA 7315 SAL LOGISTICS, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Respondent. President of SAL Logistics, Kabul, Afghanistan, appearing for Appellant. Alexandra N. Wilson, Office of the Legal Adviser, Buildings and Acquisitions, Department of State, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. O’ROURKE, Board Judge. Appellant, SAL Logistics, seeks $8280 for additional work on servicing equipment that it maintains was outside the scope of its original contract. Respondent (agency) denied payment for additional work on the basis that no one with authority approved the additional work and that the costs were either unreasonable or unsubstantiated. Because we find that appellant only substantiated a portion of his labor costs, we grant the appeal in part. This appeal was processed under Board Rule 52 (48 CFR 6101.52 (2021)), which governs small claims procedures. Decisions issued under this rule are final and may not be appealed or set aside except for fraud. The rule permits a decision to be issued in summary form, and such decisions are not precedential. 41 U.S.C. § 7106(b)(4), (5) (2018). CBCA 7315 2 Findings of Fact The United States Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan (embassy), provided medical support to its personnel through an in-house medical clinic. In June 2021, the embassy’s procurement office issued a solicitation to replace an x-ray tube and perform specified updates on a broken mobile x-ray machine. No details about the machine’s condition or maintenance history were included in the solicitation. Only two line items were identified: “X-Ray Tube DX-D100-AGFA” and “Services Charges” for replacing the x-ray tube, updating the software, calibrating the machine, updating the license, and performing maintenance. The contract was awarded to the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror. Among the criteria for award was the requirement that the contractor be an authorized reseller or distributor of the product or service being sought. The record included a “target price” of $22,500 for the award. Nine vendors submitted bids in response to the solicitation. Appellant was awarded the contract in the amount of $14,500—$12,500 for the x-ray tube and a $2000 service charge for the labor. A clinic representative expressed his concerns about the award in an email message to the procurement supervisor and contract representative: As you know our X-Ray [machine] has been down for almost a year now and we were requesting to have the repairs done by the original [manufacturer] machine distributor. . . . We see a new vendor has been chosen and we have concerns that while this vendor came in at [a] lower cost, they may not be able to make the repairs, or at least they do not understand the extent of the repairs given the low cost estimate. Is there a way to confirm the new company can actually make the repairs and provide a warranty of work? We are concerned that once they assess the problem they will requote the repairs. To allay these concerns, appellant submitted a copy of its certification as an authorized reseller/distributor. Appellant also reassured the contract representative that it could perform the work specified in the contract, as it had done many times in the past on such medical equipment under other federal contracts. Notwithstanding those assurances, the contract representative asked appellant to conduct a site visit to be sure. Appellant agreed and dispatched an engineer to the embassy to inspect and assess the condition of the machine. As the clinic representative predicted, the engineer determined that merely replacing the tube and updating the software would not render the x-ray machine operational. The engineer discovered that the machine did not function at all, and he could not perform the work that he was tasked to do under the contract until the machine was restored to some level of functionality. To begin that process, the engineer asked clinic staff for the original CBCA 7315 3 software disks, the drivers, and other data that came with the machine, but no one could locate them. After realizing the extent of the requirement, the contract representative decided not to terminate the contract for convenience and re-solicit it.