NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

BILLIE O. STONE, DBA STOBIL ENTERPRISE,

Appellant

v.

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE,

Appellee

______________________

2020-1233

______________________

Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in Nos. 61688, 61689, Administrative Judge Richard 

Shackleford.

______________________

Decided: October 19, 2021

______________________

BILLIE O. STONE, San Antonio, TX, pro se.

 GEOFFREY MARTIN LONG, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. Also represented by 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY.

 ______________________

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

Case: 20-1233 Document: 53 Page: 1 Filed: 10/19/2021
2 STONE v. SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

PER CURIAM. 

Billie O. Stone appeals from the decision of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals (“the Board”) denying 

his monetary claim against the Department of the Air 

Force. Appeals of Stobil Enter., Nos. 61688, 61689, 2019 

ASBCA LEXIS 19 (Jan. 18, 2019) (“Decision”). Stone’s 

claim against the Air Force stems from a dispute over a 

contract for the removal and replacement of a door. For the 

following reasons, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Stone d/b/a/ Stobil Enterprise specializes in door installations. In January 2018, the Air Force submitted a Request for Quotation (RFQ) for the removal and replacement 

of a door. SAppx 14.1 The RFQ’s Statement of Work (SOW) 

stated in relevant part:

PROJECT SCOPE: The contractor shall furnish 

all supervision, labor, transportation[,] materials, 

tools, incidentals, equipment, and Quality Assurance to remove existing Overhead Door and install 

new Overhead Door, hardware, and electric motors. . . . 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The requirements of 

this project are but not limited to the following: Remove one (1) each steel overhead door and replace 

with new 25’ by 21’ heavy duty rolling overhead 

door with electric operators.

Id. at 30. 

1 “SAppx” refers to the appendix attached to the government’s response brief. 

Case: 20-1233 Document: 53 Page: 2 Filed: 10/19/2021
STONE v. SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE 3

Stone submitted a quote in response to the RFQ. Subsequently, the Air Force awarded Stone the contract. Id.

at 20. 

After inspecting the door, Stone sent an email to the 

Air Force contract specialist informing her that the drum, 

which assists in the door’s electrical operation, was damaged. Id. at 23. He wrote that he could replace the drum, 

but that it would add an additional cost to the existing contract. Id. The contract specialist responded that, under 

the SOW, Stone would need to replace the drum at no additional cost. Id. at 24. She pointed out that the SOW required removal and replacement of the door and a drum is 

“part of the electrical operation” of the door. Id. 

Stone disagreed and submitted a claim to the contracting officer for $126,000. Id. at 28. The claim encompassed,

among other things, costs for purchase of materials and 

“harm; undue hardship; and loss of credit standing with 

the [m]anufacturer for nonpayment of the supplied materials procured for the Government’s requirement.” Id. The 

contracting officer denied Stone’s claim. Id. at 38. Shortly 

thereafter, the Air Force terminated its contract with Stone 

because he failed to complete the task by the required date. 

Id. at 39. 

Stone appealed to the Board pursuant to the Small 

Claims Procedure. 41 U.S.C. § 7106(b). The Board sustained the contracting officer’s denial of Stone’s monetary 

claim and termination of the contract. See Decision, 2019 

ASBCA LEXIS 19, at *10–12. According to the Board, per 

the SOW, Stone should have replaced the drum at no additional cost. The Board acknowledged that the drum was

not mentioned in the contract, but credited the government’s argument that it was industry practice to replace 

the drum when replacing the door. Id. The Board also denied Stone’s motion for reconsideration. Appeals of Stobil 

Enter., Nos. 61688, 61689, 2019 ASBCA LEXIS 211, at *7 

(July 23, 2019). 

Case: 20-1233 Document: 53 Page: 3 Filed: 10/19/2021
4 STONE v. SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board is limited. The Contract Disputes Act defines this court’s jurisdiction to entertain appeals from Board decisions 

adjudicated pursuant to the Small Claims Procedure. It 

provides that such decisions are “final and conclusive and 

may not be set aside except in cases of fraud.” 41 U.S.C. 

§ 7106(b)(4); see also § 7107. To invoke this court’s jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision, an appellant must 

make a “non-frivolous allegation of fraud in the board proceedings.” Palmer v. Barram, 184 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. 

Cir. 1999). 

Stone alleges that the Board acted fraudulently in 

making its decision. According to Stone, the Board “violat[ed] . . . federal statute[s]” and “failed to execute proper 

review.” Appellant’s Br. 11, 13. The government responds 

that we lack jurisdiction over Stone’s appeal because he

has failed to non-frivolously allege fraud. Specifically, the 

government contends that Stone’s fraud allegations are 

conclusory and unsupported.

We agree with the government that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Although Stone makes general allegations that the Board acted fraudulently in reaching its 

decision, he provides no specific evidence in support of 

those allegations. For example, Stone states that the 

Board “suppressed” evidence, but he provides no such examples. Appellant’s Br. 19. He also asserts that the Board

misrepresented facts and was therefore deceptive, but 

again, he offers no actual evidence of deception. See id. at 

14. At bottom, Stone’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the Board’s determination. Because Stone has 

failed to make a non-frivolous allegation of fraud, we do not 

have jurisdiction to review this appeal.

Case: 20-1233 Document: 53 Page: 4 Filed: 10/19/2021
STONE v. SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE 5

CONCLUSION

We have considered Stone’s remaining arguments but 

find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal. 2

DISMISSED

2 Stone filed a motion for supplemental briefing, 

which we granted on March 29, 2021. ECF No. 35. Subsequently, Stone filed another motion, requesting that we vacate the March 29, 2021 order allowing the briefing. ECF 

No. 36. We deny Stone’s request.

Case: 20-1233 Document: 53 Page: 5 Filed: 10/19/2021