MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED: February 14, 2023
CBCA 7024
MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Appellant,
v.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
The case caption as the decision prints it. Every word is kept; the rule the Board draws around it is not text, so it is not repeated here.
Ray Brooks, Vice President of Management Technologies, Inc., Clinton, MD, appearing for Appellant.
James F. H. Scott, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges VERGILIO, GOODMAN, and ZISCHKAU.
GOODMAN, Board Judge.
Appellant, Management Technologies, Inc., has appealed a decision by the contracting officer of respondent, General Services Administration (GSA), demanding repayment of what GSA asserts is the total amount of overpayments made by GSA to appellant arising from appellant’s performance of a task order. The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment, which we deny.
This dispute involves the interpretation of a task order issued by GSA to appellant in 2016 for data management. In mid-2020, the GSA contracting officer reviewed the number of appellant’s employees that had been performing the work pursuant to the task order and concluded that appellant had provided fewer than the number of employees required. In October 2016, the contracting officer issued a decision demanding repayment of amounts representing alleged overpayments for appellant’s invoices previously submitted as the result of the alleged failure to provide the required number of employees.
Appellant interprets the task order as requiring a fixed price for work ordered and the number of employees sufficient to perform the work. Appellant further asserts that it has performed all work to the satisfaction of GSA, properly billed the fixed price, and denies that it has been overpaid.
The parties briefed the motions and responded to Board requests, but the record remains incomplete. The underlying contract for the task order and a predecessor task order, both executed in 2015 and entered into a GSA electronic data base, are no longer available. Neither party has copies of these documents. Appellant has stated that its contract manager previously reviewed the predecessor task order in the electronic data base but not the contract. GSA states that the current GSA contracting officer has never reviewed the underlying contract or the predecessor task order.
The parties’ inability to produce these documents creates disputed issues of material fact as to their contents, the resolution of which would be relevant to the interpretation of the task order at issue in this appeal. Without these documents, we are unable to render an interpretation of the task order at issue, and the parties’ motions for summary judgment are therefore DENIED.
Allan H. Goodman
Board Judge
We concur:
Joseph A. Vergilio
Board Judge
Jonathan D. Zischkau
Board Judge
This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the Board's own document in Management Technology, Inc., CBCA 7024. Nothing is summarized or reworded, and the sections run in the order the Board wrote them. What the page shows and the text does not repeat is the pagination furniture: the page numbers and the rules the Board draws around its caption and under its signatures. The signatures are set back into the columns the Board prints them in, each judge under the name he or she signed, and the typed copy of that name the page carries beneath each signature is not repeated.