______________________________________ DENIED: June 24, 1997 ______________________________________ GSBCA 14048-TD ROLLER & ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Respondent. Glen R. Anstine, Denver, CO, counsel for Appellant. Pamela Langston-Cox, Office of Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Regional Counsel, Department of the Treasury, San Francisco, CA, counsel for Respondent. NEILL, Board Judge. In this case, Roller & Associates, Inc. (Roller) seeks to recover from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) $8114.87. This amount represents a portion of the cost of security services provided by Roller for property seized by the IRS for nonpayment of taxes. Both parties have agreed to have the case decided on the record without benefit of a hearing. In accordance with the request of appellant, we are deciding this case pursuant to the Board's small claims procedure. This decision, therefore, is final and conclusive and shall have no value as precedent. Findings of Fact Roller currently has a contract with the IRS to provide auction sales services relative to the sale of seized and acquired property for which the agency is responsible. Appeal File, Exhibit 1. In early December 1995, the contracting officer's technical representative (COTR) for Roller s contract with IRS was contacted by an IRS revenue officer. At the time, the revenue officer was in the process of effecting a seizure of a taxpayer's assets. He explained that his office would need the services of an auctioneer. The COTR thereupon contacted representatives of Roller and gave them permission to contact the revenue officer. Appeal File, Exhibit 12. A Roller representative subsequently traveled from the company's office in Denver, Colorado to Pueblo, Colorado, where the seized items were located. There he met with the same revenue officer and examined the equipment in question. Appeal File, Exhibit 4 at 2. The equipment at that time was on the taxpayer's property and could not be secured on site. The Roller representative and the revenue officer proceeded to discuss the problem and possible solutions. An unsigned and unsworn document provided by counsel for appellant, and entitled: "Chain of Events," states that the revenue officer suggested to the Roller representative that a security guard be hired and that he started looking in the yellow pages for a security guard service. At this point the Roller representative is purported to have assured the revenue officer that Roller could locate personnel who would charge less than a security firm. Appeal File, Exhibit 4 at 2. Appellant's version of the facts makes no reference to the involvement of the revenue officer's supervisor in the discussion concerning security for the seized equipment. In a statement given under penalty of perjury and contained in the record, however, the supervisor of the revenue officer states that the revenue officer and Roller's representative conferred with her by telephone concerning security arrangements for the seized items. She states that she was critical of the proposal to use a twenty-four hour guard because it would be "awfully expensive." Instead, she suggested that the equipment be transferred to a neighboring junkyard which had a fenced enclosure. She further states that, while discussing security arrangements with the Roller representative, she consulted the contract and concluded that security arrangements were a responsibility of the contractor and, consequently, that the ultimate decision rested with the contractor. She contends that she advised the Roller representative of this fact. She denies that there was any discussion of IRS hiring a security guard. Appeal File, Exhibit 10 at 1. A declaration under penalty of perjury provided by the revenue officer and also contained in the record generally corroborates the supervisor's account. Notwithstanding the suggestion of the revenue officer's supervisor, Roller opted for twenty-four hour custodial services. Appeal File, Exhibits 7 at 1, 11 at 1. The individual selected was not an employee of Roller but had, on occasion, provided similar services locally for the company. He is retired and is not in the regular business of providing security services. Nevertheless, he agreed to move a motor home onto the premises and provide around- the-clock security for $250 a day. Affidavit of Willis Green (Apr. 18, 1997). These security arrangements went into effect on the evening of January 19, 1996. Appeal File, Exhibit 4 at 1. The COTR states that he was not contacted by Roller regarding these security arrangements and that he never approved any expense for the security services. Appeal File, Exhibit 12. Roller proceeded with plans for an auction of the seized equipment. An inventory and auction proposal was provided to the revenue officer based on the assumption that all equipment would be sold at auction. The advertising figure for the auction was submitted for approval but not approved until lowered to approximately $2500. In late January, Roller was advised by the revenue officer that numerous pieces of the equipment earmarked for sale were, in fact, subject to liens. Appeal File, Exhibit 4 at 2. The revenue officer states that this fact was discovered only after the owner had declared the property free from encumbrance. An auction was eventually scheduled for Monday, February 26, 1996. Id., Exhibit 11 at 2. During the week prior to the scheduled date for the auction, the IRS learned that the owner of the seized items had filed for bankruptcy. The revenue officer advised the COTR of this fact, and the COTR promptly advised Roller that the auction would have to be postponed. Appeal File, Exhibits 4 at 3, 11 at 2, 12 at 1. The COTR states that it was at this time that Roller informed him for the first time that guard services were being provided for the seized items at a cost of $250 per day. Id., Exhibit 12 at 1. On the date originally set for the auction, the COTR instructed a representative of Roller that the guard services on site were to be discontinued. The COTR states that the Roller representative advised him at that time that the services had been discontinued as of that date. Appeal File, Exhibit 12 at 1. In the revenue officer's declaration, we are told that it is not unusual for proposed sales of seized assets not to occur. He explains that cancellation can result for a number of reasons such as redemption, substitution or, as occurred in this case, bankruptcy. Appeal File, Exhibit 11 at 2. Roller's contract with the IRS has a provision which applies to the circumstances in this case. Clause C.2.4.1.2 reads: Should Federal, State, or local laws prevent the sale from occurring, such as bankruptcy proceedings, IRS will reimburse the contractor's actual expenses approved by the IRS COTR, and Contracting Officer. Id., Exhibit 1 at 11. The contract, however, also contains a provision concerning nonpayment for unauthorized work. Clause H.2 provides that no payment shall be made for unauthorized supplies or services. The clause then goes on to state: This includes any service performed by the Contractor of his own volition or at the request of an individual other than a duly appointed Contracting Officer. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 27. By letter dated February 26, 1996, Roller submitted an invoice for actual expenses. Among the expenses listed was a request for thirty-nine days of security services at $250 a day, which came to a total of $9750. Appeal File, Exhibit 3 at 2. The contracting officer rejected Roller's claim for security services on the ground that the services were provided without the approval of either the COTR or the contracting officer. However, in rejecting the claim, the contracting officer did recognize that the contractor was entitled to some compensation for the services rendered. She, therefore, asked Roller to submit documentation in support of its invoice. Id., Exhibit 5 at 3. In response, the contractor provided an invoice from the security guard. The invoice bears the same date as the cover letter providing it to the contracting officer. Id., Exhibit 6. By letter dated September 27, 1996, the contracting officer issued her decision on Roller's claim. She advised Roller that she would pay $1635.13 for the security services provided on site for the seized items. She explained that this figure was based on what it would have cost to transfer the equipment from the owner's site to the neighboring enclosure -- as originally suggested by the revenue officer's supervisor. On inquiry the contracting officer had determined that storage of the equipment in that enclosure would have cost $1235.13 for 39 days. To this figure she added $400 for moving the equipment to the new site. Appeal File, Exhibits 7 at 3, 8 at 1. Roller accepted the payment of $1235.13 authorized by the contracting officer but appealed her decision limiting reimbursement to this amount. Discussion Key to this case is the contract provision, clause C.2.4.1.2, which guarantees the contractor reimbursement of authorized actual expenses in the event of the cancellation of an auction or sale. Indeed, appellant's claim is premised on this provision. Complaint  15. The provision expressly states, however, that the actual expenses are those "approved by the IRS COTR, and Contracting Officer." Appellant has produced nothing for the record which would indicate that the daily rate of $250 for custodial services was ever approved by the COTR or the contracting officer. On the contrary, the unrebutted evidence in the record is that no approval was ever sought or given. We recognize that the COTR did authorize Roller to contact the revenue officer for purposes of planning an auction of the seized equipment. This, however, was hardly a carte blanche for the contractor with regard to all actual expenses associated with the ultimate disposal of these items. If this had been the case, there would have been no need to submit the estimated advertising cost for approval. Neither do we interpret the conduct of the revenue officer as constituting any direct or indirect approval of Roller s decision to post a twenty-four hour guard at the site. He may, as a matter of fact, have personally favored and even encouraged Roller to take this approach. Nevertheless, any representations on his part were effectively countered by his supervisor who clearly did not favor the proposal and informed the Roller representative of this fact. Given her statements, any contention by Roller at this point in time that it retained a twenty-four hour guard at the insistence of the revenue officer simply lacks credibility. Even if we were to give appellant the benefit of the doubt in this regard, the agency s refusal to pay the entire cost for the twenty-four-hour security service is totally justified under the contract. Clause H-2 of the contract makes it clear that services provided at the request of an individual other than a duly appointed contracting officer are not reimbursable. Neither the revenue officer nor his supervisor are contracting officers. Roller s representative should certainly have been aware of this fact. In any event, this being a Government contract, any misapprehension on his part as to their apparent authority would be insufficient to bind the Government. Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947). Finally, appellant has not demonstrated that it is entitled to relief based on the fact that the services provided in this case were not typical of those called for in the contract itself. First, as already noted, we are not convinced that such services, even if not contemplated in the contract, were ever actually called for by IRS. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, this argument likewise fails for want of authority. Neither the revenue officer nor his supervisor have the authority to modify Roller s contract with the IRS. The same aforesaid clause H-2 expressly provides: Only a duly appointed Contracting Officer is athorized to change the specifications, terms, and conditions in this contract. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 27. To the Government s credit, it has authorized payment of security expenses up to a limit of $1635.13 even though no prior approval was given by the COTR or contracting officer for that amount. The contracting officer s rationale in support of this payment is that it is a bona fide estimate of what it would have cost Roller to secure the equipment on the nearby enclosed lot. Presumably, had this course of action, which was suggested by the revenue officer s supervisor, been proposed by Roller, it would have been approved. The contracting officer has, therefore, given an after-the-fact approval to this hypothetical construct. Her solution strikes us as creative, fair, and reasonable under the circumstances. Appellant has not provided us with any convincing argument which would justify payment of a higher amount. Decision Roller s appeal of the contracting officer s decision to award no more than $1635.13 of a total claim of $9750 for security services is, therefore, DENIED. _____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge