THIS OPINION WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
IS BEING PUBLICLY RELEASED IN ITS ENTIRETY ON OCTOBER 1, 2024
GRANTED IN PART:  September 27, 2024
CBCA 7847
FRAMACO INTERNATIONAL INC.,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Respondent.
Douglas L. Patin and Erik M. Coon 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 7847 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.
In this appeal (CBCA 7847), Framaco seeks $74,498 for six work items which
Framaco asserts resulted from State’s alleged constructive design changes and design
discrepancies, and/or State’s alleged requests that Framaco perform work outside the scope
of the contract.  As explained below, with the exception of one item, the appeal is denied.
Background
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 that included a lock-and-leave new office building, a perimeter security wall
and 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
1 All exhibits are found in the appeal file, unless otherwise noted.

CBCA 7847 3
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 (MSGR), a service entry/utility building, an enlarged
support annex, and a new recreation facility.  Id.
Discussion
This appeal involves Framaco’s claims that State directed Framaco to perform
additional work arising from “either (a) design errors/omissions in the government provided
design documents or (b) direction from the Government to Framaco to perform additional
work not contained in the design documents.”  Appellant’s Opening Brief at 1.  The specific
work involved (1) changing an exposed door frame to a concealed one, (2) modifying
construction of a storefront and soffit in a staircase to accommodate fire rated safety glass,
(3) adding additional steel members at locations not shown in structural design drawings (but
shown in architectural drawings), (4) adding an underground vault for an irrigation system,
(5) providing additional grounding system connections for photovoltaic (PV) panel support
frames in addition to the already made connections to the lightning protection system, and
(6) modifying government furnished equipment (GFE) security gates and barriers to upgrade
them to design requirements.  Id. at 2-10.  Each claim is addressed in turn below.
1. NOX Level 3 Wood Panel Door
The issue here is whether the contract required an exposed frame around the door
located within the partition separating the Chief of Mission and deputy room on NOX 3 (new
office annex, third floor), as Framaco asserts, Appellant’s Opening Brief at 2-3, or whether,
as State asserts, the contract required the doorframe edges to be concealed to match the wall
paneling on either side of the door, Respondent’s Initial Brief at 1-2.  Framaco seeks
$11,330.64 in costs for this claim.  Exhibit 177 at DOS-PTMO-03714758.
According to the parties, there are two contract drawings that are relevant here – NOB
A544 (“Architectural Interior Door Details”), Exhibit 26, and NOB A419 (“Architectural
Interior Elevations”), Exhibit 24.  See Appellant’s Reply Brief at 1-2; Respondent’s Initial
Brief at 1.  Framaco argues that drawing NOB A544, detail 17, “shows an exposed frame on
the interior side of the ambassador’s office[,]” and that NOB A419 only shows a general
elevation of the door panels.  Appellant’s Reply Brief at 1-2.  State asserts that “NOB A544,
Detail 17 identified a concealed door frame, with the wood veneer extending to conceal the

CBCA 7847 4
solid edge on the office side of the door, in agreement with NOB A419, Detail 8, which also
showed a concealed door frame with the top joint of the door aligned with the adjacent wall
panels.”  Respondent’s Initial Brief at 1-2.
The parties evidently have conflicting views on what the drawings show and require,
and the drawings themselves are unhelpful in resolving the issue.  In looking at the drawings,
there is no obvious indication of a concealed door frame.  Drawing NOB A544 showed the
door jamb at detail 11 and the door head with a concealed hinge at detail 17.  Exhibit 26. 
However, contrary to State’s argument, neither NOB A544 nor NOB A419 clearly or
obviously show or “identify” a concealed door frame or indicate, in the drawing notes or in
writing on the drawings themselves, that one should be provided.  Thus, because the
drawings are unclear, i.e., neither refuting Framaco’s assertion as to what they say nor
supporting State’s position, we find a latent ambiguity in the contract drawings and the rule
of contra proferentem applies.  See ACM Construction & Marine Group, Inc. v. Department
of Transportation, CBCA 2245, et al., 14-1 BCA ¶ 35,537, at 174,151 (“When a dispute
arises as to the interpretation of a contract and the contractor’s interpretation of the contract
is reasonable, tribunals apply the rule of contra proferentem, which requires that ambiguous
or unclear terms that are subject to more than one reasonable interpretation be construed
against the party who drafted the document.”).  Framaco’s claim on this issue is granted on
this basis.
2. Requirement for Two-Hour Fire Rated Glass Partition in Staircase
The contract provided: 
In case of apparent error, discrepancy, or omission either in the Standard
Design Requirements Documents or the Project Specific Requirements
furnished by the Government to the Contractor, the Contractor shall submit the
question promptly to the [contracting officer’s representative (COR)] for
clarification.  The COR shall review the question and respond in writing.  If
it is determined by the COR that there is an error, discrepancy, or omission,
and changing it would modify the contract, the Contractor must request a
written decision from the [contracting officer (CO)].  The Contractor shall not
proceed with any affected work before receipt of CO’s written approval.  Until
that decision is received, any affected work shall be entirely at the contractor’s
own risk and expense.”
Exhibit 1 at DOS-PTMO-00982375 (emphasis added).  The contract also required that
Stair A in the NOX include “two-hour” fire rated safety glass at the connection between the
storefront glass panels and soffits.  Exhibit 93.

CBCA 7847 5
In an email dated September 24, 2024, Framaco noted its concern regarding the
drawing, NOB A544, that showed the placement of the glass partition, stating:
NOB A544, Detail 9, shows . . . the wood panel flush with the inside face of
the glass partition (stair side). . . . The actual glass partition profiles are
significantly narrower than the profile depicted in the detail.  If the glass
partition profile is placed so that the interior surfaces are flush, the attachment
of the profile to the . . . partition framing above is not possible . . . .
 
Exhibit 96 at DOS-PTMO-02597163; see Exhibit 26.
Framaco proposed three alternatives to address the issue.  Exhibit 96 at DOS-PTMO-
02597163.  Via an email dated November 4, 2020, State, through the COR, selected one of
the alternatives “with a minor revision” and, in the same email, asked Framaco to “finalize
the shop drawings for the areas affected by this detail and submit for final review.”  Id. at
DOS-PTMO-02597160.
In its briefing on this issue, Framaco asserts that, during installation, it “discovered
and notified the Government [of] . . . a potential fire code violation issue concerning the
connection between the storefront and soffit” and proposed three alternative solutions to
address the “design deficiency.”  Appellant’s Opening Brief at 4; see also Exhibit 96. 
Framaco argues that State’s design was defective because “the constructed soffit and
installed storefront as per the contract drawings w[ere] not sufficient to provide [a] two-
hour[] fire rating in staircases at the connection between [the] storefront and soffit.” 
Appellant’s Opening Brief at 4.  It also argues that, due to the design defect in the
Government’s drawings, it was required to do additional work for which it should be
compensated for its costs in the amount of $13,229.66.  Exhibit 177 at DOS-PTMO-
03714758.
State counters that Framaco provides no evidence that the design was defective.  State
additionally argues that Framaco’s proposed alternative to complete the work was part of
Framaco’s “coordination obligations” and its responsibility under the contract “to determine
means, methods and techniques to execute the construction” – not, as Framaco alleges, work
outside of the scope of the contract.  Respondent’s Initial Brief at 2-3.  State also contends
that Framaco proceeded with the “allegedly changed work without direction or approval from
the [CO] and assumed the risk and expense of proceeding with the work.”  Respondent’s
Reply Brief at 5.
As an initial matter, as noted by State in its reply brief, Framaco’s correspondence to
State during construction regarding Framaco’s concern with the glass partition does not at

CBCA 7847 6
all refer to a potential fire code violation when discussing the issue with the partition. 
Respondent’s Reply Brief at 4-5; Appellant’s Opening Brief at 4 (citing Exhibits 89-92); see
Exhibit 96.  In any event, as for this appeal, the problem for Framaco is that it communicated
with the COR regarding the issue with the glass partition but did not request a written
decision from the CO about any potential change to the contract due to having to remedy the
issue.  See Exhibit 96.  Neither party has presented any facts regarding whether the COR had
notice of a possible design error or that Framaco noted, or expressed any concerns about, the
COR’s failure to make a determination regarding whether the drawing, NOB A544,
contained an error, correction of which would require a contract modification.  Instead,
Framaco, in its email communication to the COR, does not characterize the issue concerning
the glass partition as a “design error” but, instead, as a “detail issue” with the concern
seemingly related to the size of the glass partitions presumably procured for the project.  Id.
at DOS-PTMO-02597163 (“NOB A544, Detail 9, shows the interface detail between these
two architectural materials inside the stairwell with the wood panel flush with the inside face
of the glass partition. . . . The actual glass partition profiles are significantly narrower than
the profile depicted in the detail.” (emphasis added)).  Thus, the record is unclear whether,
as a threshold matter, Framaco flagged a design error in the drawing for the COR to consider
or whether, instead, there was a problem with the glass partitions obtained for the project.
In short, the factual record is not sufficiently developed as to the COR’s actions,
assuming any were required based on the information conveyed by Framaco (see Exhibit 96
at DOS-PTMO-02597163), relating to making a determination as to whether the drawing at
issue contained a design error.  However, what the record does show and what is undisputed
is that Framaco proceeded with the work relating to the glass partition – the “alternative”
plan – without receiving the CO’s written approval.  Without such approval, it completed the
work at its “own risk and expense.”  Exhibit 1 at DOS-PTMO-00982375 (emphasis added). 
Accordingly, Framaco’s claim as it relates to the glass partition is denied.
3. Marine Service Guard Residence Canopy
The MSGR was designed with a canopy overhanging the terrace on the building’s east
side.  Exhibit 30.  The structural drawing, MSGR S114, detailed the “Structural Enlarged
East Canopy Plans.”  Id.  The architectural drawing, MSGR A104, showed the “reflected
ceiling plans” including a schematic of the transition from a wood plank soffit to an
aluminum soffit, and the architectural drawing, MSGR A513, showed the same wood-to-
aluminum transition detail with a “steel channel w/HPC” shown between and perpendicular

CBCA 7847 7
to the two soffits.2  Exhibits 21, 25; see also Respondent’s Initial Brief at 3 (noting that
architectural drawings “MSGR A104, Detail 1 and A513, Detail 1, both required a transition
from wood to aluminum soffit”).
In this appeal, Framaco argues that there was a design error in that “[t]he structural
design drawings did not include steel members at locations” where necessary and seeks
$4533.78, which it purportedly incurred addressing this issue.  Appellant’s Opening Brief
at 5; Exhibit 177 at DOS-PTMO-03714758.  Framaco asserts that, “[h]ad the Government
required the subject steel membranes, it should have included an unambiguous requirement
in the [s]tructural [d]rawings.”  Appellant’s Reply Brief at 6.  In a November 3, 2020, email
on the issue to the COR, Framaco stated:
MSGR architectural level 1 reflected ceiling plan (RCP) A104 shows the wood
soffit for the general ceiling finish in the field area and an edge strip against
the building with aluminum soffit finish.  At the transition from the wood
soffit to the aluminum soffit, there’s also a change of elevation.  Reference the
following MSGR drawings in the IFC[3] drawings and excerpted in the
sketches; A101, A311 Section 2, and A513 Detail 1.  In the Northeast corner
of the MSGR building, the East canopy structural steel framing is missing the
C12x20.7 channel steel for the change in elevation and transition from wood
to aluminum soffit materials.  We’ve proposed adding the required structural
steel (channel and angle steel) around the corner of the building for the
transition and the elevation change in the sketches.  Please review the sketches
uploaded to ProjNet and let me know if you have any questions or comments. 
We would also request OBO approval to use locally procured steel for the
installation.  All necessary added steel will be prepared, primed, and coated
with the required HPC.
Exhibit 99 at DOS-PTMO-02419765.
State, for its part, disputes Framaco’s claim of a design error.  State argues that
Framaco was required to comply with both the structural design drawings and the
architectural drawings.  See Respondent’s Reply Brief at 6.  Specifically, State contends that
Framaco was required to comply with the architectural drawings that showed a transition
from wood to aluminum soffits.  Respondent’s Initial Brief at 3.  Additionally, State
2 The panel assumes that the acronym “HPC” stands for “high performance
coating.”
3 The panel assumes that the acronym stands for “Issued for Construction.”

CBCA 7847 8
discusses the fact that the structural drawings reference the architectural drawings and vice
versa as evidence that each document should be considered in the context of the other. 
Respondent’s Reply Brief at 6.
Framaco’s assertion that it should receive compensation for doing steel work not
shown in the structural drawings lacks merit.  Contract drawing CMPD G1.000, titled “Civil
General Notes, Abbreviations and Legend,” states that “[a]ll drawings are considered to be
part of the contract document [and t]he contractor shall be responsible for the review and
coordination of all drawings and specifications prior to the start of construction.”  Exhibit 19
n.5.  Further, the contract expressly states that the structural and architectural drawings
should be read together.  General drawing S091, titled “Structural Notes,” states in relevant
part at general note 9:  “Refer to the Architectural . . . drawings for the size and location of
. . . miscellaneous steel before detailing structural members or placing concrete.”  Exhibit
203 at DOS-PTMO-00981185 (emphasis added).  Thus, the contract specifically required the
contractor to read the structural and architectural drawings in concert prior to the
commencement of work.  Although the structural drawing, MSGR S114, may not have
shown the steel channel, the architectural drawing, MSGR A513, did.  Exhibits 25, 30.  For
us to find for Framaco, we would have to conclude that it was not obligated to consider the
architectural drawing which showed the placement of the steel channel.  However, such a
reading would be in direct contradiction to the contract terms.
Notably, Framaco does not argue that it was required to complete work that was
outside the scope of both the architectural and structural drawings – i.e., work that could not
be found in either drawing.  Instead, it asserts “that the structural drawings failed to include
some structural elements in the design.”  Appellant’s Reply Brief at 5.  However, as State
explains, “[t]he fact that information shown on an architectural drawing was not repeated on
the structural drawings does not mean these drawings were in conflict or there was a design
discrepancy.”  Respondent’s Initial Brief at 3.  Had Framaco read the drawings together, as
it was required to do, it would have identified this.  Therefore, the claim is denied.
4. Irrigation Tank Vault
The contract called for a “[s]pray and [d]rip automatic underground irrigation system
for indicated planted softscape areas.”  Exhibit 62 at DOS-PTMO-01822475.  Framaco’s
initial submittal, at detail B, showed installation of the fill valve and flow sensor “in [the]

CBCA 7847 9
mechanical room or outdoor valve box.”4  Exhibit 60 at DOS-PTMO-01822623.  In response
to the submittal, State remarked:
Submitted SkyHAVESTER DRAWING NO. PRSH11101 shows both the
Raw Water 2" fill line, water meter and Detail B, 2" Solenoid Valve and flow
sensor to the Irrigation tank as near the tank.  The water meter will be near the
SVC building, per drawing C1.303, and per submittal Detail B, the Solenoid
Valve and flow sensor should be located near the Irrigation Tank, in a Valve
Box which needs a 1" PVC drain to the Irrigation Tank.  Please show on shop
drawing.
Exhibit 62 at DOS-PTMO-01822469 (emphasis added).  Framaco concurred with State’s
remarks, stating specifically:
We also concur that the Solenoid Valve and Flow Sensor per submittal Detail
B will be located near the Irrigation Tank, in a Valve Box with a 1" PVC drain
to the Irrigation Tank.  Accordingly, these revisions are shown on the
submitted revised SkyHAVESTER DRAWING NO. PRSH11101 drawing in
this resubmittal numbered 328400-04-1.
Exhibit 65 at DOS-PTMO-01966591.
Framaco’s revised SkyHAVESTER DRAWING NO. PRSH11101 included the
following remark:
As mentioned in the Government Remark on the previous submittal numbered
328400-04-0, we concur that the Solenoid Valve and Flow Sensor will be
located in a Valve Box near the Irrigation Tank and 1" PVC drain to the
Irrigation Tank will be installed.
Id. at DOS-PTMO-01966594.
Notwithstanding its agreement with State on the location of the solenoid valve and
flow sensor, as reflected in its own revised drawing, Framaco now claims that “[c]ontrary to
the contract requirements, which called for only one vault (already installed by Framaco for
installation of the water meter), OBO insisted on August 3, 2019 an additional Valve Box
4 The parties use the terms “valve box,” “box,” and “vault” interchangeably.  See
Appellant’s Opening Brief at 7 n.2 & Exhibit C.

CBCA 7847 10
. . . to house the newly added Solenoid Valve and Flow Sensor . . . which required additional
infrastructure (conduit and cabling) works.”  Appellant’s Opening Brief at 7.  Framaco seeks
$21,951.46 in costs for adding a concrete valve box.  Appellant’s Reply Brief at 7; Exhibit
177 at DOS-PTMO-03714758.
In response, State notes that Framaco actually concurred with State’s remarks
regarding the location of the solenoid valve and flow sensor.  See Exhibit 65 at DOS-PTMO-
01966591, -01966594.  State adds that “Framaco’s compliance with its own submittal, and
its own irrigation pump vendor’s requirements, is not a Government change to the contract.” 
Respondent’s Initial Brief at 4.  We agree.
Framaco is not entitled to any additional costs for installing the valve and sensor based
on its own revised drawing as presented in its resubmittal.  See Exhibit 65.  As an initial
matter, although Framaco states that its scope included a “Planting Irrigation – Pump Station,
irrigation tank piping and accessories to include one (1) EA of vault at the compound entry,”
it references no contract document discussing or limiting the number of valve boxes required
for the irrigation system project.  Appellant’s Opening Brief at 7.  The drawing on which
Framaco relies to support its argument shows the locations of the “return line from irrigation
system,” the “water meter in vault,” and the “irrigation tank,” but does not otherwise show
a specific location for the valve box for the solenoid valve and flow sensor, or a limitation
on the number of valve boxes required by the contract.  Id., Exhibit C; Exhibit 199.
Framaco’s own initial submittal, at Detail B, showed installation of the fill valve and
flow sensor “in mechanical room or outdoor valve box.”  Exhibit 60 at DOS-PTMO-
01822623.  Framaco asserts that its initial submittal relied on or was derived from the Basis
of Design (BOD) manufacturer, which did not require the valve box to be near the irrigation
tank.  Appellant’s Reply Brief at 7.  The point is immaterial.  Based on Framaco’s own
argument, the BOD manufacturer did not preclude installation of the valve box in this
location.
On Framaco’s resubmittal, both State and Framaco agreed the fill valve and flow
sensor were to be located in a valve box near the irrigation tank.  Exhibits 62 at DOS-
PTMO-01822469, 65 at DOS-PTMO-01966594.  There was no difference between
Framaco’s initial submittal (showing installation of the fill valve and flow sensor “in
mechanical room or outdoor valve box,” Exhibit 60 at DOS-PTMO-01822623), and its
resubmittal other than adding the agreed-upon location of the valve box.
Framaco asserts that it had already installed a vault/valve box near the water meter,
but that State demanded installation of a second one near the irrigation tank.  Appellant’s
Opening Brief at 7.  As support for its assertion, Framaco points to State’s remark on

CBCA 7847 11
Framaco’s initial submittal.  Id. (citing Exhibit 62).  However, a review of the relevant
remark provides no support for Framaco’s assertion (noting that the valve and flow sensor
should be located near the irrigation tank but not requesting two vaults or suggesting that a
vault be installed near the irrigation tank in addition to one already installed – or to be
installed – near the water meter).  Exhibit 62 at DOS-PTMO-01822469.  Indeed, Framaco,
in its response to State’s remark, mentions nothing about another vault at another location. 
Exhibit 65 at DOS-PTMO-01966591 (“[Framaco] also concur[s] that the Solenoid Valve and
Flow Sensor per submittal Detail B will be located near the Irrigation Tank, in a Valve Box
with a 1" PVC drain to the Irrigation Tank”).  Additionally, Framaco’s representative
certified on the resubmittal, “I certify that the submitted items listed in this transmittal have
been prepared in strict conformance with the Contract Documents.  When submittals propose
substitutions or deviations, these are identified on this transmittal form and clearly annotated
in the material presented.”  Exhibit 65 at DOS-PTMO-01966590.  Thus, Framaco, on the
resubmittal, certified that the work described on the resubmittal was in “strict conformance”
with the contract.  Framaco did not alert State that it believed to the contrary or anything
different, i.e., that the installation of the vault near the irrigation tank was a deviation from
the contract.
What the contemporaneous record shows is that Framaco revised its submittal to add
the location of the vault and then apparently followed its own resubmittal by installing the
vault near the irrigation tank as it said it would.  Exhibit 65 at DOS-PTMO-01966594.  Any
additional work that Framaco undertook in getting this task done was not directed by State
and is, thus, not compensable.  The claim is denied.
5. Additional PV Grounding
The contract called for solar panels (a “PV” system) to be installed on the roof of the
embassy complex.  Exhibit 11.  The contract further specified a requirement for a grounding
system for the PV panels.  Id. at DOS-PTMO-M&H-0018669.  In relevant part, the contract
stated:  “Install equipment grounding conductors for components, with ground continuity to
main electrical ground bus of building electrical system to which PV system is connected.” 
Id.
Drawing SVC E623 outlines the electrical plan for the PV system.  Exhibit 28.  The
PV system had an existing lightning protection system specified for installation on the roof,
separate from other grounding systems.  Exhibit 29 at DOS-PTMO-01951558.  Drawing
MCAP E131 (titled “Electrical Roof Plan – Grounding and Lightning Protection”) shows the
schematics for the PV grounding system.  Id.

CBCA 7847 12
Framaco subcontracted with GO ENERGY (GOEN) for the PV system, including the
grounding system.  Exhibit 86.  Framaco asserts that the grounding protection from the LPS
was independently sufficient and, per GOEN, any further grounding connections would be
detrimental to the system as a whole.  Exhibit 130.  Framaco concedes the schematics do
show an extra grounding loop connected to the LPS, but claims it is a design deficiency. 
Appellant’s Opening Brief at 8; see Exhibit 86.  Notwithstanding its concession as to what
the schematics show, Framaco insists that the COR directed Framaco to install a separate
grounding system for the PV panels that was not required by the contract.  Exhibit 115. 
Framaco performed the work but, in this appeal, is seeking $8554.37 in costs for doing so
after the CO’s denial of Framaco’s claim for the work.  Id.; Appellant’s Notice of Appeal.
In its brief, State argues that Framaco’s own PV subcontractor and the contract,
including the OBO Electrical Code incorporated into the contract, required a separate
grounding system for the PV system.  Respondent’s Initial Brief at 5; see also Exhibit 131
(In a letter to Framaco sent during construction, State questioned Framaco’s statement
regarding GOEN’s concern, noting that the installation being done on site was “exactly per
GOEN’s submittal . . . [and] drawing SVC E623, amongst others”).
We find that the PV grounding system installed by Framaco was specified in the
contract and does not constitute additional work.  See Exhibit 28.  Framaco concedes as
much in its initial brief saying that “introducing an extra grounding loop connected to the
LPS (although schematically shown on the drawing . . .) could potentially damage the
system’s electronics.”  Appellant’s Opening Brief at 8 (emphasis added).
Further, even if Framaco is correct that the separate grounding system for the PV
system was additional work outside the scope of the contract, the COR, who directed
Framaco to perform the work, did not have the requisite authority to bind the Government. 
See Pearson E. Dubar v. Department of Agriculture, CBCA 1895, 10-2 BCA ¶ 34,497, at
170,146-47; 48 CFR 43.102.  Similar to the work involving installation of the glass partition
discussed above, Framaco proceeded with the work here without receiving the CO’s written
approval and, without such approval, it took on the work at its “own risk and expense.” 
Exhibit 1 at DOS-PTMO-00982375 (emphasis added).  Therefore, the claim is denied.
6. Main Compound Entry Pavilion – Security Gates
The contract called for security gates at the entrance of the MCAP.  Exhibit 12.  Per
the statement of work, Framaco was allowed, but not required, to make use of GFE from a
prior contractor for the security gate(s) and barriers.  Exhibits 2 at DOS-PTMO-00982418,
138 at DOS-PTMO-03570022.  Notwithstanding this contract provision, Framaco claims that

CBCA 7847 13
“OBO directed Framaco to use the GFE surplus road barrier for MCAP ‘AS IS.’” 
Appellant’s Opening Brief at 9 (emphasis added).
Framaco engaged a subcontractor, Sloan Security Group (Sloan), to install the surplus
gate and barrier components that Framaco elected to use.  Exhibit 177 at DOS-PTMO-
03714753.  Several electrical panelboards existed around the MCAP for various electrical
components to be connected to the electrical supply.  The gates were initially connected to
the MC1 panelboard, which provided alternating current (AC) power.  Framaco stated that
“during the testing and commissioning phase of the security gates and barriers, it came to
light that the sliding gates at MCAP lacked a UPS backup, although the barriers had one.” 
Appellant’s Opening Brief at 9.  Sloan proposed connecting the sliding gates to the hydraulic
power unit (HPU) panelboard, already servicing a wedge barrier, that had an uninterruptible
power supply (UPS).  Exhibit 171 at FRAM-1639553.  Thereafter, Framaco disconnected
the gate from the MC1 panelboard and reconnected it to the existing UPS-powered HPU
panelboard, which provided power for the existing wedge barrier.
Framaco requests $2238.70 in costs for having to undertake modifications to the
surplus GFE materials to upgrade them to design requirements.  Appellant’s Opening Brief
at 9-10; Exhibit 177 at DOS-PTMO-03714753-54, -03714758.  State contends that Framaco
was not required to make use of the GFE from the previous contractor, and that State
specifically disclaimed any warranty for surplus GFE.  Respondent’s Reply Brief at 10; see
Exhibit 205.  State also argues that “Framaco failed to contact the [CO], or seek direction
from an individual with authority to direct Framaco to perform work” outside the scope of
the contract prior to executing the work at issue here.  Respondent’s Initial Brief at 6.
The contract specification detailing the use of GFE specifically states:
This does not reflect a requirement that GFE Surplus Equipment and Material
shall be used but as an indication that GFE Surplus Equipment and Material[]
may be available for the indicated application.
Exhibit 2 at DOS-PTMO-00982418 (emphasis added).
Because Framaco was not required to use the available GFE, all arguments based on
this assertion are untenable.  That Framaco chose to use and then had to determine a path
forward with the GFE, rather than procuring a gate, does not constitute a design change for
which it can recover.  Further, even assuming that the work done was outside the scope of
the contract, Framaco failed to seek the CO’s approval prior to commencing the disputed
work.  Absent such approval, Framaco completed the work at its “own risk and expense.” 
Exhibit 1 at DOS-PTMO-00982375 (emphasis added).  Therefore, the claim is denied.

CBCA 7847 14
Decision
The appeal is GRANTED IN PART.  Framaco is entitled to recover only on its claim
relating to the NOX Level 3 wood panel door.  Otherwise, this appeal is denied.
   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