South Bay Boiler Repair, Inc.
Docket: ASBCA 59281
Decision date: 2017-01-19

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of -- ) 
) 
South Bay Boiler Repair, Inc. ) 
) 
Under Contract No. N55236-09-D-0017 ) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 59281 
Robert L. Kenny, Esq. 
Law Office of Robert L. Kenny 
San Diego, CA 
James A. Kelley, Esq. 
James A. Kelley & Associates 
Washington, DC 
Ronald J. Borro, Esq. 
Navy Chief Trial Attorney 
Ellen M. Evans, Esq. 
Senior Trial Attorney 
Rawn M. James, Esq. 
Matthew D. Bordelon, Esq. 
Trial Attorneys 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WOODROW 
INTRODUCTION 
The case involves an appeal from a contracting officer's final decision (COFD) 
denying the claim of appellant, South Bay Boiler Repair, Inc. (SBBR), for alleged 
constructive changes and delays. The claim arises under a delivery order (DO) issued 
by the Navy under a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract 
for boatyard services. The DO was for ship repair and preservation services, including 
the removal and application of paint and other coatings, on a small vessel identified as 
Landing Craft Utility (LCU) No. 1631. Appellant maintains that the ship repair 
contract 
failed to comply with 10 U.S.C. § 731 l(a)(l) because it did not adequately 
identify "the types and amounts of hazardous wastes that are required to be removed 
by the contractor from the vessel." 
The parties elected to proceed without an evidentiary hearing, via Board Rule 
11, with each side relying upon the Rule 4 file and its supplements and submitting 
opening and reply briefs in accordance with an agreed-upon schedule. For the reasons 
set forth below, we conclude that the plain language of the ship repair contract - and 

specifically the requirements of DO 0007 - satisfied the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 
§ 7311 and placed appellant on notice of the presence of toxic heavy metals in the 
paint and coatings on board LCU 163 1. We deny the appeal. 
FINDINGS OF FACT 
I. The Parties and the Contract 
1. Appellant SBBR is a small business ship repair contractor located in 
National City, California (app. supp. R4, tab 94, Bowen decl. ii 1). 
2. SBBR uses subcontractors to perform most of the preservation work 
required by a Navy ship repair contract. Preservation work involves removing existing 
coatings from the surfaces of the vessel and applying new coatings to the surfaces. 
Most preservation subcontractors use a sandblasting process to remove the majority of 
the existing coatings from the ship (app. supp. R4, tab 94, Bowen decl. ii 4). 
3. On 3 June 2009, the Navy's Southwest Regional Maintenance Center in 
San Diego, California (SWRM or government), awarded a firm-fixed-price, 
indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) Contract No. N55236-09-D-OO 17 for 
boatyard services to SBBR (the contract) (R4, tab 1at1-2of121). 
4. On 6 September 2012, the government issued Request for Proposal (RFP) 
No. 0168 for work described in contract 
line item numbers (CLINs) 0067, 0082, 0083, 
0087, and 0088 for LCU 1631 (R4, tab 21 at 1 of 7). 
5. At CLIN 0067, the RFP states: "Firm-Fixed Price. Prepare for and 
accomplish Specification Package SSSD-504-12 for LCU 1631 [the specifications], 
attached." (R4, tab 21 at 1, 4) 
6. While the RFP was pending, the government issued four pre-proposal 
amendments to RFP 0168 (R4, tabs 23-26). 
7. Also while the RFP was pending, SBBR asked a question concerning the 
government's estimate of hazardous waste set forth in paragraph 3.5 of Work 
Item 077-01-001. SBBR asked: 
Since the requirements to accomplish removals differ 
greatly contractors utilize the government's quantities in 
generating their estimates of removal costs. If the amounts 
exceed the government's expectations and a mod is issued 
to cover the additional disposal costs it is the contractor's 
2 

. right to include additional expenses for labor, lab fees, 
analysis, etc. into the contract mod. Please advise. 
(App. supp. R4, tab 78) 
8. Amendment No. 1, dated 13 September 2012, contains, among other things, 
the government's response to the foregoing question posed by SBBR. Restated by the 
government, "QUESTION 1" reads as follows: 
ITEM NO. 077-01-001 (Hazardous Waste Produced on 
Naval Vessels): Hazardous waste item Para 4.1 states: 
"Hazardous waste generated during the actual performance 
of this work may vary in type and amount from waste 
listed in 3.5 which may result in renegotiation for credit or 
increase pursuant to paragraph (b) of 2:4." 
If the amount of hazardous waste exceeds the 
Government's expectations and a contract modification is 
issued to cover the additional disposal costs, is it the 
contractors right to include additional expenses for labor, 
lab fees, analysis, etc. into the contract modification? 
(R4, tab 23 at 2 of 5) The Answer to Question 1 in the amendment states: "Yes, 
Government uses historical data to estimate and provide the amount of hazardous 
waste. Anything beyond the amount listed will be negotiated and addressed by a 
contract modification." (Id.) The historical data was based upon work on similar 
vessels, as verified by interviews with contractors and on a formula that uses surface 
area data to predict blast residue amounts (app. supp. R4, tab 98, King dep. at 46-47). 
9. The government permitted contractors to take paint chip samples before 
submitting their proposals (app. supp. R4, tab 98, King dep. at 107-08). 
10. SBBR's project manager, Donald Bowen, inspected LCU 1631 before 
SBBR submitted its proposal RFP. He did not take samples of the coatings on the 
vessel. (App. supp. R4, tab 143 at 1-2, 4) 
11. Appellant admitted that it "based [its] hazardous paint removal costs on the 
small quantities of hazardous paint and paint chips [the government] included in Work 
Item 077-01-001" 
(app. br. at 108). 
12. Appellant's estimator, Mr. Bowen, also acknowledges that mechanical 
cleaning processes (hammer, wire brush, needle guns) would produce paint chips as a 
3 

by-product, rather than spent abrasive material (app. supp. R4, tab 129, Bowen dep. 
at 70). 
13. Mr. Bowen states that he was aware of the Navy's estimate of 275 tons of 
spent abrasive blast material contaminated with a known hazardous waste, but that he 
did not expect to generate that much because appellant's subcontractor, Pacific Yacht 
Refitters, Inc. (PYR), would be using a different process to remove the paint (app. 
supp. R4, tab 129, Bowen dep. at 63-64). 
14. Mr. Bowen testified that, because PYR would be using steel grit, which 
could be recycled 300 - 500 times, the removal process would produce far less spent 
abrasive waste than the government's estimate of 275 tons (app. supp. R4, tab 129, 
Bowen dep. at 66-68). 
15. Appellant understood PYR's estimate to include the cost of disposing of 
any spent abrasive material generated during the contract (app. supp. R4, tab 133, 
Wilkerson dep. at 21-29). 
16. On 25 September 2012, SBBR submitted a proposal in response to RFP 
No. 0168 with a firm-fixed price of $2,492,859 for CLIN 0067 (plus $2,080 for CLINs 
0082 and 0083) for the work outlined in Specification Packages SSD-504-12 for LCU 
1631 (R4, tab 27 at 4-5).* 
17. SBBR's proposal included a quote from its intended subcontractor, PYR, 
with $15,625.00 next 
to the description: "077-01-001 HAZARDOUS [WASTE] 
PRODUCED ON NAVAL VESSELS; CONTROL (SURF ACE PREPARATION 
RELATED ONLY, DOES NOT INCLUDE 
LIQUID PAINT WASTE)" (R4, tab 27 
at 24). 
18. On 26 September 2012, the government accepted the proposal and awarded 
DO 0007 (consisting of CLINs 0067, 0082, and 0083) to SBBR in the amount of 
$2,494,939 (R4, tab 28). 
19. There were 14 modifications to DO 0007: 13 bilateral modifications and 
1 final, unilateral administrative modification (R4, tabs 29-42). 
20. Three of the bilateral modifications provided time extensions, resulting in a 
final contract completion date of 25 October 2013 (R4, tabs 36, 39, 41). 
• Several documents in the Rule 4 file contain more than one page number. We use 
the full number found at the middle of the bottom of the page. 
4 

, 21. During performance, appellant generated 44,185 lbs. of hazardous waste in 
109 55-gallon drums (app. supp. R4, tab 67 at 31-37), an amount far less than the 
275 tons estimated by the government. 
II. Relevant Contract Provisions 
22. The contract contained the standard Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 
Changes clause, FAR 52.243-1, CHANGES - FIXED-PRICE (AUG 1987) -AL TERNA TE II 
(APR 1984)(R4, tab 1at110of121). 
23. The contract also contained Changes clause NAVSEA 5252.233-9103, 
DOCUMENTATION OF REQUESTS FOR EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT (APR 1999), which 
provides, among other things, that a change includes "any act or omission to act on the 
part of the Government in respect of which a request is made for equitable adjustment" 
(R4, tab 1at102of121). 
24. Section C.6.2.c of the contract sets forth specific environmental and safety 
requirements applicable to the contractor, including the following requirements 
relating to paints and coatings on the vessel: 
c. Consider all marine coatings to contain heavy 
metals (e.g. lead, cadmium or chromium), hexavalent 
chromium, crystalline silica and/or other toxic or 
hazardous substances as defined in 29 CFR 1815.1000. 
Contractor shall make an initial determination of potential 
employee exposure to toxic or hazardous substances prior 
to removal of existing non-skid or coatings. Laboratory 
analysis results of bulk non-skid/paint samples shall be 
submitted to the COR as soon as possible upon receipt 
from the laboratory. 
(R4, tab 1 at 72of121) 
25. The contract specifications contained six work items requiring appellant to 
remove existing coatings, prepare the craft's surfaces, and replace existing coatings as 
summarized below: 
123-11-001 Fuel Oil Tank; Inspect; 
123-14-001 Potable Water Tank; inspect and preserve; 
123-16-001 Ballast 
Tank; repair and preserve; 
631-11-001 Bilge; Preserve; 
631-31-001 Steel Craft Preservation; accomplish; and 
5 

643-00-001 Interior Preservation; accomplish. 
(R4, tab 27 at 8-12) 
26. NA VSEA Standard Item 009-32, "Cleaning and Painting Requirements; 
accomplish," dated 31 January 2011 (R4, tab 22 at 6), requires a contractor to make an 
initial determination of potential employee exposure to hazardous levels of heavy 
metals before beginning paint removal, and then incorporate the appropriate level of 
worker and environmental protections based on that determination. The version of 
NAVSEA Standard Item 009-32 that was in effect at the time and incorporated into the 
contract provided in relevant 
part: 
3 .1.1 Consider marine paint/nonskid to contain 
heavy metals (e.g., lead, cadmium, or chromium), 
hexavalent chromium, crystalline silica and/or other toxic 
or hazardous substances. 
3 .1.2 Accomplish safety precautions as specified in 
2.2, 2.3, and the Work Item/task order during surface 
preparation and the application or removal of marine 
paints. 
(R4, tab 8 at 2of81) 
27. Each work item specifically referenced Standard Item 009-32 and required 
the contractor to "accomplish the requirements of 009-32 ... for new and disturbed 
surfaces" (R4, tab 22 at 2-4, 6-11, tab 29, ii 3.4, tab 31, ii 3.10, tab 34, ii 3.9, tab 37, 
ii3.ll,tab 163,ii3.6,tab 170,ii3.30,tab 183,ii3.6). 
28. Standard Item 009-32 incorporates by reference the Occupational Safety 
and Health (OSHA) standards set forth at 29 C.F.R. 1915, Occupational Safety and 
Health Standards for Shipyard Employment, Subparts C and Z (R4, tab 8 at 1 ). 
29. Work Item 077-01-001 sets forth the specific requirements for managing 
and 
disposing of hazardous waste generated in the preservation process: 
3. REQUIREMENTS: 
3 .1 Manage and dispose of all hazardous waste 
listed n 3.5 in accordance with 2.1 and 2.2. 
3.1.1 When a Navy generator number is 
required by this Work Item, submit the original of 2.3 to 
6 

the SUPERVISOR for assignment of Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) or delegated state environmental 
agency identification number. 
3 .1.2 Manage and transport for Navy disposal, 
Navy-generated hazardous waste listed in 3.5 in 
accordance with 2.1 and 2.2, as designated by the 
SUPERVISOR. 
3 .1.2 .1 Consider existing interior coatings to 
be removed by the invoking work items of this contract to 
contain lead, cadmium and chromium. 
3.1.3 Submit 
one legible copy of 2.3 signed by 
the owner or operator of the disposal facility to the 
SUPERVISOR within 48 hours of receipt from owner or 
operator of disposal facility. 
3.2 Complete documentation required by 2.1 and 
2.2, using EPA or delegated state environmental agency 
identification number in accordance with 2.4. 
3.2.1 Documentation related to hazardous 
waste generated solely by the physical actions of Ship's 
Force or Navy employees (termed Navy-Generated 
Hazardous Waste) on board the vessel shall only bear a 
generator 
identification number issued to the Navy 
pursuant to applicable law. The contractor shall obtain 
SUPERVISOR'S concurrence with the categorization of 
the waste as Navy-generated before completion of the 
manifest. The manifest prepared shall be presented to the 
SUPERVISOR for completion after the hazardous waste 
has been identified. 
(R4, tab 22 at 16-17) 
30. Work Item 077-01-001 describes the types of hazardous waste expected to 
be produced during performance: 
3.5 Hazardous waste, as identified in 2.1, expected 
to be produced during performance of this Job Order. 
7 

Spent Abrasive Blast Material (contaminated with a known 
hazardous waste): 275 tons 
Paints (May include lead, cadmium, or chrome): 10 pounds 
Paint Chips: 20 pounds 
(R4, tab 22 at 18-19) 
31. Work Item 077-01-001 in the specifications provides the contractor with 
the following references, applicable to the contractor's performance: 
2. REFERENCES: 
2.1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 
2.2 Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 
49 u.s.c. [§] 5103 
2.3 Applicable Hazardous Waste Manifest Form 
2.4 10 u.s.c. [§] 7311 
(R4, tab 22 at 16) 
32. Chapter 631 of the Preservation of Ships in Service manual, expressly 
referenced in Standard Item 009-32, directs contractors to: 
631-2.4.5.1.1 Assume paints being removed contain 
chromates and present an increased cancer risk unless it 
can be demonstrated either by laboratory analysis or 
survey of paint application logs or specifications that the 
existing paint does not contain chromates (as chromium) in 
excess of 50 parts per million (ppm) of 0.005 weight 
8 

percent total metal in the dry film. Multiple layers of paint 
must be individually verified as to their chromate content. 
(R4, tab 9 at 87-88) 
33. With respect to lead, the manual states that at paragraph 631-2.4.5.2.1: 
"Paint being removed shall be considered to contain lead unless the procedures of 
paragraph 631-2.4.5.1.1 are used to demonstrate the level oflead is below 0.005 
weight percent in the dry film" (R4, tab 9 at 88). 
34. With respect to cadmium, the manual 
states that: 
631-2.4.5.3.1 Cadmium exposure may occur during the 
application or removal of coatings containing cadmium. In 
addition to its inclusion in paints, cadmium is frequently 
used for electroplating steel and aluminum parts. 
Therefore, precautions similar to those for lead and 
chromium removal should be taken when preparing 
surfaces of equipment which contain cadmium plated parts 
(e.g., fasteners, springs, electrical connectors, etc.). 
(R4, tab 9 at 88) 
3 5. In a series of modifications, the period of performance was extended until 
25 October 2013 (finding 20). 
III. Nature of the Work 
36. Marine coatings and industrial paints contain heavy metals and hazardous 
substances. Abrasive blasting to remove marine coatings produces airborne particles 
that can harm workers (app. supp. R4, tabs 115-16). 
3 7. OSHA regulations apply to industrial processes, such as the removal of 
paint and other coatings that may expose workers to hazardous concentrations of 
certain heavy metals above levels specified in the OSHA regulations. The OSHA 
regulations that apply to ship repair 
operations are set forth in 29 C.F.R., Part 1915. 
38. OSHA regulations set forth action levels and higher "permissible exposure 
limits" (PELs) for exposure for toxic heavy metals, including lead, cadmium, and 
hexavalent chromium (app. supp. R4, tab 93 at 7 (Expert Report of Kevin Malott)); see, 
e.g., 29 C.F.R. § 1915.1025, Lead in the Shipyard Industry; 29 C.F.R. § 1915.1027, 
Cadmium in the Shipyard Industry, and 29 C.F .R. § 1915 .1026, Chromium (VI) in the 
Shipyard Industry. 
9 

39. When employee exposures exceed an action level for lead, cadmium or 
hexavalent chromium, OSHA regulations require an initial exposure determination, a 
medical surveillance program, periodic personal air sampling, and annual training on 
the hazards of lead exposure and the OSHA lead standard (app. supp. R4, tab 93 
at 10). 
40. The removal of paint containing toxic heavy metals in concentrations that 
result in exposure over the OSHA hazard levels requires more extensive worker safety 
requirements than the safety requirements necessary for the removal of paint that does 
not result in exposure over the OSHA hazard levels (app. supp. R4, tab 139, 
Greenfield dep. at 156-57). 
IV. Requests for Equitable Adjustment 
41. Appellant kept the government apprised of its paint sampling results with 
its periodic submission of Inspection Deficiency Reports (IDRs) (R4, tabs 58-62). 
42. The government did not respond substantively to IDRs 74, 86 or 98 (R4, 
tabs 58-60), but directed appellant to continue with the work and suggested that 
appellant submit a formal REA for any additional costs to which it believed it was 
entitled (R4, tab 94 at 32). 
43. The government maintained that the cost of removing paint containing 
heavy metals was covered by the terms of the contract and directed appellant to 
continue with the basic work items set forth in the contract (R4, tab 62). 
44. On 16 July 2013, appellant submitted a request for equitable adjustment 
(REA), certified pursuant to DF ARS 252.243- 7002 in the amount of $361,604.00 
for handling and disposal of excess hazardous wastes generated under this DO 
(R4, tab 52 at 1-5). 
45. The majority of the specific costs sought in the REA, as set forth in the 
change order price analysis (COPA) attached to the REA, were for labor costs for 
work by appellant's subcontractor, PYR, associated with mitigating employee 
exposure to airborne contaminants during the paint removal process (R4, tab 52). 
46. On 29 November 2013, appellant submitted an "amended REA/claim" for 
$947,811.00, which included $418,910.00 in costs relating to paint removal and 
$369, 183 in delay and disruption costs and other direct costs. Appellant's submission 
contained a Contract Disputes Act certification pursuant to FAR 33.207(c), Contractor 
Certification. 
10 

47. On 31 January 2014, the government issued a COFD denying the claim. 
The COFD denied the claim on the primary grounds that: ( 1) the contract advised 
appellant to consider all marine coatings to contain heavy metals; (2) that the 
hazardous waste generated did not exceed the amount estimated in the 077 work item 
for disposal; and (3) that the government ultimately paid the costs for disposal of the 
hazardous waste, not SBBR or its subcontractor (R4, tab 54 at 1-5). 
48. On 13 February 2014, appellant, through counsel, revised its claim 
downward to $819,128.00, stating that it had "removed or modified" elements of its 
claim after reviewing its direct and indirect costs in light of the comments contained in 
the COFD (R4, tab 55 at 10). 
49. On 28 April 2014, SBBR appealed from the COFD and the Board docketed 
the appeal as ASBCA No. 59281. On 1 July 2014, SBBR filed its complaint. After 
conducting written discovery and taking depositions, the parties agreed to submit the 
appeal on the record pursuant to Board Rule 11. 
DISCUSSION 
The central issue raised by appellant is whether the ship repair contract - and 
specifically the requirements of DO 0007 - satisfied the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 
§ 7311. Section 7311 states, in relevant part: 
§ 7311. Repair or maintenance of naval vessels: handling 
of hazardous waste 
(a) CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS.-The Secretary of the 
Navy shall ensure that each contract entered into for work 
on a naval vessel (other than new construction) includes 
the following provisions: 
(1) IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES.-A 
provision in which the Navy identifies 
the types and 
amounts of hazardous wastes that are required to be 
removed by the contractor from the vessel, or that are 
expected to be generated, during the performance of 
work under the contract, with such identification by 
the Navy to be in a form sufficient to enable the 
contractor to comply with Federal and State laws and 
regulations on the removal, handling, storage, 
transportation, or disposal of hazardous waste. 
11 

Appellant contends that the statute imposes a duty on the government to 
"positively identify and quantify the hazardous paint on the LCU 1631 in a manner 
that allowed the contractor to plan it~. compliance with OSHA and other regulations 
that 
apply when removing hazardous paint" (app. br. at 112). Appellant argues that 
the government's "reliance on standard contract work specifications telling the 
contractor to 'consider' all paint on the vessel to contain heavy metals" was 
insufficient to satisfy the government's disclosure obligations pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 
§ 7311 (id. at 6). 
Specifically, appellant contends that the government's reliance on Standard 
Item 009-32 - telling the contractor to "consider" all paint on the vessel is hazardous -
violates 10 U.S.C. § 7311, because it fails to inform the contractor of the type and 
quantity of paint on the vessel that contained heavy metal contamination in excess of 
OSHA trigger levels (app. br. at 115). Moreover, Work Item 077-01-001 serves only 
to inform "the contractor that all paint removed from the vessel must be disposed of as 
hazardous waste" (id. at 111 ). It does not, according to appellant, identify and 
quantify the heavy metals in the existing paint "in a manner sufficient to enable 
[appellant] to comply with the worker safety and environmental protections [sic] 
regulations that apply to paint removal operations" (id. at 98). In particular, appellant 
contends that the word "consider" means only that the contractor should 
determine 
whether or not the paint might contain heavy metals, not that the contractor should 
assume that all of the vessel's paint contains heavy metals (id. at 106). 
In appellant's view, because the Navy is in the best position to know what type 
of paint is present on its ships, 10 U.S.C. § 7311 imposes a duty on the Navy to 
identify and quantify the existing hazardous paint on the vessel in a way that permits 
the contractor to estimate the cost of the worker safety procedures required to remove 
the paint ( app. br. at 105-06). 
We first determine the scope of the duty imposed by 10 U.S.C. § 7311 and then 
determine whether the contract in this appeal satisfies that duty. 
A. Scope of Statutory Requirement Set Forth in 10 U.S.C. § 7311 
The first step in statutory interpretation is to review the statutory language, 
which should be given its plain meaning absent clear indications to the contrary. See 
Lynteq, Inc. v. United States, 976 F.2d 693 (Fed. Cir. 1992); EFG Associates, Inc., 
ASBCA No. 50546 et al., 01-1 BCA ~ 31,324. If the language is clear and fits the 
case, the plain meaning of the statute generally will be regarded as conclusive. 
Norfolk Dredging Co. v. United States, 375 F.3d 1106, 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations 
omitted). 
12 

10 U.S.C. § 731 l(a)(l) requires the Navy to identify "the types and amounts of 
hazardous wastes that are required to be removed by the contractor from the vessel, or 
that are expected to be generated, during the performance of work under the contract" 
(emphasis added). By its terms, 10 U.S.C. § 7311 applies to both the generation of 
hazardous waste and the disposal of that waste. 
The statutory language does not state that the Navy must quantify the "types 
and amounts" of paint containing hazardous substances, much less identify specific 
portions of the vessel where paint may contain hazardous substances. Instead, the 
statute focuses on the types and amounts of hazardous waste. While it may be true 
that identifying hazardous paint may shed light on the quantity of hazardous waste that 
is expected to be generated from removing that paint, the statute does not impose any 
specific method of identifying and quantifying the hazardous waste that is expected to 
be generated. Indeed, the government estimated the amount of abrasive blast residue 
based on the past history of similar vessels, as verified by interviews with contractors, 
and on a formula that uses surface area data to predict blast residue amounts 
(findings 8-9). 
Section 73 11 does not address worker safety requirements or the costs of paint 
removal. Instead, that cost is determined in the other parts of the contract pertaining to 
the specific removal work to be undertaken (finding 25). In our view, 10 U.S.C. 
§ 7311 imposes on the Navy a duty to identify the type and quantity of hazardous 
waste that is expected to be generated. After that, the duty shifts to the contractor to 
properly price the activities involved in generating and disposing of that waste. 
B. Whether the Contract Satisfied the Requirements of 10 U.S.C. § 7311 
Given this understanding of the scope of the statutory obligations of 10 U.S.C. 
§ 7311, we next address whether the contract in this case satisfied those obligations. 
Again, we rely on the plain language of the contract's provisions. LAI Services, Inc. v. 
Gates, 573 F .3d 1306, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that contract interpretation 
begins with examination of the plain language of the written agreement). Contract 
language is clear and unambiguous when there is only one reasonable interpretation 
consistent with the plain meaning. Id. 
In this case, two specific provisions of the contract, when considered together, 
satisfy the obligations of 10 U.S.C. § 7311. First, the contract contains specific 
estimates of hazardous waste set forth in paragraph 3. 5 of Work Item 077-01-001, 
which states that the contractor would generate up to 275 tons of spent abrasive blast 
material, 10 lbs. of paint, and 20 lbs. of paint chips (finding 31 ). Second, the contract 
incorporates Standard Item 009-32, which expressly instructs the contractor to 
"[ c ]onsider existing interior coatings to be removed by the invoking work items of this 
contract to contain lead, cadmium and chromium" (finding 27). When these two 
13 

provisions are considered together, there is no ambiguity that the paint to be removed 
is likely to contain toxic heavy metals of lead, cadmium, and chromium. Given this 
unambiguous language, appellant should reasonably have concluded that removal of 
the paint would trigger worker safety requirements for the removal of toxic heavy 
metals. 
Appellant attempts to inject ambiguity into the contract by challenging the 
common sense understanding of the word "consider" as it is used in Standard Item 
009-32. In particular, appellant contends that the word "consider" means only that the 
contractor should determine whether or not the paint might contain heavy metals, not 
that the contractor should assume that all of the vessel's paint contains heavy metals 
(app. hr. at 99-106). 
In our view, there is no need to engage in a semantic debate regarding the 
meaning of the word "consider." The phrase "[c]onsider marine paint/nonskid to 
contain heavy metals" 
expressly places the contractor on notice that the vessel's 
coatings may contain heavy metals (finding 26). We do not need to decide whether 
"consider" means that the contractor automatically should assume all paints and 
coatings are contaminated with heavy metals. Because the contract places the 
contractor on notice that the vessel's coatings may contain heavy metals, it is 
incumbent on the contractor to estimate the cost of performance. The contractor can 
employ its own business judgment to decide how best to estimate the cost of 
performance, for example, by taking paint samples, by assuming that all of the vessel's 
coatings are contaminated with heavy metals, or by accepting the risk that removing 
the paint will not require costly worker protection requirements. 
Instead of basing its estimate of removal costs on the quantity of abrasive blast 
material, appellant admits that it "based [its] hazardous paint removal costs on the 
small quantities of hazardous paint and paint chips [the government] included in Work 
Item 077-01-00 l" (finding 11 ). Appellant's estimator, Mr. Bowen, also acknowledges 
that mechanical cleaning processes (hammer, wire brush, needle guns) would produce 
paint chips as a by-product, rather than spent abrasive material (finding 13). 
Appellant states that it generated 44, 185 lbs. of hazardous waste in 109 
55-gallon drums (finding 16), an amount far less than the 275 tons estimated by the 
government. Appellant attempts to justify its position by drawing a comparison 
between the 44,185 lbs. of hazardous waste that it generated to the government's 
estimate of 10 lbs. of paints and 20 lbs. of paint chips, rather than comparing its 44, 185 
lbs. to government's estimate of 275 tons of hazardous waste. 
Appellant's estimator, Mr. Bowen, admits that he was aware of the Navy's 
estimate of 27 5 tons of spent abrasive blast material contaminated with a known 
hazardous waste, but that he did not expect to generate that much because PYR would 
14 

be using a different process to remove the paint (finding 14). He testified that, because 
PYR would be using steel grit, which could be recycled 300 - 500 times, the removal 
process would produce far less spent abrasive waste than the government's estimate of 
275 tons (finding 14). According to Mr. Wilkerson, SBBR's general manager, 
appellant understood PYR's estimate to include the cost of disposing of any spent 
abrasive material generated during the contract (finding 15 ). 
Appellant offers little explanation for why it did not base its hazardous paint 
removal costs on the government's estimate of 275 tons of"Spent Abrasive Blast 
Material (contaminated with a known hazardous waste)" (findings 14, 30). According 
to appellant, the government's estimate of 27 5 tons of blast residue was not specific 
enough for appellant to conclude that the blast residue would contain toxic heavy 
metals (lead, cadmium and chromium) as opposed to the less toxic contaminants of 
copper and zinc. Appellant explains that paragraph 3 .5 of Work Item 077-01-001 "did 
not inform PYR that the paint it would blast off the surfaces of the ship contained 
concentrations of lead, cadmium or chromium that would require abatement [involving 
OSHA worker protections] 
during the removal process" (app. br. at 37). Apparently, 
this is because blast residue typically is "contaminated with copper and zinc," 
materials "often used in the anti-fouling coatings and epoxies used on Navy vessels" 
(id. at 36). Appellant maintains that copper and zinc make the blast residue hazardous 
for disposal purposes, but do not make it hazardous under the OSHA regulations (id. 
at 37). The government disagrees, contending that the minimum required worker 
protections are essentially identical for removing paint containing lead as for removing 
paint containing zinc (R4, tab 57 at 5). Regardless of whether this is true, it does not 
change the fact that appellant assumed that the bulk of the paint and coatings on board 
LCU 1631 would not require the same worker protection requirements as required for 
toxic heavy metals. 
Appellant's explanation is particularly bewildering when both Section C.6.2.c 
of the contract and Standard Item 009-32 expressly instruct the contractor to 
"[ c ]onsider existing interior coatings to be removed by the invoking work items of this 
contract to contain lead, cadmium and chromium" (finding 27). In our view, the 
proper comparison is to the estimate of hazardous abrasive blast waste to be generated, 
not to specific quantities of paint chips or paint waste. This view is consistent with the 
statutory language. The fact that PYR would 
be using recyclable steel grit instead of 
sand might reduce the ultimate quantity of hazardous waste generated during paint 
removal, but should not change the need to provide for worker protection during paint 
removal. 
Appellant's interpretation of the contract focuses on Standard Item 009-32 in 
isolation and fails to take into account how the provisions of Work Item 077-01-001 
and Standard Item 009-32 work together. This violates the core principle of contract 
interpretation that contract terms are interpreted and read as a whole, giving reasonable 
15 

meaning to all of the contract's parts, and without leaving "a portion of the contract 
useless, inexplicable, void, or superfluous." NVT Technologies, Inc. v. United States, 
370 F.3d 1153, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 
Moreover, appellant's position would shift the risk of estimating the cost of 
performance to the government, rather than to the contractor. In a firm-fixed-price 
contract, the risk of estimating the cost of performance falls squarely on the contractor 
and the contractor generally assumes the risk of unexpected costs. FAR 16.202-1, 
Description; Lakeshore Eng'g Servs., Inc. v. United States, 748 F.3d 1341, 1347 
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that 
"[t]he essence of a firm fixed-price contract is that the 
contractor, not the government, assumes the risk of unexpected costs"). In this case, 
the contract provisions unambiguously place the contractor on notice that paint removal 
may require worker safety precautions associated with the presence of heavy metals 
contamination. 
C. Distinguishing Metal Trades and Southwest Marine 
Appellant relies on Metal Trades, Inc. v. United States, 810 F. Supp. 689 
(D.S.C. 1992); and Southwest Marine, Inc., ASBCA No. 46155, 96-2 BCA i! 28,292 to 
support its interpretation of 10 U.S. C. § 73 11. 
Metal Trades is inapposite. In Metal Trades, the court held that the government 
had violated§ 7311 by failing to quantify the amount of hazardous asbestos waste 
expected to be generated during the ship repair contract. The court found unpersuasive 
the government's contention that a standard contract provision - providing that the 
contractor is to "consider" all insulation to be asbestos-based material - was sufficient 
to satisfy the duty established by § 7311. The court reasoned that knowledge of the 
existence of hazardous waste was not equivalent to knowledge of the amount of 
hazardous waste expected to be generated. 810 F. Supp. at 694. 
In Metal Trades, the government made no effort to identify or quantify the 
asbestos in the job order. Here, in contrast, the government expressly quantified the 
type (spent abrasive blast material) and quantity (275 tons) of hazardous waste that it 
expected to be generated. Moreover, in this case, the government does not rely solely 
on a standard contract provision to comply with 10 U.S.C. § 7311. Instead, it relies on 
an estimate of the type and quantity of hazardous waste expected to be generated 
during paint removal, in combination with a specific warning that the paint to be 
removed should be considered to contain concentrations of specific toxic heavy 
metals. Appellant should reasonably have concluded that removal of the paint would 
trigger worker safety requirements for handling these toxic heavy metals. 
Moreover, the court's holding in Metal Trades does not impose any specific 
method of identifying and quantifying the hazardous waste that is expected to be 
16 

generated - it merely holds that the government must quantify the type and amount of 
waste it expects to be generated. 
Finally, the district court's holding in Metal Trades is not binding precedent on 
this Board. This Board does not consider a district court decision to be precedent 
"binding" on it if the decision was issued in an appeal other than one currently before 
the Board. SWR, Inc., ASBCA No. 56708, 15-1,-r35,832 at 175,219-21 (addressing 
precedential effect of federal district court decision reversing a Board decision arising 
froin a maritime contract pursuant to 41 U .S.C. § 7102( d) ); see also Marine Logistics, 
Inc. v. England, 265 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that appeals arising out of 
maritime contracts must be brought in the federal district courts). 
The Board's decision in Southwest Marine also fails to support appellant's 
position. Southwest Marine is factually similar to this case, in that it involves the 
application of 10 u.s.c. § 7311 to a ship repair contract. Like this case, the contractor 
contended that the Navy's reliance on a standard contract item failed to satisfy the 
requirement of 10 U.S.C. § 7311 to "identifly] the types and amounts of hazardous 
wastes that are required to be removed by the contractor from the vessel." 
These factual similarities, however, are not enough to support appellant's 
interpretation of 10 U.S.C. § 7311. The critical distinction between Southwest Marine 
and this appeal is that the contractor in Southwest Marine encountered a quantity of 
asbestos greatly in excess of the specific amount of the government's contractual 
estimate. In Southwest Marine, the contractor removed 166,210 lbs. of asbestos from 
the vessel, more than an order of magnitude greater than the government's estimate of 
10,000 lbs. 
Here, in contrast, appellant generated a much lower quantity of hazardous waste 
than the government's contractual estimate. Appellant claims to have been surprised by 
the level of effort required to remove the paint on board the vessel, not by the quantity 
of hazardous waste generated during the removal process. The contract in this appeal 
provided sufficient information for appellant to conclude that it would generate as much 
as 275 tons of hazardous waste during paint removal, and that removing the paint likely 
would require worker safety protections associated with the presence of toxic heavy 
metals. 
D. Extrinsic Evidence Not Necessary 
Appellant makes much of the fact that the Navy modified the language of 
Standard Item 009-32 in the year following appellant's contract (app. br. at 111 n.15). 
While it is true that the new language of Standard Item 009-32 adds clarity by 
instructing the contractor to "consider" "abrasive blasting media" to "contain heavy 
metals and/or other toxic or hazardous substances," the language of Standard Item 
17 

009-32 that was included in appellant's contract is sufficiently clear to place appellant 
on notice that the "spent abrasive blast material (contaminated with a known 
hazardous waste)" would "contain lead, cadmium and chromium." 
Appellant also cites to the Navy's past practice of approving change orders on 
other fixed-price paint removal contracts as evidence that Standard Item 009-32 should 
be interpreted 
narrowly (app. br. at 3). While the governments past practice might 
explain why appellant was willing to take the risk of underbidding the project if it 
encountered significant quantities of "hot" paint, it does not influence our 
interpretation of the contract's plain language. 
Appellant also relies on evidence that the Navy changed its policy of approving 
change orders for hazardous paint removal during its consideration of appellant's 
REA, contending that the Navy retroactively applied its new policy to appellant's REA 
(app. br. at 120). Extrinsic evidence of subsequent policy changes has no bearing on 
the interpretation of the plain language of the contract. Indeed, if the contract 
language is clear and unambiguous, the plain language controls and extrinsic evidence 
is not allowed to contradict the plain language. Coast Federal Bank, FSB v. United 
States, 323 F.3d 1035, 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Certified Construction Company of 
Kentucky, LLC, ASBCA No. 58782, 15-1BCA~36,068 at 176,133. Moreover, 
extrinsic evidence cannot impart ambiguity into an otherwise unambiguous contract. 
Hunt Constr. Group, Inc. v. United States, 281F.3d1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2002); 
Tomahawk Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 41717, 93-3 BCA ~ 26,219 at 130,486-87. 
E. Estoppel Argument 
Appellant further contends that the government should be estopped from 
denying appellant's request for removal costs, because the government stated during 
the bid process that it would pay for the higher costs (app. br. at 122). A close review 
of appellant's request for specific clarification and the government's response 
demonstrates that the government's response was consistent with the contractual 
language and did not amount to an agreement that the government would pay for 
removal costs beyond the contracted amount. 
With reference to the government's estimate of hazardous waste set forth in 
paragraph 3.5 of Work Item 077-01-001, the appellant asked: 
Since the requirements to accomplish removals differ 
greatly contractors utilize the government[']s quantities in 
generating their estimates of removal costs. 
If the amounts exceed the government[']s expectations and 
a mod is issued to cover the additional disposal costs it is 
18 

(Finding 8) 
the contractor[']s right to include additional expenses for 
labor, lab fees, analysis etc. into the contract mod. 
Please advise. 
In response, government stated that it "uses historical data to estimate and 
provide the amount of hazardous waste. Anything beyond the amount listed will be 
negotiated and addressed by a contract modification." (Finding 8) This response is 
consistent with paragraph 4.1 of Work Item 077-01-001, which states that, ifthe 
"[h]azardous waste generated during the actual performance of the work" varies in 
"type and amount from waste listed in 3.5," the government may renegotiate for credit 
or increase pursuant to Paragraph (b) of 2.4 (id.). 
Appellant's request for clarification was not limited to the removal costs 
associated only with the small quantities of hazardous paint (10 lbs.) and paint chips 
(20 lbs.) the government included in Work Item 077-01-001. Instead, its request 
focused on paragraph 3.5 generally. Therefore, it was logical to conclude, as the 
government did, that appellant's question addressed the government's estimate of 
275 tons of "Spent Abrasive Blast Material (contaminated with a known Hazardous 
waste)" as well as its estimates of hazardous paint waste and paint chips. 
Moreover, although appellant's request for clarification did address the 
"requirements to accomplish removals," it specifically did not mention or address 
OSHA requirements or other particular removal costs. Accordingly, the government's 
response focused only upon its estimate of hazardous waste to be generated during 
contract performance. 
Finally, in asking for clarification, appellant stated that "contractors utilize the 
government[']s quantities in generating their estimates of removal costs" (finding 7). 
This statement logically implies that the appellant would rely on the government's 
estimate of 275 tons of spent abrasive material in estimating appellant's removal costs. 
F. Constructive Change 
Finally, we address whether the additional costs incurred during paint removal 
were the results of a constructive change. The Changes clause of the contract provides 
that a change includes "any act or omission to act on the part of the Government in 
respect of which a request is made for equitable adjustment" (finding 23). Under the 
contract's Changes clause, the government is liable for delay and increased costs when 
it demands work not required by the contract's plans and specifications. ECC, 
International, ASBCA No. 55781, 13 BCA iJ 35,207 at 172,737. A constructive 
19 

change is work performed in response to an informal change order or due to the 
government's fault. Int'! Data Products Corp. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1317, 1325 
(Fed. Cir. 2007). For a contractor to recover for a change, the person acting for the 
government must possess authority to modify the contract. Winter v. Cath-dr/Balti 
Joint Venture, 497 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Northrop Grumman Systems 
Corp. Space Systems Div., ASBCA No. 54774, 10-2 BCA, 34,517 at 170,242. Ifa 
contractor performs work that cannot be characterized as additional work under the 
contract, it does not constitute a change. Int'! Data, 492 F.3d at 1325. Appellant bears 
the burden of proving the elements of a change. Die-Matic Tool Co., ASBCA 
No. 31185, 89-1BCA,21,342 at 107,603, ajf'd, 889 F.2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 
(table). 
Appellant has not demonstrated that the additional costs incurred by its 
subcontractor in complying with worker protection requirements during paint removal 
were the result of a constructive change. In particular, appellant has not provided 
evidence that the government compelled it to perform work that was not required by 
the terms of the contract. As we discussed above, the plain language of the contract 
indicates that the paint removal work - and any necessary worker protection 
requirements - were required by the terms of the contract. 
Instead, the evidence shows that appellant willingly performed the work under 
the assumption that the government would agree to an increase in the contract price 
and that the government consistently maintained that the work was within the scope of 
the contract. Appellant kept the government apprised of its paint sampling results with 
its periodic submission of Inspection Deficiency Reports (IDRs) (finding 42). Relying 
on the Navy's "history of paying contractors additional money to remove paint based 
on the concentrations of heavy metals identified in paint sample analysis," appellant 
apparently assumed that the government would agree to an increase in the contract 
price to cover the OSHA requirements for safely removing and handling the paint 
based on the IDRs (id.). The government never substantively responded to IDRs 98, 
86 or 74, but directed appellant to continue with the work and suggested that appellant 
submit a formal REA for any additional costs to which it believed it was entitled 
(finding 43). 
Moreover, in its responses to appellant's specific inquiries regarding 
reimbursement for additional paint removal costs, the government consistently 
maintained that the cost of removing paint containing heavy metals was covered by the 
terms of the contract and directed appellant to continue with the basic work items set 
20 

forth in the contract (finding 44 ). Therefore, appellant has not established that the 
government compelled it to perform additional work that was not required by the 
terms of the contract. 
Dated: 19 January 2017 
I concur 
_,/;:;? L~~.~-./-~/./ ,/.-- -/~/~ :I~-
,,: MA~ N. STEMi£R7 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
~~~ 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
Rl~KLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59281, Appeal of South 
Bay Boiler Repair, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
21 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals