Texas Global Distribution LLC

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of - ) ) Texas Global Distribution LLC ) ASBCA No. 64333 ) Under Contract No. FA4417-24-P-0035 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mohammad W. Ullah, Esq. The Law Firm of Mohammad Ullah, PLLC Houston, TX APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Caryl A. Potter, III, Esq. Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney Christopher J. Hilborn, Esq. Trial Attorney OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARQUEZ ON THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Before the Board is the Air Force’s motion to dismiss on the basis that the appeal is untimely under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109. The appeal arises out of the termination for cause of a contract for Texas Global Distribution LLC (Texas Global) to provide emergency response vehicles at Hurlburt Field, Florida. Texas Global asserts that the appeal was submitted to the Board within the statutory 90-day appeal period. For the reasons stated below, we grant the Air Force’s motion. STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 1. On March 28, 2024, the Air Force awarded Contract No. FA4417-24-P-0035 to Texas Global for the provision of emergency vehicles at Hurlburt Field, Florida (R4, tab 17). As modified, the contract contained a one-year base period of May 10, 2024 to May 9, 2025, and two six-month option periods (R4, tabs 27-28). 2. The Air Force exercised the contract’s first option period via Modification (Mod.) P00003 on April 11, 2025 (R4, tab 102). Texas Global’s operations manager, Mr. Hayder Alhasani, responded by email dated April 18, 2025, that Texas Global would be unable to renew the required vehicle insurance and requested that the contract be terminated “without cause” (R4, tab 104). 3. The Air Force and Mr. Alhasani subsequently exchanged emails and telephone calls in attempt to resolve the issue (R4, tab 105). However, on April 30, 2025, Mr. Alhasani reiterated to the Air Force’s contracting officer (CO) that Texas Global would be unable to perform the first option period (id. at 1). 4. The Air Force issued a Notice to Show Cause to Texas Global on May 1, 2025 (R4, tab 106; tab 107 at 2). Mr. Alhasani responded via email dated May 8, 2025, again requesting that the contract “be terminated at no cost” (R4, tab 107 at 1). 5. The CO emailed Texas Global a “Termination Notice” on May 20, 2025 (R4, tabs 108-109; gov’t statement of facts (GSOF) ¶ 5; app. opp’n at 3). The termination notice was signed by the CO and provided in full: SUBJECT: Termination Notice Contract FA441724P0035, Structural Pumper and Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Vehicle 1. This notice is to inform you the subject contract is being terminated for Cause in accordance with FAR 52.212-4(m) Contract Terms and Conditions - Commercial Products and Commercial Services, and FAR 12.403(c)(1) Termination. Texas Global Distribution’s right to proceed further under this contract is terminated effective upon receipt of this notice. In accordance with FAR 52.212-4(f) and FAR 52.212-4(m), Texas Global shall be liable to the Government for any and all rights and remedies provided by law. 2. Texas Global Distribution is being terminated for failure to provide insurance that is required for the contractual service of FA441724P0035. The modification FA441724P0035 P00001, effective 12 April 2024 had incorporated FAR 52.228-8 Liability and Insurance-Leased Motor Vehicles. 3. On 18 April 2025, Texas Global Distribution informed the government that it would be impossible to provide insurance required for the contractual service and that proceeding with the extension beyond 9 May 2025 would not be possible for Texas Global to accomplish. Further, the reasons provided by Texas Global Distribution in justification of their failure to perform in accordance with the terms of the contract were not excusable in accordance with FAR 52.212-4(f). In rendering this determination, I have given due consideration to the factors outlined in FAR 49.402-3(f). 4. This is the final decision of the Contracting Officer. You may appeal this decision to the agency board of contract appeals. If you decide to appeal, you must, within 90 days from the date you receive this decision, mail, or otherwise furnish written notice to the agency board of contract 2  appeals and provide a copy to the Contracting Officer from whose decision this appeal is taken. The notice shall indicate that an appeal is intended, reference this decision, and identify the contract number. With regards to appeals to the agency board of contract appeals, you may, solely at your election, process [sic] under the board’s – a. Small claim procedure for claims of $50,000 or less or, in the case of a small business concern (as defined by the Small Business Act and regulations under the Act), $150,000 or less or b. Accelerated procedure for claims of $100,000 or less. Instead of appealing to the agency board of contract appeals, you may bring an action directly in the United States Court of Federal Claims (except as provided in 41 U.S.C. 7102(d), regarding Maritime Contracts) within 12 months of the date you receive this decision. 5. A modification confirming this termination will follow. Any questions can be directed to the undersigned at [CO’s email address]. (R4, tab 109) 6. The CO issued Mod. P00005 on May 29, 2025, terminating the contract for cause and de-obligating all remaining funds under the contract (R4, tab 117). Mod. P00005’s description provided: The purpose of this modification is to issue the Termination for Cause. The de-obligation of a total amount of $30,000.00 from CLINs 1001 and 1002, results in the termination of these CLINS. The contract is considered terminated completely and is ultimately closed. Id. at 1. 7. The Board received an email from Texas Global’s counsel including a notice of appeal as an attachment at 12:56 am Eastern Time (ET) on August 19, 2025, 91 days after the termination notice was issued (R4, tab 200; GSOF ¶ 7; app. opp’n at 2). The Board, including its email server, was located in Falls Church, Virginia, which follows Eastern Time. 1 Texas Global’s counsel was based in Houston, Texas, which follows 1 The Board is now located in Alexandria, Virginia, which also follows Eastern Time. 3 Central Time (CT), and is one hour behind Eastern Time. (R4, tab 200; GSOF ¶ 7; app. opp’n at 2). 8. The Board docketed Texas Global’s appeal as ASBCA No. 64333 on August 20, 2025. DECISION The Parties’ Contentions The Air Force moves to dismiss Texas Global’s appeal, asserting that the appeal is untimely because it was received by the Board’s email server on August 19, 2025, 91 days after Texas Global received the termination notice on May 20, 2025 (gov’t mot. at 8; gov’t reply at 8-10). Texas Global contends that the termination notice was not a contracting officer’s final decision (COFD) and that its appeal is timely because it was submitted to the Board within 90 days of the issuance of Mod. P00005 on May 29, 2025 (app. opp’n at 6-9). Standard of Review The Board’s jurisdiction to consider appeals arises from the CDA. US Pan Am. Sols., LLC, ASBCA No. 63957, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,814 at 188,810. Texas Global, as the proponent of the Board’s jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing our jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Centerra Grp., LLC, f/k/a The Wackenhut Serv., Inc., ASBCA No. 61267, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37,204 at 181,118; K-Con Bldg. Sys., Inc. v. United States, 778 F.3d 1000, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The CDA requires a contractor to submit its appeal to the Board within 90 days of receipt of a COFD. 41 U.S.C. § 7104(a). Texas Global’s Appeal is Untimely “It is well-settled that the Board lacks jurisdiction over any appeal filed outside of [the] 90-day appeal period, which is statutory and cannot be waived by the Board.” US Pan Am., 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,814 at 188,811 (quoting TTF, LLC, ASBCA No. 59511 et al., 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,883 at 175,434); see also Cosmic Constr. Co. v. United States, 697 F.2d 1389, 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1982); Frasson Lodovico S.r.l., ASBCA No. 58645, 14-1 BCA ¶ 35,525 at 174,114. The day the contractor receives the COFD is not counted in determining the 90-day period, but the day the contractor submits its appeal is counted. TTF, 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,883 at 175,434; see also Board Rule 5(b). Here, there is no dispute that the Board received Texas Global’s notice of appeal at 12:56 am (ET) on August 19, 2025 (SOF ¶ 7). As Texas Global appears to 4 concede (app. opp’n at 2), this means that the appeal was filed on August 19, 2025, even if it was still the previous day where Texas Global’s counsel was located. See Board Rule 2(a)(3) (“Filing occurs upon receipt by the Board’s email server.”); Free & Ben, Inc., ASBCA No. 56129, 11-2 BCA ¶ 34,802 at 171,269 (timeliness of electronic filing was based on Board’s, rather than filer’s, local time); see also Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FED. R. CIV. P.) 6(a)(4)(A) (last day for electronic filing ends at midnight in court’s time zone, unless modified by statute, local rule, or court order). Accordingly, the question we must answer is whether the termination notice Texas Global received on May 20, 2025 – 91 days previously (SOF ¶ 5) – constituted a COFD, the receipt of which commenced the 90-day appeal period. We conclude that it did. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 33.211, CONTRACTING OFFICER’S DECISION (MAY 2014) 2, requires that a COFD be in writing and include (1) a description of the claim or dispute, (2) a reference to the pertinent contract terms, (3) a statement of the factual areas of agreement and disagreement, and (4) a statement of the CO’s decision accompanied with supporting rationale. FAR 33.211(a)(4)(i)-(iv). FAR 33.211(a)(4)(v) further requires a COFD to include “[p]aragraphs substantially as follows:” 3 This is the final decision of the Contracting Officer. You may appeal this decision to the agency board of contract appeals. If you decide to appeal, you must, within 90 days from the date you receive this decision, mail or otherwise furnish written notice to the agency board of contract appeals and provide a copy to the Contracting Officer from whose decision this appeal is taken. The notice shall indicate that an appeal is intended, reference this decision, and identify the contract by number. With regard to appeals to the agency board of contract appeals, you may, solely at your election, proceed under the board’s— (1) Small claim procedure for claims of $50,000 or less or, in the case of a small business concern (as defined in the Small Business Act and regulations under that Act), $150,000 or less; or (2) Accelerated procedure for claims of $100,000 or less. 2 FAR Part 33.2 Disputes and Appeals applies to “any express or implied contract covered by the Federal Acquisition Regulation.” FAR 33.203(a). 3 FAR 33.211(a)(4)(vi) requires demand for payment for government claims, but this is not applicable here since the Air Force has not issued a monetary claim against Texas Global. 5  Instead of appealing to the agency board of contract appeals, you may bring an action directly in the United States Court of Federal Claims (except as provided in 41 U.S.C. 7102(d), regarding Maritime Contracts) within 12 months of the date you receive this decision. The May 20, 2025 termination notice satisfied the requirements of FAR 33.211 because it (1) informed Texas Global that the contract was “being terminated for failure to provide insurance that is required for the contractual service,” (2) cited FAR 52.228-8 as the pertinent contract term that was breached, (3) summarized the circumstances of Texas Global’s failure to provide the required insurance, and (4) informed Texas Global that the contract was terminated because the CO found Texas Global’s failure to be not excusable (SOF ¶ 5). Additionally, using the exact language required by FAR 33.211(a)(4)(v), the termination notice represented that it was the CO’s “final decision” and informed Texas Global of its appeal rights (id.). Accordingly, we find that the May 20, 2025 termination notice was a valid COFD, Texas Global’s receipt of which on that day commenced the 90-day appeal period. Because Texas Global did not file its notice of appeal until 91 days later on August 19, 2025, the appeal is untimely. 4 Texas Global’s Apparent Use of Artificial Intelligence While the Board grants the Air Force’s motion to dismiss for the reasons stated above, we also note that Texas Global’s opposition brief contains numerous false or misleading statements that appear to be the product of generative artificial intelligence (AI) “hallucinations,” or “blatantly incorrect information that, on its face, appears truthful.” Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 779 F. Supp. 3d 341, 342 (E.D.N.Y. 2025). While the Board does not prohibit parties from using AI to assist in drafting filings, the Board’s Use of AI Policy 5 advises that “regardless of the means that a party uses to draft such filings, the party is responsible to ensure that they accurately reflect the facts and the law.” The improper use of AI in the legal field is not new, and “[i]t is now well known that AI platforms can generate non-existent cases.” Huffman Constr., 4 Because we find that the May 20, 2025 termination notice was a valid COFD, we do not further consider Texas Global’s argument that the 90-day appeal period should have begun upon its receipt of Mod. P00005 on May 29, 2025 (app. opp’n at 6-9). It is well established that in the case of a termination for cause, the 90-day period begins to toll upon receipt of the CO’s decision to terminate the contract. US Pan Am. Sols., 24-1 BCA ¶ 38,588 at 187,579; W. Trading Co., ASBCA No. 61004, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37,030 at 180,304; Bushra Co., ASBCA No. 59918, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,355 at 177,238 (“In the case of a termination for cause, such as the one presented here, receipt of notification of the CO’s decision to terminate for cause begins the 90-day clock.”). 5 The Board’s Use of AI Policy can be found at https://www.asbca.mil/Use-of-AI/. 6 ASBCA Nos. 62591, 62873, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,932 at 189,483 (citing Sanders v. United States, 176 Fed. Cl. 163, 168-70 (2025)). Such hallucinated cases create the illusion of real case law by including indicia such as party names, docket numbers, case reporter citations with pin cites, names of real judges, and dates on which the decisions were purportedly issued. Id. Additionally, such misuse of AI requires opposing parties and courts to expend additional time and resources to verify and respond to AI hallucinations. Texas Global’s opposition cites various cases that either do not exist or do not stand for the propositions Texas Global asserts. For example, Texas Global relies upon the fictitious Hensel Phelps Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 49204, 96-1 BCA ¶ 28,061, 6 for the proposition that “a communication must reflect the contracting officer’s clear intent to issue a final decision, and the decision must be complete and final when received” (app. opp’n at 5). Similarly, Texas Global “quotes” the following language that is nowhere found in Placeway Constr. Corp. v. United States, 920 F.2d 903, 907–08 (Fed. Cir. 1990): “The contractor must have received a final decision statutorily compliant in its form and content before the limitations period can begin” (app. opp’n at 7). In yet another example, Texas Global asserts: “If the Government indicates that additional documentation, a forthcoming modification, or a future action will ‘confirm,’ ‘finalize,’ or ‘issue’ the termination or decision, the earlier communication is not final as a matter of law. See EBA Ernest Bland Assocs., CBCA 6934 (COFD not final where agency contemplated further action)” (id. at 5). This case also appears to be an AI hallucination. 7 Accordingly, the Board has given these citations no weight. Aside from these hallucinated citations, Texas Global’s opposition also includes blatant misstatements of fact. For example, Texas Global alleges that the termination notice “was unsigned, incomplete, and expressly superseded by the contracting officer herself” (app. opp’n at 6) despite the record demonstrating otherwise (see SOF ¶ 5). Texas Global also claims that: Here, the May 20 email lacked the contracting officer’s signature and omitted the standard final-decision language required by FAR 33.211. The contracting officer subsequently acknowledged the omission, 6 The case located at 96-1 BCA ¶ 28,061 is a Department of Transportation Board of Contract Appeals decision, Trident Indus. Prods. Corp., which does not provide any relevant support to Texas Global’s argument. The Board is unable to locate any decision published under ASBCA No. 49204. 7 The case assigned CBCA No. 6934 is JAF Supply, Inc. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,729, a decision in which the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals found an appeal submitted 91 days after the contractor received the COFD to be untimely. 7  apologized, and transmitted a signed version dated May 27. This conduct is dispositive because the contracting officer herself treated the May 20 version as incomplete and non-final. App. opp’n at 7. The termination notice, however, was signed by the CO and, as discussed above, included the language required by FAR 33.211(a)(4)(v) verbatim (SOF ¶ 5). Furthermore, the Board is unable to locate any evidence in the record that the CO ever acknowledged an omission in the termination notice, apologized, or retransmitted a signed version of the document on May 27, 2025. While it is unclear as to whether these misstatements are also the product of AI hallucinations, assertions of counsel unsupported by fact are not evidence and are given no weight. Thomas J. Davis, Inc., ASBCA No. 62634, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,886 at 183,993. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Board grants the Air Force’s motion. Texas Global’s appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: October 22, 2026 DAVID M. MARQUEZ Administrative Judge Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals I concur I concur J. REID PROUTY DAVID D’ALESSANDRIS Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Vice Chairman Armed Services Board Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals of Contract Appeals 8  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. 64333, Appeal of Texas Global Distribution LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. Dated: October 23, 2026 PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS Recorder, Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals 9