1 
 
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CATES-HARMAN 
 
 This appeal arises from a contract between Meltech Corporation, Inc. 
(“Meltech” or “appellant”), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE” or 
“government”) for a Multiple Award Task Order contract that included both 
Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build construction projects within the Baltimore District 
Area of Responsibility, and the September 30, 2014, award by USACE of a Firm- 
Fixed-Price Task Order No. 0002 to Meltech for all costs in connection with the 
renovation, design, and construction of Building 8609, located at Ft. Meade, MD.   
The appeals captioned above are related to thirteen (13) other appeals that were 
consolidated and heard by the Board.
1  These appeals involve claims related to the 
hammerhead roof. 
 
 
1  ASBCA Nos. 61694, 61762, 61763, 61764, 61765, 61766, 61767, 61869, 61870, 
61871, 61872, 62091, 62987.  The lead appeal is ASBCA No. 61694.  On 
December 17, 2021, a decision on summary judgment was issued in ASBCA 
Nos. 61706 and 61768.  On July 16, 2025, a decision was issued in ASBCA 
Nos. 61766, 61767 and 61872. On January 6, 2026, a decision was issued in 
ASBCA No. 61765.  Familiarity with those decisions is presumed.  
 
Appeals of - )  
 )  
Meltech Corporation, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 61762, 61764 
 )  
Under Contract No. W912DR-14-D-0021 )  
   
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Leonard A. Sacks, Esq. 
  Leonard A. Sacks & Associates, P.C. 
  Rockville, MD  
Fred A. Mendicino, Esq.  
  Faughnan Mendicino PLLC 
  Dulles, VA  
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq. 
    Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 
 Adam J. Kwiatkowski, Esq. 
    Engineer Trial Attorney 
    U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore 

2 
 
 The Board has jurisdiction over these appeals under the Contract Disputes Act 
of 1978, 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109.  A nine-day hearing was held via videoconference.    
For the reasons stated below, we sustain the appeal. 
 
FINDINGS OF FACT 
 
Contract and Task Order 
 
1.  On June 10, 2014, USACE issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a 
Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) that included design-build and 
design-bid-build construction projects within the Baltimore District area of 
Responsibility.  This was Phase 1 of a two-phase construction procurement.  (Joint 
Stipulations of Fact, General Background (JSOF GB) ¶ 1; R4, tab 2))  
 
2.  The MATOC included renovating several similar dormitory buildings 
at Fort Meade, including Building 8609 (JSOF GB ¶ 3). 
 
3.  On August 14, 2014, USACE issued Amendment 0003 to RFP W912DR-
14-R-0003 for two seed projects under the MATOC to provide Design Criteria for the 
Design-Build renovation of Building 8609 at Fort Meade and Building 4501 
at Aberdeen Proving Ground.  Each task order was to be awarded separately.  
(JSOF GB ¶ 7) 
 
4.  On September 15, 2014, Meltech submitted its technical and cost proposals 
for the Building 8609 renovation.  Meltech’s proposal included a preliminary 
schedule.  According to this schedule, the design period would begin on November 18, 
2014, and end on June 4, 2015.  The construction period would begin on May 29, 
2015, and end on April 26, 2016.  (JSOF GB ¶¶ 11-12) 
 
5.  On September 29, 2014, USACE awarded Meltech Base Contract 
No. W912DR-14-D-0021.  On September 30, 2014, USACE awarded Task Order 
Contract No. 0002 to Meltech for the renovation of Building 8609 at Fort Meade.  The 
Task Order Contract provided Meltech with a 540-calendar day performance period 
beginning from the Notice to Proceed date.  The Notice to Proceed was issued on 
November 17, 2014, and the original completion date was May 10, 2016.  (JSOF GB 
¶¶ 13-16) 
 
The Existing Roof Structure 
 
6.  Prior to the renovation, the hammerhead portion of Building 8609, which 
housed the main entry and administrative community functions of the building, had an 
EPDM (Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer) roof (Joint Stipulations of Fact, ASBCA 
Nos. 61762, 61764, hereinafter (JSOF) ¶ 6); R4, tab 3 at 7).  The roof was flat.  

3 
 
7.  In contrast, a gable roof is a roof consisting of two sections whose upper 
horizontal edges meet to form its ridge (JSOF ¶ 7). 
 
Black And Veatch Expected The New Roof To Be Installed On The Existing Roof 
 
8.  USACE contracted with Black and Veatch (B-V, Designer of Record) to 
prepare “a partial criteria Design-Build Request for Proposal” package for the 
renovation of Building 8609, including a “[n]ew, sloped roof” (app. supp. R4, tab 351 
at 5).  The scope of B-V’s work was to “[d]evelop performance criteria for all design 
disciplines for the Request for Proposal [] Design-Build Package.  Use tables, text, 
sketches, drawings and others to illustrate the performance criteria” (id. at 6).  The 
architect-engineer services by B-V were to “provide all necessary services required for 
the preparation of a complete and biddable RFP Design-Build Package” (id. at 7). 
 
9.  B-V was provided a copy of a drawing FE 8257 dated April 7, 1995, titled 
“Roof Details BLDG 8609.”  This figure provides details of component layers 
underneath the roof.  (App. supp. R4, tab 606)  These layers underneath the roof are 
discussed in more detail below.  B-V did not include details of these hidden, 
underneath layers of the hammerhead roof within the Design Criteria for prospective 
bidders (tr. 1/119).     
 
10.  USACE’s Project Engineer posted a question to the lead Designer of 
Record, in the Dr. Checks System on June 26, 2014, if the existing roof will remain in 
place or whether it needs to be removed to install the new gable roof.  The Designer of 
Record responded on July 22, 2014, that “It was the intent of the RFP to allow the 
Design Build Contractor to leave the existing roof in place as possible while providing 
proper connection[] of the new roof framing to the existing building.  Wording to that 
end will be added to the RFP in paragraph 5.3.4 c) ii.”  (App. supp. R4, tab 742 at 3; 
tr. 3/107, 109-10) 
 
11.  B-V’s estimate noted that the existing roof was to remain, “current roofing 
is built-up.  New roof will be pitched standing seam metal.  We are not intending that 
existing roof will be removed” (JSOF ¶ 2; app. supp. R4, tab 352 at 15). 
 
Relevant Contract Clauses and Design Criteria Specifications 
 
12.  The contract contained the standard clauses for construction contracts, 
including Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.233-1 DISPUTES (JUL 2002), 
FAR 52.236-2 DIFFERING SITE CONDITIONS (APR 1984), and FAR 52.236-3 
SITE INVESTIGATION AND CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE WORK 
(APR l984) (R4, tab 2 at 41). 
 

4 
 
13.  Section 00100 of the Proposal Submission Requirements states that “The 
Contractor will provide all design, management, supervision, labor, materials, tools, 
and equipment necessary for the performance of the work.  Task orders may be either 
Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build” (R4, tab 2 at 5). 
 
14.  The RFP specified that a new gable roof was to be installed on the existing 
“hammerhead” roof portion of the building (JSOF ¶ 1; R4, tab 3 at 7).   
 
15.  Consistent with B-V’s clarification to USACE on July 22, 2014 (finding 
10), the Design Criteria under section 5.3.4(c)(ii), Architecture and Interior Design, 
Building Exterior, provided that, at the contractor’s option, the existing roof could 
remain, and the contractor could perform selective demolition where the new truss 
assembly could attach to the new gable roof (JSOF ¶¶ 4, 20): 
 
Roofing – Gable roof constructed of standing seam metal 
roof . . . . This gable roof is intended to be constructed so 
as to create an attic space which must be ventilated.  At the 
contractor’s option the existing roofing may be left in 
place, with only selective demolition performed to allow 
for proper connection of the new roof framing to existing 
structure. 
 
(R4, tab 3 at 41) 
 
16.  Appendix G to the Design Criteria included some drawings of the existing 
building, but not the roof of the hammerhead portion of the building (JSOF ¶ 11). 
 
17.  Design Criteria, Appendix G drawing AE4, titled “EXISTING 8609 
BUILDING SECTION” references the roof (JSOF ¶ 12; R4, tab 3 at 369).  We find 
that this figure is not of the hammerhead portion of the roof; the roof “crown” is barely 
visible, not called out, and there are no scales to determine the amount of inflection of 
the main roof portion.   
 


5 
 
18.  Drawing AE4 depicted a cross-section of the barracks portion (not the 
hammerhead) of the building in its existing condition, looking west down the longer 
side of the rectangular portion.  The drawing did not depict all features of the existing 
building, but showed, among other things, concrete slabs (with associated joists) for all 
three levels (including the “roof deck” or “roof slab”), concrete girders, interior walls, 
the drop ceiling, the crawl space, and the Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer 
(EPDM) roof.  (JSOF ¶ 13)    
 
19.  In drawing AE-4, the existing EPDM roof is labeled as “NEW EPDM 
ROOFING OVER 2” RIGID INSULATION OVER LIGHT WT. CONC.”  This 
indicated that under the “new” EPDM roofing was a two-inch layer of insulation and a 
layer of lightweight concrete.  (JSOF ¶ 14; R4, tab 3 at 369)  
 
20.  The depiction of the existing EPDM roof on Drawing AE4 for the barracks 
portion of the building showed that it was at a higher elevation at the center than at the 
edges, but contained no reference measurements of the center elevation versus the 
edge elevation (JSOF ¶ 15).  
 
21.  The depiction of the roof-level concrete slab on Drawing AE4 shows that 
the slab has a parapet on both long edges of the building, under the existing EPDM 
roof (JSOF ¶ 16; R4, tab 3 at 369).  
 
22.  The RFP contained no similar depiction of the roof for the hammerhead 
portion of the building (JSOF ¶ 17).  
 
23.  The Design Criteria contained Appendix C (Photographs), which did not 
include any photographs of the existing roof of the hammerhead portion of Building 
8609 (JSOF ¶ 21).  
 
24.  No as-built drawings of the hammerhead roof were included in the RFP 
(JSOF ¶ 3).   
 
Prospective Bidders Were Not Provided Access to the Roof During The Site Visit 
 
25.  By email dated August 12, 2014, a USACE support team member wrote to 
USACE’s Resident Engineer that the site visit should be “organized and focussed 
[sic]” and “Maybe the ae [Area Engineer] or steve can decide if there’s any way of 
viewing the roof decking” (app. supp. R4, tab 355 at 1).  
 
26.  A few days later, USACE provided a guided tour to prospective bidders to 
walk through Building 8609 that lasted about an hour, but they were not given access 
to the hammerhead or barracks roofs.   (JSOF ¶ 5; tr. 3/115-17; app. supp. R4, tab 355 
at 1, 3). 

6 
 
27.  It was not possible to see the hammerhead roof from the ground or a 
window in the third-floor barracks (tr. 1/120-23).   
 
Meltech’s Proposal Intended for the Existing Roof to Remain in Place Under the New 
Gable Roof 
 
28.  On September 4, 2014, B-V provided responses for USACE concerning 
offerors’ questions with respect to the RFP, including B-V’s clarification that the 
existing roof can remain: 
 
[Question] 122.  Is the existing roof to be demoed to 
provide circulation? 
 
[Response] The existing room [sic, roof] may remain in 
place as determined by the contractor/designer.  Selective 
demolition may be necessary to provide proper and 
adequate anchoring of the new roof system.  
 
(App. supp. R4, tab 359 at 16) 
 
29.  On September 5, 2014, Meltech submitted its technical and cost proposals 
for Building 8609’s renovation (R4, tab 5).   
 
30.  Meltech’s proposal, Section 1.3, Assumptions and Techniques, stated that 
“It is assumed that the existing concrete roof deck will need to be upgraded to meet 
blast and progressive collapse requirements” (R4, tab 5 at 5).  Under Section 1.7.2, 
Design Criteria, Exterior Design, Meltech stated that the existing roof would be left in 
place, utilizing selective demolition, with the new roof built on top to allow for 
connection of the new roof framing to the existing structure.  “This gable roof will be 
constructed so as to create a ventilated attic space and the existing roofing will be left 
in place, with only selective demolition performed to allow for proper connection of 
the new roof framing to existing structure.”  (R4, tab 5 at 7; tr. 1/106-07)   
 
31.  Thus, Meltech originally planned to install the new gable roof trusses 
directly on top of the existing roof system.  Meltech wanted to leave the existing 
roofing in place, as it did not want to incur the cost of removing and disposing of it.  
Meltech also utilized the existing roof as an air barrier, which would prevent air 
infiltration and improve the building’s energy efficiency.  (Tr. 1/107-08)  Meltech’s 
price estimate for its proposal assumed that Meltech would “Remove any of the roof 
top obst[r]uctions for the new truss system” as part of its demolition work (JSOF ¶ 22; 
R4, tab 287 at 13).  
 

7 
 
Meltech’s Demolition Drawings Intended for the Existing Roof to Remain in Place  
Under the New Gable Roof 
 
32.  The 95% Exterior Design Submittal, dated August 7, 2015, includes 
Drawing A-310, which contains several details of roof sections showing the junction 
between the roof and exterior wall on the barracks portion of Building 8609.  Details 1 
and 2 of Drawing A-310 contain the note “R-38 BATT INSULATION OVER EXIST. 
ROOF SYSTEM,” indicating Meltech’s intent for the existing roof to remain in place 
over the barracks portion of Building 8609.  (R4, tab 31 at 20; tr. 1/111-13)  
 
33.  The 95% Exterior Drawing, Sheet S-601, depicts the planned roofs for the 
barracks (Detail 1) and hammerhead (Detail 2) portions of Building 8609 (JSOF ¶ 27).  
Detail 1 depicts that the gable roof trusses will rest on a steel I-beam to be placed on 
the roof as part of the structural reinforcement (JSOF ¶ 28; R4, tab 31 at 13).  Thus, 
the existing roofing system was to remain in place when Meltech installed the new 
gable roof trusses (tr. 1/113).  Detail 2 shows that the gable roof trusses will extend 
beyond the end of the slab, forming an overhang on both sides of the roof (JSOF ¶ 29; 
R4, tab 31 at 13). 
 
The Existing Roof Was Elevated at the Center  
 
34.  During the demolition of the roof in the fall of 2015 to remove mechanical 
equipment, Meltech discovered that the existing EPDM roof was 4.5 to 5 inches higher 
at its center.  Meltech referred to this elevated center as the “crown” on the 
hammerhead roof.  (JSOF ¶ 8; R4, tab 210)  Meltech’s Director of Quality Control 
testified that “[a] crown is a very unusual thing to put on a roof.  Normally, you would 
just pitch a roof by small degree to side or front to back” (tr. 1/155).  This elevated 
crown was unexpected and would have prevented the new trusses from lying flat on 
the roof (tr. 1/115-17).  
 
After Identifying the Hammerhead Roof had a Crown, the Designer of Record, URS, 
Instructed Meltech to Remove the Existing Roof 
 
35.  On October 29, 2015, Meltech submitted RFI 2602-007, stating to its 
Designer of Record that the hammerhead roof had a crown of 4.5 to 5 inches, which 
would require supports around the perimeter of the roof.  The RFI also stated that the 
“[c]ontract drawings do not show structural supports for trusses on the existing 
hammerhead roof (EPDM).”  (JSOF ¶ 30)  Meltech’s Director of Quality Control 
testified that had the roof been pitched rather than crowned, the trusses could have 
been “installed as planned” (tr. 1/155).  
 
36.  The Designer of Record replied on November 9, 2015, that “the trusses 
need to be supported from the structural roof slab by an extension of the truss, poured 

8 
 
concrete seat, or steel beams” and that “the existing roof will need to be removed for 
Installment directly to the structural roof slab” (app. supp. R4, tab 612 at 1). 
 
37.  On November 10, 2015, Meltech submitted RFI-0075 to USACE, 
requesting that it concur with the Designer of Record’s November 9, 2015, 
recommendations.  USACE never responded to this RFI.  (R4, tab 211) 
 
38.  The 100% Exterior Drawings, dated February 24, 2016, on Sheet S-601 
depict the planned roofs for the barracks (Detail 1) and hammerhead (Detail 2) 
portions of Building 8609 (JSOF ¶ 31).  The hammerhead roof slab is marked as 
“T/(E)SLAB,” which is commonly used in construction that is designed to be 
lightweight concrete and insulating.  The roof construction “consists of a 2 [inch] thick 
slab with 6 [inch] deep joist ribs (8 [inches] total depth) spanning to concrete beams” 
(R4, tab 310 at 7, Sheet number S-104 describing the hammerhead roof framing; 
tab 310 at 13).  Immediately above the T/(E)SLAB is an arrow marking the 
“EXISTING TOPPING” to which the gable trusses are built on or an elevated truss 
system is built upon (R4, tab 310 at 13).   
Detail 1 shows that the gable roof trusses on the barracks portion will rest on a steel I-
beam (known as the “steel ring beam”) to be placed on the roof as part of the structural 
reinforcement (JSOF ¶ 32).  Detail 2 shows that the gable roof trusses will extend 
beyond the end of the slab, forming an overhang on both sides of the roof (JSOF ¶ 33; 
R4, tab 310 at 13). 
 
The Hammerhead Roof Contained Several Layers that Needed to be Removed 
 
39.  Meltech began demolishing the existing EPDM roof on the hammerhead 
portion of the building on March 3, 2016, a process that entailed peeling off the EPDM 
(JSOF ¶ 34; tr. 1/124).  In addition to the hammerhead roof having a crown, the roof 
had several layers that were not identified in the Design Criteria that would need to be 
removed (1/117-19). 
 
40.  The hammerhead portion of Building 8609 utilizes an EPDM membrane 
that went over the entire roof that also wrapped around the edge of the roofing and 
extended down the face of the building for approximately 8” (tr. 1/118).  Underneath 


9 
 
the EPDM was a 2” layer of rigid insulation board.  Underneath that layer was a 
bituminous roof that had been previously applied and roofed over (tr. 1/118).  
Underneath the bituminous layer was a layer of lightweight concrete.  Below the 
lightweight concrete layer was a concrete slab (tr. 1/118).  This was the structural 
component of the uppermost level of the building.  Both the existing EPDM roof and 
the gable roof that Meltech provided were installed on/above the concrete slab.  The 
concrete slab was referred to at various times as the “roof deck” and “roof slab.”  
(JSOF ¶ 10) 
 
41.  None of the Appendix G drawings in the Design Criteria show any of these 
layers existing on the hammerhead roof (R4, tab 3 at 359-85; tr. 1/119).  USACE’s 
Project Engineer testified that several buildings at Ft. Meade had undergone recent 
renovations, had a similar building structure, included a hammerhead portion, and 
contained an EPDM upper layer over the top of “built-up” roof layers that required 
demolition prior to installing a gable roof (tr. 3/102-06). 
 
42.  On October 29, 2015, following the identification of the elevated crown 
portion of the roof, Meltech requested the addition of structural supports around the 
perimeter edge for the roof trusses using a stack of 2” x 12” blocking.  Meltech’s 
designer, URS, replied to Meltech’s inquiry on November 9, 2015, denying Meltech’s 
wood block approach, and stated that the existing roof would need to be removed, “the 
trusses need to be supported from the structural roof slab by an extension of the truss, 
poured concrete seat, or steel beams.  The truss cannot be supported from wood.  Also, 
the existing roof will need to be removed for installment directly to the structural roof 
slab.”  (R4, tab 210) 
 
43.  The need to remove the EPDM roof system on the hammerhead also 
eliminated the use of the existing roof as the planned air barrier.  As a result, Meltech 
had to install a new air barrier, which was primarily composed of spray foam.  (JSOF 
¶ 41, 42) 
 
During the Roof Demolition, Meltech Discovers a Parapet Along the Perimeter of the 
Building 
 
44.  Meltech began demolishing the existing EPDM roof on the hammerhead 
portion of the building on March 3, 2016 (JSOF ¶ 34). 
 
45.  During the course of the Project, Meltech discovered that, along the outside 
edge, the existing EPDM hammerhead roof overlapped a parapet beneath it that was 
approximately 1 ½ to 2” high.  The concrete layer concealed this parapet.  (JSOF ¶ 9; 
tr. 1/118)  The presence of the parapet was unexpected, as there were no indications of 
its existence in the Design Criteria (tr. 1/155).  
 

10 
 
46.  On April 12, 2016, Meltech submitted RFI 2602-053 to its Designer, URS.  
The RFI stated that when Meltech removed the EPDM roof on the hammerhead 
portion of the building, Meltech discovered that “the perimeter of the hammerhead has 
a 1-1/2” tall x 5” wide concrete parapet around it, and the deck itself is considerably 
depressed in areas (1” to 1-1/2”).”  (JSOF ¶ 35; app. supp. R4, tab 613 at 1)  Meltech 
stated that the presence of the parapet on the hammerhead slab prevented the full 
length of the trusses of the gable roof from bearing on the concrete slab (JSOF ¶ 36; 
app. supp. R4, tab 613 at 1).  Meltech concluded that if the parapet were partially 
demolished to receive the gable roof trusses, the trusses would still not bear on the 
concrete slab for their full length due to the presence of depressed areas in the concrete 
slab (JSOF ¶ 37; app. supp. R4, tab 613 at 1).     
 
47.  URS replied on April 15, 2016, stating, in part, that the “Truss design 
shown on drawings is intended to illustrate the concept configuration of the cold 
formed metal truss members only.  Per specification section 05 40 00, the truss design 
and its connections are a delegated design and should be submitted for review as a 
shop drawing to comply with loading/performance criteria indicated in the 
specification and drawings” (app. supp. R4, tab 613 at 1).  Ultimately, the design 
decision was deferred to the Designer of Record for Trusses, which was the truss 
manufacturer, to develop a new truss design for the hammerhead truss system 
(tr. 1/141-42; tr. 3/90-92).  The new hammerhead truss system incorporated cross-
bracing to the webbing of the trusses, as well as increased reinforcement to the bottom 
chord of the trusses, where the bottom chord was strengthened to support the truss 
without bearing on the roof deck (JSOF ¶ 40; app. supp R4, tab 835; tr. 1/141; tr. 3/91-
94).    
 
48.  A raised deck at the edge of the hammerhead roof, where it met the 
barracks portion of Building 8609, was constructed.  As some portions of the 
hammerhead wall lacked a parapet on their edge, a raised deck was necessary to 
support the truss system.   (R4, tab 218 at 8, 16; tr. 3/100-02)   
 
49.  On May 16, 2016, Meltech sent Letter S-0028 to USACE concerning 
“Depressions in Roof of Hammerhead an Unforeseen Condition.”  The letter stated 
that the hammerhead roof was identified as not being level after the removal of roofing 
materials, and it had depressions that prevented the roof trusses from bearing directly 
on the roof slab.  Meltech stated that it was required to strengthen the bottom chord of 
the trusses and install them to be supported on the exterior roof lines.  Meltech alleged 
that this was an “unforeseen condition.”  (JSOF ¶ 38; R4, tab 213 at 1)  Page 2 of the 
letter contained a cost breakdown in the amount of $8,276.14 (R4, tab 213 at 2).  
Meltech’s Director of Quality Control and Safety testified that the depressions were 
unusual “because, normally, concrete is troweled flat and made smooth,” which was 
part of the trade.  As a consequence, the untroweled concrete was uneven and “in [a] 

11 
 
very rough condition.”  (Tr. 1/128-29, 155-56)  As a consequence, these “undulations 
and depressions [in the concrete] would not allow a truss to sit flat on it” (tr. 1/129).  
 
50.  On May 23, 2016, Meltech submitted RFI-0090 to the USACE.  The RFI 
stated that the existing concrete roof slab had multiple depressions that prevented 
Meltech from installing the truss bottom plate to the concrete roof slab.  USACE 
responded to the RFI on June 23, 2016, concluding “this is not a different site 
condition” (JSOF ¶ 39; R4, tab 214 at 1).  USACE stated that the design builder 
should have “verif[ied] the actual structural condition of the building prior stablish 
[sic, prior to establishing] the basis for the design” citing to Design Criteria paragraphs 
6.6.2, 6.6.3, and 6.6.5.b.  In addition, USACE stated that the “Design Builder had 
plenty of time to field verify the actual condition of the hammer head roof and submit 
a design considering the actual conditions.”  (R4, tab 214 at 1-2) 
 
51.  Meltech’s truss manufacturer developed a new design for the truss system 
where the roof was not the supporting structure, and the bottom chord was 
strengthened to support it (JSOF ¶ 40; app. supp. R4, tab 835).  
 
52.  On September 15, 2016, Meltech submitted RFI No. 2602-117 to its 
designer, URS.  The RFI stated that Meltech intended to use the existing roof as the air 
barrier, but it needed to remove it because the crown of the roof was conflicting with 
the truss installation.  As a result, Meltech had to install a new air barrier, which was 
primarily composed of spray foam.  (JSOF ¶ 41; R4, tab 216 at 1; tr. 1/157)   
 
53.  By letter dated June 12, 2017, Meltech submitted its PCO #21 for the added 
demolition work, removal of 5 inches2 of cementitious material that was under the 
existing roof and install a new air barrier in the form of 2” of spray polyurethane foam 
insulation and requested reimbursement in the amount of $66,806 (JSOF ¶ 42; R4, 
tab 221 at 1).  
 
Meltech’s Claim and Contracting Officer’s Final Decision 
 
54.  On August 31, 2017, Meltech submitted a request for a Contracting 
Officer’s Final Decision (COFD) for an “unforeseen condition” since the hammerhead 
roof had depressions in it that prevented the roof trusses from bearing directly on the 
roof slab.  Meltech requested $8,276 to strengthen the bottom chord of the trusses and 
$66,806 to remove the existing roof and insulation from the hammerhead, removing 
the crown and installing a new air barrier.  The total amount requested was $75,082.  
(JSOF ¶ 43; R4, tab 222) 
 
 
2 Meltech’s letter indicates 5’ (5 feet), which we understand to be a mistake and should 
be read as 5” (5 inches).  

12 
 
55.  The contracting officer did not issue a final decision, and Meltech filed its 
notice of appeals on August 23, 2018, from the contracting officer’s deemed denial 
(tr. 1/158).  The Board docketed Meltech’s request for equitable adjustment dated May 
16, 2016 (finding 49) in the amount of $8,276, for the costs associated to strengthen 
the bottom chord of the trusses as ASBCA No. 61762.  The Board docketed the 
request for equitable adjustment dated June 12, 2017 (finding 53) in the amount of 
$66,806 for the costs associated with removing the existing EPDM roof, demolition, 
and installation of a new air barrier, as ASBCA No. 61764. 
 
DECISION 
  
The Parties’ Contentions 
 
Meltech alleges that the Design Criteria represented that the new truss-
supported gable roof could be installed on the existing roof of the hammerhead portion 
of the building.  Upon discovering the crown, Meltech had to remove the EPDM roof 
system, which exposed depressions in the roof deck and an unknown parapet portion 
on the roof edge.  Appellant argues that these unforeseen conditions constitute a Type 
I differing site condition.  (App. br. at 71-73; app. resp. br. at 18-20)  In the alternative, 
Meltech argues that the unexpected conditions leading to the demolition of the 
hammerhead roof, the installation of a more robust truss system, and the introduction 
of a new air barrier constitute a Type II differing site condition (app. br. 75-76; app. 
resp. br. at 21-26).  
 
USACE argues that the crown, parapets, and depressions do not constitute Type 
I differing site conditions because it did not make any representations about their 
presence or absence (gov’t br. at 32; gov’t resp. br. at 14-15).  In addition, Meltech 
cannot demonstrate that it relied on a representation that the hammerhead roof had no 
crown, as its proposal provides contradictory approaches to the roof design.  One 
approach states that the existing roofs would be “replaced” with gable roofs, and the 
other approach states that the existing roofs would remain and be partially demolished 
to allow connection of the gable roof framing.  (Gov’t resp. br. at 14-15)  There were 
no Type II differing site conditions because USACE disclosed similar conditions at the 
dormitory; these conditions were not unusual, and the depressions did not cause an 
increase in Meltech’s cost of performance (gov’t br. at 34-37). 
 
Type 1 Differing Site Condition 
 
A Type 1 differing site condition exists when a contractor encounters 
“[s]ubsurface or latent physical conditions at the site which differ materially from 
those indicated in [the] contract.”  FAR 52.236-2(a)(1).  To establish entitlement to an 
equitable adjustment due to a Type 1 differing site condition, a contractor must prove 
by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the conditions in the contract differed 

13 
 
materially from those actually encountered during performance, (2) the conditions 
actually encountered were reasonably unforeseeable based on all information available 
to the contractor at the time of bidding, (3) the contractor reasonably relied upon its 
interpretation of the contract and contract-related documents, and (4) the contractor 
was damaged as a result of the material variation between expected and encountered 
conditions.  Comtrol, Inc. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1357, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 
(citing H.B. Mac, Inc. v. United States, 153 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1998)); NDG 
Constructors, ASBCA No. 57328, 12-2 BCA ¶ 35,138 at 172,502.  In determining 
whether these criteria have been met, the Board must place itself “into the shoes of a 
reasonable and prudent contractor. . . .”  H.B. Mac, Inc., 153 F.3d at 1345. 
 
Whether appellant is eligible for an equitable adjustment for a Type I differing 
site condition depends on the conditions indicated in the contract documents.  The 
conditions identified in the contract “need not be explicit or specific so long as they 
provide sufficient grounds by which the contractor can justify his expectation of latent 
conditions materially different from those encountered.”  Nova Grp./Tutor-Saliba v. 
United States, 159 Fed. Cl. 1, 35 (2022), aff’d, 87 F.4th 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing  
P.J. Maffei Bldg. Wrecking Corp. v. United States, 732 F.2d 913, 916 (Fed. Cir. 
1984)).  “[T]he contractor must prove that a reasonable contractor reading the contract 
documents as a whole would interpret them as making a representation as to the site 
conditions.”  Int’l Tech. Corp. v. Winter, 523 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008).  The 
Board should read the contract “as a whole and [interpret it] to harmonize and give 
reasonable meaning to all its parts,” if possible, leaving no words “useless, 
inexplicable, inoperative, insignificant, void, meaningless or superfluous.”  Precision 
Dynamics, Inc., ASBCA No. 50519, 05-2 BCA ¶ 33,071 at 163,922 (citations 
omitted); see also Hercules, Inc. v. United States, 292 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 
2002) (“contract must be construed to effectuate its spirit and purpose giving 
reasonable meaning to all parts of the contract”); Hunkin Conkey Constr. Co. v. United 
States, 461 F.2d 1270, 1272 (Ct. Cl. 1972) (rejecting contract interpretation that would 
render a clause in the contract meaningless). 
 
USACE’s Designer, B-V, who prepared the RFP Design-Build package, had 
determined that the existing roof could remain in place while the new roof trusses 
could be directly connected to the existing building (findings 10, 11).  In fact, 
USACE’s Project Engineer questioned the Designer about whether the existing roof 
would remain in place or if it needed to be removed to install the new gable roof.  B-
V’s reply stated that “[i]t was the intent of the RFP to allow the Design Build 
Contractor to leave the existing roof in place as possible while providing proper 
connection[] of the new roof framing to the existing building.  Wording to that end 
will be added to the RFP in paragraph 5.3.4 c) ii.”  (Finding 10) “[The] New roof will 
be pitched standing seam metal.  We are not intending that existing roof will be 
removed” (finding 11).  B-V’s new roof determinations and recommendations are 
captured in the Design Criteria that were provided to prospective bidders.  The Design 

14 
 
Criteria under section 5.3.4(c)(ii), Architecture and Interior Design, Building Exterior, 
provided that, at the contractor’s option, the existing roof could remain, and the 
contractor could perform selective demolition where the new truss assembly could 
attach to the new gable roof (finding 15).   
 
We determine that this statement in the Design Criteria would reasonably lead a 
prospective bidder to infer that retaining the existing roof would not interfere with the 
installation of the new roof trusses.   The government argues that it was unreasonable 
for Meltech to infer that that a central roof crown or a hidden parapet would not 
interfere with the placement of the new roof trusses.  The government’s argument is 
inconsistent with a logical and complete reading of the Design Criteria documents and 
would render section 5.3.4c “useless.”  Thus, it would not be a reasonable 
interpretation by a prudent bidder that Design Criteria section 5.3.4c, which states “the 
existing roofing may be left in place...[and] connection of the new roof framing to 
existing structure,” to mean that modified roof trusses would be required to avoid an 
elevated 5-inch roof crown.  See P.J. Maffei Bldg. Wrecking Corp., 732 F.2d at 916 
(contract “indication” need not be explicit or specific, the documents provided 
sufficient grounds to justify a bidder’s expectation of latent conditions materially 
different from those actually encountered.).  A proper technique for contract 
interpretation is for the Board to place itself in the shoes of a reasonable and prudent 
contractor and decide how such a contractor would act when interpreting the contract 
documents.  Int’l Tech. Corp., 523 F.3d at 1350.  In this spirit, it was reasonable for 
appellant to assume, if the hammerhead portion of the roof had a crown or parapet, 
that those features would not interfere with “for proper connection of the new roof 
framing to existing structure” (finding 15).  See Kinetic Builders, Inc., ASBCA 
No. 32627, 88-2 BCA ¶ 20,657 at 104,399-400 (In a contract for the construction of 
two softball fields, the Board found appellant’s inference was reasonable that the 
specification’s requirement to perform “grubbing” work and the removal of 
“unsuitable” material using “rakes,” which is performed by heavy equipment, 
including bulldozers, that the ground would be suitable to support heavy equipment); 
Kromer, Inc., ASBCA No. 23820, 80-2 BCA ¶ 14,465 at 71,331-32 (contractor was 
entitled to an equitable adjustment for the additional costs it incurred in using the 
relaxed removal requirement on the areas of the roof that were erroneously shown by 
the drawings as being free of moisture barrier.); Chance Constr. Co., ASBCA 
No. 26957, 82-2 BCA ¶ 16,084 at 76,786 (The absence of some streets topography to 
have a 3-inch crown to aid in water drainage was a latent condition that could not be 
determined without conducting an elevation and grade survey, and a reasonable pre-
bid site inspection does not require taking measurements to verify conditions 
represented in the bidding documents).  Here, section 5.3.4c clearly indicated that the 
contractor could leave the existing roof in place while allowing the new truss assembly 
to attach to the new gable roof. 
 

15 
 
Further support can be found in the pre-bid questions and answers.  Responses 
to bidders’ questions concerning the roof indicate that the government expected the 
existing roof to remain in place with little to no demolition required (finding 28). Thus, 
as a consequence, the existing roof could serve as an air barrier, and the government 
did not foresee that demolition would be required to overcome a 5-inch roof crown.     
 
Similarly, it was reasonable for Meltech to infer from the Design Criteria 
descriptions that the contractor would not incur costs for removing the existing roof 
(including the multiple hidden component layers) as the Design Criteria indicated that 
the new gable roof could be installed on the existing “hammerhead” roof portion of 
Building 8609 (finding 14).  Thus, it was reasonable for Meltech to infer that retaining 
the existing roof would allow it to act as an air barrier, thereby preventing air 
infiltration and improving the building’s energy efficiency (findings 30-31).   
 
The government’s argument that the Design Criteria drawing AE4 shows the 
roof must have certain features, including a crown or parapet (gov’t reply br. at 16), is 
also without merit.  The government’s support for this argument relies entirely on 
Drawing AE4.  Drawing AE4 represents the main building section and is not a 
drawing of the hammerhead portion of the roof, it does not show any features of the 
hammerhead portion of the building, and, in fact, the “crown” referenced by the 
government is barely visible, not called out, and contains no scales to determine the 
amount of inflection of the main roof portion   (findings 17-18).  Additionally, the 
crown and parapet that the government states are depicted in the main building section 
of drawing AE4, not the hammerhead, are so small that they are nearly indiscernible, 
are not labeled, and do not include additional details regarding their 
sizes/dimensions/features.  See B.R. Servs., Inc., ASBCA No. 47673 et al., 99-2 BCA 
¶ 30,397 at 150,278 (drawings which were captioned “Roof Elevation Change” that 
showed two sections of the roof that were slightly higher than the rest of the roof, 
requiring additional insulation, were found to be a differing site condition.); Parsons 
Evergreene, LLC, ASBCA No. 58634, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37,137 at 180,799 (the contractor 
was entitled to rely on the government’s drawings that did not indicate the presence of 
asbestos); Skip Kirchdorfer, Inc., ASBCA No. 22722 et al., 79-2 BCA ¶ 14,092 
at 69,313 (The Board finding a differing site condition in a contract to remove existing 
mineral surfaced roll roofing and asphalt shingle down to the roof sheathing and to 
replace the roof sheathing when the included drawings from the specification did not 
depict the undersurface of the existing roofs, and a site visit did not visibly alert 
bidders to the presence of multiple hidden layers of roofing.); compare Korte Constr. 
Co., ASBCA No. 63148, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,454 at 186,908-09 (a contractor ignoring 
contract drawing which called out certain features with “CW,” but did not define the 
term, raised the duty for the contractor to inquire), with Lebolo-Watts Constructors 01 
JV, LLC, ASBCA No. 59740 et. al., 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,789 at 183,433 (Where there is an 
obvious or patent  ambiguity in the contract, it “imposes upon it a duty to inquire of 
the government,” which “tends to deter a bidder, who knows (or should know) of a 

16 
 
serious problem in interpretation, from consciously taking the award with a lower bid 
(based on the less costly reading) with the expectation that he will then be able to cry 
‘change’ or ‘extra’ if the procuring officials take the other view after the contract is 
made.”) (emphasis added).  
 
Because there was a “flat roof,” a bidder would reasonably expect that the main 
building portion of building 8609 would have some curvature or slope to facilitate 
water drainage.  Flat roof drainage systems are designed to collect and channel water 
away from the roof’s surface, preventing water accumulation, ponding, and potential 
damage.  See Leonard Blinderman Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 18946, 75-1 BCA ¶ 
11,018 at 52,441, 52,444, 52,447.  Thus, drawing AE4, which depicts some 
curvature/slope in the main building section of the roof, is not surprising.  These minor 
features described in the main building section of the roof would not put a bidder on 
notice to inquire whether there would be a 5-inch crown in the hammerhead that would 
interfere with the new gable roof installation (finding 34).  See White v. Edsall Constr. 
Co., 296 F.3d 1081, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (the duty to seek clarification of patent 
ambiguities or defects does not require the contractor to “ferret out hidden or subtle 
errors in the specifications.”).  
 
In addition, the government argues, “if the crown on the hammerhead was in 
the way of the bottom truss chord, Meltech could have avoided the crown by elevating 
the chord by the small amount necessary to clear the five-inch crown, and Meltech did 
not need to remove the existing roof” (gov’t reply br. at 13).  The government raised 
this argument for the first time in its reply brief without any citation to the Rule 4 file, 
an expert report, or witness testimony.  Arguments raised for the first time in a reply 
brief are waived.  Raytheon Co., Space & Airborne Sys., ASBCA No. 57801 et al., 15-
1 BCA ¶ 36,024 at 175,960 n.3; see also Sys. Mgmt. & Research Techs. Corp. v. Dept. 
of Energy, CBCA No. 4068, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,333 at 177,138 n.7 (citing Bannum, Inc. v. 
United States, 121 Fed. Cl. 543, 552 n.6 (2015)).  Even if we were to consider this 
argument, we would remain unpersuaded because removing the EPDM roof was not a 
desired outcome by Meltech.  It had intended to use the existing roof as an air barrier 
and place the trusses directly on top, consistent with the Design Criteria (findings 14-
15; 30-31; see also findings 10-11).  The government now argues that Meltech should 
have modified the roof trusses even more to minimize roof removal.  This position is 
inapposite of the Design Criteria which clearly outlines that prospective bidders could 
build directly on top of the existing roof, and appears to concede the present issue, 
entitlement.  Furthermore, our caselaw does not permit us to balance the USACE’s 
reasonableness against that of the contractor.  The focus of our inquiry must be on the 
reasonableness of the contractor.  This focus serves to incentivize contractors to 
carefully and reasonably interpret contract documents.  See H.B. Mac, Inc., 153 F.3d 
at 1343; United States Army Corps of Eng’rs v. John C. Grimberg Co., 817 F. App’x 
960, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2020).  In any event, the government’s contention that Meltech 
unreasonably removed too much of the existing roof is more appropriate for quantum.  

17 
 
Nor did the pre-bid site visit put bidders on notice that the hammerhead roof 
would have a crown, roof depressions, a parapet, and multiple layers that would 
interfere with the roof truss installation and its use as an air barrier.  It is well-settled 
that a contractor is charged with knowledge of the conditions that a pre-bid site visit 
would have revealed.  See Hardwick Bros. Co., II v. United States, 36 Fed. Cl. 347, 
406 (1996); H.B. Mac, Inc., 153 F.3d at 1346.  However, the government bears the 
burden of proving the knowledge that should be attributed to the contractor.  Skip 
Kirchdorfer, Inc., 79-2 BCA ¶ 14,092 at 69,313 (evidence presented was not 
persuasive that the contractor could have determined by the site visit that additional 
roofing was under the visible roofing); Tech. Servs., GmbH, ASBCA No. 44457, 96-2 
BCA ¶ 28,338 at 141,515 (“there is no basis for charging appellant with knowledge or 
notice of the actual conditions at the time of bidding.”).  Ultimately, whether the site 
investigation was reasonable “is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the 
particular case.”  S.T.G. Constr. Co. v. United States, 157 Ct Cl. 409, 415 (1962) 
 
Here, the USACE internally discussed the site visit for prospective bidders and 
pondered “if there’s any way of viewing the roof decking” (finding 25).  However, the 
site visit for Building 8609 did not include access to the roof, nor was the roof visible 
from the ground or an elevated position (findings 26-27).  While contractors should 
not take lightly the requirements of a pre-site investigation, see Buckeye Elec. Co., 
ASBCA No. 22408, 80-1 BCA ¶14,336 at 70,683-84, such requirements do not 
obligate bidders to discover hidden subsurface conditions with a reasonable pre-award 
inspection.  Accordingly, identifying an elevated crown portion, parapet, roof 
depressions, and multiple roof layers would not have been possible without access to 
the hammerhead roof, and Meltech reasonably relied on the information provided to it 
at the time of bidding.  See, e.g., Leonard Blinderman Constr. Co., 75-1 BCA ¶ 11,018 
at 52,441, 446 (Board finding a reasonable site investigation even though “the roofing 
business may expect to meet with defects and depressions in old roofs, we do not 
consider that the hidden condition obtaining in this instance” when roof depressions 
could not be visually observed or “perceived merely by walking about the roof; it 
required the use of surveying instruments or a string level operated by two persons to 
ascertain the existence of this depression.”); Pac. Alaska Contractors, Inc. v. United 
States, 436 F.2d 461, 469 (Ct. Cl. 1971) (holding that, to prevail on a Type I claim, 
contractor must adduce proof of “indications which induced reasonable reliance by the 
successful bidder that subsurface conditions would be more favorable than those 
encountered”); Hanna Contracting Co., ASBCA No. 38597, 90-1 BCA ¶ 22,306 
at 112,019-22, (The Board denying the contractor’s built-up roof and multiple roof 
layers differing site conditions claim when the specification clearly stated that the 
contractor was to visit and carefully examine the job site and become thoroughly 
familiar with all existing conditions, but the contractor failed to attend the site 
inspection which the government had shown bidders holes in the roof canopies and 
observed the built-up roofing and the roof thickness).  There was simply no indication 

18 
 
from the evidence that this site inspection put bidders on notice of the conditions 
encountered on the roof.   
  
The government has several arguments that need not be discussed here, but 
have been considered, including the sufficiency of the evidence.3  
 
Accordingly, we conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the 
hammerhead roof descriptions in the contract differed materially from those actually 
encountered during performance, (2) the presence of 5-inch crown and roof 
depressions on the hammerhead roof were unforeseeable and precipitated the need to 
perform extensive roof demolition and modifying the roof trusses to lay onto the 
parapet, and (3) Meltech reasonably relied on the Design Criteria descriptions and 
USACE’s guided site visit.   
 
The final element necessary for Meltech to establish entitlement to an equitable 
adjustment due to a Type 1 differing site condition is whether it was damaged because 
of the material variation between expected and encountered conditions.  Meltech’s 
hammerhead roof claims lay out three sets of damages related to identifying the 5-inch 
hammerhead roof crown:  (i) demolition to remove the existing EPDM and underneath 
roof layers (finding 53), (ii) installation of a new air barrier (finding 53), and 
(iii) modifying the roof trusses (finding 49).   
 
3 We find no merit in the government’s argument that Meltech’s Type I Differing Site 
Condition claim should fail since none of the appellant’s witnesses had first-
hand knowledge of what Meltech assumed when it prepared its proposal (gov’t 
br. at 32).  See PBS&J Constructors, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 57814, 57964, 14-1 
BCA ¶ 35,680 at 174,652-53 (while the lack of first-hand witnesses can be 
probative, the Board found by the preponderance of the totality of the evidence 
that appellant failed to meet its burden for a Type I Differing Site 
Condition).  Thus, our Board and sister jurisdictions do not require first-hand 
witnesses to establish what the appellant assumed at the time of submitting its 
proposal.  While first-hand witness testimony may strengthen the appellant’s 
case, it is not a strict requirement under the legal standards for differing site 
condition claims.  The appellant must demonstrate reasonable reliance on the 
contract documents and the un-foreseeability of the actual site conditions based 
on the information available at the time of bidding.  In these appeals, there is no 
need for first-hand witnesses to testify, as Meltech’s proposal clearly outlines 
its understanding of the requirements and how it intends to install the new gable 
roof directly onto the existing structure.  See (findings 31-32; see also finding 
34).  In addition, consistent with the hearing testimony, Meltech’s 100% 
drawing is consistent with what it understood pre-bid concerning the ability to 
place the new gable roof on top of the existing roof (finding 38).  
 

19 
 
The following describes Meltech’s damages as a result of the material 
variations between Meltech’s expected and encountered hammerhead roof 
conditions.  The RFP Design Criteria contemplated that the existing roof could be left 
in place and the trusses could be installed directly onto the roof with only minimal or 
selective demolition (findings 10-11, 14-15).  However, the presence of the 5-inch 
hammerhead roof crown would not allow the trusses to lay flat onto the existing roof, 
which required extensive demolition (findings 34-42, 44).  This demolition meant that 
the existing roof could no longer serve as an air barrier, and Meltech would need to 
install a new one (findings 43, 52-53).  Only after demolition was the hidden parapet 
portion identified under the multiple roof layers (finding 45).  The presence of the 
parapet complicated the installation of the roof trusses (finding 46).  The narrow 
parapet was insufficient to support the weight of the roof trusses, necessitating the 
modification of the bottom chords of the trusses to adequately support their weight, 
which was suspended a few inches above the roof decking (findings 47-49).   
 
Meltech experienced a Type I differing site condition, characterized by 5-inch 
crown and roof depressions on the hammerhead portion of the roof.  The purpose of 
the Differing Site Conditions clause is to enable contractors to submit more accurate 
bids by eliminating the need for them to inflate their bids to account for contingencies 
that may not materialize.  See Foster Constr. C.A. & Williams Bros. Co. v. United 
States, 435 F.2d 873, 887 (Ct. Cl. 1970); H.B. Mac, Inc., 153 F.3d at 1343.  The 
presence of the 5-inch roof crown on the hammerhead roof directly led to Meltech’s 
damages.  Meltech is entitled to an equitable adjustment for increased costs resulting 
from the differing site conditions.   
 
Type II Differing Site Condition 
 
In the alternative, Meltech argues that the unexpected conditions leading to the 
demolition of the hammerhead roof, the installation of a more robust truss system, and 
the introduction of a new air barrier constitute a Type II differing site condition (app. 
br. 75-76; app. resp. br. at 21-26).   In light of our finding a Type I Differing Site 
Condition, there is no need to resolve its alternative theory 
 
  

20 
 
CONCLUSION IN APPEAL Nos. 61762, 61764 
 
For the foregoing reasons, a Type I Differing Site Condition is found, and the 
appeals are sustained. We return this matter to the parties for resolution of quantum.  
 
 Dated:  January 16, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STEPHANIE CATES-HARMAN 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
 
 
 
OWEN C. WILSON 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 I concur 
 
 
 
 MICHAEL N. O’CONNELL 
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 Nos. 61762, 61764, Appeals of 
Meltech Corporation, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. 
 
 Dated:  January 16, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals