ASBCA 60289

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Benjamin Medina ) ASBCA No. 60289 ) Under Contract No. DACA63-5-12-0384 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Benjamin Medina APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq. Engineer Chief Trial Attorney Arthur B. Archambeau, Esq. Engineer Trial Attorney U.S. Army Engineer District, Fort Worth OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WOODROW This case involves a leasehold contract between appellant, Benjamin Medina (the lessor), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps or government) for a residence located in Cypress, Texas, as a part of the U.S. Army Family Housing Program. In his claim, Mr. Medina alleges entitlement to $9,200.00 on Contract No. DACA63-5-12-0384 for restoration of the leased premises after the expiration of the lease term. Mr. Medina timely appeals from a contracting officer's final decision awarding him a payment of $1,528.32. In his appeal, Mr. Medina seeks reimbursement of$7,671.68, the balance of his $9,200.00 claim for damages. After filing this appeal, Mr. Medina made a request for so- called "quantum meruit" damages, relating to financial strain caused by Army payment delays, diminution in property value, and his personal time spent in trying to collect reparations from the government. The parties elected to proceed without an evidentiary hearing, via Board Rule 11, with each side relying upon the Rule 4 file and its supplements and submitting opening and reply briefs in accordance with an agreed-upon schedule. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that Mr. Medina has not met his burden of demonstrating entitlement to additional damages and, accordingly, deny the appeal. FINDINGS OF FACT I. The Lease Agreement 1. On 27 March 2012, the U.S. Government entered into Lease No. DACA63-5-12-0384 with appellant for a residence located in Cypress, Texas, as part of the U.S. Army Family Housing Program to provide leased housing for military families. The lease was for an initial one-year term that commenced on 1 April 2012. The government had the right to renew the lease from year to year or for a lesser period of time so long as notice of renewal was provided at least 30 days prior to expiration of the current term. (R4, tab 5 at 1) 2. On 3 April 2012, Mr. Medina and a government representative conducted an initial Joint Survey and Inspection of Condition of Government Leased Property. The initial survey was signed by Mr. Medina and the government's representative. (R4, tab 13) 3. On 19 February 2013, the parties renewed the lease for an additional year, from 1 April 2013 until 31 March 2014 (R4, tab 6). On 13 February 2014, the parties renewed the lease for a third year, from 1 April 2014 until 31March2015 (R4, tab 7). On 27 June 2014, the parties executed a supplemental lease agreement that adjusted the amount of rent (R4, tab 8). 4. The lease contains several terms pertinent to this appeal. Paragraph 14 of the lease, "DISPUTES," states the lease is subject to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (R4, tab 5 at 4). 5. Paragraph 13, "RESTORATION," provides that a "final joint inspection and condition report shall be conducted" upon vacating the premises, and that "the lessor may require restoration of the demised premises, when damage beyond normal wear and tear exists" (R4, tab 5 at 3). Pursuant to paragraph 13.B. of the lease, the government's obligation to pay for restoration is subject to the following exclusions: The Government shall not restore, either physically or by payment in lieu thereof: 1) reasonable and ordinary wear and tear, 2) damage by acts of God, 3) any alterations, damage thereto, which the Lessors installed and were reimbursed by the Government through payment therefore, or 4) the interior paint of the demised premises, when the Government has possessed the leased premises for three or more years prior to the date of termination. (Id.) 6. The lease also contains an indemnification clause, as follows: 5. INDEMNIFICATION. A.