ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of--

Podrez Enterprise, LLC 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ASBCA No. 61971 

Under Contract No. W911S2-18-P-1546 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

Ms. Tara J. Powell 

Executive Administrator 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

MAJ Wayne T. Branom III, JA 

Trial Attorney 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SHACKLEFORD 

This is an appeal from a contracting officer's final decision terminating the 

captioned contract for cause. Appellant has elected Rule 12.2, Expedited Procedure, 

and the parties have elected to submit the appeal on the record without a hearing, 

pursuant to Board Rule 11. A decision under Board Rule 12.2 shall have no value as 

precedent, and in the absence of fraud, shall be final and conclusive and may not be 

appealed or set aside. The government filed a Rule 11 brief and no further briefing 

was made by either party. In addition to the government's Rule 11 brief, the record 

consists of the government's Rule 4 file as supplemented and the pleadings, including 

documents attached to appellant's complaint. For the reasons stated below, the appeal 

is denied. 

SUMMARY FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. In early August 2018, Request for Quotations (RFQ) No. H00DLRCFR003l 

was issued by Fort Hood for 220 Railcar Spanners described as follows: 

Part# RS 20 24 084 18 STUB Q8372, Rail Spanner with 

2" high Stub Toe 24" wide/ 84" long/ 4" thick Rated: 

20,000lbs per single spanner ( 40,000lbs per pair) Improved 

"kicker plate" utilizing tubes instead of angles Stub Toe 

increases lifespan Items must meet the requirements listed 

above no variations will be accepted! 

(Compl., attach. A) Moreover, the RFQ provided that any award would be subject to 

certain commercial item terms and conditions, including, among others, FAR 52.211-6, 
BRAND NAME OR EQUAL and FAR 52.212-4, CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONSCOMMERCIAL ITEMS. (Id.) 

2. On or about August 22, 2018 appellant, Podrez Enterprise, LLC (Podrez or 

appellant) responded to the RFQ, specifically referencing that the procurement was brand 

name or equal, and that no variations were acceptable (R4, tab 2 at 1, 3 ). The quote was 

for a quantity of 220 at $566.50 each for a total quote of $124,630.00 (id. at 2). 

3. The quote further iterated the description of the product upon which it was 

quoting, as follows: 

Seller Line Item Details: 

Manufacturer: Podrez Enterprise 

Part Number: CSTMRS 

Description: Spanner - MANUFACTURED FROM 

HIGH-STRENGTH, LIGHTWEIGHT ALUMINUM -

Non-skid 2" wide traction cleat self-cleaning surface with 

5 serrated teeth - Extra large beam spacing for heavy chain 

and tie-downs-2" HIGH STUB TOE-24" W x 84" L x 

4" thick-RATED 20,000 LBS PER SPANNER/40,000 

LBS PER PAIR-KICKER PLATE UTILIZES TUBES 

INSTEAD OF ANGLE - STUB TOE INCREASES 

LIFESPAN 100% MADE IN USA SMALL BUSINEES 

THE BERRY AMENDMENT ACT COMPLAINT [sic] 

BUY AMERICAN ACT COMPLIANT SHIPPING= FOB 

DESTINATION CONUS -

Said description was substantially similar to the language contained in the RFQ (R4, 

tab 2 at 3). 

4. On August 24, 2018, the government awarded to Podrez Contract 

No. W911S2-18-P-1546 (R4, tab 6 at 1). The contract incorporated by reference 

FAR 52.212-4, CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS -COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 2017) 

which stated in pertinent part: 

(m) Termination/or cause. The Government may 

terminate this contract, or any part hereof, for cause in the 

event of any default by the Contractor, or if the Contractor 

fails to comply with any contract terms and conditions, or 

fails to provide the Government, upon request, with 

adequate assurances of future performance. In the event of 

termination for cause, the Government shall not be liable 

to the Contractor for any amount for supplies or services 

2 
not accepted, and the Contractor shall be liable to the 

Government for any and all rights and remedies provided 

by law. If it is determined that the Government improperly 

terminated this contract for default, such termination shall 

be deemed a termination for convenience. 

(R4, tab 6 at 4) The description of the items in the contract was the same as the 

specifications returned with appellant's quote (R4, tab 6 at 3). The contract required 

appellant to deliver the rail spanners to Fort Hood, TX by September 24, 2018 (R4, 

tab 6 at 3-4 ). 

5. Appellant failed to meet the September 24, 2018 due date and on 

October 22, 2018, the contracting officer (CO) threatened to terminate the contract for 

cause due to non-delivery (R4, tab 7 at 4). Thereafter the CO granted appellant's 

request to extend the due date to December 3, 2018 (R4, tab 8 at 1). 

6. The 220 rail spanners were delivered to Fort Hood in two partial shipments 

on December 3 (165 units) and 6 (55 units), 2018 (R4, tab 23 at 4). David Slaughter, 

Plans and Operations Chief of the Logistics Readiness Center at Fort Hood, and a prior 

maintenance technician and manager of technicians, stated in a sworn declaration: 

3. [In early December 2018] we examined the first pallet 

load of spanners .... Our initial impression was of 

disappointment, due to the apparent poor quality of 

workmanship. Welds were not smooth and pure and the 

thickness of bracing materials seemed shy of 

specifications. Our Quality Control team and certified 

welders were called ... to make a preliminary assessment. 

4. While waiting for the maintenance personnel, we 

removed one spanner from the pallet and placed it on the 

ground: I stepped on the middle if the spanner and moved 

up and down without jumping and the spanner flexed 

significantly, convincing all of us, that if it flexed that 

much with 200 pounds, it would not support 2,000 pounds. 

5. [The maintenance personnel] confirmed the poor 

welding craftsmanship and further pointed out the many 

areas of inferior welding. 

(R4, tab 57, Slaughter decl. ,r,r 3-5) 

3 
7. Rex Wheeler, a maintenance supervisor at Fort Hood, set forth in a sworn 

declaration his significant experience in the field and was tasked, along with his senior 

welder, to complete an inspection of the spanners on December 4, 2018. They 

submitted a report on December 6, 2018, which concluded that the spanners did not 

meet the contract specifications. More specifically, they found: 

a. There were several instances where the measurements 

did not meet the specifications required. 

b. Some of the metal products used did not meet the 

specifications. For example square tubing should have 

been used for the main support beams and kicker plate. 

However, the vendor fabricated the main support beams 

from flat sheet folded into channel and then welded flat 

sheet to box the channel in. The kicker plate was 

fabricated from aluminum angle instead of square tubing. 

These two instances of noncompliance dramatically affect 

the structural integrity of the spanner and affect the 

spanners' ability to safely support the load requested. 

c. During the inspection it was noted that there were 

several instances where the welding work was not in 

compliance with current industry standards. The welding 

used in the assembly process was not standardized on each 

spanner. Some did not have enough welding applied to 

make the product structurally sound. There were welds 

that lacked penetration which affects structural integrity. 

There were welds that had too much penetration that 

caused holes to be burnt into the structure or caused a 

thinning of material, both of which can affect the structural 

integrity of the spanner. 

d. Overall the spanners did not meet the specifications 

outlined and therefore were deemed unsafe to use. 

Because of the concern for safety we did not attempt to put 

the spanners under any load. 

(R4, tab 58, Wheeler decl. ,r,r 3.a-d) 

8. The Army completed an inspection report consisting of numerous detailed 

photographs with a key to demonstrate how the items delivered did not conform to the 

specifications and drawings in the contract (R4, tab 10; see also gov't br. proposed 

finding of fact 16). 

4 
9. On December 17, 2018, the government rejected the shipment of spanners 

for the reasons set forth as follows: 

The 220 rail spanners did not meet the dimensions called 

for [in] the solicitation; the spanners were only 23 9/ 16 

inches wide but the solicitation called for 24 inches. The 

aluminum tubing was not 4 inche[s] high but only 3 1/2 

inches high. The material was not properly assembled in 

accordance with the solicitation, welds were poorly struck, 

incomplete welds, and missing welds were prevalent 

throughout all spanners. 

(R4, tab 11 at 2) The full inspection report including photographs and keys were 

provided to Podrez on December 19, 2018 (R4, tab 12 at 2). We find that the items 

were not in conformance with the contract specifications. 

10. On January 7, 2019, the CO issued a show cause to appellant why the 

contract should not be terminated for cause due to appellant's failure to deliver 

spanners that conformed to the contract. Podrez was given 10 days to explain why its 

failure to deliver was without fault, or else the contract would be terminated for cause. 

(R4, tab 27 at 1) 

11. Appellant responded to the show cause on January 10, 2019 claiming it was 

unaware of a drawing upon which the rejection of the goods was based in part, when 

in fact appellant had referred to said drawing in its own quote responding to the RFQ 

(R4, tab 33 at 5). 

12. Nevertheless, on January 15, 2019, the CO attempted to rectify the 

situation by allowing appellant to retrieve the nonconforming items and bring them 

into conformance, granting an additional 30 days from retrieval to effect conformance 

(R4, tab 37 at 1; tab 59, Brown decl. ,-i 7). 

13. By February 4, 2019, the items had not been picked up from Fort Hood and 

the CO gave appellant until 1400 on February 7, 2019 to provide a time line for 

retrieval or else the contract would be terminated for cause (R4, tab 41 at 1 ). Rather 

than provide said timeline, appellant advised that if the contract were terminated they 

would "dispute it and have it reversed and then file a claim for TERMINATION FOR 

CONVENIENCE" (R4, tab 42 at 1). 

14. Thereafter the CO, on February 8, 2019, issued a final decision terminating 

the contract for cause and on February 11, 2019 modified the contract accordingly 

(R4, tabs 43-45, 4 7). 

5 
15. Appellant timely appealed the termination for cause to the Board which we 

docketed as ASBCA No. 61971. Only the termination for cause is at issue here. 

DECISION 

A termination for default is a drastic sanction which should be imposed ( or 

sustained) only for good grounds and on solid evidence. Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. 

United States, 828 F.2d 759, 765 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (quoting JD. Hedin Constr. Co. v. 

United States, 408 F .2d 424, 431 (Ct. Cl. 1969)). Though this is an appeal brought by 

Podrez, because a termination for default is essentially a government claim, the 

government bears the initial burden of proving "by a preponderance of the evidence that 

a termination for default was justified." Keystone Capital Services, ASBCA No. 56565, 

09-1 BCA, 34,130 at 168,753 (citing Lisbon Contractors, 828 F.2d at 765). "If the 

government establishes a prima facie case justifying the termination, the burden shifts to 

the contractor to prove the default was excusable." Truck/a Services, Inc., ASBCA 

Nos. 57564, 57752, 17-1 BCA, 36,638 at 178,445 (citingADTConstr. Grp., Inc., 

ASBCA No. 55358, 13 BCA, 35,307 at 173,312). 

Based upon the evidence of record we find that the spanners did not comply 

with the contract, that appellant failed to take corrective action when given the 

opportunity to do so and that it has provided no reason for its failure to perform in 

accordance with the contract (findings 9, 13). Appellant has presented no evidence 

that the spanners were in compliance with the contract. 

Appellant filed a document entitled "Affirmative Statement of Disputed Facts" 

on April 8, 2019. This document does not include any additional evidence in support 

of its case. It merely makes conclusory statements about the government's case and 

states that it disputes said statements and wants documents in support of them. Those 

documents in support of the government's decision to terminate for cause are in the 

Rule 4 file submitted by the government and clearly support the termination action. 

The "Conclusion" of the appellant's affirmative statement is quoted in full as follows 

because that is the most cogent argument it makes in this record: 

The goods delivered by appellant conformed to the 

specifications of the contract. No intended use was 

provided by the Government. Appellant did not agree to 

the corrective action plan offered by the Government and 

believes the actions to be an abuse of discretion. The 

appellant advised the Government that the specifications 

provided by the government were defective, improper, and 

invalid. The appellant completed the contract under the 

terms of the contract. Appellant believed the actions taken 

6 
by the Government were coercive; the Government refused 

to consider any corrective action plans proposed by 

appellant. Appellant believes the actions taken by the 

contracting officer violated the Government's implied duty 

of good faith and fair dealing, as a result, terminated the 

contact improperly. 

Unfortunately for appellant, there is no evidence in this record to support those 

conclusions. Accordingly the termination for cause was proper and fully supported by 

the record. 

The appeal is denied. 

Dated: July 2, 2019 

CONCLUSION 

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 No. 61971, Appeal of Podrez 

Enterprise, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

7 

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals