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.
84. On 30 July 2007 Mr. Valenzuela provided AFCEE's "<strong>of</strong>ficial response"to the<br />
RFIs, which had been "APPROVED AS CORRECTED." Only Ms. Harvill had signed .<br />
them. (R4, tab 356at4130-31, tab357 at 4137, tab 358 at 4154) Mr. CampbeUreplied<br />
that the RFI No. 48 response did not address schedule or ability to move students into the<br />
building before all work was complete. Mr. Valenzuela replied that <strong>Versar</strong> now had an<br />
approved hanging system. He sought its completion schedule, stating time extensions<br />
would be addressed ifwarranted. Mr. Campbell replied that there was no approved RFI<br />
until the CO signed it, referring to RFIs Nos. 6 and 14 on FCU installation, approved by<br />
Mr. Presson but rejected by Mr. ValenzUela on the basis there had been no CO approval.<br />
(R4, tab 357 at 4139-42; tr. 4/126, 131) .<br />
85. CO Bryant emailed to Mr. Campbell on 31 July 2007 that:<br />
(R4, tab 363 at 4199)<br />
To my knowledge, the lines <strong>of</strong> authority <strong>of</strong>each individual<br />
player in this acquisition was previously made known at the<br />
Pre-Performance Conference and has been reiterated<br />
numerous times since. I have even myself articulated those<br />
lines <strong>of</strong>authority to you as the [CO].<br />
I fully concur with the above attached actions [RFIs<br />
Nos. 47-49] and do not anticipate that they or any similar type<br />
actions will be questioned by anyone from <strong>Versar</strong> in regards<br />
to this contract again.<br />
86. <strong>Versar</strong> notified Mr. Bernal that a sample FCU installation would be ready for <br />
inspection on 3 August 2007 and that acceptance was integral to scheduling. Mr. Bernal <br />
responded th~t it had been agreed that <strong>Versar</strong> was' to perform all punch list work in one <br />
. area before Parsons would perform "another cursory inspection" and all items would be<br />
revisited at final inspection. (R4, tab 875 at 10989; tr. 4/136-37)<br />
87. On 1 August 2007 Pinckney placed a sign that classes would move to another<br />
school. Mr. Campbell inquired <strong>of</strong>Mr. Bernal who said <strong>of</strong>ficial notice must come from<br />
the COR. Mr. Chaney sent an email to the CO and others questioning why the move was<br />
<strong>Versar</strong>'s business but stating that, per the CO, DDESS would capture costs <strong>of</strong> operating<br />
an unplanned school for possible action against it. On 2 August 2007 a newspaper noted<br />
the move. Mr. Campbell inquired <strong>of</strong>the CO and others whether it was now safe to plan<br />
FCU rework during regular working hours .. By email <strong>of</strong> 7 August 2007 to Messrs. Bernal<br />
and Valenzuela, copied to the CO and Mr. Chaney, the COR advised that school plans did<br />
not affect <strong>Versar</strong>'s contract obligations and they should not entertain its questions about<br />
36
Change language