Scot Cardillo dba Engineers Tooling Support

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of - ) ) Scot Cardillo dba Engineers Tooling ) ASBCA No. 61612 Support ) ) Under Contract No. N00174-11-D-0004 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Mark Martins, Esq. The Mark Martins Law Office, PLLC Washington, DC Christopher C. Bouquet, Esq. The Law Office of Christopher C. Bouquet, PLLC Alexandria, VA APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Allison M. McDade, Esq. Acting Navy Chief Trial Attorney Sharon G. Hutchins, Esq. Julie C. Ruggieri, Esq. David M. Ruddy, Esq. Trial Attorneys OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL Scot Cardillo, doing business as Engineers Tooling Support (ETS), appeals from a contracting officer’s 2018 decision denying ETS’s 2017 claim for nearly $790,000, arising from a contract to provide components (“anvils” and “cups”) for use in percussion primers for ejectors in naval aircraft. The government terminated the contract for convenience in 2016. ETS now requests nearly $773,000 in costs and profit, plus interest, 1 alleging, primarily, that the government provided “defective specifications and tools.” 2 We held a four-day hearing, and assume familiarity with our prior opinions in this appeal. Scot Cardillo DBA Eng’rs Tooling Support, ASBCA No. 61612, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,861 at 189,906, mot. for clarification denied, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,909; Scot Cardillo dba Engineers Tooling Support, ASBCA No. 62051, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,153 at 185,297. 1 App. br. at 75. 2 App. br. at 1.  FINDINGS OF FACT Scot Cardillo is the sole proprietor of ETS. 3 The parties entered into the contract in 2010. 4 Beginning in 2011, ETS produced and delivered more than 1.5 million parts to the government for use in the assembly of percussion primers for ejection systems in naval aircraft; the government paid the contract price for those parts: approximately $1.9 million. 5 The contract provided that the work be performed at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Indian Head, Maryland, using government- provided facilities, equipment, and material. 6 Paragraph 1.0 of the contract’s Statement of Work (SOW) provides: The Government requires fabrication, inspection and delivery of Primer Cups and Anvils in accordance with technical drawings to support PVU-1/A; PVU-2/A; PVU- 7/A; PVU-10/A; and PVU-12/A programs. The Government will supply all facilities, materials, and equipment maintenance required to fabricate, inspect, and deliver the Primer Cups and Anvils. The Government will provide the production equipment as government furnished equipment (GFE) and raw material in the form of government furnished material (GFM). 7 Paragraph 2.0 of the SOW lists 23 drawings as “part of this Statement of Work.” 8 Paragraph 3.0 of the SOW provides: Using Government provided Facilities, GFE and GFM as listed in SOW paragraph 5.0, the Contractor shall fabricate, inspect, and deliver Primer Cups and Anvils in accordance with technical drawings identified in SOW paragraph 2.0 .... ... 3 Scot Cardillo decl. at 1 ¶ 5. 4 R4, tab 1 at 96. 5 See App. Statement of Facts (SOF) at 31 ¶ 81; gov’t SOF at 56-57 ¶ 166; tr. 1/236- 41, 250-51, 289; 3/66-69, 74; R4, tab 1-3 at 252-54. 6 See R4, tab 1 at 127-28 ¶¶ 1.0, 3.0, 4.1.1; 132 ¶ 7.2. 7 R4, tab 1 at 127 ¶ 1.0. 8 R4, tab 1 at 127 ¶ 2.0. 2  As set forth in SOW section 4.3, the Government will repair all GFE, with the exception of the die sets. ... The Contractor shall maintain the production condition of the Government furnished die sets. The Contractor shall make adjustments to the condition of the tooling, and/or create new critical wear die set pieces, as required to ensure the parts meet all of the drawing requirements, as listed in SOW paragraph 2.0. 9 Paragraph 4.3 of the SOW provides: The Contractor shall be monetarily responsible for all labor and material costs associated with adjusting for normal wear of the die sets and maintaining the die sets in good quality condition. Maintenance of the die sets shall include the manufacture of critical wear parts needed to manufacture primer cups and anvils which meet the dimensional requirements of the drawings in SOW section 2.0. 10 Paragraph 5.0 of the SOW provides that, among other equipment, “[t]he Government will furnish the following [GFE]:” Tool and Die Sets (Eight each corresponding to drawings listed in section 2.0). Paragraph 5.0 further provides that: The use of GFE and/or GFM does not alleviate the Contractor from responsibility of meeting the requirements of the contract and drawings. Should potential Contractors wish to inspect GFE and GFM, it will be available for viewing at the Government site prior to the deadline for bids. 11 9 R4, tab 1 at 127-28 ¶ 3.0 (emphasis added). 10 R4, tab 1 at 130 ¶ 4.3. 11 R4, tab 1 at 130-31 ¶ 5.0. 3  The contract also incorporates by reference Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.245-1, GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (JUN 2007), 12 which provides, at paragraph (d) (emphasis added): (1) The Government shall deliver to the Contractor the Government-furnished property described in this contract. The Government shall furnish related data and information needed for the intended use of the property. (2) The delivery and/or performance dates specified in this contract are based upon the expectation that the Government-furnished property will be suitable for contract performance and will be delivered to the Contractor by the dates stated in the contract. (i) If the property is not delivered to the Contractor by the dates stated in the contract, the Contracting Officer shall, upon the Contractor’s timely written request, consider an equitable adjustment to the contract. (ii) In the event property is received by the Contractor, or for Government-furnished property after receipt and installation, in a condition not suitable for its intended use, the Contracting Officer shall, upon the Contractor’s timely written request, advise the Contractor on a course of action to remedy the problem. Such action may include repairing, replacing, modifying, returning, or otherwise disposing of the property at the Government’s expense. Upon completion of the required action(s), the Contracting Officer shall consider an equitable adjustment to the contract .... (iii) The Government may, at its option, furnish property in an “as-is” condition. The Contractor will be given the opportunity to inspect such property prior to the property being provided. In such cases, the Government makes no warranty with respect to the serviceability and/or suitability of the property 12 R4, tab 1 at 63. 4  for contract performance. Any repairs, replacement, and/or refurbishment shall be at the Contractor’s expense. In 2013, ETS presented to the contracting officer a claim for $21,175 in certain costs. The contracting officer denied that claim in 2014, and ETS did not appeal 13 from that decision. ETS, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,861 at 189,096. On January 20, 2016, the contracting officer terminated the contract for the convenience of the government, effective November 3, 2015. 14 ETS did not appeal from the termination. On December 12, 2016, ETS submitted to the government a termination settlement proposal, 15 which, on February 7, 2017, the contracting officer determined was not timely received in accordance with FAR 49.206-1(a); the contracting officer further determined that the termination of the contract was at “no cost” to the government, and could not be appealed, “in accordance with the provisions of the Termination for Convenience Clause and FAR 52.249-2(j).” 16 On April 20, 2017, ETS presented to the contracting officer a certified claim demanding $789,903.39, based upon three theories of recovery: (1) misrepresentation and nondisclosure of superior knowledge, (2) defective specifications, and (3) government interference or failure to cooperate. 17 The contracting officer denied that claim on January 31, 2018, 18 and ETS timely appealed, resulting in these proceedings. ETS filed a seventeen-count complaint. 19 Count XVII challenges the termination of the contract for the convenience of the government; we dismissed that count for lack of jurisdiction. ETS, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,861 at 189,097. In November 2020, the government issued to the public a “Sources Sought Notice” regarding the same parts that ETS had manufactured pursuant to the contract here, stating: The government does not possess and cannot provide the data necessary [to] fabricate the tooling to manufacture these parts. As part of this requirement the Government is seeking sources to design, develop and deliver the tooling 13 App. supp. R4, tab 4.5.2 at ETS 603-18. 14 R4, tab 1 at 262. 15 App. June 28, 2024 br. at 5. 16 R4, tab 1 at 341 (alterations added). 17 R4, tab 2 at 349, 353, 421. 18 R4, tab 3 at 422. 19 The parties’ briefs track the counts of the complaint. App. br. at 62; app. Statement of Facts (SOF) at 136-37; gov’t br. at ii-iii, passim; app. reply at 10, 24-25. 5  and all related data to use and maintain the tooling and to fabricate new tooling.20 And in October 2022, a government engineer presented, to an industry summit, briefing slides that explained, again regarding the parts at issue here, that “[p]rimer cup and anvil drawing dimensions [do] not match actual hardware dimensions” and that “[t]ooling cannot be manufactured to existing drawings[.]” 21 DECISION 1. Jurisdiction The government challenges our jurisdiction to entertain certain of the claims set forth in this appeal. 22 We have issued an opinion regarding our jurisdiction, ETS, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,909, and do not address that issue again here, with this exception: the government says that we do not possess jurisdiction to entertain Counts XII, XIII, and XIV of ETS’s complaint, concerning handling scrap materials, allegedly inadequate facilities, and overages, because, the government says, those costs “were included in ETS’s untimely Termination Settlement Proposal and were entirely resolved with the final termination closeout modification of February 7, 2017.” 23 We disagree. We possess jurisdiction to entertain those counts because they concern costs that ETS requested in the 2017 claim that the contracting officer denied in the final decision that is the subject of the notice of this appeal. 24 See ETS, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,861 at 189,096. 2. Counts I-VI, XII, and XIII: Extracted Performance In Counts I through VI, XII, and XIII, ETS requests $185,939.32 for alleged “compelled out-of-scope performance” caused by “misrepresentation and nondisclosure of superior knowledge, defective specifications, and interference or failure to cooperate—by which the government’s fault or ratification caused the time and effort that was extracted from ETS.” 25 20 App. R4, tab 6.4.002 at ETS 1341 (alteration added). Earlier in the same “sources sought” document, the government stated, in an evident typographical error: “The government does possess and can provide the data necessary to perform the required manufacture of these items;” that is, the same items that are the subject of this appeal. App. R4, tab 6.4.002 at ETS 1340. 21 App. R4, tab 6.4.004 at ETS1352, 1354 (alterations added); tr. 4/78:20 to 79:6. 22 Gov’t br. at 11, 15, 20, 48. 23 Gov’t br. at 4. 24 R4, tab 2-1 at 349-55. 25 App. br. at 32-34. 6  a. Counts I-VI: Tooling & Parts In Counts I through VI, ETS requests $89,332.32 for having to work with what it says were defective government-furnished tooling and parts. 26 ETS explains that (1) Counts I, II, and IV are in the alternative to Counts III, V, and VI; (2) Counts I, II, and IV are worth $45,207.44; and (3) recovery on any of Counts III, V, or VI would result in recovery of the entire $89,332.32. 27 Among the GFE listed by the contract were eight tool and die sets. 28 FAR 52.245-1(d)(2) provides that, if the government furnishes such property in an unsuitable condition, the contracting officer shall consider an equitable adjustment to the contract, see Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC, ASBCA No. 61543, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,771 at 188,475, requiring, essentially, that the government have provided the die sets to ETS in a condition suitable for contract performance. Although the contract expressly provides 29—as FAR 52.245-1(d)(2)(iii) also recites— that “[t]he Contractor will be given the opportunity to inspect such property prior to the property being provided,” there is no indication in the contract or the parties’ briefing that the government furnished the equipment in an “as-is” condition pursuant to FAR 52.245-1(d)(2)(iii). One measure of the suitability of government-furnished equipment is whether its use enables the contractor to complete performance without undue additional expense and delay. Singer-Gen. Precision, Inc., ASBCA No. 15372, 72-2 BCA ¶ 9,640 at 45,015. ETS says that “seven of the eight dies sets had serious defects of various types, rendering them incapable of producing acceptable parts,” and that “[t]he eighth die set, for production of PVU-7 cups . . . had only minor deficiencies, but the drawings for the critical wear items within the PVU-7 cup die set were outdated, and the government refused to furnish updated drawings.” 