Langdon Engineering & Mgt.
Docket: ASBCA 61959
Decision date: 2021-03-02

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CLARKE 
ON THE NAVY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
 
 This appeal involves a contract with the Navy to refurbish eight bow thrusters.  
Langdon failed to deliver and the Navy terminated for cause.  Langdon appealed.  The 
Navy filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.  We have jurisdiction pursuant to the 
Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109.  Because we find a 
disputed material fact, we deny the Navy’s motion.  
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION
1 
 
 1.  On May 22, 2015, Langdon agreed to refurbish eight bow thrusters in exchange 
for $77,295.28 pursuant to Contract No. N00244-15-P-0294 (the Contract) (R4, tab 1 
at GOV0001). 
 
 2.  Section 2.0 of the Contract states:  
 
Background:  Due to the cumulative effects of 
saltwater/ultraviolet/sandblast exposure, the Bow Thruster 
Nozzles have reached/exceeded the intended service life.  
These Bow Thruster Nozzles require complete refurbishment 
to provide an addition 10-20yrs of service-life.  The Bow 
Thruster Nozzle (BTN) is made up of a painted fiberglass 
structure with mechanically fastened drive and attachment 
                                              
1 We rely on Navy facts that are not disputed by Langdon or disputed with only 
argument, not material facts.  
Appeal of - )  
 )  
Langdon Engineering & Mgt. ) ASBCA No. 61959 
 )  
Under Contract No. N00244-15-P-0294 )  
   
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Albert L. Swank, Jr. 
    Owner 
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq. 
    Navy Chief Trial Attorney 
 Russell A. Shultis, Esq. 
    Trial Attorney 

2 
components; the compositions of all parts are detailed in the 
reference drawings and technical manual listed in section 4.0. 
 
(R4, tab 1 at GOV0003) 
 
 3.  Section 3.0 of the Contract states: 
 
General Requirements: 
3.1 Each shipset of [Bow Thruster Nozzles] will be 
completely disassembled with all mechanically fastened 
components removed and glass bead blasted clean then 
visually inspected for damage. 
3.2 Any damaged components will be repaired or replaced.  
All fasteners (nuts, bolts, washers, screws, etc.) will be 
replaced with new. 
3.3 All existing paint on the fiberglass structure will be 
removed.  Any damaged, deteriorated or missing fiberglass 
will be repaired/renewed/installed ensuring all reference drwg 
dimensions are maintained. 
3.4 All new paint and marking will be applied after repairs 
are complete. 
 
(R4, tab 1 at GOV0003) 
 
 4.  Section 4.0 of the Contract states: 
 
Performance Requirements:  All repair material and physical, 
dimensional, and functional requirements are to be IAW the 
following reference drawings unless specifically addressed in 
section 6.0: 
4.1 Drawing. 5749810 Rev. R LCAC Mechanical Installation 
Bow Thruster 
4.2 Drawing. 5749544 Rev. V LCAC Bow Thruster 
4.3 Drawing. 5749793 Rev. N LCAC Bearing Bow Thruster 
4.4 Drawing. 7616123 Rev. B SLEP Mod Bow Thruster 
4.5 Drawing. 6800343 Rev. N LCAC Painting and Marking 
4.6 Drawing. 5749811 Rev. L LCAC Bracket Support Bow  
  

3 
Thruster Installation. 
4.7 Technical Manual S9568-AL-SLP-010 Rev. 02 Bow 
Thruster Assembly.  
 
(R4, tab 1 at GOV0004) 
 
 5.  Section 5.0 of the Contract states: 
 
Deliverables: Four shipsets (8 each) [Bow Thruster Nozzles] 
will be picked up from Assault Craft Unit Five, fully 
refurbished IAW sections 4.0 and 6.0 and returned to Assault 
Craft Unit Five. Period of performance will not exceed 180 
days from pickup.  No work will be done at Assault Craft 
Unit Five. 
 
(R4, tab 1 at GOV0004) 
 
 6.  Langdon was initially required to deliver by November 25, 2015 (R4, tab 1 
at GOV0005).  On September 7, 2016, the contracting officer revised delivery to 
October 3, 2016 (R4, tab 2 at GOV0023).  On August 10, 2017, the contracting officer 
unilaterally revised the delivery date again, this time directing Langdon to deliver 
refurbished bow thrusters on a staggered basis beginning October 20, 2017 and ending on 
March 15, 2018 (R4, tab 3 at GOV0027). 
 
 7.  On December 6, 2017, the contracting officer sent Langdon a show cause letter 
because Langdon had failed to deliver any of the refurbished bow thrusters.  The 
contracting officer also said he was considering whether to terminate the Contract.  He 
also directed Langdon to explain why it had failed to deliver any refurbished bow 
thrusters.  (R4, tab 5 at GOV0031-32) 
 
 8.  On September 27, 2018, the contracting officer issued a decision terminating 
the Contract for cause (R4, tab 9 at GOV0041-45).  The decision stated in part: 
 
The Government has the right to insist on strict and timely 
compliance with contract specifications.  To avoid a default 
termination for failure to comply with specifications, it is 
incumbent on the offeror to carefully review the contract’s 
specifications before submitting a proposal on the contract to 
determine if they can comply with the specifications fully and 
on time. 
Langdon Engineering has failed to refurbish any of the Bow 
Thrusters.  In this instance, per mod P00002, the delivery of 
the 8 units was tiered.  Based on Langdon Engineering’s 

4 
failure to deliver the first 2 bow thrusters by 26 October 2017, 
the Government can terminate an entire contract based on a 
single late installment. 
 
 . . . . 
 
Langdon Engineering independently opted to substitute the 
contracts’ performance standards with his own and endanger 
contract performance by not providing the bow thruster 
refurbishments by the requested tiered delivery schedule.  
Furthermore, excusable delay or excuse of performance for 
defective specifications is based on the implied warranty of 
Government furnished specifications.  Under this doctrine, 
the Government warrants that contractor compliance with 
Government furnished design specifications will result in 
acceptable contract performance.  Specifications are not 
required to be completely accurate.  All that is required is that 
they may be “reasonably accurate” or “adequate for the task.”  
Since the OEM built the original Bow Thrusters, the design 
drawings were OEM design drawings and were adequate 
design specifications to perform the taskings. 
 
(R4, tab 9 at GOV0042-43) 
 
DECISION 
 
Summary Judgment 
 
Summary judgment is properly granted only where there is no genuine issue of 
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  The moving party 
bears the burden of establishing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and all 
significant doubt over factual issues must be resolved in favor of the party opposing 
summary judgment.  Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387, 1390 
(Fed. Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).  In the course of the Board’s evaluation of a motion 
for summary judgment, our role is not “‘to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of 
the matter,’ but rather to ascertain whether material facts are disputed and whether there 
exists any genuine issue for trial.”  Holmes & Narver Constructors, Inc., ASBCA 
Nos. 52429, 52551, 02-1 BCA ¶ 31,849 at 157,393 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)).  A material fact is one which may make a difference in 
the outcome of the case. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249.  The opposing party must assert 
facts sufficient to show a dispute as to a material fact of an element of the argument for 
reformation or breach.  New Iraq Ahd Co., ASBCA No. 59304, 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,849 
at 175,291-92 (citing Mingus, 812 F.2d at 1390-91) (“To ward off summary judgment, 

5 
the non-moving party must do more than make mere allegations; it must assert facts 
sufficient to show a dispute of material fact.”); see Lee’s Ford Dock, Inc., ASBCA 
No. 59041, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,298 at 177,010. 
 
Contentions of the Parties 
 
 Langdon alleges that the bow thrusters provided by the Navy were not 
manufactured or refurbished in accordance with the original equipment manufacturers’ 
(OEM) drawings, “not supplying government furnished Bow Thrusters that were 
manufactured by the OEM and not compliant with the OEM specifications as 
manufactured” and, “the government supplied OEM manufactured Bow Thrusters not 
being in compliance with the OEM manufacturing specifications” (app. opp’n br. at 15, 
17).2  Langdon states, “Refurbishment of the fiberglass composite structure would have 
been possible if they had complied with the OEM specifications . . .” (app. opp’n br. 
at 17).  Finally, 
 
Langdon was not surprised by their [bow thrusters] visual 
condition but was by the following visual out of SOW scope: 
 
Damaged caused by the Navy in packing and crating and 
other actions. 
 
Missing mechanical attached components 
 
Extensive prior fiberglass repairs not identified and out of 
OEM and this contracts specifications.  
 
Out of Bow Thruster OEM design, drawings, documents and 
specifications (not visual).  
 
(App. opp’n br. at 20) 
 
 The Navy relies on the language of the contract and final decision to support its 
defense of the termination.  It recognizes that it has the burden of proof but contends that 
Langdon’s failure to deliver proves a prima facie case that the default was justified.  The 
Navy states:  
 
First, the Contract specifications came from the original 
manufacturer and were identified specifically in the Contract.  
R4 Tab 1, GOV0004; R4 Tab 9, GOV0042-43.  Although 
Langdon seems to believe that the standards expressed in 
                                              
2 Citations are to the November 10, 2020 version of Langdon’s brief.   

6 
those specifications are not sufficient, there is no indication 
that Langdon expressed any reservations about them before 
award. 
 
(Gov’t mot. at 7)  The Navy sums up, “[t]herefore, the Contract clearly stated that the 
bow thrusters were badly in need of repair.  Langdon should not have been surprised by 
their condition.”  (Gov’t mot. at 8) 
 
Langdon’s Irrelevant Arguments 
 
 We include this section in an attempt to get this case back on track which is in the 
interest of judicial economy.  Although we deny the Navy’s motion, we find that the 
majority of Langdon’s arguments are irrelevant.  Langdon contends that if it had 
performed as the Navy insisted it would have violated unnamed, “Naval Laws, Civil 
Laws, and Federal Laws covering the injury, death and life safety of both Naval, other 
military services, and civilians both directly and indirectly” and “Naval Laws and Federal 
Laws covering the intentional violation and covering of historical federal contractual 
violations, as well as federal monetary waste and fraud and the preservation of legal 
physical exhibits, the Bow Thrusters (government owned materials),” and “Alaska State 
Law violations if either Albert Langdon Swank and or LANGDON proceeded as 
requested by the contract officer” (app. opp’n br. at 3-4).  Langdon filed an “IG 
complaint” that was “elevated” within the Navy and the termination was not authorized 
by the “IG staff” (app. opp’n br. at 4-5).  Langdon asserts it must be allowed to conduct 
“discovery from the IG offices and multiple Naval commands be obtained by Langdon 
from the Naval Litigation Office” and:  
 
This discovery involving all investigations, Naval staff and 
parties involved and the decisions, actions, instructions and 
command actions directing parties that include the contract 
officers’ others and the subject Termination for Cause of this 
appeal, and only with such can all evidence and facts of this 
appeal be obtained and presented as it relates to contract law 
and this appeal. 
 
(App. opp’n br. at 5)  Langdon concludes:  
 
This Appeal Board (ASBCA) does have the jurisdiction to 
accomplish such by denial of the NAVY motion for summary 
judgement.  This then allowing LANGDON to proceed to the 
LANGDON requested hearing with the presenting of existing 
and additional discovery materials which in the end will both 
settle this appeal and require the NAVY to issue future 
contracts for Bow Thruster repair/refurbishment incorporating 

7 
engineered and manufacturable approved MODs to be 
incorporated and thus eliminating; Life Safety, waste, fraud 
and financial resources of the Navy for such mission critical 
Bow Thrusters.  I have stated and legally justified multiple 
doctrines,’ principals and facts to support such an action by 
the ASBCA. 
 
(App. opp’n br. at 5)  
 
 As evidenced by the above arguments, Langdon totally fails to understand what is 
and is not relevant to its appeal.  None of the vague arguments cited above are relevant or 
material to the termination.  However, since this is a Motion for Summary Judgment, at 
this point all Langdon must do is establish a single disputed material fact, which as we 
discuss below it has done.  Fortunately for Langdon, however, notwithstanding its many 
false starts, it has (barely) succeeded in raising one such material fact.   
 
OEM Drawings 
 
The Navy required that Langdon refurbish the Bow Thrusters in strict compliance 
with the drawings listed in the contract (SOF ¶ 4).  The Navy included the drawings in 
the R4 file:   
 
4.1 Drawing. 5749810 Rev. R LCAC Mechanical Installation 
Bow Thruster identified as “Textron Marine Systems” (supp. 
R4, tab 17). 
 
4.2 Drawing. 5749544 Rev. V LCAC Bow Thruster is 
identified as “Bell Aerospace Textron” (supp. R4, tab 18). 
 
4.3 Drawing. 5749793 Rev. N LCAC Bearing Bow Thruster 
“Textron Marine Systems” (supp. R4, tab 19). 
 
4.4 Drawing. 7616123 Rev. B SLEP Mod Bow Thruster 
“Textron Marine & Land Systems” (supp. R4, tab 20). 
 
4.5 Drawing. 6800343 Rev. N LCAC Painting and Marking 
“Textron Marine Systems” (supp. R4, tab 21). 
 
4.6 Drawing. 5749811 Rev. L LCAC Bracket Support Bow 
Thruster Installation. “Developed from Bell Aerospace 
Drawing” (supp. R4, tab 22). 
 

8 
 When we looked at these drawings they were all originated by Textron or Bell 
Aerospace which we find are the OEMs.  The contract required Langdon to refurbish the 
bow thrusters in strict accordance with these drawings.  (SOF ¶¶ 2-4)  The final decision 
included in part, “[s]ince the OEM built the original Bow Thrusters, the design drawings 
were OEM design drawings and were adequate design specifications to perform the 
taskings” (SOF ¶ 8). 
 
Disputed Material Facts 
 
The Navy perceives that Langdon’s argument challenges the OEM drawings as 
inaccurate (gov’t mot. at 7).  That is not the case.  Langdon expresses no problem with 
the OEM drawings, “[r]efurbishment of the fiberglass composite structure would have 
been possible if they [bow thrusters] had complied with the OEM specifications . . .” 
(app. opp’n br. at 17).  It alleges that the bow thrusters it received were not manufactured 
or previously refurbished in accordance with the OEM’s drawings (app. opp’n br. at 4).  
Therefore, Langdon could not refurbish in strict compliance with the OEM drawings 
listed in the contract as required.  (SOF ¶ 4)  Langdon could not have known this, if true, 
until after award when it received the eight Bow Thrusters.  Therefore the Navy’s 
argument that Langdon failed to complain about the OEM drawings before award is 
unpersuasive.  (Gov’t mot. at 7).   
 
Langdon’s Supplemental Rule 4  
 
Mr. Swank, Langdon’s owner, defending Langdon as a pro se, entered voluminous 
evidence
3 in the record but referred to little if any of it in its brief.  We exercised our 
prerogative to examine Langdon’s Rule 4 file to arrive at our decision.   
 
While Langdon alleged that the bow thrusters received were not in compliance 
with the OEM drawings, it failed to refer us to evidence in the record supporting this 
argument.  Mere allegations are generally not sufficient to create a disputed material fact.  
New Iraq Ahd Co., 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,849 at 175,291-92 (“To ward off summary judgment, 
the non-moving party must do more than make mere allegations; it must assert facts 
sufficient to show a dispute of material fact.”).  However, Langdon entered into the 
record its drawings and more importantly photographs of the bow thrusters.  Langdon 
included MOD #1 Drawings drafted by Langdon, the Navy original drawings, and Navy 
Rebuild/Refurbishment/Alternatives (RAA).  (App. supp. R4, tabs 1-3)  Langdon 
included 50 photographs of the bow thrusters showing what appears to be deteriorated 
fiberglass (1-28), progress on refurbishment (28-35)4, and more fiberglass (35-50) (app. 
supp. R4, tab 4 at AE003758-3807).  Without testimony explaining these drawings and 
                                              
3 Langdon entered 796 tabs into the record that it did not discuss and we did not review 
(app. supp. R4, tab 5). 
4 We were surprised by the apparent progress shown in the pictures.     

9 
photographs we can draw no conclusions about their meaning other than they seem to be 
relevant to Langdon’s allegations and provide the minimal support necessary to support 
the allegations in Langdon’s brief that there are “facts sufficient to show a dispute of 
material fact.”  It is close, but under the standards of summary judgment, Langdon 
receives the benefit of the doubt in this regard.  Although the Navy’s misperception of 
Langdon’s argument does not affect our determination of whether there are material facts 
in dispute, it does mean that Langdon’s argument is unrebutted.  Thus, we have a 
disputed material fact, which is whether or not the bow thrusters provided by the Navy 
differed materially from the OEM drawings and therefore could not be refurbished as 
required by the contract.  
 
CONCLUSION 
 
 Pursuant to the above, the Navy’s motion is denied.  
 
 Dated:  March 2, 2021
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CRAIG S. CLARKE 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
 
 
 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 I concur 
 
 
 
 J. REID PROUTY 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 
 
  


10 
 I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61959, Appeal of Langdon 
Engineering & Mgt., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. 
 
 Dated:  March 3, 2021 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals