ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE TAYLOR 
 Lift Up Trucking, LLP (Lift Up Trucking) appeals a denial of its claim 
requesting (1) the Board direct the United States Army (Army or government) to 
professionally treat an alleged tick infestation on Fort Belvoir, Virginia or accept 
liability for further work performed under the current conditions, (2) payment for all 
work completed to date and (3) the Army’s acknowledgment that it will be responsible 
for any increased labor costs resulting from delays in treatment for the tick infestation.  
The Army contends the Board should dismiss appellant’s appeal because the Board 
lacks jurisdiction over the claims since appellant requests specific performance and/or 
the claims fail to state a sum certain.  Notwithstanding the jurisdictional issues, the 
Army further contends the Board should deny the claims since Lift Up Trucking failed 
to provide conforming services.    
 
 Lift Up Trucking elected to pursue this appeal pursuant to the Board’s Rule 12.2, 
Small Claims (Expedited) procedure.  Accordingly, this decision shall have no 
precedential value, and in the absence of fraud shall be final and conclusive and may 
not be appealed or set aside.  41 U.S.C. § 7106(b)(4)-(5).  The parties also agreed to 
proceed under Board Rule 11; that is, on the written record without an in-person 
hearing.  For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss two of the claims since we do not 
have jurisdiction to order specific performance and appellant failed to comply with the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sum certain claim requirement.  We further find 
appellant failed to prove its entitlement for the unpaid work since it submitted 
nonconforming services.  
Appeal of - )  
 )  
Lift Up Trucking, LLC ) ASBCA No. 64346 
 )  
Under Contract No. W912CH-25-P-L009 )  
   
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Ms. De’ Monica Gamble-Jackson 
    Chief Executive Officer 
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Dana J. Chase, Esq. 
    Army Chief Trial Attorney 
 MAJ Joseph A. Seaton, JA 
    Trial Attorney 
  
 

2 
 
FINDINGS OF FACT 
 On December 30, 2024, the Army awarded a contract to Lift Up Trucking for 
grounds maintenance and snow/ice removal for the Center of Army Analysis Building 
(Building 1839) on Fort Belvoir, Virginia (R4, tab 14).  Among other things, the 
contract required removal of weeds (id. at 9-10).  Ms. De’ Monica Gamble-Jackson, 
the Lift Up Trucking Chief Executive Officer, signed the contract (id. at 181).1  Under 
the contract, the government agreed to pay Lift Up Trucking $11,000 for the 
described services for the base period of performance (December 30, 2024, through 
December 29, 2025) (id. at 183).  The contract also contained a one-year option period 
(id.).  Finally, the contract incorporated by reference FAR 52.212-4(a), Contract Terms 
and Conditions – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (NOV 2023) (id. 
at 197).  
 
 Between January and April 2025, appellant submitted three invoices for work 
performed on the contract (R4, tabs 53-55).  The government paid all three invoices 
(R4, tabs 53-55).  On June 23, 2025, Lift Up Trucking submitted a fourth invoice in 
the amount of $2,316.67 for the summer grounds maintenance for Building 1839 (R4, 
tab 49 at 517).  In the transmittal email, Ms. Gamble-Jackson indicated the summer 
grounds maintenance for Building 1839 had been successfully completed (R4, tab 15 
at 212).  Ms. Gamble-Jackson attached photographs allegedly showing the completed 
work (R4, tabs 16-20).  Ms. Gamble-Jackson also indicated her team members 
observed “what appears to be a tick infestation in the grassy areas surrounding the 
building” and that one of the team members was bitten by a tick and had to seek 
medical attention (R4, tab 15 at 212).  Ms. Gamble-Jackson requested the government 
promptly address this concern (id.)    
 
 By email dated June 24, 2025, Mr. Ronald Mitchell, the Army’s contracting 
officer representative (COR), notified Ms. Gamble-Jackson that the grounds 
maintenance for Building 1839 was not complete since many weeds remained 
throughout the area (R4, tab 21 at 222).  The COR took pictures of the unfinished 
work (R4, tab 44 at 484-90).  Mr. Mitchell requested Lift Up Trucking return to finish 
the job (R4, tab 21 at 222).  Later that same day, Ms. Gamble-Jackson responded by 
email to Mr. Mitchell stating Lift Up Trucking was unable to send someone out to 
complete the remaining maintenance due to the “significant tick presence on site” (R4, 
tab 22 at 233).  On June 26, 2025, the installation pest management coordinator for 
Fort Belvoir and the COR inspected the grounds for ticks (R4, tab 25 at 272).  
They found no evidence of ticks “or anything resembling a tick” (id.).  By email dated 
June 26, 2025, the COR informed Lift Up Trucking that the work still needed to be 
 
1 The government numbered its pages in its Rule 4 submission with leading case 
identification information and zeros, which we omit here.   

3 
 
completed and recommended the use of repellants while working outside (R4, tab 32 
at 336).   
 
 On June 27, 2025, Ms. Gamble-Jackson responded to the COR’s email by 
submitting a formal claim under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) to the contract 
specialist on the contract for “unsafe worksite conditions encountered during 
performance” of the contract (R4, tab 33 at 353).  In the claim, Ms. Gamble-Jackson 
indicated Lift Up Trucking made the decision to pause further work until the 
government addressed the tick infestation (id.).  The claim specifically requested: 
 
1. Confirmation that the grounds have been professionally 
treated for ticks, or a written acknowledgment from the 
Government accepting liability should further work be 
performed under current conditions. 
 
2. Immediate payment for all work completed to date, 
including services rendered prior to identifying the health 
hazard. 
 
3. Acknowledgment that any delays in treatment will result in 
overgrowth, which may require additional labor and thus 
entitle us to a contract modification or equitable 
adjustment to cover expanded workload upon resumption. 
 
(Id. at 353-54) 
 
 On September 3, 2025, the contracting officer issued a contracting officer’s 
final decision denying the claim in full (R4, tab 41).
2  The contracting officer 
determined (1) there was no evidence of a tick infestation and the government 
assumed no liability for the presence of ticks; (2) Lift Up Trucking failed to provide 
services meeting the contract requirements; and (3) the government is not responsible 
for any contractor delays due to Lift Up Trucking’s decision to suspend performance 
(id. at 440-45).  On September 8, 2025, appellant appealed the final decision to the 
Board. 
 
2 We note the contracting officer’s final decision was dated August 19, 2025, but 
appears to have been signed and sent to appellant on September 3, 2025 (R4, 
tab 51 at 522-23). 

4 
 
DECISION 
1. Specific Performance 
 The government first contends the Board does not have jurisdiction to direct the 
Army to treat the grounds for the alleged tick infestation (gov’t br. at 8).  The 
government is correct.  It is well established that the Board does not possess 
jurisdiction to entertain a request for specific performance.  See Samho Enterprise, 
ASBCA No. 63587, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,891 at 189,303; SBA Contracting, LLC, ASBCA 
No. 63320, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,443 at 186,849.  We cannot order the Army to take specific 
actions.  Appellant’s claim requesting the Board to direct the Army to treat the alleged 
tick infestation or accept liability for further work performed under the current 
conditions is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
3 
 
2. Sum Certain 
 The government next moves to dismiss appellant’s remaining two claims for 
failing to state claims entitling appellant to a legal remedy since they failed to meet the 
FAR requirement to state a claim in a sum certain amount (gov’t br. at 8-14).  The 
FAR defines a “claim” as “a written demand . . . seeking, as a matter of right, the 
payment of money in a sum certain, the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, 
or other relief arising under or relating to the contract.”  FAR 2.101.  In ECC Int’l 
Constructors, LLC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that 
“there is no dispute that the need to state a sum certain in submitting a claim under the 
CDA is a mandatory rule provided for in the FAR.”  ECC Int’l Constructors, LLC v. 
Sec’y of the Army, 79 F.4th 1364, 1370 (2023).  Furthermore, the court stated, “[a] 
claim that does not state a sum certain has not sufficiently pleaded the elements of a 
claim under the CDA and may be denied by the contracting officer and dismissed on 
appeal to [the Board] for failure to state a claim” (id. at 1380).   
 
 While the sum certain monetary claim requirement is no longer jurisdictional, 
the Federal Circuit has clearly indicated it is mandatory for a valid claim under the 
FAR.  A sum certain is necessary to give a contracting officer adequate notice of the 
basis and amount of a claim.  Contract Cleaning Maintenance, Inc. v. United States, 
811 F.2d 586, 592 (Fed. Cir. 1987).  Here, appellant’s two remaining claims seek 
payment for all work completed to date, and the government’s acknowledgement that 
it will be responsible for any delays or additional costs that may result from delays in 
treating for the tick infestation (R4, tab 33 at 354).   
 
3 Moreover, appellant failed to address this specific performance claim in its Rule 11 
brief.  Accordingly, we find appellant waived or abandoned this contention.  
See JE Dunn Construction Co., ASBCA No. 63183, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,879 
at 189,253 n.1 (and cases cited therein). 

5 
 
 
 Appellant’s claim for the government to acknowledge responsibility for any 
potential future delays or costs clearly does not state a sum certain amount.  Appellant 
has yet to incur any delays or increased costs resulting from the potential overgrowth 
resulting from the alleged tick infestation.  Appellant also did not include an estimated 
dollar amount in its claim.  See J.P. Donovan Construction, Inc., ASBCA No. 55335, 
10-2 BCA ¶ 34,509 at 170,171 (a claim can include estimated costs so long as the 
demanded amount is expressly stated in a sum certain).  Appellant’s claim for delays 
or increased costs resulting from potential overgrowth is dismissed for failure to state a 
claim.   
 
 The Board, however, has jurisdiction to entertain appellant’s claim for the 
unpaid work completed to date.  Four days before submitting its claim, Lift Up 
Trucking submitted Invoice #00F4 in the amount of $2,316.67 for the summer grounds 
maintenance for Building 1839 (R4, tab 49 at 517).  That invoice was the only 
remaining unpaid invoice on the contract.  While it is true Lift Up Trucking’s claim 
itself did not contain a specific sum certain amount for the unpaid completed work, the 
previously submitted invoice clearly put the government on notice of the amount Lift 
Up Trucking sought for that work.  See PHI Applied Physical Sciences, Inc., ASBCA 
Nos. 56581, 58038, 13-1 BCA ¶ 35,308 at 173,336-37 (Board rejected government’s 
motion to dismiss for failing to state a sum certain since the Board could readily 
determine the amount sought from the attached DD 250s even though the claim letter 
itself did not state the claim amount).  
 
 We dismiss an appeal for failure to state a claim if the complaint does not allege 
facts plausibly suggesting entitlement to relief.  Cary v. United States, 552 F.3d 1373, 
1376 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Fluor Intercontinental, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 62550, 62672, 22-1 
BCA ¶ 38,105 at 185,095.  “Our review encompasses the complaint, matters integral 
to the complaint, the case record, and the contractor’s claim submitted to the 
contracting officer.”  Samho Enterprise, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,891 at 189,304.  In this case, 
appellant’s complaint clearly identified it was seeking payment for Invoice #00F4.
4  
Appellant labels its second claim in its complaint as, “Allegation Two: Payment for 
Invoice #00F4 and incomplete work” (compl. ¶ 2).  We find appellant has sufficiently 
met the sum certain requirement for its unpaid invoice claim. 
 
3. Appellant Failed to Prove Entitlement  
 Appellant, however, has failed to establish it is entitled to payment for its 
unpaid invoice claim.  The contract incorporated by reference FAR 52.212-4(a) 
(NOV 2023) (R4, tab 14 at 197).  Under that clause, the government had the right to 
inspect and reject nonconforming services.  The government is generally entitled to 
 
4 We note appellant adopted its “Notice of Appeal” as its complaint. 

6 
 
enforce strict compliance with the contract requirements and require correction of 
nonconforming work.  See A.D. Roe Company, Inc., ASBCA No. 48782, 99-2 BCA 
¶ 30,398 at 150,287.  Here, the government requested Lift Up Trucking correct the 
nonconforming services by finishing the uncompleted lawn maintenance (R4, tab 21 
at 222).  Lift Up Trucking refused to complete the job (R4, tab 22 at 233).  The 
contracting officer subsequently properly denied payment to appellant on 
Invoice #00F4 since the services Lift Up Trucking provided were nonconforming and 
it refused to correct them. 
 
 The government bears the burden of proving that the work it rejected and 
required the contractor to correct did not conform to the contract requirements.  See 
Fraton, Inc., ASBCA No. 32935, 87-1 BCA ¶ 19,613 at 99,221.  The photographic 
evidence submitted in the record clearly shows the work was defective.  The day after 
appellant allegedly performed the summer grounds maintenance services, the 
government COR took multiple pictures of the building grounds (R4, tab 44 at 484-90).  
These pictures show appellant failed to remove weeds in multiple areas of the mulch 
beds (R4, tab 44 at 484-90), left behind debris or trimmings (id. at 484-86) and failed to 
trim the shrubs, hedges and other plants (id. at 484-85).  Moreover, appellant’s own 
pictures submitted in support of the invoiced work appear to show weeds in the mulch 
and untrimmed bushes and trees (although it is difficult to determine the condition of 
the grounds from these pictures since they were taken from a distance) (R4, tab 44 
at 479-83).  Finally, Lift Up Trucking appears to acknowledge that it did not complete 
the work when it informed the COR in its June 24, 2025, email that it would not resume 
the work until the tick infestation had been addressed (R4, tab 22 at 233).  The 
government has established Lift Up Trucking did not provide conforming contract 
services and is therefore not entitled to the payment for any services billed under 
Invoice #00F4.   
 
CONCLUSION 
 Appellant’s first and third appeal claims are dismissed.  Appellant’s claim for 
the unpaid invoice is denied. 
 
 Dated:  January 27, 2026 
 
 
  _____________________________ 
  ARTHUR M. TAYLOR 
  Administrative Judge 
  Armed Services Board  
  of Contract Appeals 
 
 
 
 

7 
 
 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. 64346, Appeal of Lift Up 
Trucking, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. 
 
 Dated:  January 27, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals