Versar, Inc. - Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals

'
duty ofgood faith and fair dealing by acting to frustrate, delay and harass Versar and by Its
FCU and seismic directives, which were inconsistent with its effective acceptance ofthe
work. Versar did not allege any violation ofany duty to it asa small business. (R4, tabs
561, 562, 1004 at 12359, ~ 64; tr. 12/82-83) Although the claim essentially alleged
compensable and excusable delay, and Versar and JJKcalculated certain damages based
upon daily labor costs (e.g., tr. 13/11-14, 91-93, 97; app. br. at 72-73; gov't br. af 104-05),
the claim, and Versar's hearing presentation, did not include any delay analysis,
recognizing and segregating concurrent or other contractor delays, and showing how a
particular alleged delay delayed project completion as a whole.
115. Versar's alleged damages included (1) $734,445.80-about $657,456.00 the
Air Force withheld plus $76,999.80 interest penalty under the ProinptPayment Act
(PPA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3901-3907; (2) $1,402,715.40 in subcontractor costs, which included
mold removal (said to be an undisputed change); AHU-l work; corridor C-114 work; roof
bundle removal costs; costs to replace mini-blinds, textbooks, equipment and cabinets
damaged by the leaking roof or otherwise; extra work after the March 2008 inspection;
and extra work largely related to FCU and seismic restraints, ofwhich over $626,936.29
pertained to seismic work; (3) $651,501.43 for extra project management and oversight,
including, inter alia, $84,976.89 for 'maintaining a dedicated Versar site superintendent
from March-August 2007; (4) $115,593.00 per the controls REA; and (5) $12,195.66 in
proposal preparation for changes converted into Versar's claim. (R4, tab 562 at 6922)
Versar did not specify separate damages for the government's alleged breach of its duties
ofgood faith and fair dealing and to cooperate.
116. In May 2009 Mr. Chaney sent Ms. Harvill a message from COR Shrove to
keep a possible fraud investigation against Versar secret. Mr. Chaney stated:
Just when you think there's no hope in ,this world .....
Get rid of [a DDESS employee] and ruin Versar discussion all
in one day!
(Ex. A-82 at 1; tr. 1/196) There has been no allegation offraud in these appeals.'
117. Appellant's allegation that the government breached its duty ofgood faith and
fair dealing now focuses upon Mr. Chaney. As reflected to some extent above, although he
acknowledged that he and the customer, DDESS, had no contracting authority, he assumed
a very active role in the project on behalf ofDDESS, which considered it critical and
urgent.. As he also acknowledged, he had become adverse to Versar as ofJanuary 2007.
He was frustrated with what he perceived as its lack ofproject management and failure to
submit timely, accurate schedules, and quality issues. He was also frustrated with the
46