30 ETS also says that “[t]he contract included a package of drawings for the eight parts (three types of cups and five types of anvils), including one page bearing a marking indicating that the drawings were not for use on the contract project and another indicating they were ‘not to be used for manufacture or process,’” as well as “versions of fifteen drawings of 26 App. br. at 62 (chart). 27 See app. SOF at 137, note. 28 R4, tab 1 at 130. 29 R4, tab 1 at 130. 30 App. br. at 8. Regarding tooling, we dismissed for lack of jurisdiction any claims regarding “(1) problems and issues with die sets and tooling for PVU-1 anvils, (2) directives from, and interference with contract performance by [the Contracting Officer’s Representative] during the period February 28 through July 8, 2011; and (3) ‘cost overruns on the first anvil production lots (for PVU- 1 and PVU-2 anvils)’ caused by ‘[t]he need to generate a usable set of drawings.’” ETS, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,861 at 189,097 (alterations added). 7 certain die set tooling pieces among those used to make cups, 31 some with questionable markings indicating that ‘changes shall be incorporated by the design activity,’ 32 and others bearing handwritten corrections, 33 but no drawings at all for anvil tooling.” 34 Indeed, Scot Cardillo credibly testified that government-provided die sets and other parts were defective, and that the government “refused to provide the drawings for the die sets, including the critical wear part tooling necessary to make acceptable parts.” 35 In addition, ETS relies upon the 2020 and 2022 statements by government personnel, in the form of the “Sources Sought” document and the industry summit briefing referenced above, as well as the statement of a government technical director who testified that the government did not possess the data or the tooling to produce the parts that ETS had produced. 36 We find that these statements are admissions against the government’s interest that the tooling (in particular the die sets) and drawings that ETS received from the government were not suitable for contract performance, contrary to the warranty set forth in the contract. See GSC Constr., Inc., ASBCA Nos. 59402, 59601, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,751 at 183,245-46 (McIlmail, J., concurring, regarding admissions, collecting cases); Grumman Aerospace Corp., ASBCA No. 46834 et al., 03-1 BCA ¶ 32,203 at 159,192-93, 159,194-95 (finding entitlement on defective government-furnished property claim); W. States Mgmt. Servs., Inc., ASBCA Nos. 40546, 41243, 92-1 BCA ¶ 24,753 at 123,501 (same). Furthermore, Scot Cardillo provided credible testimony that ETS incurred $88,324.81 in costs dealing with the government’s defective GFE.37 Cf. GSC Constr., Inc., ASBCA No. 59402, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,751 at 183,216 (finding that according to credible witness testimony, “there were hydrants available for testing [] during the entire contract term and [the government], in fact, had used these hydrants when it had conducted tests in 2011.”). Finally, ETS says that the government has not set forth in its post-hearing briefing any opposition to Counts I through IV. 38 Although the government’s brief points to FAR 52.245-1 and NAVSEA 5252.245-9108 (Government-Furnished Property Performance) (SEP 1990), 39 nowhere in its post-hearing briefing does the 31 R4, tab 1 at 176-90. 32 R4, at 186-90. 33 R4, tab at 181, 183-84. 34 App. br. at 7. 35 Scot Cardillo decl. at 5 ¶ 20, 10 ¶ 38, 13-41, 44-48 (generally). 36 Tr. 4/78-79. 37 Scot Cardillo decl. at 21-22 ¶ 72 ($13,933.80), 40 ¶ 136 ($26,551.63), 44 ¶ 154 ($19,429.91), 46 ¶ 161 ($6,889.49), 48 ¶ 171 ($21,519.98). 38 App. reply at 2 n.3. 39 Gov. br. at 51-52; gov’t SOF ¶¶ 9-13. 8 government address whether the GFE it provided was suitable for contract performance; in particular, the government’s brief does not address FAR 52.245- 1(d)(2), which ETS expressly addresses at page 6 of its opening brief. Arguments that are not appropriately developed in a party’s briefing may be deemed waived; by failing to respond to argument set forth in a party’s briefing, the party’s opponent risks effectively conceding that the party should prevail upon that argument. See CardSoft v. Verifone, Inc., 769 F.3d 1114, 1119-20 (Fed. Cir. 2014), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds and remanded, 576 U.S. 1049 (2015) (citing SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); Patrick v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., No. 2024-1962, 2026 WL 682235, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 11, 2026) (citing Cardsoft); U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, ASBCA Nos. 62986, 63022, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,346 at 186,205 (adopting proposed factual finding not effectively disputed by government); cf. ASCT Grp., Inc., ASBCA No. 61955, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,124 at 185,199, 185,203 n.6 (finding apparent government concession, noting absence of relevant challenge in government’s brief). Moreover, we won’t do a party’s work for it. See SKE Base Servs. Gmbh, ASBCA No. 60101, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37,159 at 80,903. By failing to respond to the argument that ETS sets forth in its briefing regarding this issue, the government has effectively conceded that ETS is owed money for unsuitable government-furnished tooling and parts. For all these reasons, we award ETS $88,324.81 for tooling and parts. b. Count XII: Scrap Material Management ETS requests $48,304 for scrap material management. 40 ETS alleges that it “incurred expenditures to handle, secure, and store scrap materials,” and that “the Government contract assumed that all scrap would be collected on site and removed by Government personnel, but appropriate facilities were never arranged by the Government.” 41 The contract provided that the government would provide the facilities necessary to perform the work, 42 but ETS does not demonstrate that the government’s facilities were inadequate to manage the scrap that was produced, or that it was the responsibility of the government to remove the scrap. 43 Indeed, ETS points to no provision of the contract to support those positions. We note, however, that the contract required ETS to “dispose of non-conforming material” and “in-process rejects/reworks,” 44 which indicates that the contract imposed upon ETS the responsibility to dispose of at least some of the material that the government furnished. 40 Compl. at 63; app. br. at 32-33, 55, 62 (chart). 41 Compl. at 63 ¶ 2. 42 R4, Tab 1 at 127 ¶ 1.0. 43 App. br. at 30. 44 R4, tab 1 at 129 ¶ 4.2.1. 9  Finally, in support of its position that the contract makes the government responsible for removing scrap, ETS points to the statement of a government contract specialist, 45 but we do not need a witness to help us interpret the contract upon an issue like this. Cf. Parsons-UXB Joint Venture, ASBCA No. 56481, 12-1 BCA ¶ 34,919 at 171,695 (rejecting expert testimony upon the meaning of the legal term (“foreseeable”). We deny ETS’s request for additional compensation for scrap material management. c. Count XIII: Lack of Adequate Facilities, and Count XV: Out-of-Scope Support, Facilities, and Equipment In Count XIII, ETS requests $48,303 for alleged lack of adequate facilities; 46 in Count XV, ETS requests $45,952.41 for “out-of-scope support, facilities, and equipment” 47 that ETS says it had to incur “so as to continue to perform as ordered.” 48 ETS effectively concedes that the government addresses Count XV in its response to Counts XII and XIII. 49 There, the government points to a statement in the proposal that ETS submitted when it bid on the contract: It is the intent of ETS to use [government] facilities where this equipment is currently located to satisfy this requirement. We feel this will be beneficial because there will be no additional cost to the Government and no time will be lost due to shipping/rigging and equipment set-up. There will also be no danger of damaged equipment which could not only delay the production but burden the project with unnecessary cost. ETS intends to utilize the equipment listed as GFE in this solicitation to produce the hardware required. In addition to other equipment, ETS as a private entity owns in its entirety the following equipment which will be used to satisfy this contract. This equipment is located in our main facility located in Indian Head and again we feel this offers a unique advantage toward this effort because this allows an immediate response time to any requirements that may and most assuredly will arise (Die/Punch modifications etc.). This equipment will cover the requirement for maintenance, repair, modification, or replacement of GFE Punch and Die Sets. 45 Compl. at 63 ¶ 3. 46 Compl. at 64; app. br. at 32-33, 53, 62 (chart). 47 App. br. at 39-45. 48 App. br. at 40. 49 App. reply at 25. 10  ... 1. Daewoo Lynx 200A CNC Turning Center 2. Republic/Lagun Titan TVM-400D Vertical CNC Machining Center (Milling Machine) 3. Eisen CTL-618DT Toolroom Lathe with programmable spindle and threading control. 4. Bridgeport Model 3J Manual Milling Machine 5. Kerr lnsulTherm 900 Heat Treating Furnace 6. Skat Blast Model 960 Abrasive Blasting Cabinet 7. Superior Hone Model BHXL Horizontal Honing Machine 50 That language, which ETS does not address, demonstrates that ETS anticipated that it would use equipment in its main facility to perform at least some of the contract work (namely, repair of government furnished equipment), at no extra cost to the government. In any event, the contract required ETS to fabricate, inspect, and deliver primer cups and anvils “[u]sing Government provided Facilities, GFE, and GFM”; ETS does not demonstrate that it possessed the contractual right to use its own facilities, equipment, and materials to perform contract work—at least without government permission—and then charge the government for that use. We deny ETS’s request for additional compensation pursuant to Counts XIII and XV. 3. Count XIV: Overages ETS requests $21,760 for “all overage items on hand and ready for delivery,” citing FAR 52.211-16, VARIATION IN QUANTITY (APR 1984), 51 which was added to the contract by modification. 52 At least as late as May 2015, the government was prepared to accept delivery of an overage of 143,500 anvils at a total price of $37,310, but insisted that payment for the overages would have to be a part of a termination settlement proposal. 53 ETS admits that it agreed with the contracting officer to defer delivery of any overages, “which were to be submitted with its termination claim,” 50 R4, tab 9-1 at 4403 (emphasis and alterations added). 51 Compl. at 64 ¶ 2. 52 R4, tab 1 at 229-30. 53 Gov’t SOF at 112-13 ¶¶ 335-40. 11 “until the end of the contract.” 54 However, although ETS submitted a termination settlement proposal, 55 it has never delivered those overages to the government. 56 We deny ETS’s request for $21,760 for undelivered overages. 4. Counts VII-XI: Delays & Miscellaneous Administrative & Other Costs ETS requests $302,816.76 for “other administrative and miscellaneous delays.” 57 In support of that claim, ETS points to Chart 2 of the 2017 claim to the contracting officer, 58 but Chart 2 provides no bottom-line dollar figure, much less $302,816.76. 59 ETS also appears to invoke a variation on the Eichleay damages formula in support of its delay claims, 60 but the Eichleay formula must be utilized correctly to calculate home office overhead damages. See Speedway Orion JV, ASBCA No. 63457, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,355 at 186,267 (citing Wickham Contracting Co. v. Fischer, 12 F.3d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Regarding the Eichleay formula, we hold it is the only proper method of calculating unabsorbed home office overhead. No other formula may be used.”)); Orlosky Inc. v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 296, 318 (2005). We deny ETS’s request for compensation for alleged delays. 5. Count XVI: Professional and Internal Services ETS says that the government owes it $108,998.34 for “expenses for professional assistance,” including a combined $14,839.70 61 for the “internal services” and “internal hours” of Scot Cardillo and Kari Cardillo, 62 which hours, ETS says, were “required to assure contractual adherence along with ETS’s efforts to maintain within its reach the fruits of the contract per contractual terms,” including “legal, accounting, and internal costs to prepare the request for equitable adjustment submitted with the termination settlement proposal of December 12, 2016.” 63 The government does not respond. If a contractor incurs costs for the purpose of materially furthering a negotiation process with the government, the cost normally is allowable under FAR 31.205-33 as a contract administration cost, even if the negotiation ultimately fails. Vistas Constr. of 54 Compl. at 64 ¶ 2 (emphasis added). 55 Gov’t br. at 4. 56 See compl. at 65 ¶ 3. 57 App. br. at 34-38, 62. 58 App. br. at 34 (citing R4, tab 11-671). 59 R4, tab 11-671. 60 App. br. at 64-67. 61 R4, tab 2 at 415. 62 App. br. at 45-46. 63 App. br. at 45-46; Scot Cardillo decl. at 50 ¶ 177. 12 Ill., Inc., ASBCA No. 58479 et al., 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,236 at 176,797. On the other hand, if the cost is incurred to promote the prosecution of a claim, then the cost is unallowable. Id. Although FAR 31.205-33(a) expressly excludes costs for officers and employees of the contractor, WECC, Inc., ASBCA No. 60949, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,948 at 184,310, we need not decide whether that provision bars ETS from recovery for hours worked by Scot and Kari Cardillo, because ETS provides no detail regarding what professional or consulting services either Cardillo provided that would qualify that work for recovery under FAR 31.205-33. 64 The $14,839.70 requested for the Cardillos’ work in this category is denied. See Vistas 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,236 at 176,797- 99. The remaining amounts in this category are requested for the services of Joseph Greenwald & Lake ($13,607.10), 65 M3 Federal Practice Group ($22,418.10), 66 the McGrath Law Group ($54,073.80) 67 and Murphy & Murphy, CPA, LLC ($4,059.64). 68 Of those, the record includes an invoice that reflects work on settlement or a request for equitable adjustment only from the McGrath Law Group; by contrast, the invoices of Joseph, Greenwald & Lake and Murphy & Murphy provide, essentially, numbers on a spreadsheet, and little if any description of the work that the firms provided. Nor does ETS point to any written agreements with those firms. Consequently, we deny ETS’ request for those costs. See Vistas, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,236 at 176,797-99. By contrast, although ETS does not provide a written agreement between it and McGrath, the dates of service listed on the McGrath invoice—October 14 to December 12, 2016—correspond to the termination settlement proposal (dated December 9, 2016) that ETS sent to the government on December 12, 2016, and the description of the services provided relates to the settlement proposal. 69 McGrath charged ETS $40,140 (for 89.2 hours at $450 per hour); the rest of the $54,073.80 requested for McGrath appears to be additional charges for “ETS hours” for Scot and Kari Cardillo, 70 which we reject as unsupported. We find the amount charged by McGrath allowable and reasonable, and award $40,140 for Count XVI. 64 App. br. at 45-46. 65 App. R4, tab 6.4.082 at EST 3792-96. 66 App. R4, tab 5.6.1 at EST 922. 67 App. R4, tab 6.4.081 at EST 3788-90. 68 App. R4, tab 6.4.080 at EST 3787. 69 R4, tab 22-32 at 4; app. R4, tab 6.4.81. 70 R4, tab 2 at 415. 13  6. Profit ETS requests 20% profit on its recoverable costs. 71 The government does not respond. A 20% profit rate is liberal, although not unprecedented. See Fil-Coil Co., ASBCA No. 23137, 79-1 BCA ¶ 13,683 at 67,110. We award 20% profit on ETS’s recoverable costs. 7. Calculation of Award Applying the above analysis, we award $128,464.81 in costs, plus 20% profit for a total of $154,157.77. CONCLUSION We find the parties’ other arguments unnecessary to address. The appeal is sustained in the amount of $154,157.77, with interest under 41 U.S.C. § 7109 from April 20, 2017, the putative date that the contracting officer received appellant’s 2017 certified claim. Dated: September 22, 2026 TIMOTHY P. MCILMAIL Administrative Judge Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals I concur I concur J. REID PROUTY MICHAEL N. O’CONNELL Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Vice Chairman Armed Services Board Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals of Contract Appeals 71 App. br. at 47. 14  I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61612, Appeal of Scot Cardillo dba Engineers Tooling Support, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. Dated: September 23, 2026 PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS Recorder, Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals 15