DENIED:  December 12, 2007 
CBCA 870 
CAL, INC., 
A p p e l l a n t , 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 
Respondent. 
David Esparza, President of CAL, INC., Vacaville, CA, appearing for Appellant. 
Carl B. Jorgensen and William Robinson, Office of General Counsel, Federal Bureau 
of Prisons, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
HYATT , Board Judge. 
This appeal is from a contracting officer’s decision taking deductions from amounts 
due to appellant, CAL, INC., under a contract to perform sanitary sewer and storm drain 
upgrades.  Appellant has elected to proceed under the Board’s interim expedited procedure 
for small claims, which is available at the election of a small business concern seeking to 
recover a disputed monetary amount of $150,000 or less.  Rule 52.  72 Fed. Reg. 36808 (July 
5, 2007). This rule permits issuance of a decision in summary form.  Decisions issued under 
the small claims procedure are final and conclusive and shall not be set aside except in cases 
of fraud affecting the Board’s proceedings.  41 U.S.C. § 608 (2000); 
Palmer v. Barram, 184 
F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . This decision has no value as precedent. 

      
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
       
 
 
 
2 CBCA 870 
Findings of Fact 1 
Background 
1. On August 10, 2004, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) awarded to CAL, 
INC. a contract to perform a sanitary sewer and storm drain upgrade for the Federal 
Correctional Institution (FCI) located at Terminal Island in San Pedro, California.  Appeal 
File, Exhibit 1. 
2. The contract’s statement of work identified nineteen items that the contractor 
was expected to complete in performing the contract.  The principal work was to “furnish and 
install storm drain and sewer pipe as shown on the plans.  This included all saw-cut, asphalt 
and concrete demolition, excavation, de-watering, shoring, trenching, concrete encasement 
of pipe, backfilling and asphalt concrete restoration.”  Appeal File, Exhibit 1. 
3. CAL, INC. performed the contract work principally through subcontractors, 
of which the most significant were Miramar Construction and EDA Design Professionals. 
Appellant’s Discovery Requests (Oct. 1, 2007). 
3. Following the award of the contract, numerous modifications, adding to the 
work and increasing the contract price, were issued.  Appeal File, Exhibit 2. 
4. In early 2007, with contract work not yet completed, FBOP entered into 
negotiations with CAL, INC. to bring the contract to a close, by deleting work that had not 
been started by appellant.  FBOP sought to negotiate a global settlement of the contract with 
CAL, INC., including  a full release of claims, to be effected through a bilateral modification 
to the contract canceling remaining contract work with the exception of certain enumerated 
tasks.  Face-to-face negotiations took place on April 7, 2007, but were not immediately 
1 In keeping with the intent of the small claims procedure to resolve disputes as 
expeditiously and inexpensively as possible, the record in this matter has been developed 
primarily through written submissions of the parties, including the Rule 4 file, appellant’s 
supplemental Rule 4 file, initial position papers submitted by the parties on October 26, 2007, 
and follow-up position papers submitted by respondent on November 30, 2007 and by 
appellant on December 5, 2007.  These submissions include affidavits of employees who 
were closely involved with the project.  In addition, the Board conducted several 
teleconferences with the parties and witnesses in efforts to clarify their contentions and to 
focus the issues raised in this dispute. 

  
    
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
   
 
    
    
    
 
3 CBCA 870 
successful.  Subsequently, CAL, INC.’s president and the contracting officer endeavored to 
reach an agreement. Respondent’s Position Paper, Oct. 26, 2007, Exhibit 1, Declaration of 
Raymond Kelemenky, Contracting Officer (Oct. 24, 2007), ¶¶ 3-4 (First Kelemencky 
Declaration). 
5. Modification 12 to the contract was issued on May 16, 2007.  Under this 
modification, CAL, INC. agreed to accomplish various tasks to close out its obligations 
under the contract and to accept the sum of $647,656.72 in full payment of its performance 
under the contract.  FBOP agreed to release the amount of $500,000 immediately.  The 
remaining $147,656.72 would be paid within ten days after CAL, INC. completed 
performance of the remaining terms and conditions of modification 12.  Appeal File, Exhibit 
3. 
6. The tasks enumerated in modification 12 consisted of clean up of the site; 
removal of temporary fencing; removal of all material and equipment, and all stockpiled 
soil/debris piles; re-seeding, re-grading, and  repair of the irrigation system; and restoration 
of  the site and lay down area to its original condition and to the satisfaction of the FBOP. 
CAL, INC. was also required to furnish as-built drawings in AutoCAD showing all work 
performed at the site, including all utilities encountered, and to furnish a video/camera 
survey, or closed circuit television (CCTV) videotapes, of all lines installed.   Appeal File, 
Exhibit 3.  These tasks were continuations of contractual obligations included in the contract, 
and were considered by FBOP to be the minimum work needed to be accomplished for 
appellant to leave the work site.  First Kelemencky Declaration, ¶ 6. 
7. The performance requirements specified in modification 12 were to be 
completed by CAL, INC. between May 14 and June 12, 2007.  Appeal File, Exhibit 3.  The 
June 12 deadline was subsequently extended to July 2, 2007.  Appeal File, Exhibit 16. 
8. On July 9, 2007, CAL, INC.’s president e-mailed the contracting officer 
requesting final payment under modification 12.  In a letter dated July 13, 2007, the 
contracting officer told CAL, INC.’s president to submit an invoice, but cautioned that the 
Government considered that there were numerous deficiencies in appellant’s performance. 
Among other things, the contracting officer asserted that the as-built drawings could not be 
used due to the  absence of critical information which would cause FBOP to incur costs to 
bring them up to a suitable industry standard; that CAL, INC. had not furnished the requisite 
video/camera survey of the sewage lines installed; and that FBOP was entitled to credits for 
hydro-seed, pine tree removal, and repair of a damaged concrete pad and water valve in 
appellant’s work area.  Appeal File, Exhibit 26. 

  
 
           
  
   
 
 
  
    
   
     
4 CBCA 870 
9. Subsequently, CAL, INC. expressed disagreement with FBOP’s proposed 
deductions and requested clarification of FBOP’s position. In a letter dated July 30, 2007, 
the contracting officer sent CAL, INC. a proposed bi-lateral modification which included the 
deductions he had discussed in his letter dated July 13.  Appeal File, Exhibits 29, 34. 
Appellant, on August 3, 2007, submitted a formal, certified request for a final decision on 
its entitlement to the remaining monies agreed upon in Modification 12.  Id. , Exhibit 36.  On 
August 7, 2007, the contracting officer acknowledged receipt of appellant’s request for a 
final decision and issued a decision assessing an administrative deduction in the amount of 
$67,301 and enclosing a unilateral modification to the contract.  Id., Exhibit 38. 
10. Also in early August, CAL, INC. sent a package of videotapes to FBOP, 
apparently as its submission of the closed circuit television (CCTV) or camera survey 
videotapes of the installed lines.  The contracting officer returned the package unopened, 
pointing out to appellant that the time for contract performance was past and that FBOP had 
already started to procure other services for this line item that had not been provided by the 
agreed upon date.  Appeal File, Exhibit 40.  
11. CAL, INC. appealed the contracting officer’s decision and elected to proceed 
under the small claims option.  
12. Following the filing of the appeal, it was agreed that CAL, INC. would 
resubmit the videotapes as part of its supplemental appeal file.  Conference Memorandum, 
Sept. 25, 2007. 
13. At issue in this appeal are the deductions made by FBOP for three items for 
which FBOP deducted amounts from CAL, INC.’s final payment.  The Government retained 
the amount of $51,230 to bring the as-built drawings up to par; the amount of $10,713 to 
contract for CCTV videotapes of the work performed; and the amount of $3008 to repair the 
cracked concrete slab and water valve.  First Kelemencky Declaration, ¶¶ 9-12. 
As-Built Drawings 
14. Under Modification 12, appellant agreed to provide the FBOP with AutoCAD 
drawings showing all work installed under the project and all utilities encountered during 
performance (“as-built” drawings).  This was a continuation of the contract requirement to 
provide as-built drawings.  Finding 6. 
15. The relevant contract provision, as set forth in the statement of work, states the 
following: 

   
           
  
     
 
  
    
  
     
          
 
   
  
  
  
5 CBCA 870 
A complete set of engineered drawings shall be provided to the 
Owner.  As-builts shall be submitted at the completion of the 
project before final payment.  An Electronic copy of all 
drawings shall be in the AutoDesk, AutoCAD version 2004 
format and forwarded to the Engineering Department at FCI 
Terminal Island.  The drawings will remain at the institution for 
maintenance reference. 
Appeal File, Exhibit 1. The requirement to provide as-built drawings was expressly 
reincorporated in Modification 12.  Id. , Exhibit 3. 
16. The FBOP project representative and contracting officer’s technical 
representative (COTR), who oversaw appellant’s contract performance for the entire period 
of contract performance, reviewed the as-built drawings after they were received by 
respondent. He concluded that the CAL, INC. drawings were massively inadequate in that 
nearly all of the drawings lacked critical information concerning the lines installed and 
utilities encountered. He informed the contracting officer that CAL, INC.’s  drawings were 
so deficient as to fail to conform to industry standards and advised that potholing to retrieve 
the missing information would be necessary, and would take a minimum of three weeks to 
gather sufficient information to complete the drawings.
2   Respondent’s First Position Paper, 
Oct. 26, 2007, Exhibit 3;  Respondent’s Second Position Paper, Declaration of John Raposa, 
Nov. 30, 2007 (Second Raposa Declaration), Exhibit 1. 
17. In a telephone conference held on November 15, 2007, FBOP arranged for the 
COTR, Mr. Raposa, to participate, and CAL, INC. arranged for one of its project managers, 
Mr. LaPointe, to be available as well.  After Mr. Raposa discussed a few specific as-built 
drawings, identifying what information was missing, and advising that nearly every drawing 
was deficient in terms of providing critical information about work performed and utilities 
encountered, Mr. LaPointe recognized that the information identified by Mr. Raposa indeed 
was not provided on the as-built drawings but should have been.  Mr. LaPointe urged, 
however, that the Government’s proposed remedy is excessively expensive.  According to 
Mr. LaPointe, FBOP could use less invasive techniques, such as lifting manholes, dropping 
2 “Potholing” is an industry term that refers to excavation of test holes in order 
to locate utility lines buried in the area in which work will be performed.  See R. P. Richards 
Construction Co. v. United States,  51 Fed. Cl. 116, 120-21 (2001). 

   
      
 
 
      
  
         
 
 
  
 
    
 
   
  
 
 
6 CBCA 870 
line locators, and using CCTV videotapes to derive the needed information for the as-builts. 
Conference Memorandum, Nov. 16, 2007. 
18. Following the November 15, 2007 teleconference, the Government arranged 
for Mr. Raposa to prepare a memorandum detailing the Government’s concerns with the 
omissions and inaccuracies in the as-built drawings submitted by CAL, INC.   Mr. Raposa 
states in his memorandum that it is critical to have accurate and complete as-built drawings 
to support future construction in this area.  He then provides numerous examples of where 
and why potholing is necessary at a variety of locations in order to ascertain location, depth, 
size and material of storm drain lines, sewer laterals, roof drains, and other installations that 
are not noted on the drawings. He maintains that some potholing, along with the techniques 
advocated by appellant, is necessary to ensure the requisite degree of completeness and 
accuracy to avoid future costs to the Government when work is done in these areas. 
Respondent’s Second Position Paper, Exhibit 2.  
19. In a paragraph-by-paragraph response to the COTR’s memorandum, CAL, 
INC. generally argues that while the information as to location, depth, size and material is 
missing, this information can usually be derived in a variety of ways that are less expensive 
and invasive than potholing.  For example, some of this information is available through 
visual inspection or by reference to contract requirements that require use of specific 
materials at specified locations, often where existing utility lines were replaced. In most 
cases, appellant contends, pipe was installed as shown on the plans and the as-builts can be 
rectified by transferring that information onto the new drawings.  In other cases, FBOP could 
refer to its own drawings or use a tracer wire at the drop inlet location.  For some areas, the 
necessary information could be derived by lifting a manhole cover.  In still other instances, 
using such techniques as CCTV and tracer wire at manhole locations, and then performing 
simple mathematical calculations would, according to CAL, INC., enable the Government 
to derive depth and slope installation for the pipes at issue.  Finally, appellant notes, the 
COTR took extensive photographs of work in progress during the life of this  construction 
project which would also provide information as to the as-built condition of the area. 
Appellant’s Second Position Paper, Dec. 5, 2007. 
20. FBOP’s Regional Facility Manager, in an internal electronic mail message 
addressing the administrative deductions proposed by the contracting officer, observed in 
passing that “I think the camera is close and I think if done correctly it can save us a lot of 
potholing and site observation.”  He did not, however, dispute the amount proposed by the 
contracting officer for bringing the as-built drawings up to par.  Appeal File, Exhibit 35. 
21. Mr. Raposa attested that the cost to pothole has been determined to be 
approximately $38,190.  In addition, it will cost another $13,040 to have an 

  
    
 
   
 
  
 
     
    
           
 
      
  
 
      
   
7 CBCA 870 
architect/engineer perform site surveys, other research, and then place as-built conditions on 
3the supplied CAD drawings , for a total cost of $51,230. After learning of CAL, INC.’s 
contention that the drawings can be fixed less expensively, Mr. Raposa obtained an estimate 
for performing the work in the manner suggested by appellant.  This estimate came to 
$33,750.  In Mr. Raposa’s opinion, the CCTV and line locating approach is nearly as 
expensive, and less accurate, than potholing. Appeal File, Exhibit 31; Second Raposa 
Declaration at 2-3.    
22. CAL, INC. itself performed extensive potholing prior to installing the sewer 
lines at the prison.  The COTR tried to determine a minimum amount of time needed to 
retrieve the missing critical information and used prices charged by CAL, INC to pothole. 
CAL, INC. was paid $57,330 to perform pre-construction potholing. Second Raposa 
Declaration at 2-3; Declaration of Raymond Kelemencky (Nov. 29, 2007) at ¶¶ 3-4 (Second 
Kelemencky Declaration). 
Video/Camera Survey of Installed Lines 
23. FBOP did not receive a timely transmission of the video/camera survey tapes 
required by Modification 12.  First, the tapes were submitted late, after the contracting officer 
issued his decision.  Second, after reviewing the tapes, which were resubmitted by CAL, 
INC. following the filing of this appeal, the project representative reviewed the tapes and 
determined that the video tapes were old tapes that showed pre-construction lines, rather than 
post-construction work.  The videos that were submitted by CAL, INC. showed only a small 
percentage of the sewer line installed by appellant, and there were no videotapes of the storm 
drain lines showing post-construction work.  Second Raposa Declaration at 3. 
24. FBOP has estimated the cost of having CCTV videotapes taken of the installed 
lines to be $10,713.  Appeal File, Exhibit 38.  This amount is what FBOP paid appellant to 
perform a  pre-construction CCTV survey.  Second Kelemencky Declaration at ¶ 4. 
Damages to the Water Access Concrete Slab and Water Valve Access Covers 
25. Under the statement of work in the contract, appellant was required to restore 
the job site “to original conditions for all areas of disruption (i.e., turf, foliage, asphalt, 
concrete, brick, etc.)” and to locate, protect, and repair at its expense, any utilities damaged 
by its forces.  Appeal File, Exhibit 1. Modification 12 reinforced this requirement, with the 
Of the architect’s fee, the amount of $1560 is for the purpose of placing as-
built conditions on supplied CAD drawings.  Appeal File, Exhibit 31. 
3 

     
      
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
    
       
 
8 CBCA 870 
proviso that appellant “restore the site and lay down area to it’s [sic] original condition and 
to the satisfaction of the FBOP.”  Id., Exhibit 3. 
26. FBOP’s project representative stated that the project lay-down area included 
a concrete slab and its water valve access covers. The access points permit FBOP to open 
or close the underground water valves located underneath the slab.  The slab and access 
points are located approximately thirty feet from the roadway, in a grass-covered park area. 
Prior to appellant’s use of the area as a lay-down area, the concrete slab and the covers were 
in excellent condition.  Respondent’s First Position Paper, Exhibit 2, Declaration of John 
Raposa (Oct. 23, 2007) (First Raposa Declaration). 
27. During the course of the project, this area served as the main entrance to the 
lay-down area.  Deliveries from heavy trucks carrying building materials would pass over the 
affected area.  In addition to the operating heavy equipment over this area, CAL, INC. placed 
waste containers, debris, and other materials on top of the valve access area throughout the 
course of the project.  First Raposa Declaration. 
28. CAL, INC. was the only contractor in this area operating heavy equipment 
large enough to damage the slab and valve covers.  Second Raposa Declaration at 1-2. 
29. FBOP noticed the damage to the slab and valve covers after CAL, INC. 
restored the work area and turned the site over to FBOP.  Appeal File, Exhibit 34.   The cost 
to repair this damage is estimated to be $3008.  Id. , Exhibit 31. 
Discussion 
CAL, INC.’s appeal challenges as unjustified FBOP’s deductions from its final 
payment for as-built drawings, CCTV videotapes, and repairs to the concrete slab and valve 
access covers.  Initially, appellant maintained that the as-built drawings submitted were in 
fact compliant with the specifications and industry standards.  In a teleconference held on 
November 16, 2007, after Mr. Raposa provided detailed input on respondent’s concerns with 
omissions and inaccuracies in the as-built drawings submitted by CAL, INC., appellant 
conceded that the as-built drawings were not accurate and complete as submitted to FBOP. 
Appellant now contends instead that the amount FBOP proposes to deduct is excessive.  In 
addition, appellant maintains that it did not notice and FBOP did not inform it of damage to 
the water valve/concrete slab in its work area at the time it completed its efforts under 
Modification 12. 

 
  
   
    
  
 
 
   
    
 
 
    
 
    
  
 
 
    
    
     
 
 
  
9 CBCA 870 
As-Built Drawings 
In the position paper submitted on November 30, 2007, the Government included a 
detailed statement, authored by the COTR, identifying in detail the omissions and defects in 
the as-built drawings that were provided by the contractor.  Finding 18.  In analyzing Mr. 
Raposa’s memorandum, appellant did not claim that the information identified as missing 
was provided on the drawings, but focused on its preferred, less costly, approach to obtaining 
the information and correcting the drawings.  Finding 19. 
It is clear that the as-built drawings submitted by CAL, INC. did not conform to any 
reasonable interpretation of its obligation to supply as-built drawings that showed all work 
performed under the contract and outlined any and all utilities encountered. Thus, the 
Government is entitled to make a downward adjustment to the contract price to defray the 
cost it will incur to correct these deficiencies.   In support of this proposition, FBOP cites 
Toombs & Co. v. United States , 4 Cl. Ct. 535 (1984), aff’d , 770 F.2d 183 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 
(table).  In Toombs , which involves similar facts, the Government rejected the contractor’s 
submission of a “full set” of as-built drawings on the ground that the drawings failed to 
reflect various modifications and field changes to the work.  The Government’s deduction 
of the cost of revising the as-built drawings was upheld by the court. 
The primary focus of the parties in their supplemental submissions is on what 
constitutes a reasonable cost to bring the as-built drawings into compliance with contract 
4requirements.  FBOP, relying on the COTR’s experience and expertise , asserts that the most 
accurate method of bringing the as-builts up to acceptable industry standards is to pothole 
at various locations on site to determine conclusively the locations, depths, and slopes of 
installed sewer lines and drains.  Finding 18.  CAL, INC. argues strenuously that the 
Government’s position is unreasonable because a variety of other, less expensive means exist 
to derive the information that is missing from the as-built drawings.  Finding 19.  
The Government maintains that the amount of its proposed deduction is reasonable, 
pointing out that CAL, INC. itself performed extensive potholing prior to installing the sewer 
lines at the prison. The COTR priced this effort using what he deemed to be the minimum 
amount of time likely to be needed to retrieve the missing critical information.  He used 
prices charged by CAL, INC. to pothole.  CAL, INC. was paid $57,330 to perform pre-
construction potholing, which FBOP believes corroborates the reasonableness of its proposed 
amount of $38,190 to perform potholing at critical points to ensure the as-built drawings are 
complete and accurate.  Finding 21. 
Second Raposa Declaration at 2-3. 
4 

 
  
  
      
 
  
 
    
 
 
    
 
  
 
 
    
  
 
   
 
  
  
10 CBCA 870 
CAL, INC., in addition to maintaining that potholing is not justified to derive accurate 
as-built drawings, questions the reasonableness of the Government’s estimate that the cost 
of achieving acceptable as-builts through the use of CCTV and line tracers would not be 
much less than that for potholing. Appellant’s Second Position Paper.  It also points out that 
the Government’s position appears to assess a double charge for CCTV videotaping, since 
FBOP has already deducted $10,713 for this item.  Appellant suggests that it should suffice 
to obtain the CCTV videotapes and pay the architect/engineer $1560 to transfer as-built 
information onto the CAD drawings. Apparently, appellant attributes no cost to the time and 
effort required to lift manholes, review photographs, make visual observations of the site, 
take measurements, and perform calculations which it concedes would be necessary to derive 
the information to be entered on the drawings.  Thus, we can gather that appellant’s approach 
would be less expensive than potholing, but cannot effectively gauge how much less.   
We are mindful that, in general, the Government has a duty to mitigate damages 
occasioned as a result of an appellant’s breach of its contractual obligations. See Churchill 
Chemical Corp. v. United States , 602 F.2d 358, 361 (Ct. Cl. 1979).  Whether the 
Government’s approach here meets that duty is a question of fact resolved by inquiring into 
the reasonableness of FBOP’s preferred method of correcting the as-built drawings.  See, 
e.g., Puroflow Corp. , ASBCA 36058, 93-3 BCA ¶ 26,191; Birken Manufacturing Co. , 
ASBCA 32500, 90-2 BCA ¶ 22,245.  In making this assessment, we recognize that it would 
not necessarily be appropriate to impose on the Government a cost limitation representing 
a less than optimal solution to appellant’s breach of its obligation to provide appropriate as-
built drawings at the conclusion of contract performance. The breaching party is generally 
not entitled to dictate the actions of the non-breaching party in rectifying the breach.  See 
Western Alaska Contractors, Inc. , ASBCA 46033, 95-1 BCA ¶ 27,392 (1994).  In weighing 
the competing contentions of the parties we note that the COTR, in a sworn declaration, has 
unequivocally stated that potholing is necessary to achieve the desired degree of accuracy in 
the as-built drawings. Although CAL, INC. disagrees, it has not actually stated or attested 
that its approach would achieve the same degree of accuracy as would the potholing 
proposed by the Government.  We are not prepared in these circumstances, to second-guess 
the Government’s position.
5   We find that FBOP has met its burden to justify the 
reasonableness of its deduction with respect to appellant’s failure to submit satisfactory as-
built drawings. 
5 Although one FBOP employee suggested in passing that use of CCTV tapes 
might reduce the need for potholing, finding 20, which provides some support for appellant’s 
arguments, this does not outweigh the view of the COTR. 

  
  
 
 
 
  
  
   
     
 
  
 
 
  
  
11 CBCA 870 
CCTV Survey 
Appellant failed to submit the requisite tapes in a timely manner.  The tapes that were 
eventually provided and reviewed by the COTR were noncompliant with the contract 
requirement.  In its final submission, appellant does not appear to contest the amount 
deducted by FBOP to remedy this omission.  Accordingly, we find that the Government 
properly deducted this amount from the final payment. 
Damage to Concrete Slab and Access Valve Covers 
FBOP argues that under the terms of the contract, appellant was responsible for 
restoring the work area to its “original condition.”  FBOP’s project representative  has 
testified that at the inception of contract work, the concrete pad and valve covers were in 
“excellent condition.”  FBOP has also attested that no other contractors with the type of 
heavy equipment that would damage the slab and valve covers were working in the area 
during the duration of appellant’s performance of the contract. 
Appellant concedes that the concrete pad and water valves were at the edge of its 
work area, but has no knowledge of the damage.  Appellant’s main argument is that FBOP 
did not immediately inform its site supervisor of the damage, although it had been quick to 
point out other areas that were damaged and to demand repairs.  FBOP points out that it did 
not have an opportunity to observe the area until appellant’s subcontractor demobilized and 
it promptly raised the issue at that time. 
FBOP submitted the COTR’s sworn statement that the damage to this area was caused 
by appellant, through its subcontractor, which was the only party in the area that operated the 
type of heavy equipment that would damage the slab and valve covers.  The COTR also 
attested that on many occasions he observed the contractor operating heavy equipment in this 
area.  Given this testimony, and the absence of any other likely source of the damage, it is 
highly probable that the damage is attributable to CAL, INC.’s actions.  The contract clauses 
place the burden on appellant to restore damaged structures to their original condition. 
Environmental Data Consultants, Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 12591, 
et al., 97-2 BCA ¶ 29,208, at 145,373.  The Government has submitted credible evidence of 
the cost to fix the valve covers.  Accordingly, we agree that CAL, INC. was responsible for 
these damages and FBOP properly withheld the amount of $3008, the cost of repairs, from 
appellant’s final payment. 

__________________________________ 
12 CBCA 870 
Decision 
The appeal is DENIED . 
CATHERINE B. HYATT 
Board Judge