ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of--
Tiger Enterprises, Inc. 
Under Contract No. FA3030-10-P-0026 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 57974, 58313 
Ms. Lillian Mauldin 
President 
Col Jennifer L. Martin, USAF 
Air Force Chief Trial Attorney 
Christopher S. Cole, Esq. 
Senior Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CLARKE 
Tiger Enterprises, Inc. (Tiger) contracted with the Department of the Air Force to 
provide washers and dryers on a lease basis and perform repair services. Tiger seeks 
lease payments not furnished to it. The parties elected to submit the appeals under Board 
Rule 11 on the record. We have jurisdiction pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act of 
1978 (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109. 
FINDINGS OF FACT 
1. Tiger, a North Carolina certified minority/woman owned small,business, 
obtained award of eight contracts from the Departments of the Air Force, Army, and 
Navy between 2001 and 2006 for the lease of washers and dryers (supp. R4, tab 107 at 
2-3 of 133). During fall of2007, Tiger obtained the award of five additional contracts for 
the lease of washers and dryers: Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida; Hurlburt Air 
Force Base, Florida; Goodfellow Air Force Base, Texas; Seymour Johnson Air Force 
Base, North Carolina; and Dover Air Force Base, Delaware (supp. R4, tab 107 at 8, 121 
of 133). To finance the five additional contracts, in December of2007, Tiger entered into 
an agreement, which was referred to as a "PURCHASE AGREEMENT," with Anderson 
Funding 
Group LTD., Inc. (AFG) in which Tiger agreed to assign all contract payments 
and equipment collateral (washers and dryers) for all five contracts to AFG in exchange 
for furnishing of $1.2 million to purchase the necessary equipment, i.e., finance its 
performance of the five contracts (supp. R4, tabs 104, 107 at 8-12, 121 of 133) 
(2007 Purchase Agreement). The Goodfellow Air Force Base (AFB) contract was 
No. FA3030-08-C-0001 (0001 Contract) (supp. R4, tab 107 at 10, 120 of 133). 

2. The 2007 Purchase Agreement assigned title to the washers and dryers being 
leased to the military by Tiger to AFG (Tiger "sells and assigns to AFG all its rights, title 
and interests in and to the Equipment") (supp. R4, tab 104 at 3, ~ 2.1 ). The 2007 
Purchase Agreement defined "EQUIPMENT" as: 
All of the goods enumerated on the implementing Delivery 
Schedule which Equipment is leased by Vendor [Tiger] to 
Lessee [government] pursuant to a Contract. ... 
(Supp. R4, tab 107 at 18 of 133, ~ 1.4) The 2007 Purchase Agreement also assigned "all 
rights, title and interests in the Lease Payments as specifically identified in the Delivery 
Schedule" to AFG (supp. R4, tab 104 at 2, ~ 2.1). 
3. The 2007 Purchase Agreement stated a Delivery Schedule was to be executed 
by and between the parties for each transaction identifying the specific matters of 
purchase, including the Contract, Equipment and Lease Payments (supp. R4, tab 107 at 
18, ~ 1.3, at 27, ~ 9.6). The Delivery Schedule with respect to Contract 0001 stated it was 
"issued pursuant to the Purchase Agreement between the parties dated December 1, 
2007"; the terms governing it were "CONTAINED IN THE [parties' 2007] PURCHASE 
AGREEMENT," it authorized AFG to "prepare and file in all applicable jurisdictions 
UCC financing statements with respect to the Equipment, and the Lease Payments, 
including any amendments to same, without the Vendor's [Tiger's] authentication, to the 
extent permitted by applicable law," and: 
The Lease Payments assigned are: The monthly Contract 
Payment due under this Agreement is $9,412.35 for 
Thirty-six (36) payments, commencing March 1, 2008. 
Payments received under the Contract (e.g. maintenance) not 
associated with the Lease Payments shall be remitted to Tiger 
Enterprises, Inc. upon receipt. 
(Supp. R4, tab 107 at 30-31 of 133) 
4. The 2007 Purchase Agreement defined "LEASE PAYMENTS" as: 
The amounts payable by the Lessee under a Contract for 
Equipment, including ... any renewals or extensions ... and all 
payments made by the Lessee as a result of any purchase 
option contained in the Contract.... [Emphasis added] 
(Supp. R4, tab 104 at 1, ~ 1.5) The 2007 Purchase Agreement defined "CONTRACT" 
as: 
2 

The Prime Contract including all modifications, amendments 
or supplements thereto, wherein Vendor [Tiger] leases 
Equipment to the Lessee [government], and the Lessee 
[government] agrees to pay for such Equipment pursuant to 
any type of Lease. [Emphasis added] 
(Supp. R4, tab 104 at 1, ~ 1.2) 
5. The 2007 Purchase Agreement provided that AFG may assign its rights, title 
and interests in the Equipment listed on a Delivery Schedule and all rights to receive 
further lease payments to another party (supp. R4, tab 107 at 27 of 133, ~ 9.7), and that 
the Equipment repurchase rights of Tiger were addressed in the Delivery Schedule (id. at 
19 of 133, ~ 2.3). The Delivery Schedule with respect to Contract 0001 stated that Tiger 
"may repurchase the Equipment for the amount listed in the Outstanding Balance Table" 
upon receipt by AFG of any and all of payments due it under the 2007 Purchase 
Agreement (id. at 31 of 133). (At the end of a contract lease term and repayment to the 
financing institution of monies due, Tiger could repurchase the washers and dryers and 
then sell the used machines to apartment building owners for 15% to 50% of their 
original cost, thereby making a significant profit on the transaction if the outstanding 
balance was low or zero (id. at 121 of 133)). 
6. Approximately three months after executing the 2007 Purchase Agreement and 
agreeing to provide financing for Tiger's contracts, AFG entered into another 
"PURCHASE AGREEMENT" (2008 Purchase Agreement) with Chain Bridge Bank of 
McLean, Virginia (Bank), assigning to the Bank all its rights to the collateral under the 
2007 Purchase Agreement with Tiger, including all Equipment 
and Contract payments 
(supp. R4, tab 107 at 19,95 of 133). AFG thereby undertook to "cause the Government 
to pay the Contract Payments directly to [Chain Bridge Bank], as and when the same 
shall be due and payable under the Lease" (supp. R4, tab 107 at 95 of 133, ~~ II( C), 
III( C)). The 2008 Purchase Agreement defined "Lease" as "that certain Prime Contract 
# ... 0001 dated December 17, 2007 between the Government and Tiger, and all 
modifications, supplements and replacements to the foregoing" (id. at 92 of 133) 
(emphasis added). 
7. By a "CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT" dated 6 February 2008, Tiger provided 
its express consent to assign Goodfellow lease payments to the Bank (R4, tab 17 at 
17-10, 17-11; supp. R4, tab 1 06). The Consent to Assignment referenced the 2007 
Purchase Agreement and the "Delivery Schedule TE-GOOD-00 1" dated 8 December 
2007 between Tiger and AFG (R4, tab 17 at 17-10; supp. R4, tab 106 at 1, tab 107 at 
42-43 of 133). The Consent to Assignment was followed by an "INSTRUMENT OF 
ASSIGNMENT" assigning all payments to the Bank on Contract 0001 (R4, tab 17 at 
17-12; supp. R4, tab 106 at 3, tab 107 at 78-82). The Bank notified the Department of the 
3 

Air Force Contracting Officer (CO) for Contract 0001 of this assignment, providing her 
with copies of a UCC Financing Statement stating it covered the following collateral: 
Description of Collateral: 
All of the Debtor's right, title and interest in, to and under the 
following, whether now existing or hereafter acquired (all of 
which are herein collectively called the "Collateral"): 
( 1) all monies due and to become due to the Debtor 
pursuant to the Contract 
( 4) to the extent not otherwise included, all proceeds 
of any or all of the foregoing, whether existing on the 
date hereof or arising hereafter. 
As used herein, the following terms have the following 
meamngs: 
"Contract" means that certain Contract 
No. F A3030-08-C-OOO 1 dated December 17, 2007, between 
the Debtor [Tiger] and the 17th Contracting 
Squadron/F A3030, and all modifications to the foregoing, 
and all instruments and agreements executed and 
delivered, or to be executed and delivered, by any person 
in connection therewith, together with all amendments, 
supplements and replacements to any of the foregoing. 
[Emphasis added] 
(R4, tab 17 at 17-15, 17-16; supp. R4, tab 107 at 86-87 of 133) The Assignment was 
incorporated into Contract 0001 by modification on 24 March 2008 (supp. R4, tab 109). 
8. Thereafter, the Air Force made its payments to the Bank for Contract 0001 for 
the lease of washers and dryers at Goodfellow AFB, rather than to Tiger, pursuant to the 
assignment (see R4, tabs 17, 69, 77, 88; supp. R4, tab 109). All options existing under 
Contract 0001 (including the six-month extension of services) were exercised by the Air 
Force and the performance period for the contract was set to expire on 31 March 2010. 
While the Air Force 
issued a competitive solicitation necessary to award another contract 
for the lease of washers and dryers at Goodfellow AFB, two bidders filed protests 
precluding award of a new contract allowing continuous lease of washers and dryers in 
accordance with the Competition in Contracting Act. Because many of the base 
4 

personnel were not allowed to leave the base and there were no laundry facilities near the 
base, "[t]he loss of laundry services [would] significantly impact and degrade the overall 
health, welfare, and quality of life" of more than 2,000 students of the 17th Training 
Wing" at Goodfellow, potentially impacting the base's training 
mission and the readiness 
of the Air Force. To maintain the continued availability of washers and dryers at 
Goodfellow, contracting officials prepared and executed a Justification and Approval 
(J&A) for the entry into a sole source "non-competitively" procured "bridge contract" 
with the existing contractor, Tiger, for a 
term of several months pending resolution of the 
bid protests, thereby "effectively" extending the existing washer and dryer contract until 
a contract could be awarded in accordance with the Competition in Contracting Act. This 
short-term "bridge" contract used the same performance work statement (PWS) as 
Contract 0001 and was justified on the basis the services were "deemed to be available 
only from the original source in the case of a follow-on contract for the continued 
provision ofhighly specialized services," citing 10 U.S.C. § 2304(c)(l) and Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.302-1. The Air Force stated the "incumbent contractor 
is the only available source to immediately continue this service during the interim period 
without mission degradation" and "[t]here are no other current contract vehicles 
to 
facilitate the use of another source." (R4, tab 18) 
9. While paragraph 3 .2 of the PWS for Contract 000 1 required removal of the 
washers and dryers from Goodfellow AFB no later than 10 April 2010 and the Bank had 
arranged to sell the washers and dryers at Goodfellow to Select Laundry, LLC (supp. R4, 
tabs 110, 111, 115 at 38, tab 116 at 2), the Bank consented to allowing the Equipment to 
remain at Goodfellow for continued use on the "bridge contract" with Tiger (R4, tab 17 at 
17-1). By email, the Bank asked Air Force contracting officials to "[p]lease be certain to 
include [the Bank] as the NOA for all payments under th[e] Existing and Bridge 
Contract" and again provided the Air Force with a copy of Tiger's 2008 Consent To 
Assignment and Instrument of Assignment and the Bank's 2008 Notice of Assignment to 
theAirForce(id. at 17-1,17-10,17-12, 17-14). 
10. The Air Force prepared a "bridge contract" for continued lease of the washers 
and dryers located at Goodfellow AFB, Contract No. FA3030-1 0-P-0026 (Bridge 
Contract) (R4, tab 1), and that document "was released unilaterally" by the Air Force on 
1 April2010 (R4, tab 23). While Air Force contracting officials prepared a modification 
of the Bridge Contract for signature by Tiger expressly recognizing the Bank as payee 
under the Bridge Contract pursuant to an assignment of claim, Tiger did not sign the 
modification despite repeated reminders to do so by the Air Force (R4, tabs 9-11, 17, 21, 
64, 78, 80, 81, 92, 93). The Air Force attempted to have Tiger perform maintenance 
work on the washers and dryers required by the PWS for both Contract 000 1 and the 
Bridge Contract, but Tiger did not perform that work. The Bank then arranged for others 
to perform the required work, apparently at its own expense. Due to the lack of working 
Equipment, the Air Force contended it was entitled to pay less than Tiger billed it and 
declined to pay invoices submitted by Tiger under the Bridge Contract for the full lease 
5 

amount. (R4, tabs 25, 33, 34, 36, 46, 58, 59, 67, 77, 78, 88-90; supp. R4, tab 113) 
During August 2010, the Bridge Contract lease term expired and the purchaser of the 
washer and dryer equipment from the Bank removed the machines from Goodfellow 
AFB (R4, tabs 85, 86). 
11. On 12 August 20 11, Tiger submitted a claim to the Air Force's CO in the 
amount of $46,822.25 for payments deemed due to it under the Bridge Contract (R4, 
tab 101). By final decision dated 4 November 2011, the CO denied Tiger's claim 
(R4, tab 1 02). Tiger then filed an appeal with this Board which was docketed as ASBCA 
No. 57974. During June of2012, the CO withdrew his November 2011 final decision 
and issued a 
new decision denying Tiger's claim based upon a differing rationale (R4, 
tab 103 ). Tiger filed another appeal with respect to the new decision, which this Board 
docketed as ASBCA No. 58313. 
DECISION 
In its claim, Tiger asserts that it received no payments under the Bridge Contract 
and that the overall 
total owed to it by the Air Force for the performance of the Bridge 
Contract was $46,822.25. Tiger contends in its briefs that the issue in the appeals is 
simple- the Air Force entered into a contract with Tiger for services and received the 
services that Tiger contracted to provide, but failed to pay Tiger for the services provided 
in accordance with the parties' contract (app. resp. at 1-2; app. sur-reply at 1, 3). 
According to Tiger, it is entitled to receive payment for the months of April, May, June, 
July, and August under the Bridge Contract for the lease of washers and dryers provided 
at Goodfellow AFB. 
In pursuing its claim and appeals here, however, Tiger fails to recognize a very 
important fact - the Air Force was on notice that the washer and dryer equipment at 
Goodfellow and proceeds from lease of that equipment were subject to an assignment by 
Tiger to the Bank pursuant to a 2008 Purchase Agreement, which provided financing for 
various washer and dryer 
lease contracts Tiger had entered into with the government. 
The terms of the 2008 Purchase Agreement (and its 2007 predecessor between AFG and 
Tiger which are referenced in the 2008 Purchase Agreement) expressly assign "[t]he 
amounts payable by the Lessee [government] under a Contract for Equipment" to the 
"Bank," define "CONTRACT" as "that certain Prime Contract # ... OOO ... between the 
Government and Tiger, and all modifications, supplements and replacements to the 
foregoing," and define "EQUIPMENT" as the washers and dryers located at Goodfellow 
AFB pursuant to Contract 000 1 identified in a Delivery Order with respect to Contract 
0001. (Emphasis added) The Bridge Contract was a "supplement" or "replacement" to 
Contract 000 1 within the terms of the assignment. Tiger obtained the Bridge Contract 
(without having the award of a contract for the services specified competed in accordance 
with the Competition in Contracting Act) only because it was the "existing contractor" 
under Contract 000 1 and there was no other legal means by which the Air Force could 
6 

procure the needed services in the necessary time. Essentially, the Bridge Contract was a 
short-term extension of Contract 0001 using the same performance work statement and 
Equipment as Contract 000 1 due to exigent circumstances arising from the filing of bid 
protests regarding the follow-on procurement for Contract 000 1. 
The assignment to the Bank pursuant to the 2008 Purchase Agreement was 
consented to by Tiger, adhered to by the Air Force for years during performance of 
Contract 0001, and had not been released. As found above, prior to performance of the 
Bridge Contract, the Bank expressly reminded the Air Force of the assignment and its 
applicability. The Air Force therefore clearly was on notice that the washer and dryer 
equipment at Goodfellow AFB to be utilized for the Bridge Contract lease and proceeds 
from the lease of that equipment were the subject of an assignment to the Bank. See, e.g., 
Tuftco Corp. v. United States, 614 F.2d 740 (Ct. Cl. 1980); Riviera Finance ofTexas v. 
United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 528 (2003). An assignment of the right to be paid the proceeds 
of a contract imposes an obligation on the government once it has received notice of the 
assignment to make payments under the contract in accordance with that assignment. 
The government can be held liable on that obligation to the assignee if it makes payments 
to the assignor. D & H Distributing Co. v. United States, 102 F.3d 542, 547 (Fed. Cir. 
1996); CentralNat'lBankv. United States, 91 F. Supp. 738,740-41 (Ct. Cl.1950) 
(government having received timely notice of assignment paid the assignor at its peril). 
While Tiger declined to execute a modification to the Bridge Contract formally 
recognizing the Bank as payee on the Bridge Contract apparently due to ongoing disputes 
between the Bank and Tiger, its refusal to do so does not obviate the existence of its 
assignment of washer and dryer Equipment lease proceeds to the Bank. See Produce 
Factors Corp. v. United States, 467 F.2d 1343, 1351 (Ct. Cl. 1972) (because the 
Assignment of Claims Act was enacted solely for the benefit of the government, 
government has option to accept an assignment not complying with Act); Maffia v. 
United States, 163 F. Supp. 859, 862 (Ct. Cl. 1958) (same); Riviera Finance, 58 Fed. Cl. 
at 530 (although tribunals examine a variety of factors to determine if government has 
recognized an assignment, including whether the CO has modified a contract to change 
payee to assignee, all such factors need not be present for government to have recognized 
assignment). 
Because the Air Force is not seeking to set-off any of the monies to be paid under 
the Bridge Contract, it is a mere "stakeholder" with respect to those monies. In light of 
its notice of assignment of Equipment lease proceeds to the Bank, it therefore did not 
breach the Bridge Contract in declining to pay monies due for the washer and dryer 
Equipment lease to Tiger. In an advance decision (B-194945), 58 Comp. Gen. 619 
(1979), the General Accounting Office (GAO) offered advice to an agency in a position 
similar to the Air Force here. There, a bank notified the CO that it was assignee of all of 
a contractor's accounts receivables. As evidence of the assignment, the bank submitted a 
Security and Assignment Agreement in which the contractor agreed to "grant a security 
interest in, sell, assign, transfer, deposit, pledge and set over to the Bank all its right, title 
7 

and interest in and to each and every account of the Undersigned now owned or hereafter 
arising and all moneys now due or hereafter to become due thereon." The contracting 
agency informed the assignee bank that the assignment was not in compliance with the 
Assignment of Claims Act because it did not specifically refer to the government contract 
number at issue and predated award of that contract. Possessing documents tending to 
demonstrate the establishment of a line of credit extended to the contractor during the 
performance of the contract, the agency sought GAO's advice because the earlier security 
agreement was deemed a "blanket" agreement covering a 
variety of security interests in 
the debtor's current and future accounts receivable. As here, the agency seeking GAO 
advice was a mere 
"stakeholder" -there was no issue of a government set-off. GAO 
advised "[i]n such circumstances it is enough that the Government assure itself of the 
assignment's authenticity and its applicability to [the] contract right involved here." 
GAO stated, in accordance with the modem trend away from tying a particular loan to a 
particular security, the use of a revolving credit financing device has been regarded as 
acceptable under the Act. !d. (citing Continental Bank & Trust Co. v. United States, 416 
F.2d 1296 (Ct. Cl. 1969)). GAO concluded the assignment should be recognized as an 
assignment under the Act by the agency. GAO added the assignee bank should be 
required to indemnify the government from any claims the contractor might make due to 
the controversy in the matter, and that it could be paid the contract monies at issue upon 
satisfaction of that requirement. 1 
1 In its opening brief, the Air Force expressly states, "[a]s the owner of the equipment, 
and per its [2008] contract with Tiger, the Bank and not Tiger is owed payment for 
the use of the equipment" during the Bridge Contract. It requests that we hold 
there was a valid assignment of contract proceeds and asserts if we hold otherwise 
it may be placed "in the position of paying twice for services rendered." (Gov't 
br. at 18, 24) We have held there was an assignment by Tiger to the Bank 
recognized 
by the Air Force which has not been released, and presumably now the 
Air Force will make payments for services it received to the Bank in accordance 
with GAO's guidance to other agencies similarly situated. 
8 

CONCLUSION 
For the reasons stated above we deny Tiger's appeal. 
Dated: 8 October 2013 
I concur 
~Ef?td 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
Administrati e Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
---;;c./)/~_ 
TERRENCE S. HARTMAN 
Administrative Judge 
Acting 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. 57974, 58313, Appeals of 
Tiger Enterprises, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
9 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals