Versar, Inc. - Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals

least a month from being functional and ready for commissioning. Versar did not agree.
(Ex. G-73; tr. 4/192-95, 6/10-15, 20-22)
111. The government conducted its pre-final inspection/commissioning in March
2008. PSC's Gabriel Manriquez, the project's mechanical engineer ofrecord, conducted
the commissioning. Versar deemed that he had pertinent knowledge and treated it fairly. '
The Commissioning Report concluded that, in general, the main mechanical system
components were functioning satisfactorily within the specified criteria. (R4, tabs 549,
983 at 11985, 11987; exs. A-116, G-49; tr. 2/52, 4/191, 197-201,6/134, 7/68-82, 167)
The government conducted its final inspection in May 2008. On 5 June 2008 the CO
established 4 June 2008 as the project's beneficial occupancy date (BOD), contingent
upon completion of a final punch list by 6 June 2008, which Versar accQmplished, and
verification by Mr. Valenzuela on 17 June 2008, which occurred. (R4, tabs 505, 514,
997, 1004 at 12357, ~ 56; ex. G-50; tr. 3/43,4/204-08) Citing the Warranty clause, the
CO stated that the one-year warranty was effective from 4 June 2008 through 3 June
2009, in effect setting the 4 June 2008 BOD as the date of final acceptance (or
government possession) (R4, tab 514).
112. In May-June 2008 the CO told Versar that its invoices had been rejected and'
AFCEE would withhold 10% retainage becaus~ the COR didnot agree with the stated
completion percentage. On 20 June 2008 Versar consolidated invoices Nos. 9~11 into
No. 12, for'$959,137, for 1 March 2007-13 March 2008, and advised itwould su~mit an
REA. On 25 June 2008 the' CO notified Versar that the government would retain 10%, or
$95,913.70, from invoice No. J2 to cover school relocation and other costs. She
authorized payment of the $863,223.30 balance on 25 June 2008, but the government has'
not refuted Versar's allegation that it was not paid until 16 September 2008.' Versar
submitted invoice No. 13, dated 27 June 2008, for $491,291.69, for 14 March-27 June
, 2008, which was rejected, but the reason is not clear. On8 July 2008 it asked the CO to
clarify the basis for the No. 12 withholding and for a danlages breakdown~ (R4, tabs 517,
518, 519 at 6098~ 521, 562 at 6904, tabs 598, 599 at 7391; tr. 2/209-11)
113. On 21 August 2008 CO Brown issued a demand to Versar for $660,721.00
(R4, tab 532). Her final decision ofthat date .claimed damages from 30 September 2007
to date. She cited the Payments clause (due to lack of an approved schedule, the
government was not able to establish completion percentages); the lnspection clause
(because the project was not ready for inspection, Versar was responsible for all costs of
two additional final inspections); the Default clause (Versar was liable for all government
costs