Versar, Inc. - Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals

(Ex. 0':180 at 9)
This is a very common method ofreinforcing a bar joist and is
employed by most structural engineers.
128. Mr. Sprague opined that submittal No. 36 did not comply with the
specifications. Among other things, it indicated only one longitudinal brace, which "does
not comply with any design standard for piping support including all those referenced in
the contract specifications" (ex. G-180 at 9). Longitudinal sway bracing was not
provided at 40-foot intervals and all runs, like the pipe and joints, did not have a
minimum of one longitudinal brace, contrary to ~ 3.5.2 (id.; tr. 11/109, 111-13, 126). He
did not address whether he considered the SMACNA manual to be incorporated into the
specifications. He stated that SMACNA allows longitudinal bracing of up to 80 feet, but
there are many caveats, and the TO clearly placed a 40-foot limit. (Ex. G-180 at 7, 11)
129. Per Mr. Sprague, the Rule was the only acceptable method of installing
saddle clips on wire rope; it has been well established for many years; is critical to proper
performance; and is not ~imited to rigging (ex. G-180 at 14-16; tr. 11/119-20, 134-37).
130. Mr. Sprague concluded that PSC's drawings and specifications were typical
for such projects; they were accepted practice for performance specifications for seismic
bracing, which called for an SSE; and the solicitation had enough information for a
contractor to bid the design work for seismic restraints (ex. G-180 at 16; tr. 11/136). Of
the two experts, we find Mr. Sprague's report and testimony to be the more persuasive.
Quantum-Appellant's Claims
131. The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) issued an audit report dated
15 June 2010 on Versar's claims (ex. G-175). Ofthe $2,916,461.20 claimed, DCAA
questioned $8,088 of $77,000 claimed in interest penalty on unpaid invoices (it did not
address $657,456 in withholdings); $1,617 of$10,059 for mold removal; $648,399 of
$685,720 for FCUs; $651,556 of $689,060 for seismic restraints; $4,9~7 of$17,879 for
school cleanup; $379,028 of$651,501 for management and oversight; the entire $115,593
for HVAC controls; and $5,295 of$12,196 for proposal preparation, for a total
questioned of$I,814,513. The questioned amount did not include profit, which Versar
. claimed at 6%. DCAA noted potential questioned profit of$82,942. DCAA's main
reasons for questioning FCU and seismic restraint costs were lack ofadequate
documentation and that Versar had not performed a cost analysis of JJK's claimed costs
under FAR 15.408. DCAA questioned management and oversight costs because, among
other things, except those for Mr. Campbell and QAlQC manager Myer, Versar had
already included them in its G&A expense pool. DCAA questioned the controls costs due
50