MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED:  August 23, 2024
CBCA 7213-R, 7393-R
ADAPT CONSULTING, LLC,
Appellant,
v.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
Andrew Gillman, Denver, CO; and Nathan McKibben, Patrick B. Kernan, and Joseph
A. Whitcomb of Whitcomb, Selinsky, P.C., Denver, CO, counsel for Appellant.
Michael Converse and David C. Charin, Office of General Counsel, General Services
Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges LESTER, ZISCHKAU, and SULLIVAN.
ZISCHKAU, Board Judge.
Appellant, Adapt Consulting, LLC, seeks reconsideration under Board Rule 26 (48
CFR 6101.26 (2023)) of the Board’s decision of July 22, 2024.  See Adapt Consulting, LLC
v. General Services Administration, CBCA 7213, et al., 24-1 BCA ¶ 38,625.  That decision
sustained Adapt’s challenge of a partial termination for default of its contract and granted in
part certain monetary claims.  Familiarity with the decision is presumed.  In its
reconsideration motion, Adapt argues that we improperly denied it compensation on its
“fault/fault clear” investigation claim (Claim F) based on an erroneous determination that
Adapt had not provided the underlying substantiating documentation necessary to support
its claim.  We find Adapt’s arguments mistaken and therefore deny reconsideration.


CBCA 7213-R, 7393-R 2
Discussion
Regarding our decision on quantum for Claim F, we found that Adapt failed to
properly support its claimed hours with time entries, daily logs, or other contemporaneous
substantiating documentation.  In a footnote in our decision, we noted that although Adapt
had submitted (in response to a post-hearing Board order requesting supplementation of the
record) a spreadsheet with time entries, dates, and hours, we declined to consider this post-
hearing documentation because it was not produced to GSA during discovery, and GSA did
not have an opportunity to cross-examine Adapt’s program manager during the hearing on
this documentation.  Adapt Consulting, LLC, 24-1 BCA at 187,764 n.2. 
In its motion for reconsideration, Adapt claims that GSA was in possession of the
“above referenced spreadsheet since at least November 4, 2020.”  Adapt states that it sent an
email to the GSA contracting officer on November 4, 2020, with a document titled “COR-
09_R2_actuals_201104.pdf” attached and that later the same day it sent GSA contracting
staff another email, with the spreadsheet “COR 9 Time Accounting.xlsx” attached.  Adapt
argues that GSA was responsible for adding this document to the appeal file, and its
exclusion from the appeal file was inadvertent and harmless.  Adapt further argues that GSA
was not prejudiced by this inadvertent error because GSA had possession of the spreadsheet
since November 2020.
Adapt is mistaken.  The spreadsheets Adapt refers to relate to Claim C and its change
order request (COR) number 9, which concerned the replacement of existing conduit
involving fishing wires through the wall cavities in lieu of using existing undersized conduit. 
The November 4, 2020, email from Adapt’s project manager confirms this when she states
in the body of the email that she is attaching “COR #9, Revision 2 with Adapt’s retrospective
actual costs for the fish-wire activities.”  The spreadsheet that Adapt submitted post-hearing,
which relates to Claim F, is titled “EPA AC FFC Effort Summary Spreadsheet (version 1).”
What we wrote in our decision about this document remains unchallenged by Adapt, namely,
that this spreadsheet of time entries for the fault/fault clear investigation was not provided
to GSA during discovery and was not included in the Board’s record prior to the hearing. 
Thus, GSA did not have an opportunity to cross-examine its author during the hearing.
Decision
Adapt’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
  Jonathan D. Zischkau    
JONATHAN D. ZISCHKAU
Board Judge

CBCA 7213-R, 7393-R 3
We concur:
   Harold D. Lester, Jr.        Marian E. Sullivan         
HAROLD D. LESTER, JR. MARIAN E. SULLIVAN
Board Judge Board Judge