DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release. 
 
 
 
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL 
  
 Appellant, Wild Hare Haulers (WHH), elected to proceed under the Board’s Small 
Claims (Expedited) procedures, Board Rule 12.2.  The Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 
§§ 7106(b)(4)-(5), as implemented by Board Rule 12.2, provides that 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.  We held a one-day hearing. 
 
  
Appeals of - )  
 )  
Wild Hare Haulers, LLC ) ASBCA Nos. 64442, 64443 
 )  
Under Contract No. W91249-25-D-A001 )  
   
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Aron C. Beezley, Esq. 
Jenna R. Mazzella, Esq. 
  Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP 
  Washington, DC 
 
Owen E. Salyers, Esq. 
  Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP 
  Charlotte, NC 
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Dana J. Chase, Esq. 
    Army Chief Trial Attorney 
 CPT Sara E. Bennett, JA 
MAJ Katharine M. Calderon, JA 
    Trial Attorneys 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release. 
 
2 
 
FINDINGS OF FACT 
 
On December 16, 2024, the government solicited proposals for the provision of 
60 months of laundry services and dry cleaning services at what is now Fort Gordon, 
Georgia.1  The solicitation included a Performance Work Statement (PWS) that explains 
that “[t]his contract is a Firm Fixed Price per piece/item with an Indefinite Delivery and 
Indefinite Qua[nt]ity (IDIQ).”2  On January 17, 2025,3 WHH proposed to perform 
(1) 60 months of laundry service for a “MAX AMOUNT” of $1,478,427.50, and 
(2) 60 months of dry cleaning for a “MAX AMOUNT” of $30,758.4  WHH included in 
its proposal what it calls a “pricing worksheet”; the worksheet provides dollar amounts 
for listed laundry and dry cleaning items.5  WHH  represented that it took “no exception 
to the requirements of the PWS.”6 
 
On February 24, Contracting Officer O’cie Hendricks approved a “Release of 
Award” to WHH.7  On February 26, the government sent to WHH an unsigned document 
proposing (1) 60 months of laundry service at a monthly price “Not to Exceed” 
$24,640.45833, for a total “Firm Price” of $1,478,427.50, and (2) 60 months of dry 
cleaning at a monthly price “Not to Exceed” $512.63333, for a total “Firm Price” of 
$30,758.00, with (3) a minimum of 10,000 “piece.”8  The February 26 document includes 
the PWS and WHH’s pricing worksheet.9  WHH signed that document and returned it to 
the government.10 
 
The government then sent WHH a document that Contracting Officer Hendricks 
signed on February 27, 2025; that document proposed (1) 59 months of laundry service at 
a monthly “Estimated” price of $25,058.10, for a total “Firm Price” of $1,478,427.90, 
and (2) 59 months of dry cleaning services at a monthly “Estimated” price of “$521.33, 
for a total “Firm Price” of $30,758.47, with (3) a minimum of $10,000.11  WHH did not 
sign that document.12 
 
1 R4, tab 47. 
2 R4, tab 3 at 2 (alteration added; “Quality” appears in original); app. br. at 3-4; gov’t br. 
at 6.   
3 All other dates also refer to 2025.   
4 App. br. at 4; R4, tab 70 at 9. 
5 App. br. at 4; R4, tab 4. 
6 App. br. at 4; R4, tab 71 at 1.  
7 App. br. at 5; app. supp. R4, tab 23. 
8 App. br. at 5-6; tr. 1/72-73; R4, tabs 1; 2 at 3; 127; ex. 1 (see app. br. at 6 & n.3). 
9 Ex.1 at 23, 47; R4, tabs 3-4; app. supp. R4, tabs 17, 28-29. 
10 App. br. at 6; R4, tab 1 at 1. 
11 R4, tabs 23-44; 129; app. br. at 7. 
12 R4, tab 23. 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release. 
 
3 
 
On March 14, Contracting Officer Hendricks issued a task order for 11 months of 
laundry and dry cleaning services, at a combined price of $27,439.74 per month 
($26,880.50 per month for laundry service and $559.24 per month for dry cleaning 
service); the task order provided funding for two months, and stated “Instructions: In 
accordance with Performance Work Statement (PWS).”13 
 
On April 1, WHH began performing laundry and dry cleaning services at 
Fort Gordon.14  Then ensued a disagreement between the parties regarding whether the 
contract provided for per-piece pricing (as the government contended), or per-month 
pricing (as WHH contended).15  On May 21, WHH (1) informed the government that 
“[s]ervices have ended”;16 (2) stopped providing services; and (3) turned in the keys to 
the government facility that it was using.17  On May 23, Contracting Officer Jackie 
Peacock emailed WHH that “[t]he government may consider a termination for 
convenience.”18  Then on July 23, Contracting Officer Peacock emailed WHH that “[t]he 
government intends to terminate for default.”19  On August 7, the government switched 
gears again: Contracting Officer Peacock and Contracting Officer Jason King separately 
informed WHH that the contract would be terminated for the convenience of the 
government.20  Ultimately, on December 18, Contracting Officer Peacock issued a 
modification terminating the contract for cause.21  
 
On September 7, 2025, WHH presented to Contracting Officer Peacock a claim 
for $54,879.48.
22  WHH appeals from the deemed denial of that claim, and from the 
government’s termination of the contract for cause. 
 
DECISION 
  
In ASBCA No. 64443, WHH requests $54,879.48, plus interest, for laundry and 
dry cleaning services provided at Fort Gordon in April and May, 2025.23  When WHH 
signed the February 26, 2025 document that the government sent to WHH after the 
contracting officer approved WHH for a contract award, the parties entered into that 
 
13 See R4, tab 45 at 1, 3, 5. 
14 App. br. at 10; gov’t br. at 2.  
15 See app. br. at 12; gov’t br. at 15 ¶ 37. 
16 R4, tab 222 at 1. 
17 Gov’t br. at 3; app. br. at 12; R4, tab 237. 
18 App. supp. R4, tab 58 at 1. 
19 R4, tab 166 at 6-7. 
20 Gov’t br. at 18-19; R4, tab 167 at 6-7; tr. 1/107-08. 
21 R4, tab 46 at 1. 
22 Notice of Appeal, attach. 1; R4, tab 167 at 1. 
23 App. br. at 32.   

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                                                           
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.          
This version has been approved for public release. 
 
4 
 
written contract, even though the contracting officer had not signed: formal execution of 
a contract document is not essential to the formation of a federal procurement contract.  
Data Gen. Corp., ASBCA No. 21865, 79-2 BCA ¶ 14,185 at 69,831.  Thus, WHH agreed 
to provide services for 60 months, and to be paid according to the pieces that it laundered 
or dry-cleaned, at dollar amounts calculated according to its pricing worksheet, not to 
exceed $26,640.45833 per month for laundry, and not to exceed $512.63333 per month 
for dry cleaning.  The government says that it owes WHH $3,767.71 pursuant to those 
per-piece rates,24 and WHH agrees that “should the Board find this was a per item/per 
piece contract, then [$3,767.71] would be the correct calculation plus any interest owed 
under the Contract Disputes Act.”25  ASBCA No. 64443 is sustained in the amount of 
$3,767.71. 
 
In ASBCA No. 64442, WHH challenges the government’s December 2025 
termination of the contract for cause, saying that the government had already, in August 
2025, terminated the contract for convenience by informing WHH that the contract would 
be terminated for convenience.26  By that logic, the government terminated the contract 
for default in July 2025, when the contracting officer notified WHH that “[t]he 
government intends to terminate for default.”27  And WHH did default, by walking off 
the job less than two months into a five-year contract.  WHH says that it did so because, 
in its opinion, the two months’ available contract funding was running out.28  That is no 
excuse:  WHH didn’t just suspend performance until the government provided more 
funding; it up and quit, for good, on May 21, 2025.  WHH did not rely to its detriment 
upon the government’s back-and-forth regarding whether the termination would be for 
convenience or default, even taking into account that WHH resubmitted invoices that it 
had already submitted prior to walking off the job.29  The termination for cause stands, 
see Aero Products Co., ASBCA No. 44030, 93-2 BCA ¶ 25,868 at 128,701, and ASBCA 
No. 64442 is denied.  
  
 
24 Gov’t pre-hrg. br. at 28. 
25 App. br. at 32 n.17 (bracketed material added); see gov’t pre-hrg. br. at 28. 
26 See app. br. at 35-36. 
27 R4, tab 166 at 6-7. 
28 See app. br. at 34. 
29 App. reply br. at 19. 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE               
The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.       
This version has been approved for public release. 
5 
CONCLUSION 
A
SBCA No. 64442 is denied.  ASBCA No. 64443 is sustained in the amount of 
$3,767.71, plus interest in accordance with 41 U.S.C. § 7109, from September 7, 2025, 
the date that the contracting officer received appellant’s claim, until the date of payment. 
D
ated:  June 23, 2026 
TIMOTHY P. MCILMAIL 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I c
ertify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 64442, 64443, Appeals of 
Wild Hare Haulers, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. 
D
ated:  June 24, 2026 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals