Africa Transport Logistics Company

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of - ) ) Africa Transport Logistics Company ) ASBCA No. 64120 ) Under Contract No. DACA-31-5-23-0208 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Jeffrey Hodrick President/Country Logistics Manager APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq. Engineer Chief Trial Attorney Damon M. Edwards, Esq. Adam J. Kwiatkowski, Esq. Engineer Trial Attorneys U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCLISH Africa Transport Logistics Company (ATLC) appeals the decision of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or government) denying ATLC’s claim for the costs of repairing damage to a house it leased to USACE. The parties elected for the Board to decide this appeal pursuant to Board Rule 11, which permits the parties to waive a hearing and submit the matter for decision on the written record. For the reasons stated below, the appeal is granted in part and denied in part as to entitlement. Because the record presented by the parties is insufficient to determine quantum, we decide only entitlement at this stage. FINDINGS OF FACT A. The Lease 1. On December 15, 2022, the parties entered into Lease No. DACA-31-5-23- 0208 (“Lease”), under which the government leased a house in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso (R4, tab 1 at 1, tab 2 at 1). 2. The Lessor was identified as “Mr. Youssef Omais c/o Jeffrey Hodrick, Property Manager, ATLC – Africa Transport Logistics Company . . ., whose interest in the leased premises hereinafter described is that of the owner and property manager (respectively) . . . .” For ease of reference, we will refer to the Lessor as ATLC. The Lessee was “the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.” (R4, tab 1 at 1)  3. The lease was signed by Mr. Omais and Mr. Hodrick for the Lessor and by Mr. Craig R. Homesly, a Real Estate Contracting Officer for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the Lessee (R4, tab 1 at 9-10). 1 4. The Lease granted the Government full-time, exclusive use of a three-story house, sometimes referred to as the Grey House, in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. The premises included ten bedrooms, ten bathrooms, one large kitchen, two living areas, and a secondary building containing a large laundry room. The property also included a 110 KVA generator, concertina wire, a water tank and pump, kitchen appliances, outdoor swimming pool, and parking for two vehicles. (R4, tab 1 at 1, tab 2 at 1) 5. The government had previously leased the same property from December 15, 2017, to December 14, 2022 (R4, tab G-4). The house was brand new when the government began its occupancy (app. ex. A ¶ 2). 6. The term for the Lease began on December 15, 2022, and ran for one year. The government retained the option to renew the Lease annually for up to five years, provided it gave notice before the end of each term. The Lease could not extend beyond December 14, 2027. The Government could terminate the Lease, in whole or in part, at any time by providing thirty days’ written notice to the Lessor. (R4, tab 1 at 1, 3) 7. ATLC knew and understood that the government’s purpose in entering the lease was to house military personnel. The government housed military personnel in the house from the inception of the first lease in December 2017 until it terminated the second Lease and vacated the property on or about May 15, 2024. (R4, tab G-1 at 1-2) 8. The Lease established base rent at $6,182.37 per month and “utilities and services” at $39,638 per month, for a total monthly rent of $45,820.37 (R4, tab at 1-2). The base rent included one oven, one stove, one microwave, two refrigerators, two 65 KVA generators, eight air conditioning units, installation of a government-furnished water tank, installation of plumbing and electrical systems for four government-furnished washers and dryers, and a safety railing along the third-floor balcony (R4, tab 3 at 1). 9. In Exhibit B to the Lease, the parties included a list of items, services and systems included in the base rental rate. Among other things, Exhibit B stated that “Lessor will allow the unit to install steel doors at the property (doors provided by 1 Attached to the Lease is a Limited Power of Attorney in which Mr. Omais appoints “ATLC SARL” as his agent with respect to the property in question, under which the agent has the authority to, among other things, enter into binding contracts on Mr. Omais’ behalf for the rental or leasing of the property, and to sue for debt owed to Mr. Omais (R4, tab 2 at 1). 2 unit).” (R4, tab 3 at 1) The Lease contained no other terms in which the Lessor authorized the government to make specific modifications to the house, for security purposes or otherwise. 10. “The utilities and services” portion of the rental rate covered services to be provided by ATLC, including security services, trash removal, grounds maintenance, water, electricity, wireless internet, septic services, bottled gas, generator maintenance, common area cleaning, and maintenance of appliances and systems (R4, tab 1 at 1-2). Exhibit C to the Lease set out the parties’ agreement as to the scope of ATLC’s responsibilities for trash removal and for maintenance of the grounds, generator, appliances and systems. Trash removal and grounds maintenance required weekly removal of non-garden vegetation, daily maintenance of sidewalks and parking areas, cleaning and maintenance of all windows (including repairs as needed), and trash removal from the premises and surrounding grounds three times per week. (R4, tab 4 at 1) 11. The maintenance services covered all appliances and systems, including electrical, plumbing, valves, washers, dryers, refrigerators, stove, microwave, CCTV, and all other equipment. ATLC was required to provide monthly maintenance for all air conditioning units and to repair or replace any inoperable or degraded units. Additional maintenance included inspection and replacement of fans, cooling systems, filters, hoses, cooling gas levels, and electrical components. (R4, tab 4 at 1) ATLC acknowledges that it was responsible for routine maintenance of the swimming pool and related equipment (R4, tab G-1 at 1). 12. Paragraph 14 of the Lease, “MAINTENANCE OF PREMISES,” required ATLC to maintain all Lessor-installed appliances and systems, including electrical, plumbing, valves, air conditioners, and all other equipment (R4, tab 1 at 4). ATLC also warranted that the water supply would provide sufficient volume and pressure for at least fifty personnel. Specifically, Paragraph 14 provided, in relevant part: a. The Lessor agrees to keep the demised premises (including all systems, appliances and fixtures located therein and the landscaping and exterior of the grounds) in good repair and in tenantable condition so that the premises will be fit for the use for which it was intended. Maintenance of all Lessor-installed appliances and systems shall be the responsibility of the Lessor, including electric, plumbing, valves, air conditioners, and all other machinery and equipment installed by the Lessor. . . . b. The Lessee’s representative, which shall include the Senior Enlisted Advisor resident on the premises, shall, 3  within a reasonable time, notify the Lessor of any conditions in the demised premises that are in need of repair. For the purpose of so maintaining said premises and property, the Lessor may, at reasonable times and with reasonable notification enter and inspect the same and make any necessary repairs thereto. c. The Lessor warrants that the completed premises and all fixtures and equipment provided by the Lessor are free from defects of faulty materials and/or improper construction. The Lessor also warrants that the mechanical equipment and the utilities to be in good serviceable and operating condition. In particular, the Lessor warrants that the water supply to the property is adequate in volume and pressure for a minimum of 50 personnel. . . . (Id. at 4-5) (emphasis added) 13. Paragraph 8 of the Lease, “DAMAGES AND RESTORATION,” provided: The Lessee will not be responsible for damages to the leased property. The Parties mutually agree, that the Lessor does hereby release, acquit, and forever discharge the Lessee from any and all manner of actions, liability, and claims for any reason whatsoever; past, present, or future arising from the occupancy, use, and alteration of the Premises and for any other matters related thereto, and the Lessor agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend, at the Lessor’s expense, the Lessee from and against any judicial process, including, but not limited to, demands and liabilities; past, present, and future, arising from the use, occupancy, and alteration of the Premises. (R4, tab 1 at 3) (emphasis added) 14. Paragraph 16 of the Lease, “INDEMNIFICATION,” provided: a. The Lessor shall not be responsible or liable for injuries to persons or damage to property when such injuries or damage are caused by or result from the Lessee’s use of the premises under the terms of this agreement and are not due to the negligence of the Lessor. 4  b. The Lessee shall be liable only for damages resulting from negligence or misconduct of the Occupant or Lessee personnel. The Lessee shall not be liable for any loss, destruction or damages to the premises beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Occupant/Lessee, including but not limited to acts of nature such as fire, lightning, earthquakes, floods, or severe weather and acts of terrorism or war. The Lessee’s liability under this clause may not exceed appropriations available for such payments and nothing in this agreement shall be interpreted to require obligations or payments by the Lessee in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341, as amended. The provisions of this clause are without prejudice to any rights the Lessor may have to make such a claim under applicable laws for any other damages than provided herein. (R4, tab 1 at 5) (emphasis added) 15. The Lease provided that it could not be changed except in a writing signed by both parties to this Lease (R4, tab 1 at 6 ¶ 22). It also provided that it “contains all terms and conditions agreed to by the parties and no other verbal statement or conditions will be honored without an amendment to this Lease in writing as provided in Article 22, above. . . . This Lease cannot be changed or terminated orally” (id. at 9 ¶ 30). 16. The Lease provided for a joint inspection of the premises at the start of the Lease term. The parties were also required to document the condition of the premises in a joint physical condition and inspection report. (R4, tab 1 at 3) The parties did not conduct this inspection or create the report (R4, tab G-1 at 3). B. The Government’s Occupancy 17. During occupancy, the government installed steel doors, as permitted by Exhibit B to the Lease. The government made other major alterations to the property not provided for in the lease, including the installation of steel reinforcements on windows, other steel barricades, alteration of electrical and plumbing fixtures, security enhancements to the exterior grounds, and adding partition walls to subdivide certain rooms. (App. exs. A, C) 18. A local contractor installed the steel reinforcements, paid for by operations funds of the military unit stationed in Burkina Faso (R4, tab G-1 at 2, tab G-2 at 1). The record does not indicate whether the local contractor was hired by ATLC or the 5 government. A reasonable conclusion from the evidence is that the government oversaw and directed the contractor’s work to ensure that the installation was satisfactory to meet the government’s security needs. 19. Government personnel requested some of the additional alterations (beyond the steel doors) due to security concerns, including political instability and terrorist activity in Burkina Faso (R4, tab G-1 at 3). Mr. Omais agreed to permit the alterations to accommodate the government’s security needs, but also “verbally communicated his expectation that the property would be restored to its original condition at lease end” and “the tenants” agreed to this requirement (id.). No written lease amendment or other document memorializing the terms of any agreement regarding additional alterations to the property was prepared or executed. 20. Although Mr. Omais and Mr. Yara Nodohogo (the property manager for ATLC), testified in their declarations that the house was designed for 10 occupants, the government housed 20 or more people during its occupancy (app. ex. A ¶ 27, ex. G at 1). The Lease did not restrict the number of permissible occupants. C. Lease Termination and Removal of Steel Reinforcements 21. On December 12, 2023, the government exercised its option to renew the Lease for an additional year beginning December 15, 2023 (R4, tab 8 at 1). 22. On May 10, 2024, the government notified the Lessor that it would terminate the Lease effective June 15, 2024 (R4, tab 10 at 1). Government personnel vacated the premises on or about May 15, 2024 (R4, tab G-1 at 1-2). 23. On June 19, 2024, the Property Manager emailed military personnel who had occupied the property and offered to “handle everything” related to removing the steel reinforcements, with the Government reimbursing the cost of removal (R4, tab G-2). 24. Several months passed while the government sought funding to pay for the removal of the steel reinforcements. On October 17, 2024, before the funds had been secured, ATLC paid a local contractor to remove the steel reinforcements from the property (R4, tab G-1 at 1). 25. Pursuant to Paragraph 9 of the Lease, “Inspection,” the parties conducted a joint inspection of the property after removal of the steel reinforcements (R4, tab 11 at 1). The parties signed the exit JS&I report on October 31, 2024 (id.). 6  26. In the interim, ATLC attempted to re-let the property, but prospective tenants declined due to the condition of property following the government’s departure, including the presence of steel reinforcements. The property was not suitable for rental until the steel reinforcements were removed. (R4, tab G-1 at 1-2) 27. On December 17, 2024, the U.S. Embassy in Burkina Faso executed a purchase order to reimburse the Property Manager for the cost of removing the steel reinforcements (R4, tab G-1 at 2). D. Condition of the Property When the Government Vacated 28. ATLC submitted to the Board a document entitled “Damage Assessment and Evaluation Report on the Rehabilitation and Restoration Work for a 3-Story Building – Lease DCA-31-5-23-0208,” dated June 11, 2025 (Damage Assessment) (app. ex. C), along with two sets of photographs (app. exs. B, B2). It also submitted declarations from Mr. Omais (app. ex. A) and Mr. Nodohogo (app. ex. G). 29. The Damage Assessment describes the state of the house when the government vacated. It indicates that it was prepared by a civil engineer. The assessment does not state when or how the civil engineer went about evaluating the property. (App. ex. C) We have no reason to doubt the assessment’s implicit assertion that the civil engineer inspected the property and observed the damage described. 30. The Damage Assessment also contains assertions on matters about which the civil engineer likely lacks personal knowledge, such as the number of occupants for which the house was designed and the substance of discussions between ATLC and the government regarding additional modifications to the property beyond the steel doors specifically addressed in the Lease (app. ex. C at 2, 4). Lacking an adequate foundation, we do not credit the assessment’s assertions as to matters that would not be ascertainable by a visual inspection of the property. 31. The two sets of photographs somewhat corroborate the descriptions of property damage in the Damage Assessment. They appear to have been taken, or at least compiled, by the civil engineer that prepared the Damage Assessment. (App. exs. B, B2) Some of the conditions shown in the photographs are not addressed in the Damages Assessment and some of the damage described in the assessment are not depicted in the photographs (compare app. exs. B and B2, with app. ex. C). The government does not dispute the authenticity of the photographs or that they accurately reflect the state of the property at the time the government vacated, and we accept them as such. 7  32. The Damage Assessment describes seven categories of alleged damage: structural damage; electrical damage; plumbing damage; carpentry damage; external and ancillary facilities; roof, fence and septic systems; and occupancy overload (app. ex. C at 2-4). a. Structural Damage i. The Steel Doors 33. The Damage Assessment states that interior walls on all three floors were drilled and permanently altered to mount metal security doors, leading to concrete chipping and plaster detachment (app. ex. C at 2). Mr. Omais states “[p]ierced wall and tiles, were punched out or drilled holes appear all over the property walls and floors” (app. ex. A ¶ 19). The photographs reflect a certain amount of damage around doors that appear to be the result of the installation (and subsequent removal) of the steel doors (app. ex. B at 8 (nos. 27-28), 9 (nos. 29, 31-32), 13 (no. 46), ex. B2 at 1 (welding burns)). 34. ATLC points to no evidence that the level of damage was unusual, abnormal or beyond what is reasonably foreseeable when steel doors are installed and removed, as was expressly permitted by the Lease. To the contrary, Mr. Omais admits that the type of damage that occurred is “common when division and armored windows and doors are installed” (app. ex. A ¶ 19). We find that the damage incident to the installation and subsequent removal of steel doors is not beyond the reasonable wear and tear to be expected by a lessor that grants permission to make such alterations. 35. The Damages Assessment asserts that the removal of the security reinforcements, including the steel doors, exacerbated surface degradation and the government failed to professionally seal or restore the reinforcements upon exit (app. ex. C at 2). The steel doors, however, were removed by ATLC’s contractor (R4, tab G-1 at 2), and we find that any unavoidable damage caused by their removal is normal wear and tear for the uses allowed by the Lease, and any avoidable damage caused by their removal is attributable to the contractor and thus ATLC. ii. Window Reinforcements 36. The Damage Assessment, Mr. Omais’ declaration and the photographs also establish that structural damage occurred from the installation of reinforcements on windows (app. ex. A ¶¶ 19, 23, ex. B at 12 (no. 44), 13 (no. 45), ex. C at 2). The government does not dispute that it installed window reinforcements or refute the descriptions of damage resulting from them and we therefore find them to be accurate. Because the Lease did not permit the government to install window reinforcements, 8 we find that at least some of the damage resulting therefrom was unreasonable and beyond the wear and tear that ALTC could have reasonably expected. The government is responsible for the damage that was not reasonably avoidable by the installation and removal of window reinforcements of the type installed at the property. Because the window reinforcements were removed by ATLC’s contractor, any damage caused by faulty removal is attributable to the contractor and thus ATLC. 2 iii. Room Partitions 37. The Damages Assessment states that the government’s installation of temporary partition walls and barricades in certain rooms disrupted floor continuity, damaged tilework, and caused misalignment of electrical and ventilation pathways (app. ex. C at 2). There is some photographic support for this assertion (app. ex. B at 11 (nos. 39-40), 12 (nos. 41-43), 14 (nos. 49-52)). The government offers no basis on which to disbelieve ATLC’s evidence and we therefore find that this damage occurred and was caused by the government’s installation of the partitions and barricades. Because the Lease did not permit the government to install partitions or barricades, we find the damage resulting therefrom to be unreasonable and beyond the wear and tear to be expected by ALTC. b. Electrical Damage 38. The Damages Assessment asserts that the house’s electrical panels were heavily modified to accommodate secure communication and surveillance systems (app. ex. C at 2). The changes included adding double-pole DPNs and bypassing breakers, leaving the system in a “hazardous and non-compliant state” (id.). Numerous outlets and wall switches were removed or rewired and visible burn marks and exposed wire terminals were found in several rooms (id.). Mr. Omais adds that the damages to the electrical system were “wire and electrics negligence for safety hazards, in addition to rendering some utilities inoperable such as electric outlet, heaters, and other appliances” (app. ex. A ¶ 21). The exit inspection report identifies numerous outlets needing replacement (R4, tab 11 at 2, 5, 8-9, 18, 20). Photographs support the existence of damaged outlets and wiring (app. ex. B at 5 (nos. 14, 16), 6 (nos. 18-19)). While the photographs of the electrical panels and wiring do not by themselves indicate that breakers were bypassed or that the system was in a hazardous state, we have no basis to doubt the representations by the civil engineer and Mr. Omais and therefore find them to be accurate. 39. Because the Lease did not permit the government to make security modifications to the electrical system, we find the damage resulting therefrom to be 2 Whether particular damage was avoidable or unavoidable is an issue for the quantum stage. 9 unreasonable and beyond the wear and tear to be expected by ALTC. Further, the type of damage suffered by the electrical system, even if not caused by security modifications, is well beyond reasonable wear and tear. The exercise of reasonable care by the government would entail returning the system to a safe, functioning, code-compliant state. ATLC’s obligation to maintain the house’s systems cannot reasonably be understood to extend to renovating damage to the electrical system caused by unauthorized alterations by the government. c. Plumbing Damage 40. According to the Damage Assessment, the government reconfigured water systems to support “security washing stations” and additional fixtures (app ex. C at 3). Removing these systems left leaky joints, damaged pipes, and non-functioning water heaters. Additionally, broken ceramic fixtures and mirrors and missing faucet components are said to be evidence of “rough and unsupervised usage of plumbing installations” (id.). Mr. Omais states “[n]eglected waterpipe, leaks and water heater repairs triggered compromising utility functionality of the property” (app. ex. A ¶ 25). Certain photographs lend some support to this statement (app. ex. B at 10 (nos. 34-35), 11 (no. 38)). 41. Under the Lease, ATLC was required to install a water storage tank and “plumbing and electrical to operate 4 washing machines and 4 dryers” (R4, tab 3 at 1). The Lease also required ATLC to maintain the plumbing system and “all other machinery and equipment on the property,” which includes water heaters (R4, tab 4 at 1). ATLC has not demonstrated that the damage to the plumbing system was the result of government negligence or misconduct rather than ATLC’s failure to maintain the systems as required. d. Carpentry Damage 42. The Damage Assessment states that one interior door is missing, multiple wooden doors and frames were splintered or cracked with hardware missing or inoperable, and window locking mechanisms were broken or removed, allegedly to accommodate quick access installations and additional wiring (app. ex. C at 3). There is photographic evidence of a door and a window with damaged locks, and an entrance door missing a door handle (app. ex. B at 4 (no.11), 7 (no. 21), 8 (no. 28)). The exit inspection indicates various doors and windows needed new handles or locks (R4, tab 11 at 3-8, 10, 12, 14-22). The government does not offer contrary evidence, and we find that the described carpentry damage occurred and was caused by the government. 43. As to damaged door frames and hardware, the described damage is beyond ordinary wear and tear to the extent it was not the unavoidable result of the installation 10 and removal of the steel doors permitted by the Lease, which is addressed above (findings 33-35). The complete removal of an interior door is not ordinary wear and tear. 44. With respect to damaged window frames, the damage is beyond ordinary wear and tear to the extent it is the result of the installation of security reinforcements on the windows, as discussed above (finding 36). As to other damage to window frames and hardware, ATLC has not demonstrated that the damage was beyond ordinary wear and tear, or that the necessary repairs were not ATCL’s responsibility under the Lease to “[m]aintain and clean all windows” and “[r]epair broken and faulty windows as needed” (R4, tab 4 at 1). e. External and Ancillary Facilities 45. The Damage Assessment states that courtyard paving was impacted by armored or heavy tactical vehicles, the swimming pool was unmaintained, and perimeter security features (such as security fencing, concertina wire and external lighting) were removed, tampered with or damaged, with brackets and cabling left behind (app. ex. C at 3). i. Courtyard Paving 46. Photographs indicate some damage to the courtyard area (app. ex. B at 2 (no. 4), 3 (nos. 5-7), 4 (no. 12)) and the exit inspection report indicates that the tile was in poor condition, sunken in areas and needed replacement (R4, tab 11 at 2). Under the Lease, ATLC was responsible for maintaining the courtyard areas (R4, tab 4 at 1). ATLC leased the house to the government with the understanding that it was to house military personnel, but the Lease did not place any restrictions on the types or weights of vehicles that could be driven on the property. In these circumstances, the damage to the courtyard was within the range of expected wear and tear and not the result of government negligence or wrongdoing. ii. Swimming Pool 47. Mr. Omais states that the swimming pool had been “abandoned and not used for over 6 years” and might need major repairs, which he said had not yet been verified (app. ex. A ¶ 18). Photographs show that the pool was dirty and unmaintained (app. ex. B at 3 (no. 8), 4 (nos. 9-10)). The exit inspection report notes only that the pool needed “clean[ing]” (R4, tab 11 at 2). 48. The Lease placed on ATLC the responsibility for maintaining the swimming pool and related equipment, as ATLC acknowledges (R4, tab G-1 at 1). 11 ATLC has not demonstrated that any damage to the swimming pool was the result of government negligence or wrongdoing rather than ATLC’s failure to maintain it. iii. Perimeter Security Features 49. ATLC has not shown that any damage to outdoor security features such as security fencing, concertina wire and external lighting was beyond reasonable wear and tear or otherwise the result of government negligence or wrongdoing. One photograph shows that a gate and some concertina wire had rusted (app. Ex. B at 2 (no. 2)), but no evidence suggests this was beyond expected wear and tear. f. Roof, Fence and Septic Systems 3 50. The Damages Assessment states that “[r]ooftop access points were used for mounting surveillance or communications equipment, leaving holes and water intrusion paths. Perimeter walls bore holes from equipment bracketing and electric conduit installations. Septic systems were overwhelmed during use and not serviced upon departure, with visible overflow and surface damage” (app. ex. C at 3). 51. The Lease did not authorize the installation of surveillance or communications equipment on the house or boring holes for equipment brackets and electric conduit. The damage caused by such unauthorized installation is unreasonable and beyond the ordinary wear and tear that ATLC could have expected. 52. The Lease placed responsibility for maintaining the septic system on ATLC (R4, tab 4 at 1 (“Maintenance on all . . . systems shall be the responsibility of the landlord.”)). ATLC has not demonstrated that any damage to the septic system was caused by government negligence or wrongdoing rather than ATLC failing to perform the required maintenance. g. Occupancy Overload 53. Mr. Omais states that “we tolerated 20 occupants when the property was designed for 10 occupants” (app. ex. A ¶ 27). A declaration from ATLC’s Property Manger states on personal knowledge that the occupancy of the house “reached over 20 team members for an extended period of time (years)” and this was “2 times its intended residential capacity” and that this “accelerated the failure of electrical circuits, plumbing fixtures, and septic components” and “caused physical strain on interior walls, doors, and other structural features” (app. ex. G). 3 Despite the reference to “fence”, this section of the Damage Assessment does not mention any fence damage. 12  54. The Damages Assessment asserts that overoccupancy of the house placed excessive pressure on the home's utilities and infrastructure. The water system, electrical load, and septic capacity were allegedly subjected to excessive use beyond their designed thresholds. The alleged over-occupancy reportedly contributed to the accelerated deterioration of electrical circuits, plumbing fixtures, and septic systems, and it also placed structural stress on internal walls, doors, and other fixtures due to overcrowded living arrangements and foot traffic. (App. ex. C at 3-4) 55. The Lease did not limit the number of occupants and required the Lessor to warrant that the water supply to the property was adequate for a minimum of 50 personnel (R4, tab 1 at 5). ATLC has not demonstrated that any of the damage allegedly caused by “overoccupancy” was beyond the normal wear and tear to be expected under the circumstances of this Lease. 56. We find that, except to the extent found otherwise above, ATLC has failed to demonstrate that any damage to the property, including that described or reflected in the Damage Assessment, the declarations, the photographs, the exit inspection report, or other record evidence, is beyond ordinary wear and tear or is otherwise the result of government negligence or wrongdoing. E. Claim, Contracting Officer’s Final Decision and Appeal 57. On December 10, 2024, ATLC submitted a claim seeking $163,000 for alleged property damage and unpaid rent due to “overstay” (R4, tab 12). ATLC supported the claim with estimates of $122,351.26 in repair work and $40,000 for additional rent ($6,666 per month for six months) (R4, tabs 13-14). 58. On March 7, 2025, the contracting officer issued a final decision denying the claim in its entirety (R4, tab 19 at 4). On April 10, 2025, the Lessor, through ATLC, filed a timely appeal with the Board. DECISION A. The Parties’ Contentions ATLC contends that the government was required to return the property to it in the same condition it was in when the lease began. When the government initially leased the property in 2017, it was new and in pristine condition. When the government vacated in May 2024, the house needed substantial renovation. ATLC seeks the cost of returning the property to its original condition. It acknowledges that it authorized the government to make, for security purposes, alterations to the house beyond the installation of steel doors specifically authorized in the Lease but contends it only did so on the condition that the government agree to return the property to its 13 original condition. It also contends that the government’s delay in authorizing the removal of the steel reinforcements it had installed prevented appellant from renting the property for four months and seeks the equivalent of four months’ rent in compensation. The government generally does not dispute ATLC’s descriptions of the state of the building when the government vacated. Instead, it contends that, under the terms of the Lease, it is not responsible for the cost of restoring the property to its previous condition but rather is liable only for damages caused by its own negligence or wrongdoing. It contends that ATLC has not demonstrated any government negligence or wrongdoing. To the contrary, it says, any damage to the house was normal wear and tear for property leased for military housing with permission to add security reinforcements such as steel doors. It contends that ATLC has failed to prove that it conditioned permission to make security alterations beyond the steel doors on the government’s agreement to restore the house to its original condition. It further contends that much of the damage for which ATLC seeks compensation resulted from ATLC’s own failure to meet its maintenance obligations under the lease. Finally, it denies liability for additional rent after it vacated because it relinquished possession and therefore was not a holdover tenant. B. Standard of Review and Burden of Proof Pursuant to Rule 11, the Board decides the weight to be given the evidence and may make findings of fact on disputed facts. Board Rule 11(d). As the party asserting the claim, ATLC has the burden of proving the fundamental facts of liability and damages de novo. Wilner v. United States, 24 F.3d 1397, 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Korea Eng’g Consultants Corp., ASBCA No. 61724, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,538 at 182,285 (citations omitted). ATLC must establish three necessary elements, “liability, causation, and resultant injury.” Servidone Constr. Corp. v. United States, 931 F.2d 860, 861 (Fed. Cir. 1991). ATLC must prove a causal connection between the damage alleged and government conduct by a preponderance of the evidence. Mark O’Connor, ASBCA No. 56863 et al., 10-1 BCA ¶ 34,329 at 169,562. C. Lease interpretation The Lease addresses the government’s responsibility to restore the property and to redress the lessor for damages. The extent and scope of that responsibility, therefore, is a matter of contract interpretation. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. United States, 801 F.2d 1295, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Leases are not sufficiently different from other federal contracts to call for an independent set of analytical principles and rules”). In performing contract interpretation, we “begin[ ] with the language of the 14 written agreement,” which “must be considered as a whole and interpreted so as to harmonize and give reasonable meaning to all of its parts.” Coast Fed. Bank, FSB v. United States, 323 F.3d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (en banc). Contract provisions should not “be construed as being in conflict with [one] another unless no other reasonable interpretation is possible.” NOAA Md., LLC v. Adm’r of Gen. Servs. Admin., 997 F.3d 1159, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Hol-Gar Mfg. Corp. v. United States, 351 F.2d 972, 979 (Ct. Cl. 1965)). a. The Government is Responsible Under the Lease for Damage Caused by its Negligence or Wrongdoing First, we hold that harmonizing paragraphs 8 and 16 of the Lease leads to the conclusion that the government is liable to ATLC for damage caused by the government’s negligence or misconduct and was not required to return the property entirely undamaged. Standing alone, paragraph 8 could be read to relieve the government from responsibility for any damage to the property. Paragraph 16, however, can only be understood as providing that the government is liable for damage it causes negligently or by misconduct. We harmonize the two provisions by viewing paragraph 8 as protecting the government from liability for normal wear and tear or damage caused by acts necessary to carry out the purpose of the lease, while paragraph 16 addresses damage resulting from government negligence or misconduct. The interplay of paragraphs 8 and 16 thus effectively put the parties in the same position that they would have been under common law principles. Even where the lease does not provide that the property will be returned in the same condition, the lessee is still “liable for damages resulting from a want of reasonable care in the use of the property.” Mount Manresa v. United States, 70 Ct. Cl. 144, 149 (1930); see also United States v. Bostwick, 94 U.S. 53, 65-66 (1876) (“in every lease there is, unless excluded by the operation of some express covenant or agreement, an implied obligation on the part of the lessee to so use the property as not unnecessarily to injure it,” and to treat the property such that it “may revert to the lessor undeteriorated by the willful or negligent conduct of the lessee.”) (cleaned up); Brooklyn Waterfront Terminal Corp. v. United States, 90 F. Supp. 943, 948-49 (Ct. Cl. 1950). Accordingly, under the Lease, the obligation to use reasonable care does not require the government to pay for normal wear and tear. Likewise, government acts necessary for use of the premises for the purposes for which they were leased were not a failure to exercise reasonable care. Mount Manresa, 70 Ct. Cl. at 150. The government acted negligently