ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of --
AISG, Inc. 
Under Contract No. W5J9JE-10-C-0039 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 58696, 59151 
Karl Dix, Jr., Esq. 
J. Daniel Puckett, Esq. 
Steven J. Stuart, Esq. 
Smith Currie & Hancock LLP 
Atlanta, GA 
Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq. 
Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 
Jam es A. Wallace, Esq. 
Daniel B. McConnell, Esq. 
Engineer Trial Attorneys 
U.S. Army Engineer District, Middle East 
Winchester, VA 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE DICKINSON 
ON APPELLANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
This appeal 1 arises under a contract awarded by the Corps of Engineers 
(government) to AISG, Inc. (AISG or appellant), for the construction of a secure 
walled police station in Sar Hawza, Paktika Province, Afghanistan. Appellant 
has 
moved for summary judgment, arguing that there are no material facts in dispute and 
that it is entitled, as a matter of law, to an equitable adjustment for additional costs in 
the amount of $841,243.39 incurred as a result of the government's alleged failure to 
provide an appropriate building site for construction of the police station. The 
government opposes the motion. The record before us on the motion consists of the 
Rule 4 file and exhibits to the parties' filings on the motion. 
1 This appeal is from a deemed denial (SOF if 30). Appellant's initial motion for 
summary judgement was filed prior to receipt of a contracting officer's final 
decision (COFD). After receipt of a COFD, appellant requested and, without 
objection, was granted permission to file this supplemental motion for summary 
judgement which replaces the original motion. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 
1. Firm-fixed-price Contract No. W5J9JE-10-C-0039 was awarded by the 
government to AISG on 3 September 2010 in the amount of $2,148,243 for the 
construction of a one-story police station in Sar Hawza, Paktika Province, 
Afghanistan, and $52,000 for demolition of some existing structures. The period of 
performance was 365 days plus 65 weather days for a total of 430 days. (R4, tab 2 at 
3) AISG was required to commence work under the contract within 10 days after 
issuance of the Notice to Proceed (id. at 10). 
2. The contract incorporated by reference Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR) 52.233-1, DISPUTES (JUL 2002); FAR 52.236-2, DIFFERING SITE CONDITIONS 
(APR 1984); and FAR 52.243-4, CHANGES (JUN 2007) (R4, tab 2 at 8-9). 
3. The record before us on the motion does not contain the Statement of Work 
(SOW) or more than a very few isolated pages of the contract specifications, either as 
originally awarded or as modified. It is undisputed that the site upon which the police 
station was to be constructed was to be provided by the government and that AISG was 
to adapt the provided site to meet the contract requirements (R4, tabs 4, 7, 12, 14-16, 
19, 34, 37, 57; SOF ~ 17). 
4. It is also undisputed that, after award of the contract, it was discovered that 
the adjacent coalition forces installation had encroached on the planned building site 
(Location #1) (R4, tab 19, see also tab 35). By letter dated 5 November 2010 the 
government issued a suspension of work notice, citing FAR 52.242-14. 
You are also hereby restricted from incurring any 
additional cost against this portion of the contract. It is the 
intention of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to follow 
up this letter with additional technical direction concerning 
this project site. The Suspension of Work will end upon 
written notice from the Contracting Officer or 
Administrative Contracting Officer. 
(R4, tab 11, see also tab 35) The notice was acknowledged in writing by AISG. 
5. In a 5 March 2011 Site Investigation Report, Corps project engineer 
Sokoloski stated that the "local Sub Governor" had requested that 
the site for the 
police station "should be located at the hill location closer to the village" and included 
the coordinates 
for the hill location as well as photos of the site. This location is 
hereinafter referred to as Location #2. The 5 March 2011 Site Investigation Report 
stated: 
2 

5. Benefits of moving ANP HQ to site location on top 
of hill: 
5.1 Site is preferred by local officials and US Army. 
5.2 Site 
is closer to village of Sar Hawza and will 
most likely improve security for citizens. 
5 .3 The site has little to no obstructions for 
construction activities. 
5 .4 Construction activities can begin as soon as new 
site assessment is completed. 
6. Potential cost of moving site to hill location: 
6.1 Cost of bring [sic] materials up the hill, the road is 
not level and erodes rapidly during heavy rain and 
snow. 
6.2 Possible time lost when road is not passable for 
materials and supplies. 
7. The proposed new site location appears to be an 
acceptable location if water is readily available at the. 
site. The presence of water in the nearby area seems 
[to] be an indication that water could be found on the 
proposed site. The project could move forward if this 
site is chosen and the site assessment is completed in a 
timely manner. Project Engineer recommends 
relocating the site to hill location if site assessment 
agrees that no adverse land ownership issues are 
present and water can be expected at site location. 
(R4, tab 14 at 3-4, see also tab 19) 
6. The 28 May 2011 Site Assessment Report, prepared for the government by 
JQ Builders, states in pertinent part: 
1. INTRODUCTION 
JQ [B]uilders have completed Site Assessment of 
approximately 6400[]sqm parcel land for SAR HA WZA 
UP DHQ facility in SAR HA WZA District, Pakti[k ]a 
Province Afghanistan, for the Ministry of Interior (Mol). 
The site is located at the District Center; currently there is 
an ANP police post at the center of the proposed site. 
3 

The site visit was conducted at the end of April 2011 for 
the Uniform Police District Headquarter (UP DHQ) 
This effort 
was preliminary to a Master Planning effort 
including assessment of the following 
1. Land Ownership 
2. Adjacent Land Use 
3. General Availability of Utilities on Site 
4. Site Condition 
5. Access Roads 
6. Availability of Construction Materials and Labor 
7. Availability [of] Clinics, Fuel and Public 
Transportation 
3.2. Site Ownership 
The proposed site is Government property belongs to Mol 
according Government officials, Land Documents are signed by 
the following Government officials. 
Government officials and Coalition forces officials at the region 
proved that the proposed land is Government property and Mol 
should proceed for construction at the same site. 
1. Verified and signed by - Mol facility Department 
Director 
2. Verified and signed by - CPT Dale Marrou 
3. Verified and signed by - Deputy Provincial Governor 
- Haji Mohamad Zadran 
4. Verified and signed by - Sub-Governor - Haji Khan 
5. Verified and signed by - District Police Commander 
- Abdul Wahid Kandari 
6. Verified and signed by - Provincial Police 
Chief - Daulat Khan 
7. Verified and signed by - Zone Commander - "Gul 
Nabi" Ahmad Zai 
8. Verified and signed by - Member of Agriculture 
Department - Mir Zajan 
9. Verified and signed by - Member of Amlam 
Department - Mr. Agha Mohammad 
4 

10. Verified and signed by- Director of Agriculture: 
Hamidulluah 
JO team has verified the Land from every aspect and signed by 
all possible government officials and local elders. 
3.8 ... Over all security situation is bad at the region. 
(R4, tab 15) The Site Assessment Report includes 20 pages of copies of 
"GOVERNMENT LETTERS & LAND OWNER SHIP CERTIFICATES" (R4, tab 15 
at 5-24), as well as various photos of the site. 
7. In a report prepared by Corps project engineer Blackwell regarding a 
19-20 June 2011 site visit, it was noted that in an informal meeting the "Sub-governor 
... confirmed his support for the new location." He further reported that there was a 
productive well to provide potable water and that the site was "preferred by both local 
officials" and the government. (R4, tab 16 at 1, 4) 
(Id. at 4) 
Other Comments: It would be smart to have Ktrbegin 
the perimeter wall as soon as he can get mobilized & to 
build this with 'village' labor. This is an opportunity to 
show locals that project will provide jobs & Ktr will spend 
money locally. Also, since winter will impact road access, 
this wall/fence is a part of SOW that is simple enough to 
complete with minimum of 'out-of-village' 
material/expertise. It will have immediate value to the 
existing ANP outpost. 
8. By letter dated 17 July 2011 the government lifted the suspension of work 
and gave AISG the opportunity to submit a "proposal for impacts associated with this 
252 calendar day suspension of work" (RFP No. 1) (R4, tab 18, see also tab 19). 
AISG's proposal was received by the government on 9 August 2011 (R4, tab 48). 
9. Bilateral contract Modification No. P00002 dated 6 October 2011 extended 
the contract performance period by 252 calendar days and provided additional 
compensation in the amount of $209,000 for "[a]ll added costs associated with 
relocation of contractual. scope of work to property described by Plat A-1, dated 
11 June 2011." The change in contract specifications was described as: 
5 

Specification Section NIA Drawing A-1 dated 11 June 
2011 will replace original property description in contract. 
The change in location does not change design 'templates' 
nor specification 'templates' that are provided in this 
contract's technical provisions and other contract 
documents. It is the design-build contractor's 
responsibility to provide all necessary documents for site 
adaptation of this contractual scope of work. 
(R4, tab 4) The updated specification section is not in the record before us on the 
motion, but the referenced "Drawing RE Plat Plat A-1" (R4, tab 4 at 2), may be found 
at several locations in the record (see, e.g., R4, tab 17 at 3). The modification made 
17 July 2011 the new contractual completion date (R4, tab 4 at 2). 
10. Contract Modifications Nos. P00003-00004, dated 25 October 2011 and 
16 January 2012, respectively, and issued for reasons not now at issue, further 
extended the contract completion date to 18 December 2012 (R4, tabs 5, 6). 
11. Unilateral Contract Modification No. P00005 dated 21February2012 
provided 
additional compensation in the amount of $7,334 "to settle a request for 
equitable adjustment (REA) due to 252-day suspension of work" which was 
"necessary while USACE acquired a new property for site to perform the SOW" 
(R4, 
tab 7, see also tab 35). The modification did not further extend the contract 
performance period and included the following language: 
[T]he contract price is increased as stated above, which 
reflects all credits due the Government and all debits due 
the Contractor. It is further understood and agreed that this 
adjustment constitutes compensation in full on behalf of 
the Contractor and its Subcontractors and Suppliers for all 
costs and markups directly or indirectly attributable for the 
change ordered, for all delays related thereto, for all 
extended overhead costs, and for performance of the 
change within the time frame stated. 
(R4, tab 7 at 2) 
12. From at least 8 February 2012 through 27 April 2012 the parties engaged in 
discussion via correspondence and otherwise on the subject of the contractual 
submittal requirements (R4, tabs 22-29, 35). 
13. In a 5 May 2012 phone conversation, AISG requested that the government 
terminate the contract for convenience (R4, tab 35 at 2). 
6 

14. By 8 May 2012 AISG had mobilized to the jobsite and had begun work 
even though the government advised that AISG had not yet complied with the 
contractual pre-construction submittal requirements. The government issued a letter of 
concern in which it listed eight (8) required pre-construction submittals, only one of 
which had been approved and the government directed AISG to "cease any and all 
on-going works on the project site until such time as you have met your contractual 
obligations and have 
received clearance from the USACE to mobilize." (R4, tab 30, 
see also tabs 31, 35) Thereafter, the parties continued to engage on the subject of 
pre-construction submittals (R4, tabs 32-33 ). 
15. On 19 May 2012 AISG submitted Request for Information (RFI) No. 1 to 
the government requesting that the project site be moved to a different, third set of 
coordinates (hereinafter Location #3) that it alleged was "supported by the local 
government & Police Commander" (R4, tab 34, see also tabs 35, 51 (attach. 3)). In a 
22 May 2012 Memorandum for Record, the government's project 
manager Jenkins 
stated: 
To date, the Government has issued four (4) modifications 
to subject contract while the placement is still at zero 
percent (0%). At no point during this project, either at the 
original site [Location #1] or at the new site [Location #2], 
has the contractor performed any work. These 
pre-construction modifications have increased the contract 
price from the original amount of$2,222,187.00 to 
$3,223,231.83, which is an increase of 45%. This causes 
me to question whether or not this is outside of the scope. 
There is currently no schedule for this project. We have 
not received any more pre-construction submittals, and 
nothing on the Government's side has stopped the 
contractor from fulfilling this obligation. The Resident 
Office, the Area Office, the Project Manager, the Customer 
(NTM-A), and COL Martin have all agreed that this 
project needs to be terminated. As I stated before, the 
current contract with modifications is already 45% above 
the original contract amount and we have had no progress. 
Based on the above stated facts, we need to seriously 
consider terminating this contract. If we continue to try to 
force this contract to work, we can easily spend much more 
money in the process. My recommendation would be to 
terminate the project, as the Government requirements 
7 

have changed significantly and the Contractor has not 
performed. 
(R4, tab 35 at 2) 
16. AISG claims government project engineer Riles approved Location #3 
sometime prior to 18 April 2012 (R4, tab 54 at 2). This is a proposed finding of fact 
that is central and material to the matter now before us and the record shows that the 
proposed fact is in dispute (R4, tab 55; app. mot, ex. A at 6-11; gov't opp'n, Riles 
decl.; SOF iii! 6, 7, 16) 
17. By letter dated 4 June 2012 AISG provided information that it considered 
to complete all required pre-construction submittals (R4, tab 36, see also tabs 39-41). 
AISG's position is that, because this was a site-adapt project, submittals could not be 
prepared until the location of the site was finalized (app. mot., ex. A). 
18. On 25 July 2012 the Afghanistan Ministry of Interior "Authorize[d]" the 
government to have AISG construct 
the Sar Hawza project at Location #3 (R4, tab 51, 
attach. 3 at 31 ). 
19. On 6 August 2012 the government issued a Cure Notice to AISG: 
This Cure Notice constitutes final notice to your 
company on your 
continued failure to meet contract 
requirements. Specifically you have failed to provide 
acceptable contract required preconstruction submittals, to 
include the Accident Prevention Plan, a Work Plan, a QC 
Plan, and a Construction Schedule. This project was 
awarded on 3 September 2010. The project was suspended 
on 5 November 2010, and the suspension was lifted on 
17 July 2011. Subsequently, there was a modification 
signed on 20 October 2011 to move the location of the 
project. To date, your company has failed to submit the 
submittals required by your contract. You have far 
exceeded any reasonable time frame to begin providing the 
required submittals. 
Your company is now 684 days into the contract 
and you have yet to make any significant progress during 
the past 12 months toward completion. The contract 
required completion date is 19 August 2012£21. Since there 
2 The correct completion date is 18 December 2012 (SOF if 10). 
8 

(R4, tab 42) 
are now less than 32 days remaining in your contract, it no 
longer appears possible to complete this contract within the 
allotted period of performance. 
AISG has not had authorization to mobilize to the 
site, nor has AISG completed any acceptable work to date. 
Serial Letter C-0005 was issued on 8 February 2012 ... to 
address the lack of progress on AISG's part. Serial Letter 
C-0009 ... was issued on 8 May 2012 to address the fact 
that AISG had begun mobilizing to the project site without 
.the required pre-construction submittals in place. Also on 
8 May 2012, Serial Letter C-0010 ... was issued to notify 
you that AISG would be receiving an interim 
unsatisfactory rating which is accessible in CCASS .... In 
spite of repeated Government requests, you have failed to 
provide all required submittals. The latest correspondence 
on this issue was an email sent by Mr. Jonathan Jenkins on 
7 July 2012 ... and answered a question on how to properly 
submit submittals. As of today's date, those submittals in 
question have still not been properly submitted. It has 
been obvious from the start of this project that your 
company lacks the knowledge and experience required to 
understand the basic contract requirements needed to 
complete this project. 
20. In AISG's 16 August 2012 response to the Cure Notice, it stated that all 
pre-construction submittals had been provided with the exception of the Construction 
Schedule which it stated was provided with the letter. With respect to AISG's RFI 
requesting a change to Location #3, AISG stated: 
The current RFI to reconsider the Site Location is awaiting 
a letter from the Afghanistan Ministry of Interior. 
However, ifthe USACE does not want to reconsider, then 
AISG is prepared to move immediately onto site "A" and 
site-adapt the ANP headquarters. AISG was endeavoring 
to placate and satisfy the Afghan Village Elders, Local 
Police and Provisional Government to avoid local Afghan 
protests which have occurred in such sites as Khair Kot in 
Sharana, Paktika .... Obviously, the local customers could 
severely disrupt the construction if they do not support the 
Corps and the Project. The final attachment is a letter from 
9 

(R4, tab 44) 
the Afghanistan Ministry of Interior which states they want 
us to build on the site identified by the Local Village 
Elders in Sar Hawza, the Local Police and the Provisional 
Government. This RF! was submitted on 15 July 2012. 
We are still waiting for a response. 
AISG will construct wherever USACE directs, regardless 
of the requests of the Sar Hawza Village Elders, Local 
Police, District Government or the Afghanistan Ministry of 
Interior's requests. The local interests are properly 
concerned that the current location provided by the 
USACE is too close to the village, and does not provide 
the proper standoff thereby compromising the safety of 
both the Police Headquarters and the village. If the 
USACE believes that building the Police Headquarters 
within 10 meters from the village is the correct decision, 
then AISG will begin construction despite the local 
concerns. 
The Cure Notice states the completion date for the contract 
is 19 August 2012 .... Therefore, we respectfully request 
that you rescind the Cure Notice since it was not based on 
accurate information. We remain committed to timely 
completing this Project for the Corps. 
21. On 21August2012 the government formally denied AISG's request to 
change the project site to Location #3 (R4, tab 43). 
22. On 29 August 2012 AISG again submitted an RFI requesting that the 
project 
site be changed to Location #3, stating: 
(R4, tab 45) 
If AISG use[s] the coordinates given by USACE, there is a 
risk of incurring unnecessary resentment from the Village 
Eider's [sic], Local Police, District Governor, and the 
Ministry of Interior. 
23. On 3 October 2012 the government requested that AISG submit a proposal 
to relocate the contract work to Location #3 (R4, tab 46). AISG's undated proposal 
requested no increase in contract price and a new contract completion date of 
10 

21 October 2013 (R4, tab 47). By letter dated 5 November 2012, contracting officer 
LaRosa cancelled the government's request for a proposal and 
directed AISG to 
proceed to perform the contract work at Location #2: 
AISG was well aware of the "obstructions", an ANP 
outpost and an encroachment into an adjacent village wall, 
that were within the above noted "Plat A-1" coordinates. 
[AISG's proposal to perform the work at Location #2 was 
received by the government on 9 August 2011.] 
In regards to the ANP Outpost, AISG states [in its 
Location #2 proposal]: "The ANP outpost will be 
disassembled to allow for reassembly, if desired at a future 
date. The most expedient method of removal would be the 
demolition of the outpost,· however, this would destroy the 
Hesco and eliminate the possibility of reusing the 
materials. Disassembly to preserve the material will be 
manpower intensive, with the individual Hesco units being 
emptied by hand. " 
In regards to the encroachment on the village wall, AISG 
states [in its Location #2 proposal]: "The village wall to 
the right in the photo will require removal. Once the 
sections are removed, we recommend tying in the 
remaining walls to the perimeter wall of the site as a cost 
savings. To minimize the loss of security for the residents, 
we will begin construction of that portion of the perimeter 
wall first. " 
... Construction will continue with the. [Location #2] 
coordinates, the original contract documents, and all 
exercised modifications to date. 
(R4, tab 48 at 2, see also tab 51, attach. 1at37-39) 
24. On 13 November 2012 the government issued a Show Cause Letter in 
which it again stated that AISG, in its August 2011 proposal to perform the contract 
work at Location #2, was aware "of the existing ANP checkpoint, and the site 
encroachment into the existing village" (R4, tab 50 at 3). Further: 
In your RFP No. 1 Technical & Cost Proposal you indicate 
that the content of your proposal is primarily based upon 
11 

(Id. at 4) 
your 25 July 2011 site visit of the new site location. In 
your RFP No. 1 proposal you explain how you are going to 
address the ANP checkpoint and the site encroachment and 
then 299 days later you submit RFI No. 001 presenting the 
obstructions as if it was the first time you became aware of 
them. This action amounts to gross failure by you to 
prosecute the work with the diligence that will insure its 
completion within the time specified in the contract. 
25. In itsl 8 November 2012 response to the Show Cause Letter, AISG for the 
first time claimed that AISG's failure to progress with the work was due to delays 
resulting from the government's alleged failure to procure "approval of the local 
Village Elders, Afghan National Police ('ANP') and Afghan Ministry of the Interior" 
and further stated that "Afghan authorities absolutely refuse to move" the existing 
police checkpoint. (R4, tab 51 at 1-2, see also app. mot., ex. A) 
26. On 13 December 2012 the government issued a suspension of all work, 
including procurement, design and administrative actions associated with the project 
(R4, tabs 52, 54-55). The suspension of work was lifted effective 18 December 2012 
and referenced "attached documents and Photos and coordinates for the approved 
finalized work site" which are not contained in the record with the letter (R4, tab 53), 
but we find from the rest of the record that the subject of the referenced attachments 
was the approval by the government of Location #3 as the construction site (see, e.g., 
R4, tab 54). 
27. On 28 January 2013 AISG thanked the government for finalizing the 
project site location and submitted a request for equitable adjustment (REA) under the 
Changes clause seeking $1,019,077.39 on the sole basis of alleged site location delays 
from May-December 2012 (R4, tab 54). 
28. Contract Modification No. P00007 3 dated 29 January 2013 relocated the 
building site to Location #3, provided no additional compensation and extended the 
contract completion date by 393 calendar days to 15 January 2014. The modification 
directed AISG to change the contract drawings to incorporate the new grid coordinates 
and to show all changes on the contract as-built drawings. (R4, tab 9, see also tab 49) 
3 The modification states that the contractor was required to sign the document, 
however, the copy in the record before us shows only the contracting officer's 
signature. 
12 

29. By letter dated 14 March 2013 the government denied AISG's REA except 
for the amount of $1,490.32 and an extension of 5 days due to the December 2012 
suspension of work. On 2 April 2013 AISG converted its REA to a certified claim and 
requested a contracting 
officer's final decision. (R4, tabs 55-56) 
30. On 12 June 2013, after receiving no response from the government to its 
certified claim, AISG appealed to this Board from a deemed denial. This appeal was 
docketed as ASBCA No. 58696. AISG's complaint seeks $841,243.39 for alleged site 
location delays, citing the Changes clause, Differing Site Conditions clause and breach 
of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. A subsequent contracting officer's 
final decision denying the claim is dated 8 February 2014. The timely appeal of the 
COFD was docketed as ASBCA No. 59151 and consolidated with ASBCA No. 58696. 
DECISION 
Appellant's 
claim from which this appeal arises seeks compensation for delays 
allegedly resulting from failure of the government to provide an appropriate building 
site (SOF ~~ 27, 29, 30) Appellant asserts several legal theories in support of its claim 
(defective specification as to Location #2; lack of evidence that the government 
obtained necessary approvals for Location #2; delay associated with approval, 
retraction and subsequent re-approval of third building site; and, breach of the implied 
duty of good faith and fair dealing) (app. mot. at 23-31, 34, 43). AISG described the 
factual heart of the claim and appeal as "the Corps' failure to provide AISG with a 
Project site to construct the 
ANP Headquarters" (app. reply at 2). 
Our review of the record before us on the motion reveals that it requires further 
development as it is virtually devoid of evidence of the SOW and specifications from 
which we can determine certain contractual rights and obligations of the parties as they 
relate to AISG's motion (SOF ~ 3). The evidence that is in the existing record before 
us on the motion contains multiple material facts in dispute. Among the material facts 
that are in dispute or for which there is no evidence (as opposed to bare argument) 
presented by either party are ( 1) what the contract requires the government to provide 
as a project site (SOF ~ 3), (2) whether Location #2 met the contract requirements as 
the site for construction (SOF ~~ 16, 20, 27-28), (3) what, if any, approvals the 
government was required by the contract or otherwise to obtain before construction 
could begin at any site (SOF ~~ 5-7, 18), and (4) whether the government first 
approved Location #3 as the building site sometime prior to May 2012 (SOF ~~ 13, 
23-24). 
13 

On the basis of the foregoing, appellant's motion for summary judgment is 
denied. 
Dated: 23 September 2015 
I concur 
A~F~-----
MARK N. STEMPLER 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
:~ I 
i:\ \) I / Jr. , ~ A n----/1 v~L/~v;, 
CKINSON 
Administra ive Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
M 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
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. 58696 and 59151, 
Appeals of AISG, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
14 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals