SST (Supply & Service Team) GmbH, ASBCA No. 59630

SST (Supply & Service Team GmbH) contracted with the U.S. Army in Germany to provide role‑playing actors under Contract No. W912PB‑06‑D‑0011; the Army later required Arabic and Pashto speakers, causing compliance problems.
Parties negotiated and executed Modification 4 (Mod 4), which SST and the Board construed as a broad release waiving the Army’s future challenges to payments under the relevant task order.
An Army Audit Agency (AAA) audit later concluded SST had not complied and the Army sought return of €688,531 based on the audit findings.
The Army offset payments and advanced an affirmative defense of fraud; SST appealed to the ASBCA and moved for summary judgment.
The ASBCA granted summary judgment for SST, holding Mod 4 precluded new government claims and the Army could not maintain a fraud defense absent prior findings of fraud from another tribunal.
SST filed an EAJA fee application for $39,767.79; the government conceded eligibility and prevailing‑party status but argued its position was substantially justified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SST is entitled to EAJA fees	SST: Eligible small business, prevailing party, timely application; fees justified	Gov: Fees barred because its litigation position was "substantially justified"	Granted — SST entitled to $39,767.79; gov't failed to show substantial justification
Whether reliance on the AAA audit justified government offsets	SST: Mod 4 waived future challenges; AAA audit cannot revive waived claims	Gov: Reasonable to rely on AAA findings to offset payments	Denied — even valid AAA findings could not justify action because Mod 4 waived rights
Proper interpretation/scope of Mod 4 (waiver vs limited release)	SST: Mod 4 is a sweeping release making actions final and barring future claims	Gov: Mod 4 was a limited waiver and did not bar later challenges	Held for SST — Mod 4 unambiguous; broad waiver was the only plausible reading; gov't position not substantially justified
Whether government could assert fraud defense without prior tribunal findings	SST: Board cannot find fraud on its own; must rely on prior tribunal findings	Gov: Asserted fraud defense; argued Laguna decision narrowed timing (issued mid‑litigation)	Denied — reliance on fraud defense was not substantially justified given controlling ASBCA precedent (as recognized by Laguna and earlier ASBCA decisions)

Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (explains "substantially justified" standard for EAJA)
Laguna Construction Co. v. Carter, 828 F.3d 1364 (discusses limits on Board making independent fraud findings; Board must rely on findings from other tribunals)