Osc Solutions, Inc. v. Secretary of the Navy

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
OSC SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Appellant
v.
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY,
Appellee
______________________
2024-1195
______________________
Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Ap-
peals in No. 63294, Administrative Judge Laura J. Arnett,
Administrative Judge Owen C. Wilson, Administrative
Judge Richard Shackleford.
______________________
Decided: January 7, 2026
______________________
F RANK V. R EILLY , Micanopy, FL, for appellant.
STEVEN MICHAEL MAGER, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for appellee. Also represented by
P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY , CORINNE A NNE N IOSI, BRETT
SHUMATE.
______________________
Case: 24-1195 Document: 81 Page: 1 Filed: 01/07/2026

-- 1 of 9 --

OSC SOLUTIONS, INC. v. SECRETARY OF THE NAVY 2
Before D YK, T ARANTO, and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges.
T ARANTO, Circuit Judge.
In 2022, pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act (CDA),
41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7109, OSC Solutions, Inc. filed a certi-
fied claim seeking compensation from the United States
Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command
Fleet Logistics Center Norfolk (Navy) for an alleged breach
of contract. The Navy’s contracting officer denied OSC’s
claim, and OSC timely appealed to the Armed Services
Board of Contract Appeals (Board). In 2023, the Board de-
nied the appeal, concluding that OSC did not have the as-
serted contract right to the compensation it sought. In re
OSC Solutions, Inc., ASBCA No. 63294, 2023 WL 5199793
(July 20, 2023) (Final Decision). We affirm.
I
A
On May 2, 2019, the Navy issued a solicitation for a
Blanket Purchase Agreement (No. 0018919R0041) (BPA),
requesting proposals from private parties to perform, for
the Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command, Mid-
Atlantic, Public Works Department, the function of accept-
ing and filling orders placed by the Navy for parts and ma-
terials for maintenance, repair, and operations—a function
that included operating, with the contractor’s own labor,
four “shop stores” for that purpose. Supplemental Appen-
dix (S. Appx.) 1–59. The BPA included in the solicitation
stated that “services/products can be ordered under this
BPA.” S. Appx. 3 (emphasis added). It also stated: “This
BPA does not obligate any funds. Funds will be obligated
by placement of calls under Federal Acquisition Regulation
[(FAR)] Subpart 8.4 entitled ‘Federal Supply Schedules’, or
the use of a Government wide purchase card issued under
[FAR §] 13.303 entitled ‘Blanket Purchase Agreements.’”
Id. (cleaned up). Seemingly contemplating about a five-
year duration for the arrangement, the BPA included in the
solicitation also estimated but did not guarantee future
Case: 24-1195 Document: 81 Page: 2 Filed: 01/07/2026

-- 2 of 9 --

OSC SOLUTIONS, INC. v. SECRETARY OF THE NAVY 3
orders: “The [Navy] estimates, but does not guarantee, that
the volume of purchases through this agreement will be
$70,070,404.09.” Id. (emphasis added).
The solicitation further provided instructions to offe-
rors for their proposals, including the following instruction
concerning prices for “services” separate from prices for the
eventual purchase and sale of materials under the BPA:
The offeror shall propose a fixed discount rate to be
applied to the service and material requirements
which will be established as a term in the resulting
BPA. The offeror shall offer a fixed discount for . . .
[s]ervices . . . .
Note: All requirements to include services and ma-
terials must be on a [Federal Supply] Schedule; no
“open market” materials are permitted. . . .
Separate price information shall be submitted for
. . . service support as required by the [BPA]. The
price for the services . . . shall include all fully bur-
dened labor required to provide services . . . .
S. Appx. 12 (emphasis added).1
OSC submitted a proposal to the Navy, see S. Appx. 67–
69, and on August 2, 2019, the Navy notified OSC of defi-
ciencies in its initial offer—stating, in relevant part, that
“[t]he price proposal must contain separately priced ser-
vices,” S. Appx. 68. OSC responded the same day by con-
firming to the Navy that it was in fact “offering the
required services to the Navy for no additional charge as
they are incidental to the purchasing of the products from
[its] [General Services Administration] schedule contract.
1 The term “open market” used in the quoted passage
refers to items not listed on the Federal Supply Schedule
or General Services Administration schedules. FAR
§ 8.402(f).
Case: 24-1195 Document: 81 Page: 3 Filed: 01/07/2026

-- 3 of 9 --

OSC SOLUTIONS, INC. v. SECRETARY OF THE NAVY 4
There is therefore no additional charge for OSC to offer the
Navy the required services under the contract.” S. Appx.
71. On August 8, 2019, OSC again confirmed to the Navy
that there would be “no additional charge for . . . the re-
quired services.” S. Appx. 72–73. In its final offer, OSC
included a chart stating that the “Total Service Price” was
“0.00” and that there was no “Monthly Price” for servicing
the four shop stores. S. Appx. 61. OSC explicitly memori-
alized that “[s]tore service is included within the price of
the products.” S. Appx. 61; see also S. Appx. 66.
On January 2, 2020, the Navy accepted OSC’s offer and
issued BPA No. N0018920A0002 to OSC. S. Appx. 75―121.
The BPA provided for a base period of one year (to end Jan-
uary 1, 2021) and permitted the Navy to exercise up to four
one-year option periods, with a further FAR-based period
that made the contemplated contract term five and one-
half years. S. Appx. 110. Like the BPA included in the
solicitation, the January 2020 BPA provided that “ser-
vice/products can be ordered under this BPA”; that the
Navy “estimates, but does not guarantee, that the volume
of purchases through this agreement will be
$70,070,404.09”; and that the “BPA does not obligate any
funds” because “[f]unds will be obligated by placement of
calls under [FAR] Subpart 8.4 . . . or the use of a Govern-
ment wide purchase card issued under [FAR §] 13.303[.]”
S. Appx. 76 (emphasis added). The BPA also clarified what
parts and materials may or may not be ordered under the
agreement, specifying that “[o]pen market items may not
be ordered[.]” S. Appx. 76.
On January 2, 2021, the Navy exercised its first option
to extend the arrangement by a year. S. Appx. 122–23
(Modification No. P00003). The Navy ordered supplies un-
der the BPA.
B
In July 2021, OSC emailed the contracting officer an
invoice for $1,013,729.28, seeking payment for
Case: 24-1195 Document: 81 Page: 4 Filed: 01/07/2026

-- 4 of 9 --

OSC SOLUTIONS, INC. v. SECRETARY OF THE NAVY 5
“unabsorbed store services direct costs,” S. Appx. 124—i.e.,
its store-staffing labor costs that, because of unexpectedly
low Navy orders, had not been covered (indirectly) by Navy
purchases. OSC stated that “[t]he staffing services dis-
count” it had provided—referring to its decision not to
charge separately for its labor services under the BPA—
“does not apply” because “the [Navy] estimated, but did not
guarantee, that the volume of purchases through this BPA
would be approx[imately] $70M (approx[imately] $1M av-
erage per month)” but the “BPA has not reached the pro-
posal’s estimated level of $1M per month.” Id. (cleaned up).
In October 2021, OSC requested “resolution of the unpaid
invoice[ ]” or, alternatively, that “OSC’s obligation of fur-
ther performance be cancelled on October 29, 2021.” S.
Appx. 131.
The Navy decided not to exercise the next option year,
and it terminated OSC’s performance obligations on Janu-
ary 1, 2022. S. Appx. 126–27; see S. Appx. 110. The Navy
also informed OSC that “there is no mechanism for billing
labor under this BPA” and declined to modify the BPA to
permit OSC to bill labor services. S. Appx. 128; see S. Appx.
125.
On February 17, 2022, OSC submitted a certified claim
to the contracting officer, requesting $1,152,858 for its la-
bor services performed pursuant to the BPA. S. Appx. 132–
36. OSC reasoned that it was owed payment because the
Navy had “only ordered at 17% of the [Navy’s] [ ] estimated
volume” of products, S. Appx. 133, and “that the govern-
ment ha[d] strayed very far from the original meeting of
the minds regarding this procurement,” S. Appx. 135. The
contracting officer denied the claim on April 18, 2022 be-
cause the BPA explicitly did not guarantee a particular vol-
ume of sales, labor costs were intentionally not priced in
the BPA, and the BPA was not a “contractual obligation of
the [Navy].” S. Appx. 137–39.
Case: 24-1195 Document: 81 Page: 5 Filed: 01/07/2026

-- 5 of 9 --

OSC SOLUTIONS, INC. v. SECRETARY OF THE NAVY 6
C
On June 2, 2022, OSC appealed to the Board, arguing
that the Navy breached an implied-in-fact contract and
that OSC was owed $1,152,858 from the Navy for its labor
services performed under the BPA. In re OSC Solutions,
Inc., ASBCA No. 63294, 2023 WL 1778405 at 4 (Jan. 17,
2023) (Initial Decision); see Final Decision, at 7 n.7 (noting
OSC’s correction of its complaint’s slight misstatement of
the claim amount).2 The Navy moved to dismiss the ap-
peal. Initial Decision, at 1, 4. In January 2023, the Board
determined that it had jurisdiction to consider a claim aris-
ing from an alleged implied-in-fact contract and denied the
motion to dismiss. Id. at 5. The parties then moved for a
decision on the record under Board Rule 11. Final Deci-
sion, at 1.
On July 20, 2023, the Board denied OSC’s appeal. Id.
As relevant here, the Board first rejected OSC’s argument
that the BPA entitled it to payment for the service (labor)
costs incurred but not covered by the (unexpectedly low vol-
ume of) orders by and sales to the Navy. OSC’s argument
was that the BPA was actually a “requirements contract”
under FAR § 16.503, which would have conferred upon
OSC the exclusive right “to fulfill all orders under the BPA
with OSC’s products,” id. at 7 & n.9, and thereby recoup its
service costs through sales receipts. The Board rejected
that argument, explaining:
[T]he BPA is not a contract because it lacks mutu-
ality of consideration. The BPA expressly stated
that it did not obligate any funds or guarantee a
specific volume of purchases . . . . OSC consistently
indicated that its service costs were incidental to
the purchase of products . . . . Because the BPA is
2 For the Initial Decision and Final Decision, we use
the native page numbers shown in the decisions in the Ap-
pendix at 1–6 (for the former) and 7–20 (for the latter).
Case: 24-1195 Document: 81 Page: 6 Filed: 01/07/2026

-- 6 of 9 --

OSC SOLUTIONS, INC. v. SECRETARY OF THE NAVY 7
not a contract, it does not serve as a basis for Board
jurisdiction or afford OSC any remedy.
Id. at 10.
The Board also rejected OSC’s arguments that “the
Navy should be required to pay for OSC’s services under an
implied in fact or constructive change theory.” Id. at 7. The
Board reiterated that the “BPA did not obligate govern-
ment funds,” which “demonstrate[d] both a lack of govern-
ment intent to contract as well as a lack of consideration.”
Id. at 11 (emphasis omitted). The Board examined OSC’s
proposal and OSC’s “repeated and express . . . communica-
tions” regarding compensation for its services and deter-
mined that OSC intended to “be compensated for service
costs through product orders, not through the BPA.” Id.
The Board also determined that “OSC made a deliberate
business decision to not separately price service costs.” Id.
The Board further explained that there was “no apparent
change or extra work required from OSC” pursuant to the
BPA and, thus, “no basis for an implied-in-fact contract
that would be contrary to the terms of both OSC’s proposal
and the BPA.” Id. at 11–13.
OSC timely appealed on November 21, 2023, having re-
ceived a copy of the Board’s decision on August 1, 2023.
ECF No. 1; 41 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(10).
II
We review the Board’s decisions on questions of law
without deference but accept the Board’s factual findings
unless such findings are “(A) fraudulent, arbitrary, or ca-
pricious; (B) so grossly erroneous as to necessarily imply
bad faith; or (C) not supported by substantial evidence.” 41
U.S.C. § 7107(b). We review the Board’s interpretation of
contracts de novo, but with “careful consideration given its
considerable experience and expertise.” Agility Logistics
Services Co. KSC v. Mattis, 887 F.3d 1143, 1148 (Fed. Cir.
2018).
Case: 24-1195 Document: 81 Page: 7 Filed: 01/07/2026

-- 7 of 9 --

OSC SOLUTIONS, INC. v. SECRETARY OF THE NAVY 8
We will read OSC’s appeal as contending that its
money claim is for breach of an express contract that is not
the BPA alone but instead consists of specific Navy orders
of products under the BPA, orders that effectively incorpo-
rate the BPA. Even when we take that generous view of
OSC’s argument, OSC cannot succeed. It has identified
nothing in the product-order-plus-BPA that gives it the
right to recover labor costs (other than as incorporated in
product prices) it claims. We need not and do not draw any
broader conclusion.
OSC has identified nothing outside the BPA itself that
supports its claim, not even including in the record before
us any relevant product order, let alone pinpointing what
terms could give it the claimed right. Accordingly, like the
Board, we look to the BPA itself. But nothing in the BPA
supports OSC’s claim either.
To the extent OSC asserts that the Navy promised to
seek to purchase through OSC all of its required products
(of the sort specified in the BPA), i.e., that the BPA was a
requirements contract, the BPA has no such terms. OSC
has shown no error in the Board’s determination that the
BPA was “not a requirements contract.” Final Decision, at
9 (explaining, among other things, that the BPA does not
contain the FAR provision needed for requirements con-
tract). To the extent OSC asserts that the BPA obligated
funds, the BPA makes clear that it was not obligating any
funds, as the Board determined. Id. at 5; see S. Appx. 76
(so stating and referring to FAR § 13.303, which includes
§ 13.303-3 (“[T]he Government is obligated only to the ex-
tent of authorized purchases actually made under the
BPA.”)).
More specifically, OSC can point to nothing in the BPA
(alone or as incorporated in product offers) that imposes an
obligation on the Navy to make payments for OSC’s labor
costs separately from whatever may be included in OSC’s
price for purchased products—not even an obligation to do
so if the amounts ordered or purchased by the Navy fall
Case: 24-1195 Document: 81 Page: 8 Filed: 01/07/2026

-- 8 of 9 --

OSC SOLUTIONS, INC. v. SECRETARY OF THE NAVY 9
below some threshold. There is simply no such language
in the BPA. And the absence of such language is compel-
lingly reinforced by the background to issuance of the BPA.
OSC’s proposal to the Navy in response to the solicitation
and its follow-up explanations before the proposal was ac-
cepted are express that the Navy was not to be obligated
under the BPA to make separate payments for services.
OSC argues that, “for the same reasons that written
orders are express contracts, they are also implied-in-fact
contracts” and that the “government has [ ] not . . . demon-
strated . . . [that] the orders are not contracts.” Appellant’s
Opening Br. at 14–15. That argument is right in suggest-
ing that, in this case, the fate of the implied-in-fact contract
claim is tied to that of the express-contract claim. OSC
bears the burden of demonstrating that an implied-in-fact
contract existed, and “the requirements for an implied-in-
fact contract are the same as for an express contract; only
the nature of the evidence differs.” Hanlin v. United
States, 316 F.3d 1325, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For the rea-
sons already set out in rejecting the express-contract claim,
including the clear evidence that OSC made a calculated
business decision about how to cover its labor costs (only
through product sales), the Board was correct in ruling that
there was no implied-in-fact contract whereby the Navy
promised the labor payments OSC seeks in this case. Final
Decision, at 11; see S. Appx. 76, 79.
III
We have considered OSC’s remaining arguments and
find them unpersuasive. We therefore affirm the decision
of the Board.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-1195 Document: 81 Page: 9 Filed: 01/07/2026

-- 9 of 9 --