57432

Charles Mullens

October 12, 2012Judge Freeman
Denied / Government PrevailedAccord & Satisfaction / Release / WaiverContract Interpretation

Charles Mullens appealed a contracting officer's final decision denying a $90,000 damages claim related to a no-fault termination of his contract. The Board denied the appeal, finding no merit in Mullens' allegations.

Material Facts

  • Contract 0226 was awarded to Charles Mullens on 27 January 2006 for operating a concession at Fort Huachuca, Arizona.
  • The contract included a no-fault termination clause allowing either party to terminate with 10 days written notice.
  • Mullens continued operating the concession after the government failed to exercise the third option year.
  • A dispute arose regarding a boat repair for which Mullens claimed payment but did not provide an estimate to the customer.
  • On 9 July 2009, the contracting officer received a request to terminate the contract due to numerous bad experiences.
  • The contract was terminated on 20 July 2009, and Mullens later sued the customer in state court for payment, which he lost.

Parties

Appellant
Charles Mullens
Respondent Agency
Department of the Army
Contract Number
Contract No. NAFHA1-06-T-0226
Open Official Decision PDF (asbca.mil)AI-analyzed, grounded in the decision text. Verify against the official PDF before relying on it.

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

Same Year

Same Issue

Newsletter

New decisions every Monday

GovConDash Weekly lists the decisions GAO, the boards, the courts and SBA OHA released that week, alongside the FAR Overhaul deviations and proposed rules that reach every contractor. Free.

Free, weekly, and one click to unsubscribe. We send a confirmation email first. See our Privacy Policy.