A good ole dispute on contract interpretation in government contracting. Contract interpretation disputes happen all the time in every jurisdiction under the sun. Think about that. Now, what’s the best way to avoid a contract interpretation dispute?  Naturally, invest in the contract language and fully understand the scope of work. Make all of this clear. But, of course, this isn’t foolproof meaning you could still be doing this and you could still find yourself in a contract interpretation dispute. Although, if you are doing this, and being proactive, the contract interpretation disputes should be minimal and more streamlined.

In Liberty Technical Services, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 8385, 2026 WL 407656 (CBCA 2026), the dispute centered on whether the government owed the contractor for certain, necessary equipment (largely controllers, but also tanks and pumps) not specified in the contract. The government countered that this should be a non-issue because the contractor always acknowledged it was responsible for furnishing the unspecified, necessary equipment, and the contractor did actually provide the equipment without direction from the government. Each party claimed the contract was unambiguous when construed in context.

To determine what the contract required, we must construe it to the extent possible according to its plain meaning, adopting the point of view of a reasonably intelligent person acquainted with the surrounding circumstances. We must read the document as a whole, giving reasonable meaning to all of its parts and avoiding, if we can, readings that result in useless, inexplicable, void, or superfluous terms. Generally, we may consider parol evidence and other extrinsic aids to interpretation only upon finding the contract ambiguous. However, as discussed below, the parties’ actions during performance in the form of written communication confirm the unambiguous, plain meaning. Evidence of trade custom or practice may inform our reading of a contract even absent an ambiguity but “only where a party makes a showing that it relied reasonably on [its] competing interpretation of the words when it entered into the contract.” Neither party has submitted sufficient evidence to establish a trade practice; rather, they have only alleged reliance on assumptions.

Liberty Technical Services, LLC, supra (internal citations omitted).

Based on the above principles of contract interpretation, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals held that the contractor failed to prove it furnished equipment outside the scope of the contract. “When the contract is read as a whole, it supports VA’s position that the equipment for which [contractor] claims additional compensation is within the scope of the contract and additional work was not ordered by the VA.” Liberty Technical Services, LLC supra.

Taking it further, the Board noted that while the equipment was not specified on the equipment list, the equipment was necessary to perform the contract. “[A] reader of the contract with knowledge of the subject matter would have known that the equipment list did not include all of the equipment that the contractor would need.” Liberty Technical Services, LLC, supra.

And, on top of this, the contractor’s “actions during contract performance also do not support its later assertions that controllers were outside of the contract scope….Within eight days of starting performance of the contract, [the contractor] confirmed that it had purchased controllers and did not dispute at that time that controllers were included in the contract.” Liberty Technical Services, LLC, supra.

As they say, three strikes and you’re out. Here, there were at least three strikes against the contractor making its contract interpretation claim fail.