DENIED:  June 28, 2007 
CBCA 397 
MMI CAPITAL, INC., 
Appellant, 
v. 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 
Respondent. 
J. Hatcher Graham, Warner Robins, GA, counsel for Appellant. 
Torrie N. Harris, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, 
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges HYATT , DeGRAFF , and GOODMAN . 
DeGRAFF , Board Judge. 
Appellant submitted a claim to respondent for unabsorbed overhead costs which it 
says it incurred as the result of a lease term beginning four months later than expected. 
When respondent took no action on the claim, appellant filed this appeal.  The Board held 
a hearing April 11-13, 2006, and the parties completed their post-hearing briefing in March 
2007.  Because we do not find respondent was responsible for the delay to the beginning of 
the lease term, we deny the appeal. 

      
  
  
   
    
  
           
   
 
  
 
   
   
       
      
      
 
 
       
2 CBCA 397 
Findings of Fact 
The Solicitation 
In the spring of 2002, the General Services Administration (GSA) issued a 
solicitation for offers to lease office space in Greenville, North Carolina.  Offers were due 
May 29, 2002.  Exhibit 1.1. 
The solicitation said GSA wanted a building which had the potential for efficient 
layout, contained approximately 10,000 usable square feet of space, and complied with all 
the requirements set out in the solicitation.  The solicitation did not require a potential lessor 
to offer space in a newly constructed building.  Potential lessors were required to provide 
GSA with one-eighth-inch or larger scale blue line plans of the space they were offering for 
lease.  The plans were supposed to be Computer-Aided Design (CAD) files in AutoCAD 
format. All architectural features of the space were supposed to be shown accurately.  If 
GSA were to ask for more informative plans, the offeror was required to provide them 
within ten working days. GSA’s intent was to lease a building shell and receive the benefit 
of a tenant improvement allowance.  Exhibit 1.1 at ¶¶ 1.1, 1.9, 1.10, 1.14. 
The building shell was to be provided at the lessor’s expense and was to include 
certain specified components.  Among the shell components were the base structure and 
building enclosure elements, restrooms, service areas, and common areas such as lobbies, 
fire corridors, and stairs. The shell components also included a complete acoustical tile 
ceiling system, exterior doors and doors to lobbies and common areas, permanent partitions, 
finished floors in common areas, plumbing in common areas such as toilet rooms and janitor 
closets, central heating/ventilating/air conditioning (HVAC) systems and all associated duct 
work, electrical closets and distribution panels with specified capacities, lighting installed 
in the ceiling grid, and a telecommunications room.  Exhibit 1.1 at ¶ 1.11.  
The tenant improvement allowance would cover the cost of tenant improvements 
within the leased space. The tenant improvements would be identified by the Government 
after the lease was awarded and were to be constructed by the lessor in accordance with 
Government-approved design intent drawings. Exhibit 1.1 at ¶¶ 1.10, 1.12, 1.13.  Tenant 
improvements included items such as interior doors and door hardware, office subdividing 
partitions, window coverings, and electrical, telephone, and data outlets within the leased 
space.  Exhibit 1.1 at ¶¶ 5.8, 5.9, 5.13, 5.17, 6.11.  No costs associated with the building 
shell itself were to be paid from the tenant improvement allowance.  Exhibit 1.1 at ¶¶  1.12. 

     
 
 
 
 
  
 
       
  
            
 
  
 
   
3 CBCA 397 
The solicitation contained a section titled “Construction Schedule of Tenant 
Improvements,” which said the construction schedule would commence upon lease award 
and would be divided into six tasks.  First was the generation of design intent drawings. 
Second was the Government’s approval of the design intent drawings.  The next four tasks 
were the lessor’s generation of working construction drawings and documents for the tenant 
improvements shown on the approved design intent drawings, the Government’s review of 
these drawings and documents, construction of the tenant improvements, and the 
Government’s acceptance of the space.  Exhibit 1.1 at ¶ 3.15. 
Regarding the design intent drawings, the solicitation said the Government was 
required to prepare and provide approved design intent drawings detailing the tenant 
improvements to be made by the lessor within the area leased by GSA.  Design intent 
drawings were defined as fully dimensioned drawings of the leased space which contained 
enough information to prepare construction drawings.  They were to show furniture 
locations, telephone and data outlet types and locations, specifications needed to calculate 
electrical and HVAC loads, and finish, color, and signage selections.  Design intent 
drawings were due to the lessor within thirty working days after the award of the lease. 
Exhibit 1.1 at ¶ 3.15(a). 
The lessor was supposed to prepare working construction drawings within fifteen 
working days after it received the Government’s approved design intent drawings.  Work 
shown on the drawings which was building shell work was supposed to be clearly identified 
as such.  Exhibit 1.1 at ¶ 3.15(b). 
If the lessor did not deliver the premises by the required delivery date due to an 
excusable delay (which included acts of the Government), GSA would extend the delivery 
date and the extension would be the lessor’s “sole remedy.” Exhibit 1.1 (GSA Form 3517B 
at 3, 5).   
Offer and Acceptance 
On May 28, 2002, Heath & Associates, Inc. (Heath), submitted an offer in response 
to GSA’s solicitation. Exhibit 1.1 (GSA Form 3518 at 4). Our record does not include a 
complete copy of the offer, so we do not know what, if any, drawings Heath submitted to 
GSA with its offer.  Heath planned to construct a building and lease space in the building 
to GSA, but we do not know whether the offer mentioned this plan.  Transcript at 103. 
The record contains a drawing prepared by the architect hired by Heath to work on 
the Greenville project (Heath’s architect) and dated August 9, 2002, two months after Heath 
submitted its offer.  The drawing shows a large rectangle overlaid with horizontal and 

   
    
   
 
  
  
    
     
  
  
      
 
 
          
 
  
 
 
4 CBCA 397 
vertical lines which represented column lines and which divided the large rectangle into 
twelve smaller rectangles.  The drawing shows the overall length and width of each of the 
rectangles, but does not show the sizes of the columns themselves.  The drawing does not 
show doors, windows, restrooms, corridors, or any architectural features.  It is simply a 
rectangle divided into twelve smaller rectangles by the column lines.  Exhibits 4, 8, 104; 
Transcript at 11-15.  
On September 17, GSA accepted Heath’s offer to lease space to the Government. 
GSA sent a lease to Heath and asked Heath to sign it and return it to GSA.  The lease term 
was to begin June 1, 2003, and was for a maximum term of ten years.  The lease, which 
included the terms of the solicitation, said the Government’s space layouts would be 
provided within thirty days from September 17.  The lease also said the tenant improvement 
allowance was $264,873.51. Exhibits 1.1, 202. 
The tenant agency in the Greenville space was to be the Internal Revenue Service 
(IRS).  IRS intended to use approximately one-fourth of the space as a taxpayer assistance 
center (TAC) and the remainder as other office space.  Exhibit 7 at 5. 
Carol A. Snipes was an interior designer and space planner in the Facilities 
Management branch of IRS’s Real Estate Management Section in Richmond, Virginia, and 
she was the project manager for the Greenville lease. Ms. Snipes had been in the Facilities 
Management branch for seventeen years and had worked on between fifty and sixty layout 
designs for IRS office space. Her responsibility as project manager for the Greenville lease 
was to work with IRS employees and determine space requirements such as how many 
conference rooms and how many workstations would be needed.  Once the requirements 
were identified, she would work with GSA, IRS employees, architects, engineers, 
telecommunications staff, and security staff to develop a space layout and floor plans. 
Transcript at 284-90; Exhibit 7 at 5.  
In late August, before GSA awarded the lease to Heath, Ms. Snipes asked GSA when 
she could expect to receive drawings of the building shell. She said once she had them, she 
could schedule a meeting with her project team and begin space layout work.  Exhibit 2. 
She made this same request in mid-September.  Exhibit 6.  Ms. Snipes expected the shell 
drawings would show the building’s perimeter, the location of its columns, and the location 
of service areas such as restrooms, the HVAC room, and the electrical room.  She needed 
to know what the building shell looked like so she would know how much space she had to 
work with when she laid out the interior space.  Transcript at 337-38. 
On September 23, GSA responded to Ms. Snipes’s question about Heath’s shell 
drawings.  GSA said it would follow up on her request.  Exhibit 6. 

       
   
 
 
      
   
        
     
 
  
  
   
 
      
  
  
 
 
5 CBCA 397 
October 2002 
According to the lease, the Government’s approved design intent drawings were to 
be provided to Heath on October 30, 2002, which was thirty working days after 
September 17. Exhibit 1.1. On October 1, 2002, GSA contacted Ms. Snipes and told her 
she would soon receive a plan for the building, showing dimensions and column spacing. 
Also, GSA said Heath intended to provide a tentative construction schedule.  Exhibit 7 at 
2.  
On October 2, Heath told GSA the design and construction process would need to 
proceed quickly in order to complete construction of the building so IRS could move in by 
June 2003, and Heath set out its planned schedule, as follows.  Heath said GSA would 
receive new drawings from Heath’s architect on October 3.  Based upon its experience 
working with GSA, Heath expected the Government would then need sixty days to complete 
its design intent drawings.  However, Heath said, its architect would need to know by mid-
October where all exterior doors and windows were to be located and would need to know 
by the end of October the locations, sizes, and configurations for all bathrooms, janitorial 
closets, mechanical closets, and utility closets. In addition, Heath said, its architect would 
find helpful having a document outlining the number of rooms, their desired sizes, and 
general technical specifications.  Exhibit 7 at 3-4; Transcript at 136. 
Heath also said that as the Government was completing its interior layout, Heath 
would be completing the shell design and obtaining building permits.  Heath said it expected 
to begin shell construction in mid-December 2002 and finish at the end of January 2003. 
Heath said negotiations regarding tenant improvements ought to be completed between mid-
December 2002 and the end of January 2003, so Heath would have the following four 
months to complete the tenant improvements.  Exhibit 7 at 3-4. 
In response to Heath’s plan, GSA told Heath it would like Heath’s architect to show 
all the service areas and exterior windows and doors on his drawings.  Doing so, said GSA, 
would minimize the time needed to construct the building shell and would ensure the 
architectural features of the proposed building would be consistent with those of the office 
park where the building was to be constructed and would be within Heath’s building shell 
construction budget.  GSA said when it received Heath’s shell floor plan on October 3, it 
would forward it to IRS for review, pending receipt of a revised floor plan showing service 
areas and exterior doors and windows.  GSA also said when it received the revised floor 
plan, it would forward the plan to IRS, which could then proceed to lay out its space. 
Exhibit 7 at 3.  Ms. Snipes told GSA she looked forward to receiving the building shell 
drawing, so IRS could begin its interior space planning.  Exhibit 7. 

 
      
   
    
 
  
  
 
  
     
 
 
   
        
 
 
    
          
  
 
   
  
  
 
   
6 CBCA 397 
On October 4, Heath told Ms. Snipes it hoped to have drawings to her either that day 
or on October 7.  On October 8, Heath’s architect sent via electronic mail a drawing to GSA 
and to Ms. Snipes. The drawing was numbered the same as the August 9 drawing.  Like the 
August 9 drawing, the drawing Ms. Snipes received on October 8 contained column lines, 
but did not show column widths and did not show the location of windows, restrooms, 
mechanical/electrical closets, and other service areas.  Also, the drawing was not in 
AutoCAD format. The drawing said it was drawn to a one-eighth-inch scale, and although 
Ms. Snipes was able to convert the drawing and read it, the drawing could not be plotted to 
a one-eighth inch scale.  Ms. Snipes told GSA about the problems with the drawing.  Exhibit 
7; Transcript at 295.  The record does not establish that Ms. Snipes received any drawings 
from Heath or GSA before October 8.  Ms. Snipes identified the August 9 drawing as an 
early shell drawing she received from Heath’s architect.  Transcript at 327-28.  If the 
drawing Heath gave GSA and Ms. Snipes on October 8 is any different from the August 9 
drawing, the difference is not established in our record. 
On October 9, GSA told Heath about the problems Ms. Snipes had identified with 
the drawing she received.  GSA said it had previously asked Heath to provide plans showing 
service areas so IRS could proceed with its space layout.  GSA said IRS could not begin its 
space layout until it had drawings showing service areas.  GSA also told Heath it needed to 
know the “status on the signing of the lease contract.”  Exhibit 7 at 11. 
In early October, Heath told Ms. Snipes she could contact its architect directly so they 
could keep the project moving, and she spoke with him on October 11 about the problems 
with the drawing she received on October 8. She sent the architect’s drawing back to him 
so he could convert it to a properly scaled drawing.  The architect told Ms. Snipes that Heath 
had not asked him to prepare drawings showing building shell components such as 
restrooms and electrical closets, and said he would contact Heath and ask whether he ought 
to prepare drawings showing service areas. Exhibit 7 at 15; Transcript at 294-95.  Also on 
October 11, Ms. Snipes sent Heath’s architect the elevation drawings for another IRS 
building which had been constructed approximately ten years earlier and a photograph given 
to GSA by Heath, which showed a building similar to the one Heath planned to construct 
in Greenville.  Exhibit 201. 
Heath did not feel it needed to decide where items such as service areas, exterior 
doors, and windows, which were components of the building shell, were going to be located. 
In Heath’s view, because the building had not yet been built and because IRS would be 
using the building, Heath had  no constraints on where it could place the building shell’s 
components.  Heath thought IRS might as well decide where the shell components were to 
be located and told its architect to tell IRS to decide where it wanted them.  Heath thought 
it was IRS’s contractual obligation to “lay those out” and felt there was “little point” in 

 
    
          
     
  
   
 
 
  
 
 
 
     
 
 
   
 
  
   
    
 
  
 
7 CBCA 397 
Heath deciding where the shell components would be located because if it did, IRS would 
most likely change them.  Heath communicated its views to Ms. Snipes and its architect. 
Transcript at 140-44. 
Ms. Snipes received a one-eighth-inch scale drawing of the building from Heath’s 
architect on the afternoon of October 11. Ms. Snipes considered this to be the first usable 
drawing of the building shell she received, although the drawing did not show service areas, 
columns, or exterior doors or windows. She asked Heath’s architect if he could block out 
restrooms and service areas and return the plan to her, but there is no evidence contained in 
the record to show he did so.  Ms. Snipes blocked out all of the interior space and added 
workstation locations, and met with IRS project team members on October 17. Based upon 
feedback received after the meeting, Ms. Snipes revised the drawing.  Exhibits 1, 7, 7.1; 
Transcript at 302.  
On October 30 or 31, Ms. Snipes faxed what she called a “preliminary draft plan” to 
Heath, Heath’s architect, and GSA.  The drawing was dated October 29, and blocked out 
locations and relative sizes of exterior doors, the front vestibule, the public toilet, emergency 
exits, corridors, the restrooms, a janitor’s closet, the mechanical/HVAC room, the 
telecommunications room, and the electrical room. It also blocked out the locations and 
relative sizes of two managers’ offices, a conference room, a file room, a mail room, two 
interview rooms, a copier/supply room, a tax compliance officer’s room, and a break room. 
The drawing contained dimensions for the interview room, the mail room, the 
mechanical/HVAC room, and the electrical room. In open spaces, the draft plan showed the 
locations and relative sizes of workstations and office furniture.  Ms. Snipes’s drawing 
contained a note which said “bathrooms like Soc. Sec.”, and she attached a drawing which 
showed how the restrooms were configured in a nearby Social Security Administration 
office.  Exhibits 10, 11. 
Ms. Snipes thought her October 29 drawing met the need for a preliminary layout of 
the space and gave Heath the information it said on October 2 that it needed.  Neither Heath 
nor its architect ever told Ms. Snipes they were unable to proceed once they had her drawing 
dated October 29.  So far as Ms. Snipes knew, Heath’s architect was proceeding to develop 
the building shell, to add more details, and to develop the drawings needed in order to obtain 
a shell building permit.  Although the October 29 drawing continued to be refined as the 
project moved forward, few changes were made to the basic configuration (the number of 
offices, the number of workstations, the placement of offices, the placement of service areas, 
and the approximate sizes of the rooms). The shell perimeter remained the same, the only 
change being one suggested by Heath’s architect in late October or early November, which 
was to recess the vestibules.  Exhibits 10, 14, 104; Transcript at 302-04, 315-17. 

  
  
  
   
  
       
 
  
       
  
  
   
8 CBCA 397 
The October 29 drawing by itself could not have been used by Heath to obtain a 
building permit for the shell.  The lease, however, did not require the Government to 
produce a drawing which could be used to design the building shell, to obtain a permit to 
construct the shell, or to construct the shell.  Heath was supposed to provide the building 
shell, and the Government’s obligation was to provide a drawing which showed the desired 
tenant improvements within the leased space so Heath could prepare construction drawings 
for the tenant improvements.  Although the October 29 drawing was a draft and therefore 
subject to change, it allowed Heath’s architect to start his layout work and begin working 
toward final drawings.  Transcript at 16-17, 84; Exhibit 1.1. 
November 2002 - April 2003 
Summary 
In order to obtain a permit to construct the building shell, the lessor needed drawings 
which showed building elevations, the footprint of the building, the foundation, the structural 
steel, the roof, and wall type section details.  Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing drawings 
were not needed in order to obtain the shell building permit.  
Ms. Snipes worked with the lessor’s architect to refine her October 29 drawing.  She 
gave him what she called a “proposed final plan” on December 14, 2002, after which she 
began working on the telecommunications and electric plans. The configuration of the space 
in mid-December was much the same as shown on the October 29 drawing.  
On February, 14, 2003, the architect produced the drawings the lessor needed to 
obtain a shell building permit. On March 10, the lessor applied for a shell building permit 
and encountered delays in obtaining the permit due to a problem with the legal description 
of the property.  
In March and April, Ms. Snipes provided information regarding tenant improvements 
such as finishes, systems furniture, a reflected ceiling plan, lighting, telecommunications and 
electric locations, and the buildout of the TAC area.  The lessor obtained its shell building 
permit on April 23.  
Details 
In order to obtain a shell building permit, Heath needed construction drawings 
showing building elevations, the footprint of the building, the foundation, the structural 
steel, the roof, and wall type sections.  Transcript at 17-18, 75, 83.  Mechanical, electrical, 
and plumbing drawings were not needed in order to obtain a permit and begin construction 

    
   
 
  
    
 
   
 
 
 
 
            
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
         
    
9 CBCA 397 
of the shell. Transcript at 76-79.  A drawing showing furniture locations was not needed in 
order to obtain a shell building permit and begin construction.  Transcript at 86.  Ms. Snipes 
and Heath’s architect understood the development of drawings is a continuing process. 
Typically, details will be added and changes will be made until final drawings are produced. 
Transcript at 49-50, 309-10.
  Even after the permitting process begins, changes can be made 
to drawings.  Exhibit 96 at 21-22.  
On November 1, in response to a question from Heath’s architect, Ms. Snipes sent 
her October 29 drawing to Heath, GSA, and Heath’s architect and outlined in bold pen the 
blocks which would require full-height partition walls.  These blocks included building shell 
components, such as the restrooms, the janitor’s closet, and other service areas, as well as 
some tenant improvements. Full-height walls were not shown around two areas labeled “tax 
compliance” and “interview,” and a handwritten note showed these areas would receive 
systems furniture panels.  Ms. Snipes told Heath, GSA, and Heath’s architect that although 
the October 29 drawing was a draft, she did not expect the interior walls would change very 
much.  Exhibit 14; Transcript at 310-11.  
On November 4, Heath’s architect provided Ms. Snipes with a drawing which 
contains the partition walls shown on Ms. Snipes’s November 1 drawing and the restrooms 
shown on her October 29 drawing.  The November 4 drawing also shows recessed 
vestibules. Like Ms. Snipes’s October 29 drawing, the architect’s November 4 drawing 
blocked out the space and showed the locations and relative sizes of the rooms.  Unlike 
Ms. Snipes’s drawing, the architect’s November 4 drawing did not contain dimensions of 
any rooms.  Exhibits 13, 19. 
On November 13, Heath sent GSA a copy of the lease signed by Miller L. Heath III, 
Manager.  Heath had altered the lease, however, to show the lessor of the property in 
Greenville would be MMI Capital, LLC (MMI), not Heath & Associates.  Exhibit 202. 
Subsequently, GSA retyped the lease to show the lessor as MMI Capital, Inc., and the 
contracting officer signed it.  Exhibit 1.1.  The record does not establish why MMI took the 
place of Heath or why MMI took nearly two months after award to sign the lease.  
On November 19, MMI’s architect (formerly referred to as Heath’s architect) 
provided Ms. Snipes with a building elevation drawing, and on November 20, Ms. Snipes 
had a discussion with MMI regarding building elevation drawings.  They discussed the 
number of windows planned for the building, the style of the windows, the exterior finish 
colors, and possible HVAC issues which might arise because of the placement of the 
windows. On November 21, MMI’s architect sent Ms. Snipes four elevation drawings of 
the building MMI intended to build in Greenville. These drawings showed the locations of 
doors, a few exterior colors, and the locations and styles of windows.  On November 21, 

    
   
  
  
 
   
 
 
 
 
     
 
      
 
 
  
  
     
 
10 CBCA 397 
Ms. Snipes told MMI’s architect she would appreciate receiving a shell drawing which 
showed the size of the telecommunications room as ten feet by ten feet, interior access to the 
electrical closet, a water fountain outside the men’s room, and the removal of walls in two 
areas (labeled “tax compliance” and “interview”) which her November 1 drawing showed 
would receive systems furniture instead of being enclosed by partition walls.  Ms. Snipes 
said once she received the drawing, she would insert all workstations, furniture, and 
equipment into the drawing and circulate it for approval, and then she could proceed to work 
on telecommunications and electric locations.  On November 25, she pointed out to MMI’s 
architect the sections of the lease which explained which components of the shell needed 
permanent partitions.  She also said the entrance to the public restroom needed to be moved 
from the TAC area to the vestibule.  Exhibits 13, 16, 203.  Also on November 25, 
Ms. Snipes sent GSA, MMI, and MMI’s architect a set of guidelines for mailrooms and 
asked to what extent it would be possible to adhere to the guidelines at a reasonable cost. 
One of the guidelines concerned how mailrooms ought to be ventilated.  Exhibit 17.  
On November 26, Ms. Snipes contacted MMI’s architect and told him IRS national 
standards required specific finishes in interior office spaces.  She provided him with 
examples of the specific products needed for carpet tile, vinyl carpet tile, quarry tile, and 
vinyl wall coverings.  She said she would provide additional information soon.  She again 
asked for a revised shell drawing so she could complete her final furniture plan.  Exhibit 13. 
On November 27, MMI’s architect prepared a dimensioned drawing of the building shell. 
It appears he sent this drawing to Ms. Snipes because this same day, she told him the 
managers’ offices, the conference room, and the file room needed to be larger, a door needed 
to be added to the copy room, what had up until then been labeled the mailroom needed to 
become the interview room, and what had been labeled the interview room needed to 
become the mailroom. She sent him a drawing marked with these changes.  Exhibits 18, 20, 
104; Transcript at 311-12. 
At the end of November, Ms. Snipes believed the floor plan was progressing toward 
becoming final.  She planned to hold a project team meeting in mid-December and then 
circulate the final plan within IRS for approval.  When the final plan was circulating, she 
expected to begin work on the construction drawings, including electric and 
telecommunications penetrations.  She understood MMI planned to begin construction of 
the building shell in January 2003.  Exhibit 13.  
On December 2, Ms. Snipes sent MMI’s architect a portion of a drawing to show him 
how the file room could be extended.  Exhibit 23.  MMI’s architect sent Ms. Snipes a 
computer file containing a drawing on December 3. Although the first file the architect sent 
was blank, when Ms. Snipes called this to his attention he promptly sent another file which 
Ms. Snipes was able to open and use after she changed the drawing’s scale.  A few hours 

  
 
  
 
 
    
      
 
  
   
  
     
 
 
 
   
 
11 CBCA 397 
later, Ms. Snipes told MMI’s architect she needed his revised drawing which showed the 
changes to the public restroom, the conference room, and the file room, among others. 
Apparently, the architect provided Ms. Snipes with a new drawing, because on December 4, 
she told him the drawing did not show the change to the entrance to the public restroom. 
Exhibit 21. 
Ms. Snipes provided a “proposed final plan” to MMI’s architect on approximately 
December 14.  This plan shows doors, windows, interior walls, restrooms, and service areas, 
as well as furniture and workstations.  Exhibits 1, 26.  Although this plan is not exactly the 
same as Ms. Snipes’s October 29 drawing, the two are not altogether different.  The 
configuration of the TAC area had not changed since October 29.  The locations of the 
interior rooms had not changed, although the relative sizes of some rooms were different 
from the sizes shown on the October 29 drawing. The workstations were nearly all in the 
same places, although some had been rotated in a direction different from the direction they 
faced in the October 29 drawing.  Exhibits 10, 26.   
In January, Ms. Snipes understood MMI intended to begin construction of the shell 
in February.  Exhibit 1.  By late January or early February 2003, Ms. Snipes had completed 
a final floorplan layout. The differences between this plan and the December 14 proposed 
final plan were minor:  two sets of workstations had been moved so they abutted one 
another, and two other workstations were reconfigured, but  not moved.  In late January, 
Ms. Snipes told MMI she was working on the telecommunications and electric plans. 
Exhibits 26, 104, 205. 
By February 4, 2003, Ms. Snipes had added telecommunications and electric 
locations to her final floorplan layout. Exhibits 31, 32; Transcript at 347.  On February 5, 
Ms. Snipes sent the proposed plan to IRS’s telecommunications staff  and MMI’s architect 
for review.  She told MMI’s architect to note that IRS did not plan to use power poles to 
distribute power to workstations located in open areas, which meant telecommunications and 
electric service for workstations located in open areas needed to be run in the floor ducts. 
Ms. Snipes asked the architect to let her know if he had any concerns or suggestions. 
Exhibit 33. 
On approximately February 7, Ms. Snipes circulated the final floor plan layout for 
approval within the IRS.  Exhibit 34.  A few days later, MMI 
met with construction 
contractors to solicit bids for constructing the shell. MMI told Ms. Snipes that in order for 
the City of Greenville to approve MMI’s plans, the interior walls would have to be removed 
from the drawings.  Exhibit 30; Transcript at 318-19.    

 
  
    
         
 
  
   
 
  
  
 
  
    
    
 
 
             
 
 
12 CBCA 397 
On February 14, MMI’s architect produced architectural drawings A-1 through A-8 
and structural drawings S-1 through S-7.  Drawing A-1 shows a floor plan of the building, 
including exterior doors and windows, the dimensions of the rooms including those for the 
service areas, placement of interior walls, doors and windows, toilets, wall type sections, a 
door schedule, and a finish schedule which shows the types of finish materials to be used. 
Drawing A-2 is a reflected ceiling plan; A-3 is a roof plan; and A-4 shows elevations. 
Drawings A-5 and A-6 show wall sections and plan sections, and A-7 and A-8 show various 
other construction details.  The structural drawings show the plans for a slab-on-grade 
building, including a foundation plan, a roof framing plan, framing elevations, a roof deck 
plan, and section details.  The structural drawings were sealed by a structural engineer on 
February 17.  Although Drawing A-1 contains more detail than did Ms. Snipes’s original 
October 29 drawing, the configuration of the interior space was nearly the same on both 
drawings.  Exhibits 10, 104. 
On February 19, Ms. Snipes contacted MMI’s architect regarding the proposed 
telecommunications and electric plan which she had sent to him on February 5.  Specifically, 
she asked how he was planning to run and route conduit for cabling. She said the IRS 
telecommunications staff wanted to know whether he was planning to route conduit in the 
floor between the telecommunications closet and workstations in open areas, or whether he 
was planning to route this conduit over the ceiling, down the walls, and into the floor. 
Ms. Snipes told MMI’s architect the IRS telecommunications staff suggested the latter route, 
the one from the ceiling, might be less costly.
1   Exhibit 30. 
In mid-February, the telecommunications and electric plans were circulating within 
the IRS. Ms. Snipes told another IRS employee that the basic floor plan layout had not 
changed much since early November 2002, and the final plan was very close to the plan 
which was circulated in mid-December.  Exhibit 30.  The exhibits contained in the record 
support her statement.  The final plan was very close to the one Ms. Snipes blocked out on 
October 29, 2002.  Exhibits 14, 26, 32. 
1 In a building with a concrete floor, such as the one MMI planned to construct, 
telecommunications and electric conduit can be run in the walls, above the ceiling, or in 
raceways (ducts) in the concrete slab. Transcript at 30-31.  If conduit is to be run in 
raceways to workstations, it is necessary to know where the workstations will be located in 
order to determine where the raceways will be located, and this needs to be determined 
before concrete is poured. Transcript at 30-31, 332-33. MMI constructed its building so the 
conduit running to workstations located in open areas was run through raceways in the slab 
and other conduit was run in other locations.  Transcript at 332. 

      
 
 
   
    
  
            
 
     
  
  
    
   
    
  
 
 
   
     
13 CBCA 397 
After discussions with MMI, furniture vendors, and the IRS data and 
telecommunications staff, Ms. Snipes sent GSA, MMI, and MMI’s architect floor plans 
showing telecommunications and electric locations on February 25 and 26.  Ms. Snipes said 
she believed this completed the telecommunications and electric plans.  Exhibits 30, 40. 
On February 28, Ms. Snipes sent MMI and MMI’s architect information about the 
systems furniture, made by Knoll, which would be installed in the office space.  The 
information included details regarding how power would be supplied to the furniture. 
Exhibits 42, 43. She also sent MMI and its architect information regarding a containment 
hood for ventilating the mailroom and said IRS was interested in such a hood.  Exhibit 204. 
On March 5, Ms. Snipes provided MMI and its architect with an example of a 
reflected ceiling plan for the TAC area.  This plan shows a bulkhead in the ceiling of the 
TAC area. Exhibit 47. She also provided details regarding two changes to the 
telecommunications and electric plan, the first of which deleted a receptacle and the second 
of which moved a receptacle.  Also on March 5, Ms. Snipes provided MMI’s project 
engineer with a typical reflected ceiling plan showing IRS national office standards for 
lighting. Exhibits 44, 46.  By March 5, Ms. Snipes had collected all of the necessary 
approvals within IRS for the final floor plan.  Exhibits 44, 104.  
By March 6 or 7, MMI’s project engineer had completed his mechanical, electrical, 
and plumbing drawings. The project engineer told Ms. Snipes that although the process of 
obtaining a permit would begin, the drawings could be changed to suit IRS’s needs.  He 
expected to prepare final drawings based upon discussions with MMI and IRS.  On March 7, 
the project engineer gave Ms. Snipes a list of the outstanding engineering issues which 
needed to be resolved.  Specifically, he asked whether any special ventilation was needed 
for the conference room, and he posed several questions about the mailroom containment 
hood.  Also, he told Ms. Snipes he needed copies of drawings which showed electrical and 
voice/data outlets, because the copies he had were of poor quality.  He also asked for a clean 
copy of the information regarding the systems furniture wiring.  He gave Ms. Snipes a copy 
of the reflected ceiling plan which he said had been prepared to obtain a permit and asked 
her to let him know what reflected ceiling plan she wanted.  Finally, he asked Ms. Snipes 
for a drawing of the layout of the building in AutoCAD format.  Exhibits 44, 96 at 21-22. 
The same day, Ms. Snipes responded to his questions about the reflected ceiling plan and 
said several items shown on the plan could be eliminated.  She also responded to his 
questions about the conference room and provided him with the February 4 approved 
furniture layout showing telecommunications and electric penetrations. She said she would 
give him the remaining information, which concerned the office systems furniture and the 
hood in the mailroom, on March 12.  Exhibit 44. 

 
   
 
  
   
  
    
 
 
 
    
 
 
  
   
 
 
 
 
   
14 CBCA 397 
On March 10, MMI submitted some of its February 14 drawings to the City of 
Greenville to obtain a permit to construct the shell of the building.  Obtaining a permit 
usually takes two to three weeks.  Transcript at 78-80, 85, 88; Exhibit 100.  
Ms. Snipes contacted MMI several times to ask about its progress toward obtaining 
a building permit for the shell.  Transcript at 318-19.  In early March, Ms. Snipes asked 
MMI’s project engineer whether a shell building permit had been obtained.  The project 
engineer told Ms. Snipes he did not know the status of the permit and suggested she check 
with MMI.  He then told MMI of Ms. Snipes’s inquiry and said he had “dodged the issue” 
when he answered her question. Ms. Snipes recalled that in March or April, MMI told her 
there was a delay in obtaining a permit because the legal description of the property had to 
be changed.  Exhibit 96 at 21; Transcript at 319-20. 
On March 12, Ms. Snipes met with MMI, MMI’s architect, MMI’s project engineer, 
IRS telecommunications personnel, and GSA.  One topic of discussion was 
telecommunications cabling.  Also discussed were lighting and options for ventilating the 
mailroom.  MMI said it would provide information concerning the cost of installing a 
containment hood and the cost of an alternate means of ventilating the room.  At this 
meeting, Ms. Snipes provided copies of the approved workstation layout, the proposed 
design intent plan showing telecommunications and electrical information, and furniture 
product specifications for Knoll systems furniture for the office area and Herman Miller 
systems furniture for the TAC area.  MMI’s project engineer agreed to provide a plan within 
a few days, showing the number of electrical circuits to be installed. IRS agreed to verify 
dimensions for floor penetrations for telecommunications and electric needs. Ms. Snipes 
provided information about finish requirements and MMI’s architect stressed that IRS 
needed to provide information for all finishes as soon as possible so MMI could develop 
detailed project cost estimates. Exhibits 4.1, 44, 50, 104. 
On March 18, Ms. Snipes circulated telecommunications and electric plans within the 
IRS for review.  Exhibit 51.  On March 19, she sent MMI, its architect, and its engineer 
drawings to which she had added dimensions for certain areas and notes regarding moving 
the locations for wall power and telecommunications in one area.  She also told them new 
systems furniture was going to be purchased for two managers’ offices and showed on a 
drawing where an electrical box would be needed for the furniture.  She sent another 
drawing which asked MMI’s architect a few questions and which said that, after talking with 
him, she agreed it would make construction easier if drywall were used in the small 
conference room.  One of Ms. Snipes’s questions concerned how to eliminate an area of 
dead space which ran the length of one office.  Exhibit 52.  She asked her question about the 
dead space again on March 27.  Exhibit 54.  

 
 
    
  
      
 
    
  
 
  
 
  
        
           
    
 
      
  
 
 
   
15 CBCA 397 
MMI signed a contract with C.A. Lewis on March 20, for construction of the shell 
and the tenant improvements.  Exhibits 6.1, 96 at 16, 23. 
On April 1, Ms. Snipes sent MMI’s architect information regarding several items they 
had discussed earlier in the day regarding the buildout of the office space.  She sent this 
same information to GSA and MMI. The information concerned using plywood to reinforce 
the walls in the two managers’ offices, adding one telecommunications/data penetration, 
adding sound insulation to the conference room walls, using drywall to build out two rooms 
in the TAC area, moving the wall of one room in the TAC area so it was even with a column 
line, and resolving the issue regarding the area of dead space in one office.  She also 
suggested the location and ceiling heights for the bulkhead in the TAC area, as well as the 
lights required for this area, and asked MMI’s architect to give her his thoughts about the 
TAC bulkhead and ceiling.  She said once revisions to the TAC area were made, this would 
complete the changes to the design intent drawings.  Exhibits 56, 58.  It appears MMI’s 
architect made revisions to the floor plan in response to Ms. Snipes’s information and 
provided a revised plan to her on April 2.  On April 4, Ms. Snipes asked MMI and its 
architect to review a set of marked up drawings and to call her to discuss them.  She said 
some of the changes shown on the April 2 revised plan could not be integrated with the 
workstation layout.  Exhibits 59, 104; Transcript at 356-57. 
On April 10, Ms. Snipes told MMI’s architect she had received a plan from him 
which she expected to review soon. Also, she sent him an installation plan for the TAC area 
furniture.  Exhibit 60. The next day, April 11, Ms. Snipes contacted MMI’s architect and 
told him the width of two of the areas to be enclosed in the TAC needed to be reduced in 
order to accommodate the installation of workstation furniture shown on the plan which she 
sent him on April 10. Ms. Snipes thought reducing the width of the rooms meant the doors 
from the vestibule into the TAC would have to be moved approximately one foot so the edge 
of the tile floor would run straight from the doors to the walls of the rooms.  Exhibit 61.  
On April 11, Ms. Snipes told another IRS employee that construction was supposed 
to begin soon.  She said she expected to move into the new space in August.  She also said 
she was working with the architect and MMI to resolve interior construction issues.  Exhibit 
56 at 19. 
On April 15, MMI’s architect completed a revision of architectural drawings A-1 and 
A-2, the floor plan and the reflected ceiling plan.  The revisions consisted of adding a layer 
of plywood in the two managers’ offices, using drywall in the small conference room, 
adding the bulkhead in the TAC area,  using drywall to build out two rooms in the TAC area 
instead of using systems furniture in these rooms and moving the wall of one of these rooms 
so it was even with a column line, resolving the issue regarding the area of dead space in one 

 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
     
  
    
    
 
 
   
  
  
   
16 CBCA 397 
office, and extending the tile floor in the TAC.  The architect’s April 15 drawing also 
changed the size of the HVAC and electrical rooms and moved the door to the electrical 
room, which were not changes suggested by the Government, so far as our record shows. 
Although Ms. Snipes thought the doors from the vestibule into the TAC would have to be 
moved, the April 15 drawing shows they were in the same place they had been since the 
February 14 drawings were completed.  Exhibit 104. 
On April 23, MMI obtained its shell building permit.  Exhibit 96 at 16; Transcript at 
81.  Earlier in April, C.A. Lewis had given Ms. Snipes color charts for exterior brick 
options.  On April 23, Ms. Snipes told MMI which two colors she preferred, but said she 
would defer to the architect’s color preference.  Exhibit 62. 
In late April, Ms. Snipes was working with the IRS interior designer to finalize the 
arrangement of furnishings in the space.  Exhibit 56 at 24.  She contacted MMI’s project 
engineer, who she understood was finalizing his plans, and asked him to look at an attached 
drawing which moved a counter station and which would require adding 
telecommunications and electrical outlets.  Ms. Snipes asked if it was too late to include 
these items in the plans.  If so, she said it would be done as a change order.  In addition, she 
wanted to make sure MMI’s project engineer knew telecommunications and electric outlets 
needed to be changed in the TAC area where the two rooms were to be built out with 
drywall instead of receiving systems furniture.  Exhibits 56 at 26, 65. 
May - September 2003 
Summary 
MMI constructed the building shell and the tenant improvements between May and 
September 2003. During this time, Ms. Snipes requested very few changes.  She told MMI 
three electric receptacles and junction boxes could be eliminated, asked if an ice maker 
connection could be installed in the break room, added a few lights, and provided finish 
information.  Construction was completed within the time MMI and its construction 
contractor expected it to be completed. 
Details 
Mr. Heath testified that MMI’s construction activities themselves were not delayed, 
Transcript at 121, and his testimony is supported by other evidence in the record.  MMI 
expected shell construction would take six weeks and tenant improvements construction 
would take four months, for a total of five and one-half months.  Exhibit 7 at 4.  C.A. Lewis 
expected to take eighteen weeks, or approximately four and one-half months, to complete 

 
 
  
      
 
        
  
 
    
      
 
 
       
  
     
 
 
   
 
 
 
               
 
 
17 CBCA 397 
construction.  Transcript at 91.  C.A. Lewis gave its subcontractors a schedule which showed 
construction would take four months.  Exhibit 96 at 26, 27; Transcript at 90, 97.  As 
explained below, construction began on May 11 or 12 and was completed sometime before 
September 23, for a total construction time of a little more than four months.  
The first construction activity scheduled for the building was digging footings for the 
foundation.  Exhibit 96 at 27.  On May 1, C.A. Lewis told MMI that foundation work for 
the building shell had begun “this week”, and said it needed electrical and lighting 
requirements from IRS in order to prevent delays to the project.  MMI transmitted C.A. 
Lewis’s information to GSA and said the only thing which could delay the project was 
getting the final electrical drawings. MMI told GSA Ms. Snipes was working with MMI’s 
engineer and its architect to complete these drawings.  Exhibit 67.  
On May 7, Ms. Snipes received a set of plans from MMI’s architect.  Unfortunately, 
the plans were contained in a compact disk which was unreadable.  Exhibit 70. 
Although C.A. Lewis said on May 1 that foundation work for the shell began the 
week of May 1, it appears that work actually began later than this.  C.A. Lewis subsequently 
said it began foundation work on May 11, and a chart which tracked C.A. Lewis’s actual 
progress shows foundation work began with digging footings on May 12. Transcript at 89­
91; Exhibit 96 at 16, 27.  We find the foundation work began on May 11 or 12, not May 1. 
On May 19, Ms. Snipes told MMI’s architect that the set of plans (apparently a hard 
copy) she received on May 7 did not contain the electrical plan.  She needed to see the plan 
to make sure it included all of the changes and additions previously discussed.  She had 
reviewed the reflected ceiling plan, noticed it did not include some lights which ought to 
have been included, and told the architect she would again provide information regarding 
these lights.  She also said she was ready to give MMI information regarding interior 
building finishes (carpet, wall coverings, vinyl baseboard, etc.).  This same date, Ms. Snipes 
informed GSA she would not be able to complete her review until she received electrical and 
lighting plans.  Exhibits 71, 72.  
MMI’s architect told Ms. Snipes she ought to contact MMI’s project engineer to 
obtain the electrical plan. Also, he said he would send her another copy of the plans 
contained on the disk.  He suspected the disk he sent to her was blank because of a problem 
with the equipment he used to create the disk.  Exhibit 72. 
C.A. Lewis poured footings on May 19 and 20, and began roughing in the slab on 
May 21.  Exhibit 96 at 27; Transcript at 90.  

   
   
 
 
   
    
 
   
   
 
    
 
 
 
18 CBCA 397 
MMI’s project engineer produced revised plumbing, mechanical, and engineering 
drawings dated May 23.  Exhibits 96 at 4, 104.  This same date, Ms. Snipes sent a 
memorandum to MMI, its architect, and its engineer regarding her review of what she 
thought were the final drawings for the project.  Apparently, she had obtained the electrical 
plan from someone because regarding the plan, she noted that three receptacles needed to 
be shown as dedicated to specific pieces of office equipment, and three junction boxes could 
be eliminated due to changes made to furniture for the managers’ offices.  Regarding the 
reflected ceiling plan, she noted four areas, two of which she had mentioned previously, 
where a few lights needed to be added.  The plans showing interior wall locations were fine, 
and the plumbing plans were fine, except the IRS asked that an ice maker connection be 
added in the employee break room. For the most part, the plan for the doors was correct. 
Ms. Snipes provided additions to the finish schedule. She also had a few questions about 
the handicapped employees’ restroom.  Exhibit 73. 
On May 27, C.A. Lewis received the revised plumbing, mechanical, and electrical 
drawings from MMI’s project engineer.  C.A. Lewis said it would begin to implement the 
changes immediately and would let MMI know about additional costs and impact to the 
schedule.  Also, C.A. Lewis asked MMI to forward any IRS comments regarding the 
architectural drawings.  Exhibit 96 at 24. 
C.A. Lewis began setting structural steel on May 28.  Exhibit 96 at 27; Transcript at 
90. 
On May 29, C.A. Lewis gave its subcontractors a construction schedule and asked 
them to arrange to meet it.  The schedule showed construction had begun with digging 
footings on May 12, and would end with punch list items being taken care of between 
September 10 and September 12.  Exhibit 96 at 26, 27; Transcript at 90, 97.  
On June 5, C.A. Lewis told MMI it needed a revised set of architectural drawings to 
show the bulkhead in the TAC area and the use of drywall to build out two rooms in the 
TAC area.  C.A. Lewis said the plumbing, mechanical, and electrical drawings contained 
one minor plumbing change for which there would be no price increase.  It said it was 
proceeding with installing floor boxes, but was not proceeding with other electrical changes 
shown on the project engineer’s drawings until MMI confirmed that the changes were 
required.  The other electrical changes C.A. Lewis mentioned were requirements for a cable 
tray, an isolated grounding system, and light fixture changes.  Requirements for isolated 
grounding and cable trays were contained in the lease.  C.A. Lewis told MMI it had received 
a price quote of a few hundred dollars for minor HVAC changes related to the file room. 
It also said color selections were needed soon in order to avoid delays.  Exhibits 1.1 at 
¶¶ 6.11, 6.14, 208. 

   
    
  
     
       
   
 
   
 
 
   
   
        
  
 
  
19 CBCA 397 
On June 5, Ms. Snipes told the IRS telecommunications staff the electrical contractor 
wanted to know whether it would be acceptable to use a type of floor box for electrical and 
telecommunications receptacles as a substitute for the floor box which was specified.  She 
said she needed a response as soon as possible. Exhibit 75.  The next day, Ms. Snipes told 
MMI the substitute boxes were acceptable.  Exhibit 76. 
C.A. Lewis began pouring the slab on June 6.  Exhibit 96 at 27; Transcript at 90. 
Usually, C.A. Lewis pours a building’s slab before it erects the structural steel.  The project 
manager for C.A. Lewis recalled that, in this instance, C.A. Lewis erected the steel first and 
waited to pour the slab until it received mechanical, electrical, and plumbing drawings. 
Transcript at 79.  
On June 10, 11, and 12, Ms. Snipes provided MMI and MMI’s architect with more 
interior finish information.  She asked the architect to let her know his preferences and said 
she would then prepare a “finish board” for MMI.  Exhibits 74, 77.  On June 12, she 
provided the architect with a suggestion regarding the handicapped employees’ restroom and 
asked if he thought her suggestion was feasible.  Exhibit 78.  
On June 11, C.A. Lewis began framing the walls, and on June 12, some of the 
electrical rough-in work had been approved.  Exhibits 96 at 27, 100; Transcript at 90.  
Between June 17 and June 26, MMI and C.A. Lewis were negotiating the price for 
changes to the construction work which C.A. Lewis was performing.  The changes were 
needed to provide the material, equipment, and labor necessary to effect revisions to the 
April 15 architectural drawings and the May 23 plumbing, mechanical, and electrical 
drawings.  Exhibits 6.1 at 4-8, 96 at 5. C.A. Lewis continued framing the walls during this 
time and then began installing the building’s roof. By the end of June, C.A. Lewis began 
its masonry work and roughing in walls and the ceiling.  Exhibit 96 at 27; Transcript at 90. 
On June 25, Ms. Snipes stopped by C.A. Lewis’s offices and picked up a set of plans 
which had been set aside for her to review.  Although Ms. Snipes did not realize it, the plans 
which had been set aside for her did not contain the most recent revisions to the plans. 
Exhibit 79 at 8.  
On July 9, Ms. Snipes brought to the attention of MMI’s engineer three items which 
she wanted to make sure were included in the plans.  Two of these three items had been 
discussed at the meeting held on March 12, and the third was something she had mentioned 
on May 23.  Subsequently, she learned the plans which she had been given to review were 
not the most recent ones available.  Exhibits 44, 50, 79 at 8, 12. 

  
  
  
  
     
  
 
     
 
 
 
20 CBCA 397 
On July 11, Ms. Snipes explained to MMI’s engineer that she had been given the 
wrong set of plans to review, and said she wanted to make sure the three items she brought 
to his attention on July 9 were included in the most recent set of plans.  MMI’s engineer 
responded by saying he had been making some changes on his drawings and would send a 
copy to her, MMI, C.A. Lewis, and MMI’s architect.  Exhibit 79 at 8, 11.  
On July 15, MMI’s project engineer sent C.A. Lewis and Ms. Snipes revisions to the 
mechanical and electrical drawings.  Exhibit 81. Also on July 15, C.A. Lewis sent 
Ms. Snipes its construction schedule.  The schedule showed the project was progressing 
according to C.A. Lewis’s plan and that construction would be completed in mid-September. 
Exhibit 79 at 17, 18.  
On July 16, Ms. Snipes notified GSA, MMI, C.A. Lewis, MMI’s architect, and 
MMI’s engineer that IRS approved a set of plans dated June 16, provided several items were 
added to the plans.  Most of the items she wished to add concerned finishes, and many of 
the items had been mentioned by Ms. Snipes in the preceding months.  Exhibit 79 at 21.  
On July 18, Ms. Snipes provided C.A. Lewis the names and telephone numbers of 
businesses which could supply the vinyl wallcovering which was supposed to be used in the 
building.  On July 21, one of Ms. Snipes’s colleagues responded to C.A. Lewis, who 
proposed changing the type of interior wall construction to be used for many of the tenant 
improvement walls, as well as the telecommunications room, at no additional cost to the 
Government.  IRS agreed with the proposal.  Exhibit 79 at 36. 
The City of Greenville issued a certificate of occupancy on September 23.  Exhibit 
99.   On December 8, 2003, the parties amended the lease to say its term began on October 1, 
2003, for a maximum of ten years.  Exhibit 1.1 (Supplemental Lease Agreement No. 2). 
The Claim 
On August 26, MMI sent GSA what it called a “budget” for construction, 
architectural, and delay costs.  This document contained monthly profit and loss statements 
of Heath (not MMI) for the five months from November 2002 through March 2003.  These 
statements added expenses for Heath’s accounting fees, administrative salaries, automobile 
expense, liability insurance, medical insurance, interest on loans, penalties, legal fees, 
licenses and permits, dues and subscriptions, office rent, office supplies, postage, payroll 
taxes, and telephones and pagers, and the total of these amounts for each month was 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
       
    
         
   
 
  
  
   
     
   
  
       
    
 
 
21 CBCA 397 
designated in the “budget” as Heath’s monthly overhead costs. 2   For example, the total of 
these amounts shown on the profit and loss statement for November 2002, was $38,463.09. 
In addition, the “budget” document contained a chart labeled “GSA Time/Cost Overruns” 
for each of the six months from November 2002 through April 2003.  Each chart listed four 
projects, one of which was the IRS project in Greenville.
3   Each chart showed the square 
footage of each of the four projects and the total square footage for all four projects.  In 
November 2002, the square footage shown for the IRS project in Greenville was 9999 
square feet and the total square footage for all four projects was 24,855 square feet.  The 
charts allocated a percentage of the monthly overhead costs to each project, according to the 
project’s percentage of the total number of square feet.  For November 2002, the Greenville 
IRS project was 40.23% of the total number of square feet (9999 ÷ 24,855), and the monthly 
overhead costs allocated to the project were $15,473.44 ($38,463.09 x 40.23%). MMI said 
these charts were based upon the “Eichley [sic] Formula.” For each month, the amount of 
the overhead costs allocated to the Greenville IRS project was shown as “Delay Cost.”  The 
total of the amounts shown for November 2002 through April 2003, is $54,925.71.  Exhibit 
6.1.  Mr. Heath explained he based his calculation upon square feet of space and not the 
dollar value of the leases because “there was no income associated with any of [the] projects 
until the government moved in, so I . . . didn’t have a specific figure to use.”  Transcript at 
130.  
So far as our record reflects, the August 26 document which MMI sent to GSA was 
the first notice the contracting officer received that MMI believed it had a claim against the 
Government.  The contracting officer was surprised because he thought the project had gone 
smoothly.  Transcript at 218-19. 
On October 28, 2003, MMI sent an invoice to GSA for $34,877.16, which MMI said 
was the difference between the amount of the tenant improvement allowance and the cost 
of the improvements “with all delay charges.”  MMI also said the $34,877.16 “represents” 
the design, construction, and delay costs detailed in its August 26, 2003 letter. Exhibit 95. 
MMI submitted a claim to GSA on April 12, 2004. MMI said GSA delayed 
providing completed design intent drawings which caused MMI to incur six months of 
unabsorbed overhead costs.  MMI said it used the “Eichley formula” to determine it was 
owed $37,287.  Attached to the claim were charts like those which MMI provided to GSA 
2 The monthly totals do not reflect substantial end-of-year credits given to Heath 
for liability insurance and interest on loans.  Exhibit 6.1. 
3 The chart appears to have mistakenly labeled the IRS project and an SSA 
project. 

  
  
 
  
   
    
 
 
   
 
 
    
 
  
     
  
 
 
22 CBCA 397 
on August 26, 2003.  Where the August 26 charts covered the six months from November 
2002 through April 2003, the charts attached to the claim covered the four months from June 
through September 2003.  Like the August 26 submission, the claim shows costs for Heath, 
not MMI.  Exhibit 10.1. 
When MMI received no contracting officer’s decision regarding its claim, MMI filed 
this appeal.  Exhibits 11.1, 12.1. 
At the hearing, Mr. Heath explained MMI is claiming “delay” costs for overhead and 
“other items where we were standing around waiting [and] trying to get this project moved 
forward.”  Mr. Heath said MMI was standing by from the date the contract was awarded, 
waiting to receive design intent drawings. Although MMI was working on other projects, 
he said, it had to be ready to begin work to prepare drawings as soon as it received design 
intent drawings from GSA or IRS.  Transcript at 120-22. 
Heath owns MMI.  MMI holds title to real estate and Heath performs development 
and construction activities.  The two companies keep separate sets of books.  When asked 
whether the two companies had the same overhead expenses, Mr. Heath responded, 
“They’re fairly transparent because we’re only developing MMI. . . . We’re only actively 
pursuing projects through MMI. . . .” When asked how one can tell which of the claimed 
expenses, all of which are identified in the record as Heath’s expenses, are attributable to 
MMI, Mr. Heath said, “[S]ince [MMI] is a subsidiary. . . . those expenses and incomes 
would then balance back into [sic] directly at the year end.”  He also said the separation 
between the two companies was “mainly for liability purposes” and that the overhead 
expenses of the two companies were exactly the same.  Transcript at 181-83. 
Discussion 
When GSA and MMI entered into the lease, they agreed the term would begin June 1, 
2003, for a maximum of ten years.  The lease term began October 1, 2003, four months later 
than originally planned, for a maximum of ten years.  MMI seeks to recover unabsorbed 
overhead costs which MMI claims resulted from the four-month delay which MMI says was 

  
    
    
 
    
      
 
       
     
 
           
  
   
  
 
23 CBCA 397 
caused by GSA. 4 In order to evaluate MMI’s claim, we look to see when the delay occurred 
and whether MMI has established that GSA is responsible for the delay.  
I.  When Did the Delay Occur? 
On October 2, 2002, Mr. Heath told GSA he expected to construct the building shell 
in six weeks and the tenant improvements in four months, for a total construction time of 
five and one-half months. C.A. Lewis expected construction of the project to take eighteen 
weeks, which is approximately four and one-half months. MMI completed construction of 
the building and the tenant improvements in a little more than four months, beginning 
May 11 or 12, 2003, and finishing in mid-September 2003.  Mr. Heath testified that 
construction was not delayed. Because the construction work took approximately the same 
length of time MMI and its construction contractor expected it to take, there is no basis upon 
which we can conclude the four-month delay to the beginning of the lease term occurred 
after construction began. 
Because there was a four-month delay in beginning the term of the lease and because 
this delay did not occur after MMI began construction, the delay can only have occurred 
after GSA accepted MMI’s offer on September 17, 2002, and before construction began on 
May 11 or 12, 2003. Therefore, we look to see whether the four-month delay which 
occurred before construction began is GSA’s  responsibility. 
II.  Was the Delay GSA’s Responsibility? 
A.  Lack of timely, approved design intent drawings
  MMI contends the four-month delay in beginning the term of the lease occurred, in 
part, because GSA did not provide timely, approved design intent drawings as required by 
the lease.  MMI says GSA’s failure to provide such drawings caused MMI to delay 
construction of the building shell.  Appellant’s Post-Trial Brief at 21-23, 25. 
According to the lease, MMI was responsible for providing a building shell.  GSA 
was responsible for providing design intent drawings in order to show the tenant 
4 In our findings of fact, we explained that until November 13, 2002, MMI did 
not appear to have any involvement in the lease and all of the actions taken on behalf of the 
lessor had been taken by Heath.  In our discussion, we refer exclusively to MMI, the entity 
which entered into the lease and submitted a claim to the contracting officer, regardless of 
whether the events we discuss occurred before, on, or after November 13, 2002.  

 
 
 
 
 
      
 
     
 
     
  
 
  
  
      
 
        
       
 
   
 
    
      
24 CBCA 397 
improvements to be made by MMI within the building shell.  GSA was supposed to provide 
MMI with approved design intent drawings thirty work days after September 17, 2002, 
which was October 30, 2002, and the drawings were supposed to contain enough 
information to allow MMI to prepare construction drawings for the tenant improvements. 
The IRS’ Carol A. Snipes was responsible for developing design intent drawings. 
Not surprisingly, in order to develop these drawings, Ms. Snipes needed to know what space 
she would have available within the building shell for the tenant improvements.  She needed 
a drawing of the shell so she would know the locations and sizes of shell components such 
as restrooms, electrical and mechanical rooms, and columns.  
On October 2, 2002, MMI told GSA it needed to know where all exterior doors and 
windows were to be located, as well as locations, sizes, and configurations for all bathrooms, 
janitorial closets, mechanical closets, and utility closets. However, according to the lease, 
it was not GSA’s responsibility to provide MMI with this information.  Exterior doors, 
windows, bathrooms, janitorial closets, mechanical closets, and utility closets were part of 
the building shell which MMI was responsible for providing.  GSA was responsible for 
providing MMI with design intent drawings which showed the tenant improvements to the 
space within the building shell.  GSA responded to MMI, saying when it received MMI’s 
shell drawings showing service areas and exterior doors and windows, it would forward the 
drawings to IRS which could then begin to lay out the leased space. 
MMI sent Ms. Snipes a drawing on October 8.  The drawing did not show the 
location of windows, restrooms, the mechanical closet, the electrical closet, or other service 
areas. The drawing contained column lines but did not show column widths.  Although 
Ms. Snipes was able to read the drawing, she was not able to plot it to a one-eighth-inch 
scale even though the drawing said it was drawn to this scale.  On October 9, GSA reminded 
MMI that it had previously asked for drawings showing service areas so IRS could proceed 
to lay out its space, and GSA told MMI that IRS could not begin to prepare its space layout 
until it had drawings showing the service areas within the shell.  
On October 11, Ms. Snipes asked MMI’s architect for a properly scaled drawing 
showing restrooms, service areas, and the door to the building.  The architect said he had not 
been asked by MMI to prepare such a drawing and he would have to ask MMI whether he 
should prepare a drawing showing restrooms, HVAC closets, electrical closets, and other 
such areas.  MMI told its architect to tell IRS to decide where it wanted shell components 
to be located.  Because IRS would be using the building and because the building had not 
yet been built, MMI thought IRS might as well decide where the shell components were to 
be located.  Even though MMI, not GSA, was contractually obligated to provide a building 
shell, and even though GSA was not responsible for designing or laying out the components 

  
        
  
   
 
 
   
  
  
  
    
 
 
      
 
      
       
     
    
25 CBCA 397 
of the shell, MMI left it to the Government to establish the locations and relative sizes of the 
building shell components.  
Ms. Snipes prepared a drawing dated October 29, which she called a preliminary draft 
plan. This is the first drawing anyone produced which showed shell components located 
within the rectangular outline of the building shell. The drawing blocked out locations and 
relative sizes of exterior doors, the front vestibule, the public toilet, emergency exits, 
corridors, restrooms, a janitor’s closet, the HVAC room, the telecommunications room, and 
the electrical room.  The drawing contained dimensions for some of the rooms.  These 
features were components of the building shell, not part of tenant improvements to the space 
within the shell.  Ms. Snipes attached a drawing which showed how restrooms were 
configured in another government office.  Ms. Snipes provided this information to MMI 
even though the Government was not responsible for locating, sizing, or designing the 
components of the building shell.  Ms. Snipes’s October 29 drawing also blocked out 
locations and relative sizes of tenant improvements, including two managers’ offices, a 
conference room, a file room, a mail room, two interview rooms, a copier/supply room, a tax 
compliance officer’s room, a break room, and the locations and sizes of workstations and 
office furniture in open spaces. 
On October 30 or 31, the day or the day after GSA was obligated to provide MMI 
with approved design intent drawings which showed the tenant improvements to be made 
by  MMI within the building shell, Ms. Snipes provided MMI with her October 29 drawing. 
This drawing did not meet the lease’s definition of an approved design intent drawing 
because it was not fully dimensioned and did not show telephone and data outlet types and 
locations, specifications needed to calculate electrical and HVAC loads, and finish, color, 
and signage selections.  In addition, the drawing had not been approved by GSA. 
The lack of timely, approved design intent drawings showing tenant improvements 
to leased space could certainly delay a landlord’s construction of tenant improvements 
within leased space.  However, MMI does not contend the lack of approved design intent 
drawings delayed its construction of tenant improvements.  Rather, MMI argues it could not 
“start building a building based on [Ms. Snipes’s October 29] drawing” and “could not get 
a permit based on that drawing.”  Appellant’s Post-Trial Brief at 22.  If MMI expected to 
receive design intent drawings which it could use to obtain a permit and begin constructing 
the building shell, its expectation is not grounded in the terms of the lease.    Although MMI 
used Ms. Snipes’s October 29 drawing as the starting point for developing construction 
drawings for both the shell and the tenant improvements, the lease required MMI to provide 
the building shell.  Because MMI chose to construct a new building, it had to develop 
construction drawings, obtain a permit, and do whatever else was necessary in order to 
provide the shell.  GSA was required to provide design intent drawings which showed tenant 

   
      
 
  
   
  
  
 
 
 
 
      
 
   
 
     
  
    
      
26 CBCA 397 
improvements to the leased space within the shell and which would allow MMI to develop 
construction drawings for the tenant improvements. GSA was not responsible for providing 
design intent drawings which would enable MMI to obtain a permit and construct the 
building shell itself. If MMI’s progress was delayed for four months because the October 
29 drawing could not be used to obtain a permit and begin construction of a building shell, 
GSA was not responsible for the delay. 
In addition, if any part of MMI’s progress was delayed for four months because the 
October 29 drawing was not an approved design intent drawing, MMI is responsible for the 
delay.  On October 30, GSA was not in a position to provide MMI with anything more than 
Ms. Snipes’s October 29 drawing because the only information MMI had provided 
regarding the building shell was a drawing showing a rectangle divided into smaller 
rectangles.  MMI could not reasonably have expected GSA to prepare fully dimensioned 
drawings of tenant improvements to the space within the shell, unless MMI gave GSA a 
scaled drawing of the shell.  MMI could not reasonably have expected GSA to prepare 
drawings which showed details of tenant improvements to be made within the shell, such 
as furniture locations and the accompanying telephone and data outlets, without knowing 
the locations and dimensions of the exterior windows and doors, restrooms, electrical and 
HVAC closets, and other service areas which would occupy space within the shell.  Even 
after GSA told MMI it needed information about the shell in order to lay out the tenant 
improvements within the leased space, MMI did not provide anything in addition to the 
drawing which showed a rectangle divided into smaller rectangles.  Instead, MMI took the 
position that it was up to the Government to determine the locations and sizes of the shell 
components.  
MMI argues it had no obligation to provide GSA with anything more than it did, and 
says whether its drawing contained the information necessary for GSA to perform its 
contractual obligations is irrelevant to the issue presented in this case.  Appellant’s Post-
Trial Brief at 20-21; Appellant’s Post-Trial Reply Brief at 4. However, MMI had an implied 
obligation not to hinder GSA’s ability to perform its contractual responsibilities in a timely 
manner.  Essex Electro Engineers, Inc. v. Danzig , 224 F.3d 1283, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 
Because MMI insisted the Government assume design responsibility for components of 
MMI’s building shell and did not give the Government the information it needed in order 
to prepare timely, approved design intent drawings, GSA is not responsible if the absence 
of such drawings caused a delay to MMI’s progress. 
Finally, MMI says it took a risk by beginning construction of the building shell 
without receiving approved design intent drawings from GSA.  Appellant’s Post-Trial Brief 
at 22-24.  MMI’s position is difficult to understand, given the terms of the lease.  The lease 
required MMI to provide a building shell at its expense and required GSA to provide design 

    
 
   
       
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
  
 
   
  
 
 
  
   
27 CBCA 397 
intent drawings showing the tenant improvements to the leased space within the shell and 
to provide a tenant improvement allowance to reimburse MMI for the cost of the tenant 
improvements. The tenant improvements were supposed to be designed to accommodate 
the building shell, not vice versa. Constructing the building shell without having the design 
intent drawings should have involved no more risk than waiting to begin construction of the 
shell until after receiving the design intent drawings.  
B.  Revisions to draft design intent drawings 
MMI also contends the four-month delay in beginning the term of the lease occurred, 
in part, because the Government’s “continual revisions” to Ms. Snipes’s October 29 drawing 
delayed MMI’s completion of construction drawings, which delayed MMI in obtaining a 
building permit and constructing its building.  Appellant’s Post-Trial Brief at 23-24.  As 
explained above, MMI did not experience a delay after it began construction, so whatever 
drawing revisions were made after construction began did not delay MMI’s progress. 
Therefore, the drawing revisions relevant to MMI’s argument are those made before MMI 
began construction. 
In order to obtain a building permit to construct the shell, MMI needed construction 
drawings which showed building elevations, the footprint of the building, the foundation, 
the structural steel, the roof, and some wall sections.  On October 2, MMI told GSA it would 
complete its shell design and obtain a permit to construct the shell while the Government 
was preparing its tenant improvement drawings.  This was consistent with the terms of the 
lease, because drawings of the components of the building shell did not depend upon MMI 
receiving any information from the Government, which was obligated only to provide 
drawings showing tenant improvements to the leased space within the shell.  The lease said 
the tenant improvements were to be fitted into the building shell, and did not say a building 
had to be constructed, much less constructed around tenant improvements. 
However, instead of completing its shell design and obtaining its building permit 
while the Government prepared its tenant improvement drawings, MMI left it to the 
Government to define the components of the building shell, as well as design the tenant 
improvements.  Ms. Snipes’s October 29 drawing was the first drawing produced by anyone 
which showed the shell as something other than a rectangle divided into smaller rectangles, 
and, although the Government was not responsible for locating and sizing the shell 
components, the October 29 drawing blocked out locations and relative sizes of exterior 
doors, the front vestibule, the public toilet, emergency exits, corridors, restrooms, a janitor’s 
closet, the HVAC room, the telecommunications room, and the electrical room.  The 
drawing also blocked out the locations and relative sizes of tenant improvements, including 
the locations and relative sizes of two managers’ offices, a conference room, a file room, a 

 
 
  
        
  
    
     
 
 
      
 
  
 
 
    
   
      
 
 
  
28 CBCA 397 
mail room, two interview rooms, a copier/supply room, a tax compliance officer’s room, and 
a break room. 
In November, the Government made changes to the October 29 drawing.  These 
changes consisted of changing the relative sizes of some rooms, moving or adding three 
doors, adding a drinking fountain, and trading the position of one room for another.  On 
February 14, 2003, MMI completed the drawings it needed to apply for a permit to construct 
the building shell.  Although MMI’s February 14 floor plan drawing contains more detail 
than did Ms. Snipes’s October 29 drawing, the perimeter of the building and the 
configuration of the interior space were nearly the same on both drawings. 
On March 10, 2003, a little more than three weeks after MMI completed its 
February 14 drawings, it used some of the drawings to apply for a permit to construct the 
building shell. During these three weeks, Ms. Snipes provided MMI with a reflected ceiling 
plan and telephone and electrical plan information.  Although MMI says it needed GSA to 
resolve electrical, HVAC, and telephone issues before MMI could complete its construction 
drawings, Appellant’s Post-Trial Reply Brief at 13, the electrical and mechanical drawings 
were not part of the construction drawings which were needed in order to obtain a permit 
to construct the shell. 
On April 23, 2003, approximately six weeks after MMI applied for its permit to 
construct the building shell, it received its building permit. 
5 Obtaining a permit is usually 
a two-or three-week process.  A problem existed with the legal description of the property, 
however, which caused MMI to take longer than usual to obtain its permit.  MMI began 
construction on May 11 or 12, approximately three weeks after it received the permit.  
Based upon these facts, we cannot conclude the lease term began four months later 
than anticipated because the Government’s revisions to Ms. Snipes’s October 29 drawing 
caused MMI to delay constructing the building shell.  The development of drawings is a 
continuing process, and it is typical for details to be added and changes to be made as final 
drawings are being developed.  The Government suggested some relatively minor revisions 
to the October 29 drawing during November. Revisions made after November and before 
February 14, when MMI produced the drawings it needed in order to apply for a permit to 
construct the shell, changed workstation directions and added telephone and electric 
locations, which did not affect the drawings MMI needed in order to apply for a permit to 
5 A few days earlier, MMI’s project engineer had turned over his mechanical, 
electrical, and plumbing drawings to MMI.  These drawings were not needed in order to 
obtain a permit for construction of the shell. 

    
   
  
 
   
  
   
 
  
 
          
   
    
   
 
 
29 CBCA 397 
construct the shell.  MMI applied for its permit on March 10, using the February 14 
drawings.  Although revisions were made to the February 14 drawings after March 10, the 
revisions were made during the time MMI was waiting to receive its building permit, and 
if any delay was caused by these revisions, it was concurrent with the delay caused by the 
problem with the building permit. 
C. Summary 
The four-month delay to the beginning of the lease term was caused by a combination 
of several factors.  Instead of completing plans for its building shell while the Government 
made decisions about tenant improvements, MMI left it to the Government to produce a 
drawing which showed the relative locations and sizes of the building shell components. 
The Government produced such a drawing on October 29, even though it was responsible 
for designing only the tenant improvements.  MMI did not complete construction drawings 
for the building shell until three and one-half months after it received the October 29 
drawing, and five months after the award of the lease, even though the lease called for the 
tenant improvements to be designed according to the components of the building shell, not 
the other way around.  When MMI completed the construction drawings it needed to apply 
for a permit to construct the building shell, it took more than three weeks to apply for the 
permit.  Instead of taking two or three weeks to obtain a shell building permit, MMI took 
six weeks to obtain a permit due to a problem with the legal description of the property. 
When MMI received its permit, it began construction three weeks later. The facts do not 
establish that the Government’s actions before construction began caused the four-month 
delay to the beginning of the lease term. 
III.  Damages 
Because MMI did not establish that GSA was responsible for a four-month delay to 
the beginning of the lease term, MMI is not entitled to any recovery.  If MMI had been able 
to show GSA was responsible for the delay, whether the provisions of the lease would have 
allowed it to recover the damages it claims is doubtful. According to the lease, if MMI did 
not deliver the premises by the delivery date due to an excusable delay, GSA was supposed 
to extend the delivery date, which it did, and this extension was to be MMI’s “sole remedy.” 
Given our resolution of the merits, we do not need to interpret this clause or consider the 
argument MMI advances in support of its claim for unabsorbed overhead costs or the 
sufficiency of the evidence of the claimed costs.  

__________________________________ 
_______________________________ ___________________________________ 
30 CBCA 397 
Decision 
The appeal is DENIED. 
MARTHA H. DeGRAFF 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
CATHERINE B. HYATT ALLAN H. GOODMAN 
Board Judge Board Judge