Court Opinion

ID: 9900152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 22:01:23.661067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:00.228942
License: Public Domain

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

 Appeal of -                                     )
                                                 )
 CJW Contractors, Inc.                           )   ASBCA No. 63228
                                                 )
 Under Contract No. N40085-16-D-0300             )

 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:                      Douglas L. Patin, Esq.
                                                     Erik M. Coon, Esq.
                                                      Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
                                                      Washington, DC

 APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:                     Craig D. Jensen, Esq.
                                                      Navy Chief Trial Attorney
                                                     Robyn L. Hamady, Esq.
                                                      Trial Attorney

           OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SHACKLEFORD
            ON THE NAVY’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

        This appeal involves a dispute regarding the replacement of heating systems in
Buildings 3, 4, and 5 at Naval Support Activity Mechanicsburg in Pennsylvania. CJW
Contractors, Inc. (CJW) sought to recover costs associated with installing 52 new steel I
beams to support hydronic piping in Building 5, alleging that it was permissible under the
contract to use the building’s existing steel W and S roof beams as support for the pipes.
On January 23, 2023, the Board issued a decision sustaining CJW’s appeal pursuant to
Board Rules 11 and 12.3. CJW Contractors, Inc., ASBCA No. 63228, 23-1 BCA
¶ 38,272 (CJW I). In sustaining CJW’s appeal, the Board found that CJW’s interpretation
of the contract’s specifications and drawings was reasonable and that the contract
contained latent ambiguities to be construed against the Navy. Id. at 185,824-26. On
February 22, 2023, the Navy filed a motion for reconsideration of the Board’s decision.
We deny the Navy’s motion.

                                     DECISION

      Standard of Review

       Board Rule 20 allows either party to file a motion for reconsideration of a Board
decision. In deciding on a motion for reconsideration, the Board will determine
“whether there is newly discovered evidence or whether there were mistakes in the
decision’s findings of fact, or errors of law.” ADT Constr. Grp., Inc. by Timothy S.
Cory, ASBCA No. 55358, 14-1 BCA ¶ 35,508 at 174,041; see also CDM Constructors,
Inc., ASBCA No. 60454 et al., 19-1 BCA 37,332 at 181,556 (citing Green Valley Co.,
ASBCA No. 61275, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37,044 at 180,329). Motions for reconsideration are
“not the place to present arguments previously made and rejected,” Assist Consultants
Inc., ASBCA Nos. 61525, 62090, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,946 at 184,297, and “do not afford
litigants the opportunity to take a ‘second bite at the apple’ or to advance arguments
that properly should have been presented in an earlier proceeding.” Dixon v. Shinseki,
741 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Bluebonnet Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. United
States, 466 F.3d 1349, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Lamle v. Mattel, Inc., 394 F.3d 1355,
1359 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Accordingly, the burden is on the moving party to present
“a compelling reason why the Board should modify its decision.” Philips Lighting N.
Am. Corp., ASBCA No. 61769 et al., 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,821 at 183,647.

      The Navy Has Failed to Present a Valid Basis for the Board to Modify its
      Original Decision

       In its motion for reconsideration, the Navy alleges that the Board erred in
finding that CJW’s interpretation of the contract was reasonable primarily by
rehashing legal positions already argued to the Board (gov’t mot. at 1). The Navy
makes four contentions in support of reconsideration. First, the Navy argues that
CJW’s interpretation was erroneous as a matter of law because it failed to consider the
contract as a whole (gov’t mot. at 3-7; see also gov’t br. at 3-7). Second, the Navy
contends that the contract unambiguously supports its own interpretation, and that if
any ambiguities exist, they are patent and thus imposed a duty of inquiry on CJW
(gov’t mot. at 9-11; see also gov’t br. at 8-11). Third, the Navy asserts that Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.236-21, SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS
FOR CONSTRUCTION (FEB 1997) and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation
Supplement (DFARS) 252.236-7001, CONTRACT DRAWINGS AND
SPECIFCATIONS resolve any ambiguities in the contract in the Navy’s favor (gov’t
mot. at 12; see also gov’t. br. at 11-12). Finally—in its only novel argument—the
Navy mischaracterizes the Board’s analysis by claiming that the Board’s decision
imposes a new requirement of contract interpretation that drawings cross-reference
each other in order to be considered part of the contract (gov’t mot. at 8-9). We
address each of these arguments in turn.

      The Navy Fails to Demonstrate That CJW’s Interpretation Was Erroneous as a
      Matter of Law

       The Navy maintains that the Board erroneously concluded as a matter of law
that CJW “reasonably interpreted the drawings for Building 5 to indicate that the pipe
hangers would be supported by the exiting steel W and S roof beams using standard
pipe hanger clamps” (gov’t mot. at 3-7 (citing CJW I, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,272 at 185,825)).
Specifically, the Navy contends that CJW’s interpretation is incompatible with
Specification Section 23 05 15 relating to maximum spacing between pipe supports

                                           2
(gov’t mot. at 3-4; see also gov’t br. at 9-10) and FAR 52.236-21 (gov’t mot. at 5; see
also gov’t br. at 11-12) and that CJW read Drawing S-501 out of the contract (gov’t
mot. at 6-7; see also gov’t br. at 4-7). In addition to merely rehashing legal positions
previously presented to the Board (see gov’t br. at 3-10), this argument fails on the
merits.

       First, while the Navy is correct that Specification Section 23 05 15 incorporates
MSS SP-58 1 standards, this does not invalidate CJW’s interpretation of the contract
because CJW could still have supported the pipe structure under and parallel to the
existing steel W and S beams with appropriately spaced clamps in compliance with
MSS SP-58’s standards. As the Board found, CJW never intended to support the
hydronic pipe between existing roof beams, but instead intended to hang the piping
parallel to the bottom chord of the existing steel W and S beams, which could have
been done in compliance with MSS SP-58. See CJW I, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,272 at 185,822
(findings 39 (Navy structural engineer stating he did “not see an issue of supporting
the pipe from the bottom chord of the truss”), 41 (Navy Defense Logistics Agency
Support employee determined that “CJW’s alternate pipe hanger detail attached to the
bottom chord of truss with clamps rather than as illustrated in contract drawing is
acceptable.”)). In fact, the Navy was fully aware of CJW’s intention, and rejected the
design not because it violated the contract’s specifications, but simply because the
design would have reduced overhead clearance. CJW I, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,272 at 185,822
(finding 39). Accordingly, Specification Section 23 05 15 and MSS SP-58 do not
provide a valid basis for the Board to modify its decision. See Philips Lighting, 21-1
BCA ¶ 37,821 at 183,647.

       Second, as the Board found in CJW I, FAR 52.236-21 is inapplicable to the
case at hand. FAR 52.236-21 provides that information “shown on the drawings and
not mentioned in the specifications [] shall be of like effect as if shown or mentioned
in both.” However, as the Board determined, detail 5 on Drawing S-501 only refers to
“W6x15 SPANNING BETWEEN ROOF BEAM,” but provides no indication as to

1
    The Manufacturers Standardization Society of the Valve and Fittings Industry (MSS):

         is a non-profit technical association organized for development and
         improvement of industry, national and international codes and standards
         for Valves, Valve Actuators, Valve Modifications, Pipe Fittings,
         Flanges, Pipe Hangers and Supports, and Associated Seals. Since its
         establishment in 1924, MSS has been dedicated to developing standards
         for national and global applications, in cooperation with other
         standardizing bodies and regulatory authorities. MSS is an American
         National Standards Institute (ANSI)-accredited standards developer.

(App. supp. R4, tab 41 at 115).

                                            3
whether the beams are existing or required. CJW I, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,272 at 185,825.
Furthermore, Detail 3 on Mechanical M-502 provided clear reference for pipe support
to be “supported from structure,” which the Board found could be reasonably
interpreted to include existing W or S beams. The specifications provided clear pipe
hangar support details to do so. (R4, Tab 6c at GOV0158)

       Third, neither the Board nor CJW read Drawing S-501 out of the contract. As
the Board determined in CJW I, detail 5 on Drawing S-501 did not unambiguously
require the installation of steel I beams in Building 5. The structural steel specifications
for Buildings 3 and 4 included requirements for every steel part, ranging from structural
steel beams and pipes all the way down to steel bolts, nuts, and washers. CJW I, 23-1
BCA ¶ 38,272 at 185,820 (finding 12). No such list was included for Building 5. Id.
Additionally, detail 5 was never referenced in Building 5’s mechanical drawings nor on
Drawing S-101. Moreover, by the Navy’s own admission, “[t]here is no indication that
[Drawing S-101] is intended to convey other heating system component information
beyond the air handling equipment structural support” (App. supp. R4, tab 34
at GOVPROD0038).

       Any Ambiguities in the Contract Were Latent and Correctly Interpreted
       Against the Navy

       The Navy asserts that if any ambiguities in the contract existed, they were
patent and thus imposed a duty of inquiry on CJW (gov’t mot. at 9-11). Additionally,
the Navy contends that FAR 52.236-21 and DFARS 252.236-7001 resolve any
ambiguities in the contract in favor of the Navy (gov’t mot. at12). In addition to
merely rehashing arguments previously presented to the Board (see gov’t br. at 8-12),
these contentions fail on the merits.

       It is a well-settled rule of contract interpretation that latently ambiguous
contracts are to be construed against the drafter—in this case, the Navy. See, e.g.,
Metric Constructors, Inc. v. Nat’l Aeronautics & Space Admin., 169 F.3d 747, 751.
However, if the ambiguity is “sufficiently glaring to trigger” a reasonable contractor to
inquire before submitting a bid—a patent ambiguity—the ambiguity is to be construed
against the contractor. See, e.g., Certified Constr. Co. of Ky., ASBCA No. 58782,
15-1 BCA ¶ 36,068 at 176,132; HPI/GSA 3C, LLC v. Perry, 364 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed.
Cir. 2004).

       As discussed above, unlike the specifications for Buildings 3 and 4 (which
explicitly called for the installation of steel I beams), Building 5’s specifications only
referenced steel W and S beams and made no mention whatsoever of steel I beams.
CJW I, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,272 at 185,826. Drawing S-101—the only drawing depicting
Building 5’s roof structure—made no reference to steel I beams. Id. As the Board found,
the only reference to steel I beams was buried in detail 5 of Drawing S-501---hardly a

                                            4
detail “sufficiently glaring to trigger” CJW to inquire before submitting its bid for the
project. Id.; Certified Constr. Co., 15-1 BCA ¶ 36,068 at 176,132. Additionally, as the
Board determined in CJW I, FAR 52.236-21 2 and DFARS 252.235-7001 are inapplicable
towards resolving any ambiguities here because, as the Board previously determined,
there was no omitted detail—CJW’s reliance on detail 3 on Drawing M-502 was
reasonable. CJW I, 23-1 BCA ¶ 3,272 at 185,826. Moreover, the steel I beams were not
“manifestly necessary” to the project as the only means of pipe support—as discussed
above, the Navy’s reasoning for rejecting the use of detail 3 was merely to accommodate
its preference for building overhead clearance, not because it violated the contract’s
specifications. Accordingly, any ambiguities in the contract were latent and properly
construed against the Navy. Metric Constructors, 169 F.3d at 751. The Navy knew
precisely how many steel beams were required for the project and was fully aware of the
potential for confusion (see Lefin decl. ¶ 26 (“A decision was made during the design not
to call out supplementary support steel (i.e. W6x15 beams at issue in this appeal) on
drawing S-101 because a contractor could construe the W6x15 beams as already in
existence . . . .”)) and easily could have made this requirement clearer.

         The Board’s Ruling Did Not Declare a New Rule of Contract Interpretation

        Finally, the Navy argues that the Board’s decision “essentially declar[es] a new
rule of contract interpretation: that drawings must cross-reference each other for both
to be considered part of the contract” (gov’t mot. at 8-9). In addition to this argument
being a mischaracterization of the Board’s finding, it fails on the merits. The Board
declared no such rule in determining that CJW’s interpretation of the contract was
reasonable. As discussed above, neither the Board nor CJW read Drawing S-501 out
of the contract. As the Board found, construing the contract as a whole does not reveal
an unambiguous requirement to furnish and install 52 steel I beams in Building 5.
CJW I, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,272 at 185,824-25. The Board determined that CJW’s
interpretation was reasonable due to the contract’s inconsistent and conflicting design
details between detail 3 on Drawing M-502 and detail 5 on Drawing S-501 and
because of the lack of a structural steel specification section—or even any mention of
steel I beams in Building 5’s specifications for that matter. Id. at 185,825. As
discussed in CJW I, there was no logical reason for CJW to refer to Drawing S-501 to
make the determination that 52 steel I beams were required given the lack of both a
cross reference on Drawing M-502 and a structural steel specification. Id. at 185,821
(finding 32), 185,825. Furthermore, while the Navy frames this contention as a novel
argument, it essentially regurgitates its claim that CJW’s interpretation failed to
consider the contract as a whole (gov’t mot. at 8-9; see also gov’t br. at 3-10), which
the Board already rejected. CJW I, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,272 at 185,824-25. As discussed

2
    FAR 52.236-21 provides, in relevant part, that information “shown on the drawings
        and not mentioned in the specifications[] shall be of like effect as if shown or
        mentioned in both.”

                                             5
above, a motion to reconsider is not the place to present arguments previously decided
by the Board. Dixon, 741 F.3d at 1378; Assist Consultants, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,956
at 184,297.

                                    CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, the Navy’s motion is denied.

       Dated: July 17, 2023

                                                  RICHARD SHACKLEFORD
                                                  Administrative Judge
                                                  Vice Chairman
                                                  Armed Services Board
                                                  of Contract Appeals

 I concur

 J. REID PROUTY
 Administrative Judge
 Vice Chairman
 Armed Services Board
 of Contract Appeals

      I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63228, Appeal of CJW
Contractors Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

       Dated: July 17, 2023

                                               PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS
                                               Recorder, Armed Services
                                               Board of Contract Appeals

                                           6