Quality Trust, Inc.
Docket: ASBCA 62576
Decision date: 2022-10-11

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE STINSON  
ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 
 
 Pending before the Board is a motion for default judgment filed by Quality Trust, 
Inc. (QTI), on August 30, 2022, alleging that the government failed to comply with the 
requirements of our Order dated June 23, 2022, as well as a second, unspecified Order.  
Appellant requests that we enter a default judgment against the government for these 
alleged failures to comply (app. mot. at 1).  The government’s September 2, 2022, 
response states that QTI’s motion “is an unsupported complaint that the respondent . . . 
has not adhered to ASBCA Rule 8 discovery requirements and the orders of the Board 
regarding discovery,” and that to the extent “appellant is requesting sanctions under 
Rule 16, it has not identified any request to which the government did not reply” (gov’t 
resp. at 1). 
 
 On September 23, 2022, QTI filed its reply, entitled “MOTION FOR 
CONTEMPT OF COURT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR DIRECTED VERDICT,” in 
which appellant essentially restated arguments presented in its motion for default, and 
sought additional relief, including its request that the Board enter judgment as a matter of 
law pursuant to F
ED. R. CIV. P. 50.1  On September 27, 2022, the government filed a 
reply to appellant’s September 23, 2022, filing, stating that the government has complied 
with Board orders, appropriately responded to appellant’s discovery requests, and that 
appellant has presented no evidence the government acted in such a way as to warrant a 
 
1 In its September 23, 2022, filing, QTI alleges the government failed “to comply with 
(3) court orders within reasonable time” (app. reply at 2).  However, QTI’s 
September 23, 2022, filing does not specifically identify the third Order with 
which the government allegedly did not comply. 
Appeal of - )  
 )  
Quality Trust, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 62576 
 )  
Under Contract No. FA2517-19-P-A083 )  
   
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Lawrence M. Ruiz 
    President 
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq. 
   Deputy Chief Trial Attorney 
Lt Col Keric D. Clanahan, USAF 
    Trial Attorney 

2 
 
finding of contempt, or that appellant is entitled to entry of summary judgment, directed 
verdict, or judgment as a matter of law (gov’t reply at 1-3). 
 
BACKGROUND 
 
 QTI’s motion for default judgment alleges that  our June 23, 2022, Order, “directed 
the respondent to submit a status report every 30 days for the next three months, to see 
whether additional discovery is necessary,” and that “[i]f additional discovery was 
needed, the parties were to provide a general description of that discovery, and in the 
event more time is needed for the appellant, then a Supplemental Status Report can be 
sent in requesting more time” (app. mot. at 1).  QTI misstates both the content and 
requirements of our June 23, 2022 Order.  Indeed, in an earlier status report filed by QTI 
on July 21, 2022, appellant made a similar argument regarding our June 23, 2022 Order, 
misstating both the content and requirements of the that Order. 
 
 By Order dated July 25, 2022, we responded to QTI’s July 21, 2022 status report, 
stating that our June 23, 2022 Order, “dealt with possible settlement, and directed the 
government, on behalf of both parties, or the parties separately, to file reports every 
30 days setting forth the status of settlement negotiations.”  We noted that the 
June 23, 2022 Order, did not provide, as suggested by appellant, that “[i]f additional 
discovery was needed, the parties were to provide a general description of that discovery, 
and in the event more time is needed for the appellant, then a Supplemental Status Report 
can be sent in requesting more time.”  QTI’s motion for default makes no mention of this 
clarification set forth in our July 25, 2022 Order.  The government’s response to 
appellant’s motion for default judgment states that the government “has strictly adhered 
to the requirement [of the June 23, 2022 Order] that the government file a joint or 
unilateral status report every 30 days setting forth the details of any progress towards 
settlement,” with “[t]he last such report, filed unilaterally by the government on 
August 8, 2022” (gov’t resp. at 1).
2 
 
 QTI’s motion for default judgment also argues that the government failed to 
respond to certain discovery requests.  Specifically, appellant states: 
 
The appellant had sent in interrogatories for the respondent to 
simply put a yes or no answer, or an Admit or Deny similar to 
the Air Forces request that we honored in good faith.  By way 
of two Orders issued by the Honorable Judge 
David B. Stinson, with the last Order requesting the 
Respondent to answered [sic] back before the August 8th due 
 
2 On September 21, 2022, the government filed an additional report regarding the status 
of settlement negotiations, stating that “[t]he parties unfortunately remain at an 
impasse and the government does not foresee a negotiated solution.” 

3 
 
date to the board.  Accordingly the Air Force, in spite of the 
Appellants pleas and the Board, they finally answer back with 
a negative response in lieu of giving us a simple yes or no 
answer or a Deny or Admit.  The Appellant kindly answered 
the Respondents Interrogatories in this matter, why could they 
not simply answer back treating their neighbor as they treat 
themselves. 
 
(App. mot. at 1) 
 
 Presumably, appellant is referencing our July 25, 2022 Order, wherein we also 
discussed outstanding discovery issues.  In that Order, we noted that QTI previously had 
submitted a May 7, 2022, document entitled “Appellant’s Request for Admission 
Answers,” which appeared to be an updated version of an earlier request for admissions 
by appellant, that the government previously had answered.
3  In that document, appellant 
stated, “[w]ith the passing of time, and exchange of three trial attorneys and a second 
Judge assigned, the appellant kindly request: that you reiterate your position and assist by 
simply putting an ADMIT or DENY RESPONSE BY EACH UNDERLINED ADMIT 
OR DENY . . . .”  Our July 25, 2022 Order, instructed that “[t]o the extent the 
government has not responded to appellant’s request dated May 7, 2022, the government 
is ORDERED to submit a response no later than August 8, 2022.” 
 
 In its motion for default judgment, QTI admits that the government responded to 
appellant’s May 7, 2022, request, stating that “they finally answer back with a negative 
response in lieu of giving us a simple yes or no answer or a Deny or Admit” (app. mot. 
at 1).  The government responds likewise, stating that it “submitted its final discovery 
response to the appellant - a revised response to the appellant’s May 7, 2022 Request for 
Admissions - via email on August 8, 2022” (gov’t resp. at 2).  The government argues, 
however, that “appellant’s allegation that the government gave a ‘negative response in 
lieu of giving us a simple yes or no answer or a Deny or Admit’ does not identify what 
request was made or the ‘negative response’ from the government to which appellant is 
referring” (gov’t resp. at 1).
4  In its September 27, 2022 reply, the government explained 
 
3 QTI previously had filed a “Motion for Discovery,” dated April 20, 2022, and by Order 
dated April 25, 2022, appellant was ordered to provide additional information 
“[t]o assist the Board in understanding the specific information requested (and 
whether that information previously was requested by appellant).”  Appellant was 
given until May 9, 2022, to provide that additional information.  Other than submit 
its restated request for admissions, appellant’s May 7, 2022, submission did not 
respond directly to any of the requests for clarification set forth in our 
April 25, 2022 Order. 
4 The government also notes that, “[o]n July 20, 2022, the government provided the 
appellant via email eleven documents the government presumed the appellant 

4 
 
further that “the request for admission appellant submitted to the government is not 
prepared in a manner that lends itself to simple affirmative or negative answers,” that 
“most questions were very detailed and quite lengthy, generally requiring answers one 
would expect of traditional interrogatories,” and “[w]here the government could answer 
with a simple “yes or no answer, or an Admit or Deny,” it did so, but, where necessary, 
“provided additional narrative to carefully explain why it must deny a statement made by 
the appellant or clarify what exactly it was admitting” (gov’t reply at 2). 
 
DECISION 
 
 Board Rule 17, entitled “Dismissal or Default for Failure to Prosecute or Defend,” 
provides that “[w]henever the record discloses the failure of either party to file 
documents required by these Rules, respond to notices or correspondence from the Board, 
comply with orders of the Board, or otherwise indicates an intention not to continue the 
prosecution or defense of an appeal, the Board may . . . [i]n the case of a default by the 
Government . . . issue an order to show cause why the Board should not act thereon 
pursuant to Rule 16.  If good cause is not shown, the Board may take appropriate action.”  
Board Rule 16 provides “[i]f any party fails to obey an order issued by the Board, the 
Board may impose such sanctions as it considers necessary to the just and expeditious 
conduct of the appeal.” 
 
 This Board recognizes that “[t]he sanction of the entry of a default judgment in 
favor of appellant is the severest sanction the Board can issue against the government,” 
and that “[s]uch a sanction should be reserved for situations in which contumacious or 
contemptuous conduct is shown.”  Thorpe Seeop Corp., ASBCA No. 58961, 14-1 BCA 
¶ 35,541 at 174,167 (citations omitted).  QTI has failed to demonstrate in any way that 
the government failed to respond to Orders of this Board, let alone engaged in 
“contumacious or contemptuous conduct.”  Notwithstanding QTI’s assertion to the 
contrary, the government properly responded to our June 23, 2022 Order, submitting the 
requisite monthly reports discussing the status of settlement negotiations.  The 
government likewise properly responded to our July 25, 2022 Order, submitting a 
response to QTI’s May 7, 2022, restated request for admission answers.  Although QTI 
complains about the sufficiency of the government’s August 8, 2022, response to QTI’s 
restated request for admissions, appellant’s motion for default judgment provides no 
specifics regarding the alleged insufficiency of the government’s response.  Under these 
circumstances, entry of a default judgment against the government is in no way 
appropriate here. 
 
 
requested in its Motion for Discovery dated April 20, 2022, to which the appellant 
failed to provide clarification in accordance with the Board order dated 
April 25, 2022” (gov’t resp. at 2). 

5 
 
 Regarding appellant’s September 23, 2022, request for issuance of a directed 
verdict or judgment as a matter of law, we note that our rules do not address those 
motions.  Appellant cites FED. R. CIV. P. 50 as support for the issuance of judgment as a 
matter of law.  “Although we look to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for guidance, 
as an administrative tribunal, we are not bound by them.”  BAE Systems Land & 
Armaments L.P., ASBCA Nos. 62703, 62704, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,936 at 184,247 (citations 
omitted).  FED. R. CIV. P. 50 has no application to the circumstances of this appeal, as the 
rule expressly concerns requests for judgment as a matter of law in the context of a trial 
by jury.  F
ED. R. CIV. P. 50(A)(2).  As we explained previously in our April 26, 2022 
Order setting pre-hearing deadlines, “as an administrative tribunal, this Board does not 
utilize a jury to decide issues of fact.  Rather, the Board, as the finder of fact, decides 
both issues of fact and law.  CANVS Corp., ASBCA No. 57784, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37,156 
at 180,894 (‘[a]s the finder of fact, the Board is responsible for evaluating the credibility, 
persuasiveness, and weight accorded to conflicting evidence in the record’).” 
 
 Even assuming F
ED. R. CIV. P. 50 somehow has application to this appeal, the rule 
requires that the motion requesting relief “specify the judgment sought and the law and 
facts that entitle the movant to judgment.”  QTI’s filing does not meet these requirements, 
as it is aimed at alleged procedural failures of the government to comply with Orders of 
this Board, which is an argument we already have found lacks merit.  The same is true 
regarding QTI’s request for an order of contempt against the government or issuance of 
summary judgment in favor of appellant – QTI’s pleadings fail to establish in any way 
entitlement to either remedy. 
 
 We are mindful of “the long-held principle that pleadings drafted by pro se 
litigants are generally held to ‘less stringent standards’ than pleadings filed by trained 
attorneys.” Steffen v. United States, 995 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting 
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)); GLJ, Inc., ASBCA No. 62964, 22-1 
BCA ¶ 38,121 at 185,184.  Although the Board accords pro se litigants leeway 
administratively, we still must apply the same legal standards to all parties.  Atlantic 
Maint. Co., ASBCA No. 40454, 96-2 BCA ¶ 28,472 at 142,195.  QTI, as the moving 
party seeking issuance of a default judgment, has the burden of proof.  QTI’s motion for 
default judgment fails to establish any instance where the government did not respond to 
notices or correspondence from the Board or comply with our orders.  QTI’s motion 
likewise fails to establish that the government’s actions in this appeal trigger application 
of Board Rule 17 for issuance of “an order to show cause why the Board should not act 
thereon pursuant to Rule 16,” or that sanctions pursuant to Board Rule 16, would be 
appropriate here. 
  

6 
 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
 Appellant’s motion for default judgment is denied.  Also denied are appellant’s 
additional request for an order of contempt against the government, issuance of 
summary judgment in favor of appellant, and judgment as a matter of law pursuant to 
FED. R. CIV. P. 50. 
 
 Dated:  October 11, 2022  
 
 
 
DAVID B. STINSON 
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 
 
 
 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. 62576, Appeal of Quality 
Trust, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. 
 
 Dated:  October 12, 2022 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals