GRANTED IN PART:  July 22, 2024
CBCA 7213, 7393
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, challenges a partial termination for default of its
contract by respondent, the General Services Administration (GSA), and seeks $220,870.85
for claims arising under the contract and an unpaid contract balance.  We conclude that GSA
has failed to justify its termination for default, which is at issue in CBCA 7213, and that
Adapt is entitled to recover $97,907.41 (which includes the remaining unpaid contract
balance), plus applicable interest, under the affirmative monetary claims at issue in
CBCA 7393.


CBCA 7213, 7393 2
Background
On February 4, 2020, GSA awarded Adapt a contract to modernize existing security
systems at building 25 of the Denver Federal Center (DFC), occupied by GSA’s tenant, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  The modernization included updating the existing
EPA physical access control system (PACS) to comply with current EPA security
regulations.  The PACS includes three broad components:  access control, security cameras,
and intrusion detection systems.  Regarding the access controls, the updated PACS was to
consist of card readers on interior and exterior doors, request to exit (REX) devices, on-site
controllers, and associated equipment.
Adapt’s work on the PACS was part of a wider renovation effort being undertaken at
the EPA facility.  Preceding and occurring simultaneously to Adapt’s project, building 25
was being renovated to consolidate multiple lab facilities and to implement a backup data
center within the building space.  The prime contractor for the building consolidation process
was Swinerton Builders.  Part of this process involved converting warehouse space into
laboratory space, which required, among other things, the construction of new doors within
the facility.  For the new doors, Swinerton was responsible for constructing the door
infrastructure, including running conduit and installing door hardware.
Adapt’s contract specifications required it to procure all equipment and software
necessary to provide the PACS solution for each door and to integrate the PACS with the
EPA’s existing HQ enterprise C-Cure 9000 software system.  The specifications required
Adapt to install Cheetah SE card readers at approximately 110 locations in building 25 in
accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications, the National Electrical Code, local codes,
and commercial best practices.  For most of the doors, Adapt replaced existing door readers. 
For the new doors installed as part of the renovation, Adapt installed new card readers. 
Adapt was required to maintain under warranty all system components of the PACS system
for one year after project completion.  Because the enterprise PACS was to be established
as a client to the EPA HQ enterprise C-Cure 9000 system, Adapt was not required to acquire
access control or visitor management software.  Instead, the C-Cure system was “strictly
managed and controlled by the Government” through EPA’s contracted PACS system
administrator, M.C. Dean.
Adapt, at GSA’s request, subcontracted with Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) to handle
a large portion of the PACS installation.  JCI’s affiliate company, Software House, is the
manufacturer of the enterprise C-Cure software system into which EPA’s new PACS was to
be integrated.
On February 20, 2020, the parties conducted a kickoff meeting, and GSA issued the
notice to proceed.  Adapt’s supervisory team during contract performance consisted of Lisa

CBCA 7213, 7393 3
Lowery, the program manager; Jennifer Howell, the project manager; and Tom Lowery, the
superintendent and construction manager.  Contract performance was originally scheduled
to conclude on August 6, 2020, but GSA issued several modifications over the course of the
contract, ultimately extending the contract performance period to October 22, 2020.  As
Adapt and its subcontractors neared the completion of its work, GSA and EPA conducted
card reader testing on October 19 and 20, 2020.  On October 22, 2020, the parties completed
a final punch list inspection.  Adapt demobilized from the site on October 23, 2020.
Fault/Fault Clear Issue
On November 24, 2020, Steven Peltier, the PACS system administrator responsible
for monitoring the EPA’s C-Cure system, emailed Adapt indicating that the C-Cure system
was reporting a series of faults at some of the access doors, which were followed within
milliseconds by a clearing of the fault state.  The parties refer to these occurrences as the
“fault / fault clear” (F/FC) issue.  The email included data logs for the period of
November 16 through 23, 2020.  The Cheetah card readers have sensors that monitor the
level of electronic resistance (measured in ohms) in the circuit.  The C-Cure system installed
on the card readers was programmed to recognize different levels of resistance at different
door states:  1000 ohms (normal), 500 or 2000 ohms (alert), and greater than 30,000 ohms
(door open).  When the card reader detected ohm levels outside the prescribed range of
values, it would send a “fault” message.  When it once again detected one of the defined ohm
levels, it would send a “fault clear” message.  The multiple F/FC messages indicated that the
system was detecting a deviation in the ohm level outside the prescribed value and then,
immediately thereafter, the restoration of a prescribed level and the clearing of the fault state.
The parties first discussed the F/FC occurrences in a November 25, 2020, Owner-
Architect-Contractor (OAC) meeting.  There, GSA directed Adapt to investigate the F/FC
messages.  On November 30, 2020, Adapt had a JCI technician, David Gose, visit the site
to inspect the door access and REX devices and conduct initial field testing to re-create the
F/FC messages.  Mr. Peltier directed Mr. Gose to devices that were reporting F/FC messages,
and Mr. Gose disassembled the devices and checked for damage to the internal cabling,
damage to the external cable routing, mis-wiring, ground faults, and other physical damage
to the devices.  Mr. Gose found no physical issues with the devices or the wiring and cabling. 
Mr. Gose was only able to recreate the faults when the fixed leaf of some of the double doors
was “unpinned.”  Some of the doors installed with Cheetah card readers were double-door
assemblies designed so that one door unlocks by use of an access badge while the other door
is a “fixed leaf.”  “Unpinning” refers to the practice where the fixed leaf door was unpinned
from the frame, allowing workers and staff members to enter or exit the space without
swiping a badge.  As demonstrated in the written record and in the testimony of Adapt and
agency witnesses, unpinning doors was common practice among EPA personnel.

CBCA 7213, 7393 4
Adapt received a second data set from Mr. Peltier covering the period of November 24
through December 1, 2020, in which Adapt and JCI searched for patterns or commonalities
between door faults and existing conditions in the field.  Adapt also consulted with a door
expert.  During the December 2, 2020, OAC meeting, Adapt suggested the excessive give
in some of the doors (e.g., where door frames are not plumb) could be causing the F/FC
messages.  Adapt analyzed a third data set from Mr. Peltier covering the period of
December 3 through 11, 2020.
During the December 9, 2020, OAC meeting, Adapt suggested the possibility of
individuals pulling on doors prior to swiping cards for entry and a need potentially to install
stronger door contact magnets.  Adapt received a fourth data set with F/FC messages
covering December 28 to 31, 2020.  During the January 6, 2021, OAC meeting, Adapt
disclosed that they had found a pattern emerge correlating the F/FC messages to the
unpinning of double leafed doors.  Specifically, Adapt described a correlation between F/FC
occurrences and work being performed on the lab consolidation project within building 25,
which included commissioning of the building’s HVAC system.  Adapt confirmed that it was
“common practice” for the onsite contractor team to unpin the small leaf of a door while the
workers were performing duties.  Adapt indicated that ninety percent of the F/FC messages
corresponded with these commissioning activities.
During the OAC meeting of January 13, 2021, Adapt suggested, based on
recommendations by JCI and Software House, that the debounce setting, a time buffer
provided to allow the door to settle into the closed position, be increased.  Increased
sensitivity in the measuring tools was additionally raised as a potential cause of the errors
during the January 20, 2021, OAC meeting.
On January 29, 2021, JCI technicians performed a second site visit and tested resistor
packs at the doors.  The resistor pack readings were within the manufacturer’s tolerances and
therefore were ruled out by JCI as the cause of the errors.  Additionally, Software House
technical support was contacted to change the debounce setting from 0 to 10 milliseconds at
three doors to test its impact on the errors.  During the OAC meeting of February 3, 2021,
Adapt provided an update to GSA and EPA about the January 29 testing.  During an OAC
meeting a week later, Adapt requested additional activity log data in order to analyze the
impact of the January 29 testing.  A fifth data set for the period of February 3 through 10,
2021, was provided to Adapt for analysis.  At the February 17, 2021, OAC meeting, Adapt
informed GSA that it had provided the data to JCI for input from JCI’s engineers.  Adapt
indicated that changing the debounce setting did not eliminate the errors, even though it
seemed to reduce the quantity or frequency of the errors.
On February 25, 2021, Adapt and JCI performed a third site visit.  During this site
visit, they tested the shield grounding and found that it was all properly grounded.  During

CBCA 7213, 7393 5
the March 3, 2021, OAC meeting, Adapt requested additional activity log data in order to
analyze the impact of the February 25 testing.  A sixth data set for the period of February 26
through March 5, 2021, was provided to Adapt for analysis.  During the March 17, 2021,
OAC meeting, Adapt informed GSA that none of the February 25 testing had any impact,
ruling out grounding as the cause of the F/FC occurrences.
On March 16, 2021, GSA issued a substantial completion letter, which excepted the
F/FC issue:  “GSA is formally accepting substantial completion of [the] Access Controls
Project as of March 16, 2021 with the exception of the . . . final punch-list items . . .
includ[ing] the resolution to the door alarm issue.”  During the March 24 and March 31 OAC
meetings, Adapt informed GSA that JCI had exhausted all hardware testing and, based on
a consultation with JCI and Software House, suggested a Software House tech support call
to investigate the software settings in the C-Cure system.  Upon insistence from GSA that
the errors must be a hardware issue, Adapt and JCI performed a fourth site visit on April 28,
2021.  During this site visit, JCI’s technician replaced thirty resistor packs at doors with the
most frequent errors.
On May 6, 2021, Adapt and JCI obtained technical support from Software House. 
The Software House engineer determined that system hardware and programming settings
were within the manufacturer specifications and that the errors could only be duplicated at
will by doing something “wrong” to the system (i.e., unpinning or pushing on the door, or
leaving a door unlatched).  Software House also suggested that, based on site-specific
conditions such as laboratories with specialized equipment and older electrical infrastructure,
a possible secondary cause of the F/FC messages was electromagnetic interference (EMI)
from electromagnetic fields emanating from existing systems within the building.
On May 10, 2021, GSA issued a cure notice to Adapt for its failure to identify and
correct the F/FC issue.  On May 18, 2021, Adapt responded to the cure notice, stating that
there was no evidence that the F/FC messages were caused by cabling or wiring issues and
that the most likely cause was EPA employees’ improper use of the system.  On June 9,
2021, GSA responded to Adapt, indicating that there were approximately ten card readers
that were not functioning properly and “the problem appears to be caused by a hardware
issue and/or cabling installation” that was Adapt’s responsibility.  GSA stated that Adapt’s
response was insufficient and gave it until June 30 to resolve the issue.
On June 30, 2021, Adapt submitted to GSA and EPA a report of its investigation into
the F/FC issue that Adapt, JCI, and Software House had conducted over the preceding seven
months.  The report indicated that the team had spent over 400 hours on the issue, and
although the team had spent approximately eighty-five percent of its time investigating the
system’s hardware components, it could not find any issue with the Adapt-installed hardware
or systems that could account for the F/FC messages.  Instead, Adapt found that most F/FC

CBCA 7213, 7393 6
occurrences appeared in data logs within one minute of an individual either swiping a
personal identity verification card or triggering a REX device, correlating the messages with
human activity.  The report attributed the F/FC messages primarily with individuals
unpinning the inactive leaf of double doors but also with propping doors open (i.e., leaving
doors unlatched when in a seemingly closed position) and potential EMI.
Regarding unpinning, Adapt explained that its onsite JCI technician was able to
replicate the F/FC messages only intermittently while the fixed leaf was unpinned, i.e., by
doing something “wrong” or misusing the system.  Adapt explained that unpinning the doors
permitted the doors to “jiggle” in response to changes in air pressure.  The report also
indicated this increased the “chatter” or “play” in the door and was found to cause F/FC
occurrences.  Adapt’s report also indicated that propping open facility doors could have a
similar effect to unpinning the doors.  Mr. Gose, the JCI technician responsible for installing
the Cheetah card readers, testified that, because some of the doors were not “plumb,”
individuals would need to push a door closed in order for it to latch properly.  He described
how he witnessed individuals taking advantage of this feature to prevent doors from latching,
effectively propping them open, and how propping doors open permitted door movement
similar to unpinning.
Adapt also listed EMI as another possible cause of the F/FC messages.  The facility
contained a large amount of electronic laboratory equipment and line voltage wiring that
causes EMI.  GSA witnesses agreed that EMI, if it existed, could, along with power surges,
cause F/FC messages.  Finally, the report included a series of recommendations to decrease
the occurrence of F/FC messages, including enforcing policies to prevent unpinning,
tightening door closer adjustment screws to ensure doors cannot be left open, adjusting the
debounce settings on the C-Cure system, and replacing unshielded wiring between devices
to prevent EMI.
On July 16, 2021, GSA sent a show cause notice to Adapt.  The notice informed
Adapt that GSA considered its response to its cure notice and the recommendations included
in its report insufficient to correct the F/FC issues.  On July 26, 2021, Adapt responded to the
show cause notice, restating that its investigation showed that the PACS system was working
as designed and the most likely cause of the F/FC messages was EPA employees’ improper
use of the system.  Adapt reiterated that there was no evidence that the F/FC messages were
caused by improper installation by Adapt.
On August 27, 2021, GSA informed Adapt that it would be partially terminating the
contract for default.  On September 8, 2021, Adapt forwarded to GSA letters from JCI and
Software House, stating that the F/FC notifications were the result of environmental
conditions and that operation of the system was functioning as designed.  On September 9,

CBCA 7213, 7393 7
2021, GSA partially terminated the contract because “Adapt ha[d] failed to correct/fix the
card readers” and thirteen doors continued to receive “multiple faults daily.”
Proceedings Before the Board
On September 14, 2021, Adapt appealed its termination for default to the Board.  The
appeal was docketed as CBCA 7213.
Subsequently, on May 5, 2022, Adapt filed a second appeal, which the Clerk docketed
as CBCA 7393.  That appeal arises out of an affirmative monetary claim in the amount of
$228,123.47 that Adapt submitted to the agency contracting officer on January 31, 2022,
asserting a right to payment for multiple denied change order requests (CORs) and requests
for equitable adjustment (REAs), for costs incurred investigating the F/FC occurrences, for
additional labor costs associated with escorting unbadged personnel, and for its outstanding
final invoice.  The contracting officer denied that claim in its entirety on April 13, 2022. 
During proceedings before the Board, Adapt reduced the amount being sought to
$220,870.85.
At the parties’ request, the Board consolidated CBCA 7213 and 7393 by order dated
June 17, 2022.  The Board conducted a three-day hearing in both appeals from March 28
to 30, 2023, during which the parties presented witness testimony.
Discussion
CBCA 7213:  Partial Termination for Default
GSA claims that Adapt failed to fulfill its contractual obligations because the
unresolved F/FC messages rendered the PACS system defective as installed.  GSA asserts
that the F/FC messages were the result of Adapt’s defective installation and Adapt’s failure
to eliminate the messages justified GSA’s termination.
The Board reviews contracting officer decisions de novo under the Contract Disputes
Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7109 (2018).  Department of Transportation v. Eagle Peak
Rock & Paving, Inc., 69 F.4th 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023).  “[O]nce an action is brought
following a contracting officer’s decision, the parties start in court or before the [B]oard with
a clean slate.”  Id. at 1376 (quoting Wilner v. United States, 24 F.3d 1397, 1402 (Fed. Cir.
1994)).  Contracting officers have broad discretion in deciding whether to terminate a
contract for default.  Consolidated Industries, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1341, 1343
(Fed. Cir. 1999).  However, “a default termination is a drastic sanction which should be
imposed (or sustained) only for good grounds and on solid evidence.”  Lisbon Contractors,
Inc. v. United States, 828 F.2d 759, 765 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).  When a

CBCA 7213, 7393 8
contractor challenges the termination, the Government bears the burden of proving that the
termination was justified.  Eagle Peak Rock, 69 F.4th at 1375.  The Board will sustain a
default termination only if the Government shows that the circumstances at the time of
termination justified the decision, even if based on grounds unknown to the contracting
officer.  Id. at 1376.
We conclude that the Government has failed to establish that the F/FC messages were
the result of defective PACS hardware or installation.  Adapt’s witnesses testified credibly
that its system functioned as designed and that the F/FC messages arose from environmental
factors such as unpinning or propping open the doors, door frame issues which allowed doors
not to latch properly, and EMI.  Adapt and GSA witnesses agreed that people would unpin
doors “all the time” in the facility as well as prop them open.  Adapt demonstrated that F/FC
messages occur when a person interacts with a door that is unpinned.  Adapt also explained
that some of the doors in the facility had “a lot of play,” permitting the door to jiggle when
a person attempted to open a door without unlocking it and that this jiggling could also cause
F/FC messages.  Adapt recommended that GSA tighten door frames and door hardware. 
Adapt showed that misuse of the security system and issues with the door frames caused
F/FC messages because the messages generally correlated with human activity within the
facility.  The EPA C-Cure system administrator and GSA’s project manager for the building
25 renovation also agreed that EMI and power surges could affect the resistence level and
cause a fault to be reported to the C-Cure system.
GSA argues that the unpinning of doors is an unreasonable explanation for the F/FC
messages because eighteen other facilities used the Cheetah readers, none encountered F/FC
messages at the level found at building 25, and the errors were fixed whenever they occurred. 
GSA’s evidence regarding these other facilities was so minimal (no specifics were given as
to what caused any such F/FC messages and how the F/FC issues were “fixed”) that it carries
no weight.  Additionally, GSA argues that unpinning is not a reasonable cause because not
all doors experiencing F/FC messages had pins and not all doors with pins caused F/FC
messages.  As we stated above, the evidence shows a strong correlation between unpinning
a door and F/FC messages.  Doors without pins also could report faults if the doors were
propped open, were not latched properly, or had too much play within the door frame.  The
evidence further shows that EMI and power surges from EPA sources may have caused F/FC
messages.
GSA argues that its termination was proper because Adapt failed properly to
investigate the issue and cooperate with the agency.  We do not agree.  Adapt, JCI, Software
House, and other consultants (1) investigated the issue for many months, (2) met repeatedly
with GSA and EPA staff regarding the investigation, (3) requested data from EPA, (4) tested
and replaced components of the system to verify that the PACS system was functioning as
designed, (5) checked the wiring and cabling and any ground faults and determined that the

CBCA 7213, 7393 9
system was installed and functioning properly, (6) disconnected and reconnected devices, (7)
correlated the data logs provided with existing door and environmental conditions, and (8)
proposed software and environmental solutions.  The record shows that Adapt and its team
reasonably investigated the F/FC issue and cooperated with GSA and EPA.  GSA plainly
does not like the results of Adapt’s investigation, but GSA has not identified an alternate
cause for the F/FC occurrences to show that Adapt’s analysis is incorrect.
Accordingly, GSA has failed to show that the termination for default is justified, and
we therefore invalidate the termination.  See Sentell Brothers, Inc., DOT BCA 1824, 89-3
BCA ¶ 21,904, at 110,224-28, motion for reconsideration denied, 89-3 BCA ¶ 22,219.
CBCA 7393:  Adapt’s Affirmative Monetary Claims
Claim A – Power Outages
Entitlement.  Adapt seeks $5277.30 for increased labor and material costs to replace
control card readers and related equipment damaged as a direct result of two planned
building power outages.  During the weekend of August 15, 2020, there was a planned power
outage (first outage) at building 25 for work related to another contract.  The first outage
blew out several fuses supporting card readers and related equipment that Adapt had
installed.  Adapt was not informed of the planned outage.  On Monday, August 17, 2020,
Adapt personnel came to the facility, discovered the power outage, and found that the card
readers which they had previously installed and which had been operational on August 14
were now disrupted and required reset actions.  To reset the card readers, Adapt’s controls
subcontractor (JCI) had to return to the facility and dismount, reinstall, and reset the card
readers.
On September 9, 2020, at 1:30pm, Adapt was notified of another planned power
outage (second outage) scheduled for the upcoming weekend, but GSA contacted Adapt after
its workers had left the site for the rest of the week.  Although Adapt could have sent its
personnel back to the facility to take protective measures before the weekend outage
occurred, it does not appear that GSA directed Adapt to do so, and Adapt felt that protective
measures that it had already put in place would be adequate.  Upon arriving on site after the
weekend power outage, Adapt was informed that the outage was far worse than expected and
there were unresolved issues from the weekend shutdown.  This included the facility’s
generator and uninterruptible power supply (UPS) system, which were still offline.  During
the workday, Adapt’s superintendent heard a loud “boom” sound and was later informed by
the EPA staff that the noise was the facility’s UPS, which had blown multiple fuses.  The
electrical equipment recently installed by Adapt’s subcontractor was promptly inspected, and
some of the equipment was damaged, including a power supply in room 2A-710 that had to
be replaced and card readers connected to the destroyed power supply.

CBCA 7213, 7393 10
On October 22, 2020, Adapt submitted a request for equitable adjustment (REA) in
the amount of $5277.30 for labor and materials for the repairs required by the first and
second power outages.  The labor for the first outage involved investigating all of the
installed equipment, diagnosing the card reader problems, and then resetting the card readers
by having two JCI employees return to the facility for a full day to dismount, reinstall, and
reset the card readers.  The second outage involved labor, equipment, and materials to
replace the destroyed power supply and the damaged card readers.  On December 9, 2020,
the contracting officer denied the REA on the basis that Adapt had failed to show the power
outages were the cause of the damage and Adapt had failed to demonstrate the Government
was at fault for the damage.
We find that the planned outages caused the damage to Adapt’s equipment described
above and required extra labor hours for investigating the resulting damage to the PACS and
then conducting equipment repairs and replacements.  GSA faults Adapt for not better
protecting the equipment in response to a known upcoming event.  Here, though, the surges
were so great that they damaged government equipment that presumably the agency had
taken steps to protect.  Because the surge was more powerful and destructive than what even
the Government had anticipated or reported to Adapt, we will not fault Adapt for failing to
add protective measures beyond those that were already in place before it was notified of the
impending second surge.  Contrary to GSA’s assertions, we determine that Adapt acted
reasonably in protecting the equipment under normal operating conditions and that Adapt
should not bear responsibility for damages caused by the building power outages
accompanied by power surges.
Quantum.  Adapt divides the costs that it allegedly incurred for Claim A into two
groups:  (1) costs incurred by its subcontractor, JCI, and (2) costs for Adapt’s own internal
labor (including preparing its REA).
As for subcontractor costs, for the first outage, Adapt seeks $1591.84 to cover the
labor costs of two of JCI’s employees, who, according to the summary sheet that Adapt
attached to its claim, spent sixteen hours resetting the card readers after the outage.  Yet,
there is no contemporaneous evidence in the record that JCI employees spent sixteen hours
doing that work, that JCI ever billed Adapt for those “extra” sixteen hours, or that Adapt paid
or owes JCI any extra money for that work.  “The preferred method for proving a
contractor’s claim is through the introduction of actual cost data such as time sheets or
payroll records, if available.”  HOF Construction, Inc. v. General Services Administration,
GSBCA 13317, et al., 96-2 BCA ¶ 28,406, at 141,849.  As such, the contractor “must provide
the [tribunal] with specific documentation of the expenses caused by the government’s
change.”  Doninger Metal Products, Corp. v. United States, 50 Fed. Cl. 110, 125 (2001); see
Dawco Construction, Inc. v. United States, 930 F.2d 872, 882 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he
‘actual cost method’ is preferred because it provides the [tribunal], or contracting officer,

CBCA 7213, 7393 11
with documented underlying expenses, ensuring that the final amount of the equitable
adjustment will be just that—equitable—and not a windfall for either the government or the
contractor.”), overruled in part on other grounds, Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572
(Fed. Cir. 1995).  The only evidence in the record is oral testimony at the hearing that Adapt
representatives saw JCI working the issue, but no explanation was provided regarding the
absence of any records establishing that JCI billed for its work or that Adapt owes JCI
payment for such work.  Without justification for the absence of supporting documentation,
this amount is not recoverable.
In contrast, for JCI costs relating to the second outage, Adapt produced a proposal that
it had received from JCI to replace and install a new power supply for $1636.49.  Although
the evidence in the record that Adapt actually paid this amount is minimal, as none of
Adapt’s witnesses were questioned about this invoice at the hearing, it seems more likely
than not that Adapt had JCI perform this work at this amount and that this amount is
recoverable.
Finally, for both outages, Adapt seeks internal labor time—one hour for Adapt’s
project manager (Jennifer Howell) and eight hours for its “Superintendent/QC” (Tom
Lowery)—and $480 for REA preparation.  There is no testimony explaining what the
superintendent did for eight hours in response to these outages or what the project manager
did for an hour; there is nothing explaining the time for the REA preparation; and there are
no time cards or other time-keeping records about this work.  In fact, when Mr. Lowery
testified about work that he believed JCI employees performed to address the damage in
Claim A, he never mentioned that he himself spent eight hours on this issue.  The only thing
that we have is the summary statement in Adapt’s REA alleging entitlement to these costs,
with no detail or support.  “Normally, we would expect . . . proof [of damage from a
government change] to consist of actual contemporaneous data—accounting and payroll
records, daily reports of contract activity, time records, and the like—supporting what the
contractor believes constituted extra work beyond the scope of its contract.”  United Facility
Services Corp. v. General Services Administration, CBCA 5272, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37,086, at
180,522.
For Claim A, we limit Adapt’s award to $1636.49 for the JCI work identified in its
proposal for the second outage work, supplemented by an 11% markup for general and
administrative costs (G&A) of $180.01, a 10% profit markup of $181.65, and a 2.75%
markup (on costs but not profit) for bonding of $49.95, for a total of $2048.10.  Any other
claimed costs for JCI’s work on the first outage and for Adapt’s internal labor hours are
denied.

CBCA 7213, 7393 12
Claim B – Flooding
Entitlement.  Adapt claims $24,107.17 for increased labor and material costs related
to replacing data cables damaged by flooding at its workplace at the EPA facility.  In April
2020, the water to building 25 was shut off by another government contractor.  On April 27,
2020, when the Government restored water without venting air inside the pipes, a bathroom
valve burst, which in turn flooded the bathroom and the adjacent hallway.  Adapt’s
subcontractor, National Network Services, Inc. (NNSI), had been preparing the cable runs
on the morning of April 27, with the cables being staged on the floor in the hallway for
installation in the ceilings that afternoon to terminate in Room 1C-240.  All was well when
the NNSI workers took their lunch break.  When they returned, they found that water from
the bathroom had flooded the hallway, partially soaking their cables.  The cable manufacturer
would not warrant the cables based on the water damage.  The project manager prepared an
incident report that same day (the report is misdated March 27, the correct date was
April 27).  The program manager contacted the contracting officer by email on May 7 about
an equitable adjustment for the work to replace the damaged cable.  The contracting officer
replied:
After reviewing the incident at Building 25, the GSA has determined that there
was no negligence on the part of GSA and that it was an accident.  Adapt
Construction is not entitled to a Change Order Request based on unforseen site
conditions.  I do realize that equipment was damaged as a result of the
incident, and I suggest that you contact your insurance agent about filing a
claim.  The GSA will allow a reasonable amount of a time extension as a result
of the damaged cabling.  Please provide me with a proposal for the amount of
time needed to secure and install the cabling for our review.
On October 22, 2020, Adapt submitted its REA to the contracting officer, seeking
$24,104.17.  One component of the costs was $13,951.24 for NNSI’s labor and material for
replacing the damaged cable.  NNSI’s proposal shows materials (mostly the cable cost) of
$5222.25 and labor of $8728.99 for removing the damaged cable and installing the new
cable.  The claim indicates that NNSI’s labor amounted to ninety-two hours.  The other main
component of the REA cost is $6466.03 for Adapt’s burdened direct labor, composed of forty
hours for Lisa Lowery, sixteen hours for Jennifer Howell, four hours for REA preparation
and CPM scheduling work, and one hour for a construction contracting consultant who
reviewed the REA.  The remaining amounts are for G&A ($1534.64), profit ($1548.59), and
bond ($603.68).  On December 9, 2020, the contracting officer denied the REA, stating that
Adapt was warned not to store its equipment on the floor in the hallway and that Adapt’s
failure to heed this warning makes the damage Adapt’s responsibility.

CBCA 7213, 7393 13
GSA does not contest that the equipment was damaged by the flooding or that Adapt
incurred additional labor and material costs replacing the cables.  Adapt asserts that it was
not warned against staging cables in the hallway, and GSA does not appear to rely on the
contracting officer’s position that Adapt was warned.  In any event, we agree with the
testimony of Adapt’s witness that staging the cable in the hallway as part of installing the
cable through the ceiling above was reasonable.
Quantum.  We find NNSI’s costs of $13,951.24, which are supported by a
contemporaneous NNSI invoice to Adapt for the costs that it incurred, reasonable and
recoverable.  An 11% markup for G&A of $1534.64, a 10% profit markup of $1548.59, and
a 2.75% markup (on costs but not profit) for bonding of $425.84 is added to that amount, for
a total of $17,460.31.
Adapt also seeks to recover forty hours of labor time for Ms. Lowery, Adapt’s
program manager, spent interfacing with the contracting officer and preparing the REA and
sixteen hours for Ms. Howell, Adapt’s project manager, spent working on this issue.  The
only evidentiary document that we have indicating that Ms. Lowery worked forty hours and
that Ms. Howell worked sixteen hours on this issue is the “Detailed Cost Summary” in the
REA itself.  There are no contemporaneous time cards or daily logs produced in support. 
The costs are denied for lack of adequate support.  Similarly, five claimed hours of time (four
by Adapt itself, and one by “Redstone”) spent preparing the REA are denied for lack of time
records or any other contemporaneous documentation reflecting time spent preparing the
REA.
Claim C – Replacement of Existing Conduit
Adapt claims that it is entitled to an additional $48,402.53 for the costs involved in
replacing existing conduit in building 25.  On May 29, 2020, Adapt submitted request for
information (RFI) 49 to notify the contracting officer that a differing site condition existed. 
Although the specifications identified that existing one-inch conduit was in place for Adapt
to pull through its wiring, Adapt found upon inspection that seventy of the ninety-seven
doors had only half-inch conduit in place.  On May 29, 2020, GSA accepted Adapt’s
proposed correction and directed that Adapt provide a change order request for approval
before work began.
On July 14, 2020, Adapt submitted COR #9, estimating the cost to be $75,697.20. 
Adapt proposed that its subcontractor, JCI, complete the work, with Adapt providing project
management and associated support.  On July 23, 2020, Adapt notified the contracting officer
that delay in approval of COR #9 would delay project completion.  On July 28, 2020, the
contracting officer sent Adapt a cure notice, directing Adapt to proceed with the COR #9
work as instructed.  The contracting officer did not accept Adapt’s pricing for COR #9 but

CBCA 7213, 7393 14
stated a willingness to negotiate a fair and reasonable price for the change.  On August 6,
2020, Adapt submitted a revised COR #9 in the amount of $68,727.02, in which Adapt again
assigned the majority of the work to JCI.  Based upon an independent government estimate
(IGE), dated September 22, 2020, the revised amount was determined to be fair and
reasonable.
Adapt performed the work between July and October 2020.  On November 30, 2020,
Adapt submitted a REA for the work related to COR #9 in the amount of $94,886.53. 
Review of Adapt’s REA reveals that Adapt self-performed the vast majority of the work
rather than subcontracting it to JCI.  On September 9, 2021, the contracting officer issued a
unilateral modification to increase the contract price by $46,484 for work associated with
RFI 49 based on another IGE, dated December 18, 2020.  In this later IGE, it was noted that
Adapt self-performed the work instead of subcontracting with JCI and fished wire through
the wall for rooms that were originally listed as being wall-mounted conduit.  At trial, Brenda
Galloway, GSA’s construction manager for the building 25 project, testified that fishing wire
through the wall, for the seven or eight doors that did not have wall-mounted conduit, should
have resulted in reduced labor and material costs because Adapt did not have to buy or install
conduit.  Ms. Galloway testified that this was the reason for the lower IGE.
Adapt claims the difference between the amount that it claimed in its revised REA
($94,886.53) and the amount that the contracting officer paid in the unilateral modification
($46,484).  GSA admits that there was a differing site condition that required Adapt to
perform additional work but asserts that Adapt has received already the fair and reasonable
value of the work.
We conclude that Adapt is entitled to $68,727.09 (some of which GSA had already
paid Adapt) for the work regarding RFI 49.  Neither Adapt’s current request nor the agency’s
most recent IGE are persuasive.  Instead, we find the costs stated in the August 6, 2020,
proposal, and approved in the first IGE, to be reasonable based on our assessment of the
hours claimed for the required work.  Adapt is entitled to recover $68,727.09 on Claim C. 
GSA has already paid Adapt $46,484, which leaves Adapt entitled to recover here the
remaining $22,243.09.1
1 Because of the manner in which we have resolved Claim C, we need not
address GSA’s argument that General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation
552.243-71(m) (48 CFR 552.243-71(m)), a standard clause in Adapt’s contract, limits any
recovery to the amount identified in revised COR #9, which was the last proposal that Adapt
submitted to the contracting officer before the changed work was authorized.

CBCA 7213, 7393 15
Claim D – Fixing Exterior Door
Adapt claims $3778.22 for costs incurred to repair an exterior door pathway for
building 25, which Adapt asserts was a differing site condition.  On June 26, 2020, Adapt
submitted RFI 48A and indicated that the rubber gasket and backing plate required by the
contract were insufficient to cover a gap in the wall between the reader and the exterior
doors.  On July 6, 2020, GSA directed Adapt to seal the gap with an appropriate air and
moisture barrier and provide a proposal for approval.  On August 12, 2020, Adapt submitted
RFI 60, indicating that one of the doors lacked the necessary hardware and access to install
the components called for in the contract, which it claimed was another differing site
condition.  On August 24, 2020, GSA directed Adapt to move forward with the work
required for RFI 60.
On October 2, 2020, Adapt submitted COR #14 for the costs of the work associated
with RFIs 48A and 60, in the amount of $21,398.22.  On November 23, 2020, Adapt revised
COR #14 to $23,112.29, including additional incurred costs for the completed work.  On
September 9, 2021, the contracting officer issued a unilateral modification, increasing the
contract price by $17,620, for work associated with RFIs 48A and 60, an amount based upon
an IGE dated December 18, 2020.  Adapt seeks the difference between the amount that
Adapt initially requested and the amount awarded in the unilateral modification.  We
conclude that Adapt has failed to support its current request, and therefore, we deny claim D. 
We have carefully reviewed the written record and testimony, but Adapt has failed to explain
the basis for its claim of $21,398.22, while GSA’s IGE appears to capture the reasonable
costs of the work.
Claim F – Investigation Costs
Entitlement.  Adapt claims $41,984 for its investigation of the F/FC issue as a change
to the contracted scope of work.  GSA acknowledges that it expressly directed Adapt to
investigate the F/FC issue but asserts that Adapt was required to troubleshoot and resolve the
F/FC issue, which it attributes to Adapt’s defective work.  As discussed above, Adapt has
shown that it properly installed the system, that the system was functioning as designed, and
that the F/FC messages were the result of the environmental conditions at building 25 that
were not the responsibility of Adapt.
GSA argues that the warranty provision of the contract and Adapt’s obligation to
provide “Troubleshooting and Problem Resolution” for issues arising from “System Incident
Reporting” place Adapt’s investigation within the scope of the contract.  GSA misinterprets
these provisions.  The Warranty clause of the contract obligates Adapt to “remedy at [its]
expense any failure to conform, or any defect.”  48 CFR 52.246-21 (2019).  Here, GSA has
not established that there was any defect in the PACS to remedy.  Similarly, Adapt’s

CBCA 7213, 7393 16
obligation to provide troubleshooting support concerns routine troubleshooting errors within
the system, not errors stemming from environmental factors outside of the control of Adapt. 
Adapt has met its burden in showing that the request to investigate and Adapt’s subsequent
investigation were outside the scope of the contract.
Quantum.  Adapt’s program manager claims in a cost summary that she spent a total
of 110.25 hours dealing with the investigation, communications with GSA and EPA, and
preparation of the investigation report and that Adapt’s project manager spent a total of
140.25 hours working this issue.  Although it seems likely that these Adapt employees spent
time on the F/FC investigation, the record lacks any supporting time entries, daily logs, or
other contemporaneous substantiating documentation of the hours.2  To the extent that we
might think of giving some type of “jury verdict” award to account for that likelihood, the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has instructed us that “the amount of the recovery
can only be approximated in the format of a ‘jury verdict’ where the claimant can
demonstrate a justifiable inability to substantiate the amount of his resultant injury by direct
and specific proof.”  Dawco Construction, Inc., 930 F.2d at 882 (quoting Joseph Pickard’s
Sons Co. v. United States, 532 F.2d 739, 742 (Ct. Cl. 1976) (emphasis added)).  A
contractor’s lack of concern about documenting time and costs or belief that it was too busy
to document time “is not the type of ‘justifiable inability’ to produce evidence of actual costs
that would warrant the use of the jury verdict approach.”  Production Corp., DOT BCA
2424, 92-2 BCA ¶ 24,796, at 123,695.
The claim also includes a total of 128 hours for subcontract work by JCI.  Although
the record contains substantial testimony regarding the JCI technicians’ investigation work,
the record lacks any claim by or payment to JCI for these hours.  Accordingly, we see no
basis to award the claimed costs.
Adapt has not justified its failure to support its claimed costs in Claim F.
2 The Board requested a supplementation of the record regarding supporting time
entries referenced in the program manager’s hearing testimony, and while the appellant
submitted a spreadsheet listing dates, hours, and work descriptions, we will not consider this
documentation because it was not produced to GSA during discovery, and GSA did not have
an opportunity to cross examine the program manager during the hearing on this newly
submitted documentation.  The other documentation recently submitted by Adapt regarding
the other claims will not be added to the record because the documentation is either irrelevant
or not previously furnished to GSA during the discovery period.

CBCA 7213, 7393 17
Claim G – Labor Costs Caused by Delay in Providing Badges
Adapt claims $36,564.42 for costs incurred due to decreased efficiency resulting from
GSA’s refusal to facilitate site access.  Adapt explained that, because GSA did not fulfill its
obligation to provide adequate badging for Adapt and its subcontractors to navigate the
facility, Adapt’s site superintendents and its CEO were required to spend additional time
escorting personnel around the building.  In its documentation supporting this claim, Adapt
estimated that thirty percent of three employees’ total labor time was dedicated to working
around the badging issue.  We conclude that the written record and the testimony at the
hearing do not adequately support Adapt’s thirty percent estimate or the additional costs
being claimed.  Accordingly, we deny claim G.
Claim H – Rescheduling of Training Session
Adapt claims $4604.18 for costs incurred for having to reschedule a training session
for EPA personnel twice after two facility closures on the days it was scheduled.  Adapt and
JCI personnel arrived at the facility on the originally scheduled date (November 9, 2020) for
the training.  Upon arrival, they were informed that the facility was closed because of
COVID issues.  EPA failed to notify Adapt that the facility was closed until JCI and Adapt
personnel were at the facility.  Adapt and JCI left without conducting the training and
allegedly lost that day due to the agency’s failure to give proper advance notice of the
closure.  Some days later, the same scenario was repeated.  JCI trainers and Adapt arrived
for the training.  Upon arrival, they were told that the facility was again closed.  Adapt
therefore had to reschedule the training once more.  Ultimately, the training was provided on
the third visit.
On November 23, 2020, Adapt submitted a change order that included a claim for the
time of the JCI and Adapt personnel lost due to the two cancellations of the training session. 
On September 9, 2021, the contracting officer rejected Adapt’s requested costs for the
rescheduled training on the basis that Adapt’s performance was delayed, which only entitled
Adapt to a non-compensable time extension.  Adapt argues that this is not a performance
delay issue but rather a failure by the agency to give notice of the building closure so that the
contractor could avoid the unnecessary costs of traveling to the facility and then being sent
away due to the closure.
Whatever the merits of the claim, Adapt again has provided no time records, pay
records, or contemporaneous documents showing who traveled to the facility and how many
hours they expended on the visit.  In such circumstances, Claim H is denied.

CBCA 7213, 7393 18
Claim I – Outstanding Invoice
Adapt claims $56,155.91 for its payment application submitted on August 16, 2021,
for the amount remaining on the contract.  On August 27, 2021, the contracting officer
rejected Adapt’s payment application, asserting that there was insufficient information to
determine the amount Adapt may be owed.  GSA argues that it properly withheld this amount
because Adapt failed to complete the contract and that GSA has the right to retain funds from
a defaulted contractor to be applied against the cost of completing the work.  We have
concluded that Adapt completed the contract work and GSA wrongly terminated the contract
for default.  Adapt is entitled to receive the remaining contract value in the amount of
$56,155.91.
Decision
CBCA 7213 is GRANTED and CBCA 7393 is GRANTED IN PART.  We conclude
that GSA’s partial termination for default was improper and that Adapt is entitled to
$97,907.41 plus applicable CDA interest pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 7109(a).
  Jonathan D. Zischkau    
JONATHAN D. ZISCHKAU
Board Judge
We concur:
   Harold D. Lester, Jr.        Marian E. Sullivan      
HAROLD D. LESTER, JR. MARIAN E. SULLIVAN
Board Judge Board Judge