Opinion ID: 2513995
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Equipment standby after August 17, 1996

Text: The hearing officer determined that Quality could recover for equipment standby only through August 17, 1996. Quality argues that the hearing officer's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and instead claims that it is entitled to recovery through October 31. [12] It argues that [t]he Hearing Officer relied on one sentence from a letter from [Quality's] president to three legislators, dated October 13, 1997, ... which stated that [Quality] `had gone back to work in full force by mid-August [1996].' Quality alleges that the undisputed evidence presented at trial ... established that many items of equipment that had been dedicated to the project remained idle after August 17, 1996. The state responds that substantial evidence supports the hearing officer's finding regarding the standby termination date. The state argues that the letter was only one piece of evidence the hearing officer examined in determining that August 17, 1996 was the appropriate date to terminate standby expenses. The state argues that Quality president, Gordon Hayes, confirmed [the hearing officer's] interpretation of [Hayes's letter] at the administrative hearing during cross-examination. The hearing officer's decision stated that it used August 17, 1996 as the date the dedicated equipment period should terminate.... [This date] is based on [Quality]'s October 13, 1997 letter [stating Quality was able to go back to work in full force by mid-August]. But contrary to Quality's assertion on appeal, other evidence supported the decision. Before issuing the June 1998 proposed decision, the hearing officer heard testimony in May 1998 by Gordon Hayes. At the May 1998 hearing Hayes acknowledged the contents of his October 1997 letter: Q. Isn't it true that by mid August of 1996, you were back to work in full force? [Hayes]. I think closer to the end of August. Q. Would you turn to Exhibit 337 for me, please. This is a letter that you sent to theto some of your legislators? [Hayes]. Yes. Q. Isn't it true that in the last sentence of the first full paragraph of that letter, you told your legislators that you were able to go back to work in full force by mid August? [Hayes]. Okay. Yes. The hearing officer also used Blue Book daily equipment rates in calculating the days Quality's equipment was on standby. He explained that the standby calculation consisted of counting the work days on which Quality employed specific items of equipment for the Chena project and applying the appropriate Blue Book rate. Quality asserts that the hearing officer erred because he did not fully compensate Quality for some equipment [that] remained unassigned months past August 17. Quality incorrectly equates idle time with recoverable expense. Although the state was obliged to compensate Quality for standby costs due to the state's termination of the contract, it was not Quality's insurer for equipment that remained idle after August 17. We hold that substantial evidence supports the hearing officer's decision to deny Quality standby compensation after August 17.