Versar, Inc. - Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals

25. The specifications called for seismic protection per TI 809-04 and data from
the CO. Under § 15070A, ~ 1.1, listed p~blications were part ofthe specifications to the
extent referenced. The SMACNA manual was listyd but not referenced further. Shop
drawings required government approval and were to include detail drawings, catalog cuts,
and numerous other details. Design calculations stamped by a registered engineer were
required, including to verify the ability ofstructural members to which bracing was
attached to carry the load. The TO did not specify the number ofseismic restraints but
transverse sway bracing for steel and copper pipe was to be per § 13080 and longitudinal
sway bracing was to be at 40-foot intervals unless otherwise indicated'. There were no
contrary indications. (R4, tab 38 at 633 (§ 13080, ~~ 1.2.1, 1.3), at 636 (~~ 3.5, 3.5.1), tab
41 at 675-77 (§15070A, ~~ 1.1, 1.2.,1, 1.2.4, 1.2.5.1, 1.4), at 679 (~~ 3.5.1, J.5.2), tab 56 at
1018-21 (§ 16070A, ~~ 1.1, 1.2, 1.3.3,2.2,3.2.5))
26. The HV AC system was a four pipe chilled water, water boiler system. Section
13080 governed the seismic restraints on a loop of four 6 to 8-inch pipes running
throughout the building's corridors from the mechanical room to feed the air handling
units (AHUs) and FCUs. Drawing No. M-I05 depicted the piping loop and FCUs. (R4,
tab 736 at 9879, see also tab 773 at 10462; tr. 1/78-80,3/61, 78, 80-81)
27. On 23 August 2006 the CO disapproved Versar's 19 July 2006 submittal
No. 13, pertaining to vibration and seismic isolation under § 15070A, due to lack of
bracing and stamped design calculations (R4, tab 96 at 1880, 1888). Tom Redmond of
Parsons informed the COR on 23 August that, although V ersar' s submittal was not
complete, its piping, ductwork and equipment support systems conformed to industry
standards and specifications and looked like "good quality work" (id. at 1882).
28. On 25 September 2006 Custom fired its project manager (ex. G-33 at 1234).
29. On 3-4 October 2006 Ms. Harvill visited the site to verify the location ofnew
pipes for the HV AC system, ductwork and existing domestic supply pipes. She did not
issue her resulting memorandUin on the basis it would be better to wait until PSC could
coordinate with seismic requirements. (Ex. A-30 at 3, ex. A-39 at 1; tr. 8/114-15)
30. As of 11 October 2006 JJK was still processing the submittal register,
outstanding for several weeks; Custom committed to bringing additional forces onsite
during the Christmas break to maintain schedule; and JJK had delivered a seismic
submittal but it was missing calculations for piping and only equipment data had been
supplied. On 14 October 2006 Versar notified JJK that; after waiting a few months, it had
, received a seismic protection package that did not analyze all necessary equipment or
include all required information, including calculations and design elements, and
drawings were not clearly labeled and were incomplete. On 2 November 2006 Versar's
20