Military Aircraft Parts, ASBCA No. 60692

DLA awarded MAP a fixed-price contract (total $18,975) including a first-article test due Dec 22, 2011; MAP submitted first articles late (June 29, 2012).
Government inspected and rejected the first articles for dimensional discrepancies and being too short; testing/inspection costs were documented.
CO issued a show-cause notice and informed MAP of potential termination for default; MAP sought to resubmit but cited inability to pay retesting costs.
Email exchange led the parties to agree to a no-cost cancellation; on Sept 13, 2013 the parties executed bilateral Modification P00001 cancelling the contract, deleting the FA CLIN, and containing express language: MAP "unconditionally waives any charges against the Government" and "releases it from all obligations."
MAP filed a claim in March 2016 seeking monetary recovery for pre-modification events; the CO denied the claim relying on the modification's release language. MAP appealed to the ASBCA; the government moved for summary judgment asserting release and accord-and-satisfaction defenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the bilateral modification barred MAP's later monetary claim by operation of a release	MAP sought to introduce parol evidence to vary/avoid the modification and pursue the claim	Government argued the modification unambiguously contained an unconditional release of all claims arising from the contract	Board held the release language was clear and unambiguous; parol evidence inadmissible; release bars the claim
Whether the modification constituted an accord and satisfaction extinguishing the claim	MAP disputed applicability of accord and satisfaction	Government argued the modification satisfied elements (subject matter, competent parties, meeting of the minds, consideration)	Board held the modification met accord-and-satisfaction elements; summary judgment appropriate
Whether factual disputes precluded summary judgment (e.g., competence, intent, exceptions)	MAP asserted factual issues warrant discovery/parol evidence	Government maintained no genuine issue of material fact given plain language of modification	Board found no material factual disputes on the release/accord issues and granted summary judgment
Admissibility of parol evidence to alter modification terms	MAP sought to admit parol evidence to limit the release	Government opposed parol evidence as barred by the unambiguous written release	Board ruled parol evidence inadmissible because modification language was unambiguous

Holland v. United States, 621 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (single document may operate as both a release and an accord and satisfaction)
Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (summary judgment standard in government contract appeals requires determining genuine issues of material fact)
Brock & Blevins Co. v. United States, 343 F.2d 951 (Ct. Cl. 1965) (elements required to establish an accord and satisfaction)