Versar, Inc. - Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals

her name as QAlQC ~anager and bore her signature stamp, with the date 19 July 2006,
over six months prior to the submittal's date and over four months before Versar' s
16 Novetnber 2006 submittal No. 36. Alternate No. 38 did not contain any entries, dates, '
or signatures by PSC, the COR or the CO. The Impact Room indicated that the last
person to create or modify it was Mr. Redmond. (R4, tab 854; tr. 1/254,256,2/171,
, 4/46-48, 51, 8/124-25; see also ex. A-58 at 1125-26) According to Ms. Harvill, the
seismic markups Mr. Martin sent to her "ended up being put in as" alternate No. 38, but
neither she nor the government identified the submitter (tr. 8/30). She had assumed that
Mr. Martin's information had also gone to J1K and Versar (ex. A-80 at 1). Versar alleges
that it did not subnlit alternate No. 38. After seeming to suggest at the hearing that
Mr. Redmond did so, appellant alleges in briefing that Ms. Harvill put it in the Impact .
Room (app. br. at 107), but she was not asked directly whether she did so.
Mr. Habrukowich, who had submitted No. 36, had been replaced by Mr. Franklin as
Versar's project manager by the time ofalternate No. 38. Messrs. Habrukowich,
Franklin, Martin and Redmond, and Ms. Emelianova, were not called to testify and
appellant has not eliminated the possibility Mr. Franklin added altenlate No. 38 to the
Impact Roo~. We find that, regardless ofwho sent alternate No. 38 to the Impact Room,
it was defective on its face; was not signed by PSC, the COR or the CO; ?lnd did not
qualify as a government-approved submittal.
64. On 26 June 2007 Mr. Bernal advised the COR that no items had been
accepted, there was no punch list and no final walkthrough, but Versar had allowed some
beneficial occupancy. He opined that lack' of seismic restraints was a life-safety violation,
but phase 5 and other areas were occupied regardless. He agreed with the COR that this
might compromise the government's position. (R4, tab .327 at 3973-74; tr. 8/187, 9/230)
During the 2006-2007 school year students and teachers were in the building when
construction was ongoing (tr. 1/80).
65. By 3 July 2007 email to Mr. Campbell, copied to the CO, the COR required
seismic restraints per alternate No. 38 at no increased government cost. Mr. Campbell
replied that, having been instructed that only the CO had authority to change the contract
and resolve contract issues, V~rsar was awaiting her response to its 22 June 2007 lett~r.
(R4, tab 851 at 10830-31) The CO did not respond in writing to the letter.
66. On 5 July 2007 Mr. Chaney inquired ofthe COR whether the school could be
occupIed in the fall without seismic work completed. He noted Versar was preparing to
work around the clock but queried whether its work "or lack of it" would allow safe
occupation. (R4, tab 338 at 4040) The COR replied that he felt the school would be
ready by the "deadline" and added:
30