Versar, Inc. - Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals
Versar, Inc. - Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals
Versar, Inc. - Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
were only really needed where there were joist[ s] but it looks<br />
as ifthey provided throughout. It might be worth me calling<br />
Frank to discuss ifall the additional LR are required. Ifthat<br />
would cut down on the total number I think I need to do that.<br />
It may be due to the space involved in the hallways and angles<br />
involved that the nUlnber <strong>of</strong>LR went up also. Again, worth<br />
the call.<br />
(Ex. A-60 at 1) Ms. Harvill planned to go through Mr. Campbell. Mr. Rathmann<br />
suggested a conference call, but Ms. Harvill did not recall that it ever occurred and there<br />
is no evidence that it did. (Id.; tr. 8/125-26)<br />
70. On 13 July 2007 Ms. Chube notified the CO that, as directed, per alternate·<br />
No. 38, <strong>Versar</strong> would double the seismic restraints but would file a claim, and it sought<br />
feedback on its cure notice responses. The CO did not reply in writing but did not issue<br />
any show cause notice and <strong>Versar</strong> understood that the cure notices had been resolved.<br />
The CO did not respond further concerning the seismic restraint issue. (R4, tabs 345, 418<br />
at 4714; ex. A-58; tr. 2/218-19, 3/23, 4/68-69, 9/74)<br />
71. By email <strong>of</strong>17 July 2007 toJJK'sMr. Johnson, Mr. Campbell exhorted that it<br />
was imperative that planned completion dates be met, including beneficial occupancy<br />
turnover on 1 August 2007, such that JJK and its subcontractors would be 100% complete<br />
and demobili~ed by 31 August 2007. The overall HVAC installation was about 90%<br />
complete. At this time J1K and SWF Mechanical (SWF), hired by J1K after Custom left<br />
the site, were performing the HVAC work and J1K had an additional full time project<br />
, manager/superintendent on-site. (Ex. G-82; tr. 4/216-18, 5/31)<br />
72. On 18 July 2007 AFCEE notified the COR and Mr. Valenzuela <strong>of</strong>an inquiry<br />
about invoice No. 9's status (R4, tabs 350, 593 at 7359). The COR responded:<br />
Per our repeated discussions with <strong>Versar</strong>, until they give us a<br />
fully complete schedule showing actual completion from the<br />
beginning <strong>of</strong>the project, I am not approving ANY invoices.<br />
According to their last invoice, they proclaimed that they were<br />
81 % completed, but the only thing that the 81 % really meant<br />
is that they had invoiced 81 % <strong>of</strong>the total. I have seen nothing<br />
from <strong>Versar</strong> that indicated they were [ anywhere] near 81 %<br />
complete and [CO Bryant] made it clear to thenl when they<br />
were here, we would not approve any further invoices until<br />
they got their schedule snafu's straightened out.<br />
32
Change language