ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of --
Lulus Ostrich Ranch 
Under Contract No. FA3016-12-P-0015 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 61225, 61226 
Mr. William R. Hayward 
Owner 
Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq. 
Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney 
Heather M. Mandelkehr, Esq. 
Capt Ryan P. Payne, USAF 
Trial Attorneys 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL 
ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 
The government (Air Force) moves to dismiss the appeals 
for lack of jurisdiction. 
Appellant (Lulus Ostrich Ranch) says the government violated procurement rules in its 
award of ice delivery contracts to other contractors (app. resp. at 1-2, 8).* The Board lacks 
jurisdiction to entertain those "bid protest-type" claims, which are dismissed. See 
Carolina Oil Distributing Co., ASBCA No. 48093, 95-2 BCA ii 27,797 at 138,615. 
However, appellant also claims that the awards breached its own ice delivery 
contract (F A3016-12-P-OO 15) with the government, saying that in "extending" 
appellant's contract (which sounds like the exercise of an option for further ice 
deliveries) and then canceling the extension and awarding the contracts to appellant's 
subcontractor, the government had "no intent of honoring [appellant's] Extended 
Contract" and, instead, merely used the contract extension as a means of gaining time 
to allow appellant's subcontractor to become eligible to perform the contracts in 
appellant's stead (see app. resp. at 1-2). The Board has jurisdiction to entertain that 
claim. See Teresa A. Mc Vicker, P.C., ASBCA Nos. 57487, 57653, 12-2 BCA 
ii 35, 127 at 172,463-64 (award of new contract to incumbent while trying to, and after 
award succeeding in, hiring incumbent's employees to perform contract work as 
* The case caption originally included Solicitation No. FA3016-17-U-0030 which 
resulted 
in Contract No. FA3016-17-P-0056, and Contract No. FA3016-16-F-0464, both of 
which were awarded to other than Lulus Ostrich Ranch. Since they were not 
awarded to appellant, they are removed from the caption, leaving only the contract 
appellant says was breached. 

government employees was a de facto partial contract termination akin to a "bait and 
switch" that breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing). Therefore, the motion is 
granted only in part. 
Dated: 7 September 2017 
I concur 
/\ ----·-\ __ __ 
\ 
-~ 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
TIMOTHYP. 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
J. f8ifD 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 Nos. 61225, 61226, Appeals of 
Lulus Ostrich Ranch, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
2 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals