A contractor abandoned a five-year laundry services contract after just two months, claiming confusion over contract pricing and funding. The ASBCA upheld the government's termination for cause, finding no excuse for the contractor's decision to walk off the job completely rather than suspend performance. The Board ruled that even though the contracting officer sent mixed signals about whether termination would be for convenience or default, the contractor suffered no detrimental reliance and had materially breached by abandoning its obligations.
Appeal of Wild Hare Haulers, LLC, ASBCA Nos. 64442, 64443
- Background - The Army awarded Wild Hare Haulers (WHH) a five-year contract for laundry and dry cleaning services at Fort Gordon, Georgia. A dispute arose immediately over whether the contract called for per-piece or per-month pricing. On May 21, 2025—less than two months into performance—WHH informed the government that "services have ended," stopped work, and turned in facility keys. The contractor submitted a claim for $54,879.48 for services rendered in April and May. After the contracting officer vacillated between termination for convenience and termination for default, the government ultimately terminated the contract for cause in December 2025. WHH appealed both the payment dispute and the termination decision.
- Contract Formation and Pricing Terms - WHH argued the contract provided for monthly pricing totaling approximately $25,000 per month, while the government contended pricing was per-piece with monthly maximums. The Board found that when WHH signed the February 26, 2025 document—even though the contracting officer had not yet signed—a binding contract was formed. Formal execution is not essential to the formation of federal procurement contracts. The contract terms clearly required payment based on the number of pieces laundered or dry-cleaned, according to WHH's pricing worksheet, not to exceed approximately $26,640 monthly for laundry and $513 monthly for dry cleaning. The Board calculated WHH was entitled to only $3,767.71 based on per-piece rates, not the $54,879.48 monthly rate it claimed.
- Material Breach and Abandonment - WHH defended its walkout by claiming the two months of available funding were running out, but the Board rejected this excuse entirely. The contractor didn't merely suspend performance pending additional funding—it quit permanently. Walking off a five-year contract after less than two months constituted clear default. The Board emphasized that uncertainty about future funding provides no justification for completely abandoning contractual obligations.
- Termination Authority Despite Mixed Signals - WHH challenged the December 2025 termination for cause, arguing the government had already terminated for convenience in August 2025 when contracting officers indicated that termination type. The Board dismissed this argument, noting that by the same logic, the earlier July 2025 notice of intent to terminate for default would have been effective. More importantly, WHH demonstrated no detrimental reliance on the government's inconsistent statements about termination type. The contracting officer's indecision about termination grounds did not prejudice WHH or invalidate the ultimate termination decision, which was legally and factually justified by WHH's default.
The contractor is represented by Aron C. Beezley, Jenna R. Mazzella, and Owen E. Salyers of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. The government is represented by CPT Sara E. Bennett and MAJ Katharine M. Calderon, Trial Attorneys, U.S. Army Legal Services Agency.