THIS OPINION WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
IS BEING PUBLICLY RELEASED IN ITS ENTIRETY ON JULY 31, 2024
DENIED:  July 25, 2024
CBCA 7573
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 7573 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)) and certain claims in four of its consolidated
appeals not based on Government-caused delay.  See Rule 53 (governing accelerated
procedures available at an appellant’s election, though limited to appeals involving disputes
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 using Framaco’s prevailing damages in the Selected Appeals.
In this appeal, Framaco requests damages in the amount of $99,999 for having to use
fire-retardant-treated plywood (FRTP), also referred to as fire-rated plywood or fire-treated
plywood, for partition walls and ceilings in areas purportedly not specified in the contract for
its use.  See Appellant’s Opening Brief at 1-2.  State counters that the contract
unambiguously required use of fire-rated materials in the areas at issue.  Respondent’s Initial
Brief at 1.  For reasons stated below, we deny the appeal. 
Background
The Project
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.1  Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at DOS-PTMO-00982321.2  The
project was originally designed in 2010 as a “Standard Secure mini-Compound” (SSmC)
1 The contract was issued on July 6, 2015, and awarded on September 30, 2015. 
Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at DOS-PTMO-00982303-04.
2 Unless otherwise noted, all exhibits referenced in this decision are contained
in the appeal file.

CBCA 7573 3
with a scope including 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
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), a marine service
guard residence, a service entry/utility building, an enlarged support annex, and a new
recreation facility.  Id.
Contract Provisions
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.236-21, Specifications and Drawings for
Construction (FEB 1997) (48 CFR 52.236-21(a) (2014)), was incorporated into the contract. 
Exhibit 1 at DOS-PTMO-00982393.  This FAR provision states, in part, “Anything
mentioned in the specifications and not shown on the drawings, or shown on the drawings
and not mentioned in the specifications, shall be of like effect as if shown or mentioned in
both.  In case of [a] difference between drawings and specifications, the specifications shall
govern.”  48 CFR 52.236-21(a).
Section C.2.1 of the contract states that “[c]onstruction of this project is governed by
the following building codes: . . . [the] 2006 International Building Code (IBC), amended by
the 2012 OBO International Codes Supplement (OBO-ICS).”  Exhibit 2 at DOS-PTMO-
00982417.  The IBC contains a list of the combustible materials that are allowed in Type I
and Type II buildings for construction projects; the latter type is at issue in this appeal. 
Exhibits 18 at DOS-PTMO-02290682, 92 at DOS-PTMO-KCCT-0221633-34.  The IBC
provides that fire-retardant-treated wood is permitted in nonbearing partitions, nonbearing
exterior walls, and roof construction.  Exhibit 92 at DOS-PTMO-KCCT-0221634.  Non-fire-
retardant-treated wood is not on the list of materials that can be used for these items.  Id. at
DOS-PTMO-KCCT-0221633-34.
The contract specification, 061000, Rough Carpentry, includes a “DEFINITIONS”
section, including definitions for two items – “Boards or Strips” and “Dimension Lumber.” 
Exhibit 6 at DOS-PTMO-KCCT-0039534 at 1.2.  Section 2.3 of specification 061000,
discussing fire-retardant-treated materials, states in part:

CBCA 7573 4
E. Application:  Treat items indicated on Drawings, and the following:
1. Concealed blocking.
2. Plywood backing panels.3
Exhibit 6 at DOS-PTMO-KCCT-0039537.  Specification 061000 also includes the following:
2.5 PLYWOOD BACKING PANELS (PBP)
A. Equipment Backing Panels: . . . fire-retardant treated, in
thickness indicated, or if not indicated, not less than 19-mm
nominal thickness.
Exhibit 6 at DOS-PTMO-KCCT-0039538.
Framaco’s Installation of Materials
Framaco asked State’s Project Director (PD)/Contracting Officer’s Representative
(COR) whether certain rooms needed to be fire rated since there were no plywood backing
panels for equipment in those rooms.  Exhibit 15 at DOS-PTMO-03069002.  In an email
dated March 26, 2020, the PD/COR replied that “[t]here are no plywood backing panels for
equipment in these rooms so fire rating is not required.”  Id.  The PD/COR also advised that
“[t]he specification requires plywood backing panels and blocking to be fire rated.  Plywood
backing is defined by the specification as being used for equipment (electrical etc.).  Our
conclusion is the plywood does not need to be fire rated unless it’s blocking, equipment
backing or specifically called out as fire rated construction in the life safety plans.” 
Exhibit 14 at DOS-PTMO-02031006-07.
After Framaco had used non-fire-rated plywood on the project, State’s PD/COR asked
the Life Safety Senior Engineer, who worked for a private contractor, whether Framaco
should have exclusively used fire-rated plywood for everything that requires plywood,
considering that the construction project involved a Type II building.  Exhibit 18 at DOS-
PTMO-02290680-82.  The PD/COR explained that his understanding, based on a reading of
3 As explained by State in its reply brief, backing panels are constructed of
plywood.  Respondent’s Reply Brief at 1.  Certain of the “backing panels at issue [in this
appeal] provided support to wood paneling that was used in certain spaces to provide a
pleasant, up-scale appearance,” and “[o]ther backing panels provided support to various
types of equipment.”  Id. 

CBCA 7573 5
specification 061000 and design drawings, was that fire-treated plywood was only required
in three locations:  where specifically noted on drawings, at concealed blocking, and at
equipment backing panels.  Id. at DOS-PTMO-02290682.  The engineer responded, in part,
that “[g]enerally, code requirements are picked-up in the design” and that “[a] full
restatement of all code requirements would not be included in the contract documents.”  Id.
at DOS-PTMO-02290681.  He added:
As related to interior construction, [Fire-retardant-treated wood (FTRW)] shall
be permitted in nonbearing partitions where the required fire-resistance rating
is 2 hours or less. FTRW shall be permitted to be used in partitions dividing
offices occupied by one tenant only and that do not establish a corridor serving
an occupant load of 30 or more.
Untreated wood may be used as blocking or nailers used to support fixtures,
railings, cabinets, and window and door frames. Untreated wood may also be
used as furring strips not exceeding 44 mm in concrete construction for
securing trim and finishes.
The use of FTRW as equipment backing panels as specified in section 061000
does not conflict with the IBC, and is specifically required by the owner.
Id.
State subsequently determined that the installed non-fire-rated plywood was not
compliant with contract requirements.  Exhibit 19 at DOS-PTMO-02367395-96; Appellant’s
Opening Brief at 3.  Specifically, State realized that the NOB building was designed as a
Type IIA construction building, which does not allow the use of regular plywood in wall
partitions.  Exhibit 79 at DOS-PTMO-03090031.  In an email, a State official explained,
“The OBO field office has indicated that non [fire retardant treated (FRT)] plywood has been
used extensively throughout the NOB” and asked, “Is anyone aware of a listed surface
coating that can be applied to one side that provides the equivalent of FRT plywood?” and
“Does anyone have a suggestion for mitigation to provide an equivalent level of safety while
keeping non FRT plywood installed?”  Exhibit 19 at DOS-PTMO-02367396.  State
considered some type of paint coating as a remedy, but ultimately it determined that painting
the plywood would not address the fire rating issue.  Exhibit 27 at DOS-PTMO-01923460.
Framaco eventually installed fire-rated plywood in partition walls and ceilings.  The
company requested a contracting officer’s (CO’s) final decision on its claim seeking $99,999
to compensate it for what it considered a Government-directed change to install the fire-rated
plywood.  Exhibit 79 at DOS-PTMO-03090027.  However, the CO concluded that Framaco’s

CBCA 7573 6
installation of non-fire-rated plywood deviated from contract specifications and code
requirements and, therefore, denied Framaco’s claim.  Exhibit 80 at DOS-PTMO-03101794-
803.  This appeal followed.
Framaco’s Appeal
In its brief, Framaco notes that both it and State’s PD/COR (i.e., OBO), along with
others, interpreted specification 06100 at section 2.5 as a definition of “plywood backing
panels,” meaning that such panels only referred to “equipment backing panels.”  Appellant’s
Opening Brief at 4-5.  Thus, Framaco argues that State’s demand that the company install
fire-treated material that was not identified in the drawings at concealed blocking or at
“equipment backing panels” was beyond the requirements of the contract.  Id. at 1, 5. 
Framaco further argues that, pursuant to United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132, 136 (1918),
because State prepared the plans and specifications, it should be responsible for the defects
contained therein.  Appellant’s Opening Brief at 1-2.  State, on the other hand, argues that
“the contract unambiguously required the use of [fire-rated] plywood . . . at the locations at
issue.”  Respondent’s Initial Brief at 1; see Respondent’s Reply Brief at 2.
Discussion
Framaco seeks compensation for the installation of the fire-rated plywood in areas that
were not specified in the contract.  To determine whether Framaco can recover for its
claimed damages, we start with a review of the contract’s plain language.  LAI Services, Inc.
v. Gates, 573 F.3d 1306, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Brownlee, 363
F.3d 1203, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).  We read the contract as a whole, giving reasonable
meaning to all its parts.  Gould, Inc. v. United States, 935 F.2d 1271, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 
If the plain language of the contract is unambiguous on its face, the inquiry ends, and the
contract’s plain language controls.  Hunt Construction Group, Inc. v. United States, 281 F.3d
1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002).  “An interpretation that gives meaning to all parts of the
contract is to be preferred over one that leaves a portion of the contract useless, inexplicable,
void, or superfluous.”  NVT Technologies, Inc. v. United States, 370 F.3d 1153, 1159 (Fed.
Cir. 2004); see Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 203(a) (1981) (contract interpretation
should not leave a part of a contract “of no effect”).
We deny the appeal based on the plain language of the contract.  First, the IBC,
incorporated into the contract by reference, defined the types of combustible materials that
were allowed in the building’s construction (specifically, the partitions).  Non-fire-retardant-
treated wood is not among the combustible materials permitted for construction of the type
of building at issue here.  Exhibit 92 at DOS-PTMO-KCCT-0221633-34.

CBCA 7573 7
Second, although Framaco argues that the drawings did not direct the use of fire-
retardant-treated wood, the specifications did require, at sections 2.3(A) and 2.3(E), such
material to be used for backing panels.  Exhibit 6 at DOS-PTMO-KCCT-0039536-37.  To
the extent that there was a discrepancy between the drawings and specifications, the contract
is clear that specifications took precedence over the drawings.  Exhibit 1 at DOS-
PTMO-00982393.
Third, Framaco argues that contract specification 061000 at section 2.5(A)
narrowly defined “plywood backing panels,” a term initially mentioned in 2.3(A), to mean
“equipment backing panels” only.  However, specification 061000 had a definition section,
and neither “plywood backing panels” nor “equipment backing panels” was included among
the terms defined in the section.  Exhibit 6 at DOS-PTMO-KCCT-0039534.  Section 2.3 of
specification 061000 stated that fire-retardant-treated materials are used where indicated and
apply to items indicated on drawings, to concealed blocking, and to plywood backing panels. 
Id. at DOS-PTMO-KCCT-0039536.  Separately, section 2.5(A) shows “equipment backing
panels” under the heading “PLYWOOD BACKING PANELS (PBP).”  Id. at DOS-PTMO-
KCCT-0039538.  A reasonable interpretation of section 2.5(A) is that it reflects “equipment
backing panels” as a type of “plywood backing panels” and also describes the thickness of
fire-retardant treatment required for equipment backing panels.  There was nothing in section
2.5(A) narrowly defining or limiting “plywood backing panels,” initially mentioned in 2.3(A)
as exclusively “equipment backing panels.”  Not limiting the definition in such a way
reconciles with the IBC’s requirements for use of fire-retardant-treated wood for non-bearing
partitions – here, plywood backing panels which include equipment backing panels. 
Finally, Framaco’s argument concerning its communication with the PD/COR who
apparently, based on his own interpretation and that of others who were not the CO, agreed
with Framaco’s narrow definition of “plywood backing panel” is unhelpful to Framaco’s
case.  The PD/COR did not have authority to change the contract, including modifying
specifications.  See Pearson E. Dubar v. Department of Agriculture, CBCA 1895, 10-2 BCA
¶ 34,497, at 170,147 (“The actions of a government employee without actual authority cannot
bind the Government.”); 48 CFR 43.102(a) (“Only contracting officers acting within the
scope of their authority are empowered to execute contract modifications on behalf of the
Government.”).  Additionally, Framaco’s interpretation failed to consider the IBC provisions
for combustible materials that were incorporated into the contract.  Pursuant to the IBC, the
only combustible material allowed in nonbearing partitions was fire-retardant-treated wood. 
Indeed, the issue here is not a defective specification, as Framaco urges, but a failure to
install materials required by code provisions that were expressly incorporated into the
contract.  Ultimately, Framaco remained responsible for compliance with the contract terms,
including those stated in the IBC, and as such, is not entitled to compensation for correcting
non-compliant work.

CBCA 7573 8
Decision
The 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