CBCA 8000

DENIED: July 18, 2025 CBCA 8000 TROOP CONTRACTING, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent. Michael J. Matasich of Matasich Law, LLC, Medina, OH; and Michelle F. Kantor of McDonald Hopkins LLC, Chicago, IL, counsel for Appellant. Laetitia C. Coleman, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, Arlington, TX, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges VERGILIO, GOODMAN, and KANG. KANG, Board Judge. Appellant, Troop Contracting, Inc. (Troop), appeals a final decision by a contracting officer of respondent, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), concerning Troop’s contract to renovate the Edward Hines Jr. VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Hines, Illinois. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. We deny appellant’s motion for summary judgment, grant respondent’s motion for summary judgment, and thereby deny the appeal. CBCA 8000 2 Background In their motions, the parties ask the Board to affirm their respective interpretations of the contract. To decide these motions, we reviewed the parties’ submissions under Board Rule 8(f) (48 CFR 6101.8(f) (2024)) and relevant information in the appeal file. We establish the following facts as material and undisputed. I. Contract Award and Specifications On August 8, 2022, the VA issued an invitation for bids to renovate Building 20 at the VAMC. Appeal File, Exhibit 010 at 001835.1 The solicitation was set aside for service- disabled veteran-owned small businesses. Id. The renovation was to provide space for the VA’s electronic health records modernization project at the VAMC. Exhibit 008 at 000797. The VA gave prospective bidders an opportunity for a site visit. Respondent’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (RSUMF) ¶ 2. Troop did not attend the site visit, but two of its proposed subcontractors attended. Appellant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (ASUMF) ¶ 37. The VA awarded contract number 36C77622C0158 (contract) to Troop on September 27, 2022, for a fixed price of $8,970,000. Exhibit 018 at 006062. The contract incorporated the solicitation’s statement of work (SOW), specifications, and drawings. Exhibit 019 at 006101-02. The SOW stated that the scope of work for the project “[i]ncludes all labor, management, and materials for renovating Building 20.” Exhibit 019 at 006110. The SOW further stated that “[w]here a conflict exists between the Statement of Work (SOW) requirements and the requirements of other associated contract documents, the SOW requirements shall prevail.” Id. at 006106. The SOW described separate categories of work for demolition and construction as follows in relevant part: 4) Demolition: .... d. All debris (garbage and trash) needs to be covered at all times. The dumpster needs to be covered at all times and emptied as 1 All exhibits are found in the appeal file, unless otherwise noted. Page citations to the VA’s exhibits are to the bates numbers added by the agency. CBCA 8000 3 needed. It is contractor’s responsibility to keep the area surrounding your dumpster clean at all times. e. Dispose of all demolition material and construction debris in accordance with Federal, State and local environmental requirements. 5) Construction: .... c. Protect all existing utilities and any supporting equipment from damage during construction. d. Construction work must adhere to the design drawings and specifications. Any deviation(s) must be discussed with and approved by the [contracting officer’s representative] and the [contracting officer]. Id. at 006110. Three sections of the specification are particularly relevant to the appeal. The first relevant section of the specifications is 01 00 00, General Requirements (general requirements section). This section stated that Troop was responsible for all required work unless “expressly stated otherwise” as follows: 1.3 STATEMENT OF BID ITEM(S) A.