Versar, Inc. - Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals

More documents

Recommendations

Info

33. By a 3 January 2007 email to Mr. Presson and Ms. Harvill,Mr . Habrukowich attached the "old" seismic piping submittal No. 36, dated 16 November 2006, "without calculations," and a file of''just the drawings," which contained Mr. Martin's markups (ex. A-16; tr. 3/92-94,4/42-43). Later that day Mr. Habrukowich informed Mr. Martin, AFCEE, J1K, Versar and others that RWP's seismic engineer and Ms. Harvill had talked and each had a piping diagram with approximate locations ofpipe brackets throughout the school, along with the prior equipment and piping support restraint submittals. The seismic engineer expected to have calculations soon forMs". Harvill. . Discussions would occur between him and PSC to arrive at a consensus,to make the 16 January 2007 meeting productive. This might include installation of additional steel supports. (R4, tab 211) Thus, through PSC and Versar's project manager, Mr. Habrukowich, Versar and JJK were aware, or should have been, that submittal No. 36 could be modified. 34. By 5 January 2007 email to Mr. HabrukowichandMs. Harvill, Mr. Martin attached the results ofRWP's calculations of"preliminary pipe support reactions." Analysis concerning lateral seismic loads and vertical and horizontal seismic reactions was still based upon "tangential seismic restraints located at 40 feet on center and longitudinal seismic restraints located at 80 feet on center." (R4, tab 328 at 3977, 3979) 35. On 8 January .2007 Mr. Chaney notified PSC, Parsons and AFCEE ofhis responses to concerns ofDr. Joe Guiendon, DDESS' school superintendent, about project completion by August ~007. Mr. Chaney stated that Versar was aware that: . [W]e must be completely in that school by August and to date they have not given us any indication that they cannot meet that schedule. They will have to work evenings and weekends to meet schedule. (R4, tab 218 at 3283) Mr: Chaney advised Dr. Guiendon that he did not have contracting authority (id. at 3284) and acknowledged at the hearing that he "knew darned-well" that DDESS could not contractually mandate an early contract finish date (tr. 1/150).3 36. Mr. Redmond had agreed about December 2006 to allow Versar to stock roof panel bundles on the school's roofbut, on 8 January 2007, he noted CMU cracks in the administration area that he attributed to the panel loading. Roofjoists were flexing under the load. PSC sought immediate panel removal. On 9 January a crane mobilized to remove the panels but could not do so due to high winds. An 11 January 2007 report by a structuraf engineer from Virginia A&E, hired by Versar, recommended that part ofthe roofbe relieved ofloading or that joists be shored; that all bundles be protected from 3 Appellant has not claimed acceleration. 22
moisture, which adds to the load; and that further analysis be done. On 12 January 2007 a crane removed all panel bundles in the administration area from the roof. (R4, tab 677 at . 8448-8449; ex. A-23 at2-1, ex. G-33 at 1291, 1292, 1295) By April 2007 they still had not been entirely removed or redistributed to avoid overloading joists, despite PSC's repeated directions. The contractor had declined, stating panel use was imminent, but the work had not been accomplished. (R4, tab 245 at 3464, ~ 7, tab 263 at 3604, ~ 7, at 3607, ~ 4, tab 854 at 10856) In the subcontractor cost portion of its claim and revised claim (below), Versar included $11,630.32 for crane rental by its subcontractor MGC Roofing and $3,019.31 for Virginia A&E's services (R4, tab 562 at 6922; ex. A-113 at 1). 37. Mr. Chaney acknowledged at the hearing that, by January 2007, he was adverse to Versar and was trying to get Mr. Habrukowich removed as project manager (tr. 1/95-96). On 9 January 2007 Mr. Chaney, in effect, suggested to Versar's president, Theodore Prociv (tr. 9/154), that Mr. Habrukowich be removed. Versar then removed him and replaced him with Brian Franklin, who was based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and made few site visits. While acknowledging that Mr. Habrukowich occasionally had a "rough edge" and that Mr. Chaney's concerns had some merit, Mr. Stiles stated that AFCEE did not request the removal and Versar would not have done so absent Mr. Chaney's insistence. (Ex. A-25 at 3-4; tr. 1/266-68,2/68-69, 83-85, 166, 4/43, 8/34, 161, 181; see R4, tab 262, tab 801 at 10598; ex. A-33; ex. G-40) 38. During the week of8-12 January 2007 Custom's superintendent quit and new field management was expected (R4, tab 225; ex. G-33 at 1294). 3.9. Ms. Harvill visited the sit~ on 16 January 2007 with Mr. Franklin; Cherie Burton, who had replaced Ms. Emelianova as QA/QC; Mr. Martin; Russell Owen ofThermal Recovery Systems, Inc. (TRS), which was to supply location supports, coordinated with RWP; and others. Ms. Harvill and Messrs. Mal1in and Owen discussed possible areas for seismic restraints. Ms. Harvill stated that a repol1 would follow for placement ofrequired restraints, pipe hanger locations on joist and any joist reinforcement. Ms. Burton submitted to CO Linda Bryant and the COR Mr. Franklin's 22 January 2007 report for the week ending 19 January, which stated that Ms. Harvill had coordinated with the seismic engineers to resolve the seismic load issue; a complete package was expected with their combined resolution; and it would then be submitted for approval. (R4, tabs 230, 801 at 10598; ex. A-30 at 3, ex. A-I09, attach. 21; tr. 1/148-49, 8/33-34) Thus, in addition to the fact that Mr. Martin ofRWP was Versar's lower tier subcontractor, Versar was aware, or should have been, through its new project manager, Mr. Franklin, and its QAlQC, that submittal No. 36 could be modified. 40. On 26 January 2007 Ms. Harvill advised Messrs. Redmond, Chaney and Rollo that she had coordinated seismic restraint placement with Mr. Martin. Between the end of 23
Page 1 and 2: ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT AP
Page 3 and 4: from previously withheld funds and
Page 5 and 6: (4) ... The Government will compute
Page 7 and 8: (e)... [T]he ,Contractor shall coor
Page 9 and 10: (c) Government inspections and test
Page 11 and 12: (ii) [Government sovereign or contr
Page 13 and 14: and flooring options and anAmendmen
Page 15 and 16: e. [There is an additional 14 calen
Page 17 and 18: The government disagrees, stating t
Page 19 and 20: tab 200 at 3021; tr. 1/65, 8/163).
Page 21: QAlQC manager Emelianova complained
Page 25 and 26: I did approve the submittal w/o com
Page 27 and 28: 53. On 7 May 2007 Versar submitted
Page 29 and 30: 60. Based on a 14 June 2007 site vi
Page 31 and 32: As for the seismic issue specifical
Page 33 and 34: Unless [the CO] has changed her min
Page 35 and 36: move would allow Versar to complete
Page 37 and 38: the plans. (R4, tab 366 at 4215-16,
Page 39 and 40: 92. In a 24 August 2007 email to Mr
Page 41 and 42: Versar had breached the TO Procedur
Page 43 and 44: 108. Mr. Campbe~l's 16 December 200
Page 45 and 46: government and (2) costs related to
Page 47 and 48: government's contract management. H
Page 49 and 50: 124. Mr. Kilsheimer opined that cer
Page 51 and 52: to alleged lack of adequate documen
Page 53 and 54: claimed $138,223.92 for the OEITA c
Page 55 and 56: White v. Edsall Construction Co., 2
Page 57 and 58: Despite the specifications' inclusi
Page 59 and 60: All on 3 January 2007, Ms. Harvill
Page 61 and 62: not comply with the specifications.
Page 63 and 64: drawings does not relieve a contrac
Page 65 and 66: Appellant has not met its burden to
Page 67 and 68: Thus, we grant the PP A interest pe
Page 69 and 70: 28 September 2007 forbearance notic
Page 71 and 72: easserts that appellant breached th
Page 73 and 74:
AFCEE Portion of Government Claim A
Page 75:
I certifY that the foregoing is a t
show all

Versar, Inc. - Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?