THIS OPINION WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
IS BEING PUBLICLY RELEASED IN ITS ENTIRETY ON SEPTEMBER 4, 2024
DENIED:  August 29, 2024
CBCA 7695
FRAMACO INTERNATIONAL INC.,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Respondent.
Douglas L. Patin, Erik M. Coon, and Jennifer M. Ersin of Bradley Arant Boult
Cummings LLP, Washington, DC; and Sam Z. Gdanski and Abraham S. Gdanski of Gdanski
Law PC, Teaneck, NJ, counsel for Appellant.
Thomas D. Dinackus, Matthew S. Tilghman, and Alexandra N. Wilson, Office of the
Legal Adviser, Buildings and Acquisitions, Department of State, Washington, DC, counsel
for Respondent.
Before Board Judges BEARDSLEY (Chair), RUSSELL, and O’ROURKE.
RUSSELL, Board Judge.
Appellant, Framaco International Inc. (Framaco), has filed 131 cases with the Board
(certain of which are consolidated) based on its contract with respondent, Department of
State (State or agency), Bureau of Overseas Building Operations (OBO), to construct an
embassy compound in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.


CBCA 7695 2
This decision is being issued in accordance with the Board’s order on further
proceedings of October 19, 2023 (Order), which largely adopted the parties’ proposal to
resolve approximately 100 of appellant’s non-consolidated appeals brought pursuant to
Board Rule 53 (48 CFR 6101.53 (2023)), along with certain claims in four of its consolidated
appeals that were not based on Government-caused delay.  See Rule 53 (governing
accelerated procedures, which are available at an appellant’s election but limited to appeals
involving amounts in dispute of $100,000 or less); see also Rule 1(a) (“The Board may alter
[its] procedures on its own initiative or on request of a party to promote the just, informal,
expeditious, and inexpensive resolution of a case.”).  The Order states that “[t]he presiding
judge with the two members of the panel . . . will decide the following appeals for which the
parties will submit briefing:  CBCA 7508, 7512, 7513, 7549, 7561, 7572, 7573, 7625, 7695,
7712, 7847, and 7859 (‘Selected Appeals’).”  The Order additionally states, “Decisions
rendered by the panel will be in summary form either in writing or orally, if a hearing is held;
will be final and conclusive; will not be set aside, except for fraud; and will not be
precedential.”
As agreed to by the parties, quantum in the non-consolidated appeals and certain
claims in four of Framaco’s consolidated appeals to which the Order applies will be decided
based on a formula derived from any damage amounts awarded to Framaco in the Selected
Appeals.  In a subsequent joint response filed with the Board on March 19, 2024, the parties
confirmed that the Order applies to the appeals described above.
This appeal (CBCA 7695) arises from State’s denial of Framaco’s claim for $68,636
for costs related to the installation of a lightning protection system (LPS), which required
installation of bonding material between aluminum aerfoil sunshades and the carbon steel
supporting structure (i.e., the steel trusses to which the sunshades were attached).  For
reasons stated below, we deny the appeal. 
Background
I. The Contract
In September 2015, State awarded Framaco a firm-fixed-price contract, initially
valued at approximately $97 million, to construct the New Embassy Compound (NEC) in
Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.  Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at DOS-PTMO-00982321.1  The
project was originally designed in 2010 as a “Standard Secure mini-Compound” (SSmC)
with a scope including a lock-and-leave new office building, a perimeter security wall and
1 All exhibits are found in the appeal file, unless otherwise noted.

