Lasmer Industries, Inc.
Lasmer Industries, Inc. appealed the deemed denial of its claim for a no-cost termination of a contract due to an alleged impossible specification. The Board denied the government's motion to dismiss the appeals.
Material Facts
- The contract was an indefinite quantity contract for delivery of specified automotive parts awarded to Lasmer by the Defense Supply Center Columbus on 23 September 2002.
- Lasmer delivered 700 idler arms under Delivery Order 0015, with 3,100 remaining undelivered.
- An independent test agency reported that none of the idler arms passed the required endurance test.
- Lasmer's contract administrator stated that the endurance test could not be met due to inadequacies in the specifications.
- DSCC found that the idler arms supplied by Lasmer were non-conforming.
- Lasmer was debarred from contracting with the federal government from 1 February 2005 through 31 July 2008 for shipping non-conforming parts.
- Lasmer requested a no-cost termination of the contract on 22 April 2009 due to the impossible specification.
- The government offered a no-cost termination on 5 November 2009, but did not acknowledge the impossible specification.
- Lasmer rejected the government's offer on 24 November 2009.
Parties
- Appellant
- Lasmer Industries, Inc.
- Respondent Agency
- Defense Logistics Agency
- Contracting Agency
- Defense Supply Center Columbus
- Contract Number
- SPO750-02-D-7917
Full Legal Analysis
Create a free account to read the complete grounded legal brief for this decision, including the holding, every issue the Board decided, quantum, verified citations, and the case's citation graph.
Holding & Legal Reasoning
The Board's holding, background, and procedural posture for this decision.
Issues Presented
Every issue the Board decided, with its determination, reasoning, and supporting authority.
Quantum & Recovery
The claimed, awarded, and net dollar amounts at issue, itemized where the record supports it.
Verified Authorities & Citations
Every cited FAR, DFARS, CAS, and case-law authority, cross-checked against the source text.
Practitioner Takeaways
Practical guidance for contractors and counsel, distilled from the Board's ruling.
Similar Cases
Related decisions surfaced by semantic search across the full analyzed corpus.
Citation Graph
An interactive graph of this case's cited authorities, judge, agency, and related decisions.
Related Decisions
Same Judge
- Phoenix Management, Inc.No. 59273April 8, 2015
- Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc.No. 58343March 2, 2015
- SureTec Insurance CompanyNo. 59343, 59647January 2, 2015
- Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc.No. 58343November 7, 2014
- Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc.No. 58343October 23, 2014
- Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc.No. 58343October 22, 2014
Same Year
- C.E.M.E.S. S.p.A.No. 56253, 57355December 29, 2010
- Shaw Environmental, Inc.No. 57237December 16, 2010
- Thorington Electrical and Construction CompanyNo. 56997December 13, 2010
- Phoenix Management, Inc.No. 57234December 13, 2010
- Parsons Global Services, Inc.No. 56731December 3, 2010
- Kelly-Ryan, Inc.No. 57168November 29, 2010
Same Issue
- Bodell Construction CompanyNo. 63517-ADR, 63850-ADROctober 2, 2026
- Huffman Construction, LLCNo. 62591, 62783September 30, 2026
- Martin Brothers ConstructionNo. 63196, 63431September 30, 2026
- WSP USA Solutions Inc.No. 62674September 1, 2026
- Mvation Worldwide Inc.No. 64633August 18, 2026
- U.S. Aeroteam, Inc.No. 61972, 61973August 6, 2026