**A termination for default is the most severe contractual remedy the government has — and in *Adapt Consulting, LLC v. General Services Administration*, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) reminded everyone that the government has to actually prove its case.** GSA terminated a contractor for default over a security system it said was installed incorrectly. The board overturned the termination, found the problems traced to user error and environmental conditions, and awarded the contractor part of its costs. For contractors, it is a clean lesson in burden of proof and the value of contemporaneous documentation.
What Happened
GSA awarded Adapt Consulting a contract to modernize a security system. The contractor completed the work and demobilized. Soon after, GSA noticed problems with the system. The contractor investigated and concluded the issues stemmed from user error, not its installation. GSA disagreed and terminated the contract for default, asserting the system had not been installed correctly. Adapt appealed to the CBCA and added claims for differing site conditions and for the cost of investigating the problems.
What the Board Decided
The board sided with the contractor on the central issue:
- The termination was unreasonable. GSA failed to establish that the system's problems resulted from a defective installation. Because a default termination is the government's to justify, that failure was decisive. The contractor, by contrast, offered credible witness testimony showing the problems were caused by user error and environmental factors — including power outages and flooding.
- Some costs were recoverable. The board found Adapt entitled to reimbursement for costs tied to the power outages, flooding, and differing site conditions.
- But not all of them. The contractor's claim for the cost of *investigating* the alleged defects failed — not on principle, but because Adapt did not adequately prove the quantum (the dollar amount) of those costs.
Why It Matters to Contractors
This is a contract-disputes case, not a cybersecurity-compliance case — but it sits squarely in the security-system world many government contractors operate in, and its lessons are universal across federal work.
The default termination is the government's burden. A termination for default must be supported by evidence that the contractor failed to perform. When the agency can't connect the alleged failure to the contractor's work, the termination doesn't hold — and may be converted to a termination for convenience, a far better outcome for the contractor's record and recovery.
Documentation and testimony decide close cases. Adapt won the central issue because it could credibly show *why* the system misbehaved. Contemporaneous records, environmental data, and prepared witnesses are what turn "we think it was user error" into a finding.
Proving entitlement is not the same as proving quantum. Adapt was *entitled* to investigation costs in principle but recovered nothing for them because it didn't substantiate the amount. Track and document costs in real time, tied to the specific claim, or you forfeit money you are otherwise owed.
Key Takeaways
- In *Adapt Consulting v. GSA* (CBCA 7213, 7393), the board overturned a default termination because GSA could not prove the security-system problems came from a faulty installation; the contractor showed they came from user error and environmental conditions.
- A termination for default is the government's burden to justify — make the agency meet it, and preserve the evidence that shifts the story.
- Entitlement ≠ quantum: the contractor lost its investigation-cost recovery purely for failing to document the amount. Track claim costs contemporaneously.
For related contract-law lessons in cyber and recordkeeping discipline, see our pieces on the Value Recovery Holding and Boersma Travel appeals, and the Enforcement & Penalties overview.