MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED:  October 29, 2008 
CBCA 581-R 
HERRE BROS., INC., 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 
Respondent. 
Jason A. Copley and Robert G. Ruggieri of Cohen, Seglias, Pallas, Greenhall & 
Furman, PC, Philadelphia, PA, counsel for Appellant. 
Kenneth B. MacKenzie and Phillipa L. Anderson, Office of the General Counsel, 
Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges HYATT , SHERIDAN , and WALTERS . 
SHERIDAN , Board Judge. 
Appellant has filed a motion for reconsideration and request to amend our decision 
in Herre Bros., Inc. v. Department of Veterans Affairs , CBCA 581, 08-2 BCA ¶ 33,870.  The 
appeal arose out of a dispute Herre Bros., Inc. (Herre Bros.) had with the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (VA), regarding some asbestos abatement and lead paint removal that was 
required under a contract.  We denied the appeal because the asbestos abatement and lead 
paint removal work that Herre Bros. was required to perform was clearly required by the 
terms of the contract.  Familiarity with that decision is presumed.  We deny Herre Bros.’ 
motion for the reasons set forth below. 

    
   
 
 
     
  
 
  
  
  
 
    
  
     
 
      
 
      
           
 
Herre Bros. asserts in its motion that the Board erred in failing to consider important 
evidence that showed that “Herre Bros. was required to perform work not contemplated or 
bargained for by the parties.”  The evidence that was not considered, Herre Bros. asserts, was 
an estimate for the project “which provided clear and convincing support for Herre Bros.’ 
position that the parties never intended nor contemplated that Herre Bros. would be 
responsible for performing the lead paint and asbestos abatement work, to the extent 
required, on the project.”  
The evidence to which Herre Bros. refers is an estimate prepared by Lewicki 
Estimating Services, Inc. (Lewicki).  Appeal File, Exhibit 1.  Lewicki was retained by 
Burdette, Koehler, Murphy & Associates, Inc. (BKM), the architecture/engineering firm the 
VA had used to design the project and prepare the specifications and drawings pertinent to 
the project.  Id. In April 2004, BKM hired Lewicki to provide a cost estimate for the project. 
Id.  This occurred about three months prior to the VA issuing the invitation for bids (IFB), 
which it did on July 8, 2004.  Id ., Exhibit 2.  The document in issue shows that Lewicki 
anticipated that the project would cost approximately $1,995,909.  Id ., Exhibit 1.  
Under the “hazardous material abatement” portion of the estimate, Lewicki listed 
ninety linear feet of pipe insulation as needing to be abated at an estimated unit cost of $20 
per linear foot for an estimated cost of $1800, twenty-seven pieces of pipe fitting insulation 
to be abated at an estimated unit cost of $35 per piece for an estimated cost of $945, lead 
paint removal listed as a lump sum estimated to cost $3000, and abatement monitoring, also 
listed as a lump sum estimated to cost $2500.  Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 2. 
As we noted in our decision, the specifications and drawings set forth the requirement 
for asbestos abatement and lead paint removal, also including the locations and amounts. 
Herre Bros. , 08-2 BCA at 167,662.  Herre Bros. acknowledged that “the instant dispute is 
not over the interpretation of ambiguous contract language.  There is no dispute that the 
specifications include the abatement work.”  Id.  Finding the contract’s asbestos abatement 
and lead paint removal requirements, locations, and amounts to be clear and unambiguous, 
we applied the parol evidence rule to resist looking at extrinsic evidence to vary the 
contract’s clear and unambiguous terms.  Id . (citing Rumsfeld v. Freedom NY, Inc. , 329 F.3d 
1320, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Coast Federal Bank, FSB v. United States , 323 F.3d 1035 (Fed. 
Cir. 2003); HRE, Inc. v. United States , 142 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Sylvania Electric 
Products, Inc. v. United States , 458 F.2d 994, 1005 (Ct. Cl. 1972)).  However, we noted that 
“even if the appellant could overcome the parol evidence rule, it would still not prevail for 
several other reasons.”  Id. We went on to discuss some disputed facts regarding oral 
statements the contracting officer was alleged to have made at the pre-bid conference, finding 
that appellant had failed to prove that the contracting officer had made the statements as 
Herre Bros. indicated.  Id . 

   
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
_____________________________ 
                                                                                                                     
Although we did not state it in the decision, we also considered the Lewicki estimate 
and appellant’s arguments regarding the estimate, prior to issuing the decision.  While the 
Lewicki estimate was put into the record, no compelling documentary or testimonial evidence 
was presented to establish the facts giving rise to the estimate.  Most notably, there were no 
facts addressing how the estimate was derived, what specifications and drawings were used 
to generate the estimate, or whether any hazardous materials abatement related changes were 
made to the specifications or drawings during the three months lapse between the estimate 
and the issuance of the IFB.  On its face, the Lewicki estimate showed that some hazardous 
material abatement was anticipated on the project, albeit less than the amount that was 
ultimately required in the specifications and drawings in the contract as awarded to Herre 
Bros.  In weighing these factors, we judged the Lewicki estimate to be neither probative nor 
relevant to our decision applying the parol evidence rule. 
We considered the Lewicki estimate simply to be more extrinsic evidence that 
appellant was attempting to use to vary the contract’s unambiguous terms.  As we judged the 
Lewicki estimate to be of no probative value, we elected not to discuss the estimate in our 
written decision.  However, the facts and issues presented by this appeal, including the 
Lewicki estimate, were fully and adequately considered in making the decision in this appeal. 
Decision 
The appellant’s motion for reconsideration and to amend our decision in this appeal 
is DENIED . 
PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
CATHERINE B. HYATT RICHARD C. WALTERS 
Board Judge Board Judge