ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ARNETT 
 
 By agreement dated November 4, 2024, the parties elected to have this matter 
considered and decided through a summary proceeding with binding decision pursuant 
to the Board’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures.  The parties have 
agreed that the Board’s decision on entitlement
∗ will be final, conclusive, not 
appealable, and may not be set aside, except for fraud.  This decision will have no 
precedential value. 
 
 Appellant MSI II LLC, Joint Venture (MSI) seeks compensation for four issues:  
 
1.  Clearing and trimming of a quantity of perimeter fence 
which greatly exceeded the amount indicated in the 
contract;  
 
 
∗  While the parties’ Agreement to Utilize Summary Proceeding with Binding Decision 
Procedure included consideration of any Equal Access to Justice Act application, the 
Board declines to address such application, at this time, because neither party 
addressed it in their briefs and there are gaps in the current record.  Appellant may file 
an application within 30 days of the issuance of this decision, consistent with 
Addendum I of the Board’s Rules, or the parties may address this issue through a 
prompt negotiation of quantum.
 
Appeal of - )  
 )  
MSI II LLC, Joint Venture ) ASBCA No. 63807-ADR 
 )  
Under Contract No. FA4608-20-D-0001 )  
   
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Christopher Solop, Esq. 
Lynn Patton Thompson, Esq. 
    Biggs, Ingram & Solop, PLLC 
    Jackson, MS 
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Caryl A. Potter III, Esq. 
    Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney 
 Lawrence M. Anderson, Esq. 
Maj Candice D. Schubbe, USAF 
    Trial Attorneys 
  
 

2 
 
2.  Clearing of additional vegetation overgrowth along the 
fences which occurred during the one year that elapsed 
between the site visit and award;  
 
3.  Routine tree pruning/trimming not specified in the 
contract; and  
 
4.  Payment of contract funds deducted for deficient work. 
 
 The Board carefully considered the affidavits and deposition transcripts 
submitted by the parties, the documents in the Rule 4 file, and the contentions of the 
parties in their briefs.   
 
 Issue 1:  Clearing and trimming of “Perimeter Fence” in excess of 42,235 LF 
 I t is the decision of the Board that the contract failed to define “perimeter 
fence” or provide a map or estimated quantity of all fence to be cleared and 
maintained, causing confusion throughout contract performance (gov’t br. at 5, 8, 11).  
Both the PWS and responses to pre-bid questions referred offerors to Appendix A 
which only stated a quantity for “perimeter fence” (R4, tabs 2 at 9, 22-23; 66 at 3).  It 
is unclear how offerors were to extrapolate the total quantity of fence to be cleared and 
maintained other than to rely upon the quantity of 42,235 LF set forth in Appendix A.  
Appellant is entitled to recover for clearing and maintenance of the additional quantity 
of fence in excess of 42,235 LF.  This issue is sustained. 
  
 Issue 2:  Clearing of additional overgrowth between site visit and award  
 It is the decision of the Board that the site visit and Q&A provided notice to 
appellant that the fence lines were overgrown with vegetation and would not be “in 
compliance before the new contract start[ed]” (R4, tab 66 at 6, 9).  Also, appellant’s 
final revised proposal was submitted a few weeks prior to award, affording appellant 
an opportunity to revise its pricing to account for the passage of time between the site 
visit and award.  This issue is denied. 
  
 Issue 3:  Routine tree pruning/trimming not specified in the contract 
 It is the decision of the Board that the government required appellant to perform 
routine tree pruning/trimming that appellant had not priced and that was not required 
under the contract, as awarded.  Appellant is entitled to compensation to the extent that 
it can demonstrate that the payment it received under CLIN 023 for emergency tree 
trimming was inadequate compensation for the routine tree trimming it performed.  
This issue is sustained. 
  
 Issue 4:  Release of contract funds withheld for deficient work 
 T he government has not satisfied its burden to justify its withholding of 
payment.  This issue is sustained. 

3 
 
CONCLUSION  
 
 Therefore, the appeal is sustained as to Issues 1, 3 and 4 and denied as to 
Issue 2.  The matter is returned to the parties for the resolution of quantum. 
 
 Dated:  February 6, 2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LAURA J. ARNETT 
Administrative Judge 
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. 63807-ADR,
 Appeal of MSI 
II LLC, Joint Venture, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. 
 
 Dated:  February 6, 2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals