Incircle Management, Inc.

CourtArmed Services Board of Contract Appeals
DecidedOctober 3, 2023
Docket62684
StatusPublished

This text of Incircle Management, Inc. (Incircle Management, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Incircle Management, Inc., (asbca 2023).

Opinion

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - ) ) Incircle Management, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 62684 ) Under Contract No. W912BV-20-P-0059 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. HB Jung President

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq. Engineer Chief Trial Attorney Stephanie J. Milburn, Esq. Engineer Trial Attorney U.S. Army Engineer District, Tulsa

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE EYESTER PURSUANT TO BOARD RULE 11

Incircle Management Inc. (Incircle) appeals the termination for cause by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or government) of its purchase order for the cleaning of park facilities. According to the government, Incircle failed to provide numerous, required cleaning services at Canton Lake, Oklahoma. The Board has jurisdiction over the termination pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7101.

The parties elected to waive a hearing and submit the appeal on the record pursuant to Board Rule 11. Because the government has established the validity of the default termination, and Incircle has failed to demonstrate the default was excusable, the appeal is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The government issued request for quotations (RFQ) No. W912BV-20-Q-0046 on February 19, 2020, for spring and summer cleaning services at Canton Lake, Oklahoma (R4, tab 4A at 1, 6-7). According to the bid schedule, the services were Schedule I, Appendix A – Cleaning (id. at 7).

2. Appendix A was part of the RFQ’s statement of work (SOW), which also included a general section, exhibits and attachments (R4, tab 4H at 2). 1 According to the

1 The Board issued an order requiring the agency provide a complete copy of the solicitation, including all attachments. SOW, the purchase order’s general purpose was the “cleaning of park facilities such as toilets, picnic/camping sites, and grounds keeping” (id. at 4). More specifically, per the performance requirements, the contractor was to clean all waterborne toilets, vault toilets, showers, change houses, picnic shelter, camping sites, and perform grounds keeping and refuse collection (id. at 20-21). Appendix A provided further detail and defined the term “clean” to require the contractor “sweep, wash, wipe, or brush facilities to ensure that dirt, dust, rocks, debris (tree limbs, rocks, driftwood, etc.), trash, garbage, ashes, fecal matter, urine, soap scum, biological formations and resultant stains, dead insects, insect nests . . . insect webs, bird droppings, and residue from cleaning agents are removed” (id. at 35).

3. In addition, per Appendix A, the contractor was required to empty refuse containers; distribute toilet tissue after cleaning the bathroom; remove litter and debris in a five-foot area around the facilities; remove vandalism and graffiti; replace burned out or broken lights; perform second cleanings on weekends and holidays; clean picnic shelter floor slabs, table seats and tops; remove all material from fireplaces; and clean all table shelters, cookers, and fire rings (R4, tab 4H at 31-33). The contractor was to clear refuse and debris visible from a distance of 25 feet from public use areas (PUAs), 2 access roads, fishing areas, embankment roads and the Amphitheater in an area bounded by an imaginary line 20 feet outside the limits of mowing (id. at 20, 33). The contractor was to pick up highly visible items beyond the area of mowing, including at the embankment road (id. at 33-34). The purchase order included an inventory list of toilets, showers, picnic and camping shelters, change houses, grounds/trails, refuse cans, etc., to be cleaned (id. at 38).

4. In addition, the contractor was to provide the necessary personnel within the specified time limits, provide an on-site supervisor and safety plan, and transport and furnish equipment such as mops, cleaning compounds and disinfectants (R4, tab 4H at 5, 7-8, 31). Per Appendix A, the contractor was to begin work by 7 a.m. and complete work by 3 p.m.; however, toilets requiring second cleanings needed the first cleaning by 11 a.m. and the second cleaning between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. (id. at 31).

5. Services would be considered deficient if they failed to meet these performance requirements (R4, tab 4H at 4). The contracting officer’s representative (COR) would determine whether services were deficient during the quality assurance inspections and “[t]he results of inspections” would not be “changed as a result of satisfactory re- performance” (id. at 7).

6. In response to the RFQ, Incircle submitted a seven-page quotation, most of which consisted of the pricing on the bid schedule stating the services were Schedule I,

2 A PUA included the “[p]arks, as well as overlooks, nature and hiking trails, access points, and other areas used by the public for recreation” (R4, tab 4H at 4).

2 Appendix A – Cleaning, (R4, tab 4B). In its quotation, Incircle stated it would implement a work schedule and inspection plan for accuracy, consistency and timeliness of the requirements during weekdays, weekends, and holidays (id. at 2). We find that Incircle submitted its quotation based on the cleaning requirements set forth in the SOW, including Appendix A.

7. On March 29, 2020, USACE issued fixed-priced purchase order No. W912BV- 20-P-0059 to Incircle in the amount of $58,295.60, with a one-year period of performance starting March 1, 2020, and four one-year option periods (R4, tab 4C at 1, 3). The purchase order did not contain any statement of work (see id.). The purchase order, however, did set forth the following contract line item numbers (CLINs): CLIN 0001 for the initial cleaning of showers and toilets prior to the opening season; CLINs 0002-0004, CLINs 0006-0007, and CLINs 0009-0010 for the cleaning of the PUAs at Big Bend, Canadian, Blaine, Fairview, Longdale, Riverside, and Sandy Cove parks, respectively; and CLIN 0005, CLIN 0008, and CLINs 0011-0012 for the cleaning at the Dam Embankment, the Overlook, Thunder Hill Road, and Amphitheater, respectively (id. at 3-8). We find that, at a minimum, the purchase order required Incircle perform initial cleaning of showers and toilets, and cleaning of the PUAs at the parks and other specified areas.

8. The purchase order incorporated by reference Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.246-4, INSPECTION OF SERVICES – FIXED PRICE (AUG 1996) and explained that the services were to be inspected by the government at the destination (R4, tab 4C at 34). The purchase order also incorporated by reference FAR 52.212-4, CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2018), which states in pertinent part:

(m) Termination for cause. The Government may terminate this contract, or any part hereof, for cause in the event of any default by the Contractor, or if the Contractor fails to comply with any contract terms and conditions, or fails to provide the Government, upon request, with adequate assurances of future performance.

(Id. at 54).

9. Incircle met with the COR on April 6, 2020, to discuss the cleaning requirements (see R4, tab 5A at 76-79; tab 5B at 1). At that time, the public restrooms at the parks were closed and therefore cleanings were not taking place as regularly scheduled, although they still needed some cleaning, including an initial cleaning (R4, tab 5B at 1, 7). On that same day, the COR sent a “second” cleaning schedule for use when the restrooms reopened to the public and additional cleanings were needed (id. at 1). The “second” cleaning schedule stated that second cleanings were to be performed between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., and that “[a]ll restrooms, waterborne and vault toilets,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. The United States
828 F.2d 759 (Federal Circuit, 1987)
Securiforce International America, LLC v. United States
879 F.3d 1354 (Federal Circuit, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Incircle Management, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/incircle-management-inc-asbca-2023.