Share:
The appellant sought compensation for four issues regarding its pruning contract with the government. ASBCA considered the affidavits and deposition transcripts and sustained 3 of the 4 claims.
Appeal of MSI II LLC, Joint Venture, ASBCA No. 63807-ADR
- Appeal – The parties elected to have the matter decided through a summary proceeding with binding decision according to the Board’s ADR procedures. The appellant sought compensation for four issues.
- Decision – The Board considered the affidavits and deposition transcripts and sustained 3 of 4 issues.
- Clearing Fence: ASBCA found the contract failed to define “perimeter fence” or estimate the quantity of all fence to be cleared. Thus, the appellant was entitled to recover for clearing of additional fence in excess of the quantity set forth in Appendix A.
- Clearing Overgrowth: The Board decided the site visit and Q&A provided the appellant notice that the fence lines were overgrown and would not be in compliance before the new contract started. Thus, this issue was declined.
- Routine Pruning: The Board found that the government required the appellant to perform routine pruning that the appellant was not priced. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to compensation to the extent it could show the payment it received for emergency tree trimming was inadequate.
- Release of Contract Funds: Finally, the Board concluded that the government did not satisfy its burden to justify its withholding of contract funds for deficient work. Therefore, the issue was sustained.
Christopher Solop and Lynn Patton Thompson of Biggs of Ingram & Solop, PLLC appeared for the appellant. Caryl A Potter III, Lawrence M. Anderson, and Candice D. Schubbe of the Air Force appeared for the government.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor
Share:
