ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of -- ) 
) 
Lael Al Sahab & Co. ) 
) 
Under Contract No. W91GET-06-M-0063 ) 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 58346 
Mr. Alie Sufan 
Owner 
Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 
Army Chief Trial Attorney 
CPT Vera A. Strebel JA 
Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MELNICK 
Appellant, Lael Al Sahab & Co., seeks complete payment for work upon a 
contract to provide street cleaning and grounds maintenance in Iraq. The government 
withheld a portion of the payments sought because of inadequate performance. The 
Board previously dismissed most of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. However, 
appellant was permitted to proceed with a claim for $8,250 that the government 
withheld 
from its payment of two invoices totaling $30,000. Lael Al Sahab & Co., 
ASBCA No. 58346, 13 BCA if 35,394. After the parties chose to proceed under Board 
Rule 11, the government represented that it did not contest $3,750 of the amount 
claimed. The government has demonstrated that the additional $4,500 was properly 
withheld. Appellant is therefore entitled to recover $3,750, plus CDA interest. 
FINDINGS OF FACT 
1. On 21 March 2007, appellant entered into the commercial items contract 
identified above with the Joint Contracting Command-Iraq (government).* The 
contract was for street cleaning and grounds maintenance services. Appellant was to 
be paid $15,000 per month. (R4, tab 1) Section 11.1 of the contract's Statement of 
Work provided that the government would "not make a full payment if the contractor 
does not perform to the specification of the contract" (R4, tab 1 (Statement of Work at 
4)). It continued to say: 
* While the contract number is W91GET-06-M-0063, at times the parties' referred to 
it as W91GET-07-M-0063 (R4, tabs 2, 7). 

In a case where only partial work was completed, a partial 
payment will be made. Partial payments may be exercised 
if the contractor does not provide the stated workforce or 
does not clean each street outlined. 
(R4, tab 1 (Statement of Work at 4)). 
2. Appellant's first $15,000 invoice was for the period 21March2007 until 
20 April (R4, tab 3). The contracting officer determined that appellant was entitled to 
the full payment (R4, tab 3, 5, 15 at 2). Nevertheless, the government withheld 
$3,750, paying appellant $11,250 (R4, tabs 3, 9). 
3. Appellant did not provide complete trash removal and ground maintenance 
services during May of 2007. That failure was documented in a memorandum to 
appellant dated 9 May 2007, and by daily logs showing repeated failures to perform 
grounds maintenance and remove all litter and debris, prepared by the government's 
inspector between 12 and 31 May (R4, tabs 4, 5, 15 at 2). Appellant did not clean 
30 percent of the required area (R4, tab 15 at 2). On 20 May 2007, appellant submitted 
a second invoice for $15,000. However, because appellant did not completely perform 
the contract's requirements, payment was reduced by 30 percent, or $4,500, to $10,500 
(R4, tabs 3, 15 at 2). 
4. The government terminated the contract for cause on 5 June 2007 (R4, tab 
7). On that date, appellant submitted a claim to the contracting officer seeking, among 
other things, the $8,250 withheld from the two invoice payments (R4, tab 9). See Lael 
Al Sahab, 13 BCA ~ 35,394 at 173,661-63. By email dated 4 October 2012, appellant 
filed a notice of appeal seeking $1,011,000. The Board has already dismissed the 
majority of the appeal, except for the $8,250 withheld from the first two invoices. Id. 
at 173,662-64. 
DECISION 
The contracting officer approved payment of the entire $15,000 sought in the first 
invoice and the government does not contest that appellant is entitled to the full payment 
(finding 2). Accordingly, appellant is entitled to recover the $3,750 withheld by the 
government. 
The contract entitled the government to make partial payments in the event only part 
of the contract work was performed (finding 1). Appellant neglected to perform 30 percent 
of its contract obligations during May of 2007, and provides no explanation for that failure 
(finding 3). Nor does it give any indication that the government's 30 percent withholding 
from its payment of the second invoice was unjustified. The government has proven that 
the withholding "reasonably represented the reduced value of appellant's performance." 
2 

Wright's Auto Repair, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 29138, 31372, 88-1BCA~20,449 at 103,425. 
Accordingly, appellant's claim for the $4,500 withheld from the second invoice is denied. 
CONCLUSION 
Appellant is entitled to recover $3,750, plus interest under 41 U.S.C. § 7109 from 
5 June 2007. Otherwise, the appeal is denied. 
Dated: 17 February 2016 
I concur 
~~ 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
~(!VJ( 
MARK A. MELNICK 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
~CKLEFORD 
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 No. 58346, Appeal of Lael Al Sahab & Co., 
rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals