Opinion ID: 209512
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: March 12, 2002 to June 12, 2002

Text: The Board found that NASA prevented Webb from replacing D2, D3, and D5 in early 2002 because Chappy was behind in replacing D6. According to the Board, NASA constructively, partially, suspended appellant's work for an unreasonable period of time beginning on 7 February 2002 continuing through appellant's de-mobilization on 20 February 2002. The earliest date GRC had indicated that the D5 would be available was 25 February 2002. At some point thereafter, which we estimate to be 14 days later, on 11 March 2002, appellant's winter break, rather than any cause solely attributable to GRC, kept it offsite. Board Decision, slip op. at 63. Webb argues that there was no evidence from which the Board could reasonably conclude that Webb in any way contributed to the delay from March 12, 2002 to June 12, 2002, and that this period should be treated the same as February 7, 2002 to March 11, 2002, for which the Board found a delay attributable solely to NASA. While we agree with Webb that the casual characterization of its absence as a winter break 2008-1226 6 provides only minimal support for the Board's conclusion, Webb does not address that it bore the burden of proof here. See Blinderman, 695 F.2d at 559. The evidence before the Board does not suggest that Webb requested any power outages during March, April, or May 2002. The record also does not show that the work Webb did perform immediately upon its return to GRC in July 2002, cable work for D6, was not work that required any of the transformers to be powered off. There is also no support for Webb's assertion that in July 2002 NASA relaxed its restrictions on the number of D transformers which could be switched off at one time. In the context of the sparse evidence and the allocation of the burden of proof to Webb, we cannot say that there is not evidence from which a reasonable mind could conclude that the delay between March 12, 2002 to June 12, 2002 is attributable in part to Webb. We thus affirm the Board's denial of compensation to Webb for this time period. B. July 26, 2002 to August 12, 2002; September 13, 2002 to November 8, 2002 Webb argues the Board erred in not awarding it compensation for a delay solely attributable to NASA from July 26, 2002 to August 12, 2002. However, as NASA points out on appeal, before the Board Webb only alleged that the suspension-of-work clause entitled it to recover for delay between approximately February 15, 2002 and approximately June 3, 2002. Webb therefore waived any entitlement to compensation for delays during this period. For the same reason, we reject Webb’s argument that it is entitled to recover for a delay from September 13 to November 8. 2008-1226 7