CBCA 7695 3
fence, a main compound entry pavilion (MCAP), a service entry/utility building, and a
support annex.  Exhibit 2 at DOS-PTMO-00982414.  Construction of the SSmC facility
began in 2012, but in 2013, after forty percent of the project was completed, a future marine
detachment was planned for Port Moresby and the embassy staffing requirement was
increased.  Id.  State therefore descoped the work under the 2012 contract and closed out that
contract.  The project was redesigned under an expanded NEC, incorporating the completed
portions of the SSmC project as well as surplus equipment and materials, where appropriate. 
Id.  The redesigned project included the perimeter security wall and fence, the MCAP, a new
service compound entry pavilion, a new four-story office building (NOB) and annex (NOX),
a marine service guard residence, a service entry/utility building, an enlarged support annex,
and a new recreation facility.  Id.
The contract’s statement of work provided that the project was to be constructed in
accordance with contract drawings and specifications.  Exhibit 2 at DOS-PTMO-00982415. 
The issued-for-construction (IFC) drawing detailing the aerfoil sunshade required the use of
dielectric separation tape between the aluminum sunshades and the carbon steel supporting
structure.  Exhibit 12; see also Appellant’s Opening Brief at 3.  According to State, “[t]he
purpose of the dielectric separation tape was to prevent corrosion where aluminum and
carbon steel surfaces were in contact.”  Respondent’s Initial Brief at 2-3.
The contract included Section 264113, “Lightning Protection,” which contained the
following provisions:
1.3 SUBMITTALS
. . . .
B. Shop Drawings:  Detail lightning protection system, including air-
terminal locations, conductor routing and connections, and bonding and
grounding provisions.  Include indications for use of raceway, data on
how concealment requirements will be met, and calculations required
by [National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 780, Standard for the
Installation of Lightning Protection Systems,] for bonding of grounded
and isolated metal bodies.
. . . .

CBCA 7695 4
1.5 COORDINATION
A. Coordinate installation of lightning protection with installation of other
building systems and components, including electrical wiring,
supporting structures and building materials, metal bodies requiring
bonding to lightning protection components, and building finishes.
. . . .
3.1 INSTALLATION
A. Install lightning protection components and systems according to
NFPA 780.
Exhibit 8 at DOS-PTMO-KCCT-0051202, -0051204 (emphasis added). 
The contract required Framaco to comply with the requirements of the 2011 edition
of NFPA 780.  Exhibit 11 n.1.  Importantly here, this edition did not specify a bonding
resistance maximum of 0.2 ohms.  Instead, the 2011 edition stated, “Where metal bodies
located within a steel-framed structure are inherently bonded to the structure through
construction, separate bonding connections shall not be required.”  Exhibit 184 at FRAM-
1820352.  The contract also included Section 107113 providing requirements for exterior sun
control devices.  Exhibit 7.
II. The Parties’ Dispute
According to Framaco, “[t]he IFC drawings provided by the Government contained
details for Framaco to follow in order to make sure the building had a continuous
conductivity to protect from lightning.”  Appellant’s Reply Brief at 1.  It states that it “hired
a professional LPS firm . . . to detail the LPS design provided by the Government and to
provide the required shop drawings and materials for the LPS” which were subsequently
approved by OBO.  Exhibit 181 at DOS-PTMO-03106760; see also Appellant’s Opening
Brief at 4-5.  Framaco asserts that it completed this work consistent with State’s design but
that the design failed.  Exhibit 181 at DOS-PTMO-03106760.
Specifically, during construction, Framaco was faced with a problem regarding the
structural integrity of the sunshades.  Exhibit 176 at DOS-PTMO-03196706.  Framaco
asserts that State’s requirement to use “‘dielectric separation tape’ between the aluminum
aerfoil sunshades and carbon steel trusses,” as contained in the IFC drawing detailing the
aerofoil sunshade, was the source of the problem.  Appellant’s Opening Brief at 3 (citing

CBCA 7695 5
Exhibit 12).  Framaco argues that its position is supported by its inspector, who concluded
that the cause of the bonding resistance problem was the dielectric separation tape required
by the IFC drawings.  Id. at 4-5.  It asserts that “[a]fter initial tests and several follow up
tests, the test result showed that the bonding resistance between NOX sunshade to LPS was
greater than 0.2 ohms.  The 3rd party inspector concluded that the dielectric separation tape
was the source of the problem and a design issue.”  Id. (citing Exhibit 176 at DOS-PTMO-
03196706).
 In its Initial Brief, State argues that “[t]he contract assigned ‘delegated design
responsibility’ to Framaco” to design the LPS “and coordinate that system with the
aluminum sunshade.”  Respondent’s Initial Brief at 1.  State argues that Framaco proposed
a design that failed to meet all performance specifications.  Id.
Additionally, State argues in its Initial Brief that Framaco failed to meet the NFPA
780’s requirement allowing for a maximum bonding resistence of 0.2 ohms between the
sunshade and the LPS, and this was the reason for the required corrective action, not any
design defect on State’s part.  Respondent’s Initial Brief at 2.  However, in its Reply Brief,
State backs away from this argument, stating:
Framaco’s LPS inspector was applying the wrong version of NFPA 780 [, i.e.,
apparently the 2020 version of this document rather than the 2011 edition], one
that the contract did not require the building to meet.  Framaco argues that the
Government’s design was defective because it did not meet the requirements
of a standard that did not actually apply to the work.  The Government
maintains that Framaco had design responsibilities that required it comply with
applicable performance-based standards.  Even if Framaco is right, however,
that the Government was responsible for designing to meet the requirements
of NFPA 780, the Government’s design was not defective because the alleged
defect was premised on noncompliance with an inapplicable version of that
standard.
Respondent’s Reply Brief at 1.
State also asserts that, based on Section 264113, “in combination with Framaco’s
obligations with regard to grounded metal bodies under the LPS specification . . . , Framaco
was responsible for making calculations to ensure that its sunshade connection design would
meet the bonding resistance requirements for lightning protection.”  Respondent’s Initial
Brief at 2; see also Respondent’s Reply Brief at 2 (quoting Exhibit 8 at DOS-PTMO-KCCT-
0051202).  State avers that “Framaco . . . could have provided a different product with
different electrical properties [than it did], and could have used more screws (and not

CBCA 7695 6
insulated the screws it did use) to provide more contact between the aerofoils and the
trusses.”  Respondent’s Reply Brief at 3-4.  In short, State argues that the reasons why the
LPS, as initially installed, failed, were due to the actions of Framaco, not those of State. 
Discussion
The contract required Framaco to follow the bonding requirements in the 2011 edition
of the NFPA 780 and also to use dielectric separation tape between the aluminum sunshades
and the carbon steel supporting structure.  The 2011 edition of the NFPA 780 stated that, if
electrical conductivity is inherent in the construction, additional bonding is not required.  The
logical inverse of this statement is that, if electrical conductivity between materials is not
inherent in the construction, then additional bonding is necessary.  The electrical conductivity
between materials here was not inherent in the construction because of the dielectric
separation tape.  Additional bonding was therefore necessary, which was the extra work
Framaco performed due to what its inspector flagged. 
The fact that additional bonding was required because of the tape is not a design
defect.  The contract required Framaco to coordinate and build the sunshades (using
dielectric separation tape), as well as install the LPS and adhere to the bonding requirements
in the 2011 NFPA 780.  Exhibits 7 (Section 107113 on sun control devices), 8 at DOS-
PTMO-KCCT-0051202, -0051204 (Section 264113 on LPS requirements), 12 (IFC
drawing).  The problem, therefore, is not that State required dielectric separation tape,
causing Framaco to provide additional bonding, but rather that Framaco did not initially
provide the needed bonding that would have ensured a viable LPS at the outset. 
Furthermore, contrary to Framaco’s argument, State’s approval of the shop drawings
did not obviate the need for Framaco to comply with the contract terms, notably the 2011
NFPA 780.  See R.C. Professional Services, Inc. v. Department of Homeland Security,
CBCA 775, 09-2 BCA ¶ 34,308, at 169,472 (“The Government’s approval of submittals and
shop drawings . . . do[es] not constitute the Government’s acceptance of non-compliant work
or serve to diminish the contractor’s obligation to complete performance under the terms of
the contract.”).  When Framaco initially failed to provide the bonding required for the LPS,
and then had to correct its mistake, it was not entitled to additional money to provide a
compliant system.  Id.

CBCA 7695 7
Decision
The claim is DENIED.2
   Beverly M. Russell          
BEVERLY M. RUSSELL
Board Judge
We concur:
    Erica S. Beardsley             Kathleen J. O’Rourke    
ERICA S. BEARDSLEY KATHLEEN J. O’ROURKE
Board Judge Board Judge
2 Given our findings herein, we need not address the other arguments presented
by the parties.