Case: 20-1233 Document: 53 Page: 1 Filed: 10/19/2021
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BILLIE O. STONE, DBA STOBIL ENTERPRISE,
Appellant
v.
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE,
Appellee
______________________
2020-1233
______________________
Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Ap-
peals in Nos. 61688, 61689, Administrative Judge Richard
Shackleford.
______________________
Decided: October 19, 2021
______________________
BILLIE O. STONE, San Antonio, TX, pro se.
GEOFFREY MARTIN LONG, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY.
______________________
Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.
Case: 20-1233 Document: 53 Page: 2 Filed: 10/19/2021
2 STONE v. SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
PER CURIAM.
Billie O. Stone appeals from the decision of the Armed
Services Board of Contract Appeals (“the Board”) denying
his monetary claim against the Department of the Air
Force. Appeals of Stobil Enter., Nos. 61688, 61689, 2019
ASBCA LEXIS 19 (Jan. 18, 2019) (“Decision”). Stone’s
claim against the Air Force stems from a dispute over a
contract for the removal and replacement of a door. For the
following reasons, we dismiss the appeal for lack of juris-
diction.
BACKGROUND
Stone d/b/a/ Stobil Enterprise specializes in door instal-
lations. In January 2018, the Air Force submitted a Re-
quest for Quotation (RFQ) for the removal and replacement
of a door. SAppx 14. 1 The RFQ’s Statement of Work (SOW)
stated in relevant part:
PROJECT SCOPE: The contractor shall furnish
all supervision, labor, transportation[,] materials,
tools, incidentals, equipment, and Quality Assur-
ance to remove existing Overhead Door and install
new Overhead Door, hardware, and electric mo-
tors. . . .
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The requirements of
this project are but not limited to the following: Re-
move one (1) each steel overhead door and replace
with new 25’ by 21’ heavy duty rolling overhead
door with electric operators.
Id. at 30.
1 “SAppx” refers to the appendix attached to the gov-
ernment’s response brief.
Case: 20-1233 Document: 53 Page: 3 Filed: 10/19/2021
STONE v. SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE 3
Stone submitted a quote in response to the RFQ. Sub-
sequently, the Air Force awarded Stone the contract. Id.
at 20.
After inspecting the door, Stone sent an email to the
Air Force contract specialist informing her that the drum,
which assists in the door’s electrical operation, was dam-
aged. Id. at 23. He wrote that he could replace the drum,
but that it would add an additional cost to the existing con-
tract. Id. The contract specialist responded that, under
the SOW, Stone would need to replace the drum at no ad-
ditional cost. Id. at 24. She pointed out that the SOW re-
quired removal and replacement of the door and a drum is
“part of the electrical operation” of the door. Id.
Stone disagreed and submitted a claim to the contract-
ing officer for $126,000. Id. at 28. The claim encompassed,
among other things, costs for purchase of materials and
“harm; undue hardship; and loss of credit standing with
the [m]anufacturer for nonpayment of the supplied materi-
als procured for the Government’s requirement.” Id. The
contracting officer denied Stone’s claim. Id. at 38. Shortly
thereafter, the Air Force terminated its contract with Stone
because he failed to complete the task by the required date.
Id. at 39.
Stone appealed to the Board pursuant to the Small
Claims Procedure.
41 U.S.C. § 7106(b). The Board sus-
tained the contracting officer’s denial of Stone’s monetary
claim and termination of the contract. See Decision, 2019
ASBCA LEXIS 19, at *10–12. According to the Board, per
the SOW, Stone should have replaced the drum at no addi-
tional cost. The Board acknowledged that the drum was
not mentioned in the contract, but credited the govern-
ment’s argument that it was industry practice to replace
the drum when replacing the door.
Id. The Board also de-
nied Stone’s motion for reconsideration. Appeals of Stobil
Enter., Nos. 61688, 61689, 2019 ASBCA LEXIS 211, at *7
(July 23, 2019).
Case: 20-1233 Document: 53 Page: 4 Filed: 10/19/2021
4 STONE v. SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
DISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board is lim-
ited. The Contract Disputes Act defines this court’s juris-
diction to entertain appeals from Board decisions
adjudicated pursuant to the Small Claims Procedure. It
provides that such decisions are “final and conclusive and
may not be set aside except in cases of fraud.”
41 U.S.C.
§ 7106(b)(4); see also § 7107. To invoke this court’s juris-
diction to review the Board’s decision, an appellant must
make a “non-frivolous allegation of fraud in the board pro-
ceedings.” Palmer v. Barram,
184 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed.
Cir. 1999).
Stone alleges that the Board acted fraudulently in
making its decision. According to Stone, the Board “vio-
lat[ed] . . . federal statute[s]” and “failed to execute proper
review.” Appellant’s Br. 11, 13. The government responds
that we lack jurisdiction over Stone’s appeal because he
has failed to non-frivolously allege fraud. Specifically, the
government contends that Stone’s fraud allegations are
conclusory and unsupported.
We agree with the government that we lack jurisdic-
tion over this appeal. Although Stone makes general alle-
gations that the Board acted fraudulently in reaching its
decision, he provides no specific evidence in support of
those allegations. For example, Stone states that the
Board “suppressed” evidence, but he provides no such ex-
amples. Appellant’s Br. 19. He also asserts that the Board
misrepresented facts and was therefore deceptive, but
again, he offers no actual evidence of deception. See id. at
14. At bottom, Stone’s arguments amount to a disagree-
ment with the Board’s determination. Because Stone has
failed to make a non-frivolous allegation of fraud, we do not
have jurisdiction to review this appeal.
Case: 20-1233 Document: 53 Page: 5 Filed: 10/19/2021
STONE v. SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE 5
CONCLUSION
We have considered Stone’s remaining arguments but
find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we dis-
miss the appeal. 2
DISMISSED
2 Stone filed a motion for supplemental briefing,
which we granted on March 29, 2021. ECF No. 35. Subse-
quently, Stone filed another motion, requesting that we va-
cate the March 29, 2021 order allowing the briefing. ECF
No. 36. We deny Stone’s request.
