Vision Distributors LLC
Vision Distributors LLC appealed the Army's termination for cause of a contract to deliver testing equipment, asserting that manufacturer interference and supplier restrictions excused its nonperformance. On the Army's motion for summary judgment, the Board held that Vision Distributors anticipatorily repudiated the contract and failed to establish excusable nonperformance, and it denied the appeal.
Material Facts
- The Army awarded Vision Distributors a small business set-aside contract for delivery of three Quaestor 8000 testing devices manufactured by Draeger, Inc.
- The contract required delivery by May 27, 2025, at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.
- The contract incorporated FAR 52.212-4, including provisions addressing termination for cause and excusable nonperformance.
- Before signing the contract, Vision Distributors confirmed pricing but did not obtain a firm supplier commitment.
- After award, Vision Distributors requested a price increase after learning of a Draeger price increase attributed to tariffs.
- Vision Distributors later stated that it could not fulfill the order because Draeger would not authorize the sale or permit procurement through its sales channels.
- Vision Distributors was not an authorized Draeger reseller.
- Vision Distributors did not respond after the contracting officer advised that termination for cause would be initiated and invited information concerning adequate assurance or excusable delay.
- Vision Distributors presented no evidence that the government possessed or withheld relevant information about Draeger's sales practices.
Parties
- Appellant
- Vision Distributors LLC
- Respondent Agency
- the Army
- Contracting Agency
- Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command at Fort Drum, NY
- Contract Number
- W911S2-25-P-A259
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
- Africa Transport Logistics CompanyNo. 64120October 1, 2026
- Environet, Inc.No. 64167September 23, 2026
- Hensel Phelps Construction CompanyNo. 64327September 14, 2026
- Marine Hydraulics International, LLCNo. 63429, 63511August 6, 2026
- KUNJ Construction CorporationNo. 63240June 12, 2026
- DRS Laurel TechnologiesNo. 63303June 3, 2026
Same Year
- Bodell Construction CompanyNo. 63517-ADR, 63850-ADROctober 2, 2026
- Procal Electric, Inc.No. 63580-ADROctober 2, 2026
- Africa Transport Logistics CompanyNo. 64120October 1, 2026
- Kearfott CorporationNo. 64328October 1, 2026
- Relyant Global, LLCNo. 64606October 1, 2026
- Relyant Global, LLCNo. 64651October 1, 2026
Same Issue
- Huffman Construction, LLCNo. 62591, 62783September 30, 2026
- US Military CorpNo. 64321September 24, 2026
- Relyant Global LLCNo. 64032, 64111, 64230, 64231, 64517August 24, 2026
- Visionary Construction, Inc. dba Visionary ServicesNo. 64426August 20, 2026
- Peritia LLCNo. 64495, 64586August 20, 2026
- J.A.M. Construction Services, Inc.No. 63378, 64226, 64439July 28, 2026