E.C. London & Associates, Inc., ASBCA No. 60273

Background

The Air Force awarded E.C. London & Associates a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contract (base period + 4 one-year options) for base custodial and window‑cleaning services at Los Angeles AFB; CLINs separated interior (part of custodial CLIN 0003) and exterior window cleaning (CLIN 0004) and priced exterior cleaning at $0.312/SF.
The Schedule contained estimated square footage for exterior window cleaning and stated task orders would specify square feet ordered each semi‑annual period.
Amendment No. 03 (30 Sept 2006) added three new buildings (270, 271, 272). No contract modification adjusted CLIN square footage for those buildings.
London claims the added buildings increased exterior (and some interior) window area substantially, relying on measurements by SSgt Rupert (totaling 277,280 SF for the three buildings), and submitted a certified CDA claim for $374,323.75 (mostly alleged extra costs) on 16 Aug 2010.
The contracting officer later (declaration) relied on base civil engineers’ CAD/manual measurements showing a net increase of 12,567 SF (new buildings 71,502 SF vs. torn down buildings 58,935 SF) and stated London was paid for the square footage reflected in task orders.
Three invoices totaling $3,353.26 remained partially or wholly unpaid; the government concedes those amounts are due but London also sought Prompt Payment Act interest which it did not separately claim pre‑appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether addition of Buildings 270–272 constituted a compensable change increasing contractor’s exterior window‑cleaning obligation/costs	London: Addition increased window SF beyond contract estimates; Rupert measurements show sizable increase; entitlement to extra payment under Changes clause	Air Force: Net square footage change was small/offset by demolition of old buildings; London was paid for actual SF in task orders; Rupert numbers unreliable	Denied. Board found London failed to prove an uncompensated increase; task orders controlled and contracting officer’s engineer‑based measurements (sworn) prevail over Rupert’s unverified figures.
Whether interior windows over 7' created additional chargeable scope separate from custodial CLIN	London: Contract did not anticipate new interior/exterior glass surfaces for new buildings and thus increase was separate chargeable work	Air Force: Interior windows (up to 7') are covered by custodial CLIN 0003; no separate recovery	Denied. Board agreed interior high‑window requirement remained as stated and interior work was covered by CLIN 0003.
Whether Rupert’s measurements establish quantum for extra work	London: Rupert’s 2006 measurements quantify additional SF owed	Air Force: Rupert’s figures are unsupported and unverified; civil engineers’ CAD measurements are reliable	Denied. Board refused to credit Rupert’s uncorroborated figures; accepted contracting officer’s sworn engineer measurements and evidence that payments matched task orders.
Recovery of unpaid invoices and interest (CDA and Prompt Payment Act)	London: Entitled to unpaid invoice amounts plus Prompt Payment Act interest	Air Force: Does not dispute unpaid amounts; disputes jurisdiction or entitlement to Prompt Payment Act interest absent separate claim	Granted in part. Board awarded $3,353.26 plus CDA interest from 16 Aug 2010 (claim date). Prompt Payment Act interest denied for lack of a separate PPA claim.

Key Cases Cited

(No official reporter decisions with Bluebook citations appear in the opinion.)