Name Redacted, ASBCA No. 60300, 60302

Two contracts (Bagram and Kandahar) awarded in July–August 2015 for continuous custodial, grounds, maintenance, and facility support services at U.S./Coalition bases in Afghanistan.
Contracts required contractor to maintain base security/access compliance and provide continuous/daily services; FAR 52.212-4(m) termination-for-cause clause applied.
On 19 September 2015 a TAAC‑S memorandum revoked appellant’s access to Kandahar Airfield (and, per government, to all U.S. installations) based on a vendor‑vetting/force‑protection determination.
Appellant could not access the installations and therefore ceased performing contract services.
On 24 September 2015 the contracting officer terminated both contracts for default; appellant was paid for work through the termination date and appealed to the ASBCA.
The government moved for summary judgment; the Board granted it, concluding loss of access constituted a breach and justified termination for cause.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether termination for default was proper because contractor lost access to required bases	Loss of access resulted from vendor vetting beyond appellant’s control; not appellant’s fault	Contractor had contractual duty to maintain access and provide continuous services; loss of access breached contract	Termination for cause was proper; loss of access did not excuse nonperformance
Whether vendor‑vetting determinations outside contractor control excuse nonperformance	Appellant: government decisions on vetting absolve contractor of breach	Government: contractor bears risk; contractual clauses make access its responsibility	Board: lack of control over vetting is not a valid excuse; contractor breached
Whether summary judgment was appropriate	Appellant argued facts in exhibits but did not raise a genuine material factual dispute	Government showed undisputed facts supporting termination as a matter of law	Summary judgment granted to government; no material factual disputes remained
Burden of proof for default termination correctness	Appellant sought to shift showing to government to prove improper termination	Government bore burden to justify termination; argued it met burden with record and CO declaration	Government met its burden; termination for cause upheld

Proveris Scientific Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc., 739 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir.) (summary judgment standard)
Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir.) (summary judgment and material fact discussion)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S.) (definition of material fact and summary judgment standard)
Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 828 F.2d 759 (Fed. Cir.) (government bears burden to justify default termination)