Court Opinion

ID: 9900104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 22:00:38.566247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:02.974277
License: Public Domain

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
 subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                     release.
             ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
Appeal of -                                )
                                           )
ECC International Constructors/ Metag      ) ASBCA No. 62124
 (JV)                                      )
                                           )
Under Contract No. W5J9LE-11-C-0046        )

 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:                   R. Dale Holmes, Esq.
                                                  Ryan Boonstra, Esq.
                                                   Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman,
                                                   P.C.
                                                   Philadelphia, PA

 APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.
                                  Engineer Chief Trial Attorney
                                 Martin Chu, Esq.
                                  Engineer Trial Attorney
                                  U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore

                                                  Samuel J. Harrison, Esq.
                                                  Katherine M. Smith, Esq.
                                                   Engineer Trial Attorneys
                                                   U.S. Army Engineer District, Middle East
                                                   Winchester, VA

                 OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SWEET

        This appeal involves a contract between the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) and appellant ECC International Constructors/Metag (JV) (Joint
Venture) to construct arch-span structures at Camp Hero East in Kandahar Province,
Afghanistan. The contract required that the Joint Venture include a spray
polyurethane foam insulation (foam) and cementitious finish, and that that foam
assembly comply with the International Building Code, which required that the foam
limit flame-spread and smoke-development and have a thermal barrier. The foam
assembly that the Joint Venture initially installed did not meet those requirements.
Therefore, the Corps suspended work, and required the Joint Venture to add a thicker
thermal barrier. In this appeal, the Joint Venture argues that that conduct constituted a
constructive change, which delayed the project. Because the Corps did not direct the
Joint Venture to perform work not required under the terms of the contract, or enlarge
the Joint Venture’s performance requirements, there was no constructive change.
Thus, we deny the appeal.
    DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
    subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                      release.
                                FINDINGS OF FACT

I. Contract

        1. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization Training Mission-Afghanistan and
the Combined Security Training Command-Afghanistan trained the Afghan National
Security Forces. The Corps performed contracting functions for the Combined
Security Training Command-Afghanistan for the design and construction of facilities
for the Afghan National Security Forces. The Corps performed those functions through
the Transatlantic Division and its two subordinate commands—the Transatlantic
District-North and the Transatlantic District-South, which covered northern
Afghanistan and southern Afghanistan respectively. 1 (Gov’t resp. to Board’s June 2,
2023 Order, ex. 1 (Adams aff.) ¶¶ 4-5;McFerrin aff. ¶¶ 12-14)

       2. On August 24, 2011, the Transatlantic District-South awarded Contract
No. W5J9LE-11-CC-0046 (Contract) to the Joint Venture to construct facilities
at Camp Hero East in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan (Camp Hero East Project) (R4,
tab 5 at 1; tab 16 at 1). The Project included the construction of numerous arch-span
buildings 2 (R4, tab 5 at 70). Only the Transatlantic District-South Contracting Officer
had the authority to revise the design or direct changes, and he did not delegate that
authority (R4, tab 436 (Emanuel decl.) ¶ 2).

       3. The Contract required that “[t]he work shall conform to the specifications
and the contract drawings” (R4, tab 5 at 29; see also id. at 53, 68, 71, 218).

       4. The specifications repeatedly required the Joint Venture to comply with the
International Building Code (Code) (R4, tab 5 at 70, 91-94, 120-21, 226). The Code
§ 2603.3 indicated that:

               [F]oam plastic insulation . . . shall have a flame spread
               index of not more than 75 and a smoke-developed index of
               not more than 450 where tested in the maximum thickness
               intended for use in accordance with [American Society for
               Testing and Materials] E 84 or [Underwriters Laboratories]
               723.

1
  Prior to a reorganization in 2009, the Transatlantic District-North and the
        Transatlantic District-South were called the Afghanistan Engineer District
        North and the Afghanistan Engineer District South respectively (gov’t resp. to
        Board’s June 2, 2023 Order, ex. 1 (Adams aff.) ¶ 4(c); McFerrin aff. ¶¶ 12-14).
2
  Arch-span buildings—sometimes called K-Span buildings—are buildings
        constructed using steel rolled by a machine on-site (McFerrin aff. ¶¶ 4-5).
                                           2
  DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
   subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                         release.
(R4, tab 178 at 562) The parties refer to foam that meets and does not meet the Code
§ 2603.3’s flame-spread and smoke-development limit requirements as rated and non-
rated foam respectively (see app. supp. R4, tab 280 at 3; app. br. at 37; gov’t br. at 12).
The Code § 2603.4 (collectively with the Code § 2603.3, Code Foam Assembly
Provisions) 3 provided that:

                [F]oam plastic shall be separated from the interior of a
                building by an approved thermal barrier of ½ inch (12.7
                mm) gypsum wallboard or equivalent thermal barrier
                material that will limit the average temperature rise of the
                unexposed surface to not more than 250⁰ F (120⁰ C) after
                15 minutes of fire exposure, complying with the standard
                time-temperature curve of [American Society for Testing
                and Materials] E 119 or [Underwriters Laboratories] 263.
                The thermal barrier shall be installed in such a manner that
                it will remain in place for 15 minutes based on [Factory
                Mutual Laboratories] 4880, [Underwriters Laboratories]
                1040, [National Fire Protection Association Code] 286 or
                [Underwriters Laboratories] 1715.

(R4, tab 178 at 563) Thus, we find that, by requiring compliance with the Code, the
Contract required the use of rated foam and an adequate thermal barrier.

      5. The Code § 104.10 set forth a procedure for modifying Code provisions
(Code Modification Procedure) as follows:

                Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in
                carrying out the provisions of this code, the building
                official shall have the authority to grant modifications for
                individual cases, upon application of the owner or owner’s
                representative, provided the building official shall first find
                that special individual reason makes the strict letter of this
                code impractical and the modification is in compliance
                with the intent and purpose of this code and that such
                modification does not lessen health, accessibility, life and
                fire safety, or structural requirements.

(R4, tab 178 at 29 (emphasis omitted); see also app. supp. R4, tab 387 at 7) For Corps
projects in Afghanistan, the building official was the Authority Having Jurisdiction
(app. supp. R4, tab 387 at 2). There were three potential Authorities Having

3
    We refer to the foam and the thermal barrier together as the foam assembly.
                                              3
   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
   subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                          release.
Jurisdiction (Potential Authorities Having Jurisdiction). First, the Combined Security
Training Command-Afghanistan designated the Director, CJ-Engineering,
Colonel William Graham, as its Authority Having Jurisdiction (app. supp. R4, tab 52
at 4; tab 319 at 1). Second, the Corps treated its Chief of the Engineering and
Construction Directorate of Civil Works, James Dalton, as its Authority Having
Jurisdiction (app. supp. R4, tab 93 at 2, tab 148; tab 177 at 2). Third, other evidence
suggests that the Transatlantic District-South Contracting Officer became the
Authority Having Jurisdiction once performance began (see app. supp. R4, tab 211
at 1; tab 397 (Schmid dep.) at 55:5-24). We find that, when the Combined Security
Training Command-Afghanistan delegated responsibility to oversee the construction
of the Camp Hero East Project to the Corps, and the Corps delegated that authority to
the Transatlantic District-South, the Transatlantic District-South Contracting Officer
became the Authority Having Jurisdiction. Hoffman Constr. Co. of Alaska, ASBCA
No. 43814, 93-3 BCA ¶ 26,221 at 130,491; see also Envtl. Chem. Corp., ASBCA
Nos. 59280, 60760, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,166 at 185,363.4

       6. The specifications also required compliance with the Combined Security
Training Command-Afghanistan’s Design Standards (Austere Standards) (R4, tab 5
at 91-92). As amended, the Austere Standards general requirements stated that:

                Codes . . . applicable to United States construction or
                [United States] forces in [the Central Command] do not
                apply to projects constructed for the [Afghan National
                Security Forces], see [United States Central Command
                General Administration] 172001ZDEC10. Facilities do
                not have to be designed or constructed to . . . codes;
                however, codes will be specified for design and
                construction with only specific exemptions as delineated
                elsewhere in these standards.

(App. supp. R4, tab 52 at 4) (emphasis added) Those specific exemptions—found in
the Austere Standard specific standards divisions—included design criteria such as:

                1. [Arch]-Span walls will be left exposed with
                polyurethane insulation.

4
    As discussed in greater detail below, however, it does not matter which of the
         Potential Authorities Having Jurisdiction was the Authority Having Jurisdiction
         because none of the Potential Authorities Having Jurisdiction granted a
         modification under the Code Modification Procedure for the initially-installed
         foam assembly.
                                            4
    DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
    subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                           release.
                2. Interior walls will be prefabricated metal sandwich
                panels. Interior walls do not need to meet fire boundary
                code requirements.

                ****

                4. Drop ceilings will only be used in administrative
                buildings, medical facilities, and officer billeting. All
                other rooms will be open to the structure. Ceilings do not
                need to meet fire boundary code requirements.

(Id. at 6; see also app. supp. R4, tab 14 at 21) The Austere Standards contained no
specific exemptions regarding foam flame-spread and smoke-development limitations,
or thermal barriers (app. supp. R4, tab 52 at 6). Thus, while the Austere Standards
generally exempted projects for Afghan National Security Forces from compliance
with codes (id. at 4), we find that the exception for when a contracting officer
specified a code for construction (id.) applied to the Contract’s requirement that the
Joint Venture comply with the Code Foam Assembly Provisions because the Contract
specified for construction compliance with the Code (R4, tab 5 at 70, 91-94, 120-21,
226), and the Austere Standards did not delineate specific exemptions for foam flame-
spread and smoke-development limitations, or thermal barriers (app. supp. R4, tab 52
at 6).

       7. Even if there were an inconsistency between the Austere Standards and the
Code, the Contact assigned responsibility for resolving any such inconsistency to the
Contracting Officer (CO) (R4, tab 5 at 91).

        8. Numerous Contract drawings (Baker Drawings) showed arches covered in
foam encased in a cementitious finish 5 (app. supp. R4, tab 13 at 12; tab 14 at 2-5, 9-10;
tab 15 at 2-3). To be a Code-complaint thermal barrier, a cementitious finish must be
tested (see app. supp. R4, tab 397 at 117-18; Garabedian aff. ¶ 6). However, the Joint
Venture’s Fire Protection Engineer, Andre Garabedian, admitted during performance
that a cementitious finish could be an approved thermal barrier to apply over rated
foam (R4, tab 285 at 3). Indeed, Mr. Garabedian acknowledged that, as a thermal
barrier, a cementitious finish had the advantage over intumescent paint of not being
damaged and exposing the foam if bumped or impacted (id.). Moreover, there was
at least one cementitious fireproofing—Monokote Z—which met National Fire

5
    Cementitious finish is a fire-proofing material commonly used to protect structural
        steel from fire exposure. It is applied as a slurry by spray, and cures to a hard
        rough texture similar to stucco. (R4, tab 432 at 10)
                                              5
   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
   subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                         release.
Protection Association Code 286 and American Society for Testing and Materials E 84
at sufficient thickness (R4, tab 434 (Garabedian dep.) at 47:1-48:8).

       9. The Contract also indicated that:

              All submittals not requiring Designer of Record or
              Government approval will be for information only . . . .
              Approval of the Contracting Officer is not required on [for
              information only] submittals. These submittals will be
              used for information purposes. The Government reserves
              the right to require the Contractor to resubmit any item
              found not to comply with the contract. This does not
              relieve the Contractor from the obligation to furnish
              material conforming to the plans and specifications and
              will not prevent the Contracting Officer from requiring
              removal and replacement if nonconforming material is
              incorporated in the work.

(R4, tab 5 at 220) The Contract required the Transatlantic District-South to approve
construction transmittals for foam (id. at 219-20). The Contract assigned sole
responsibility to the Joint Venture to ensure that all transmittals were complete,
correct, and in strict conformance with the contract drawings and specifications (id.
at 221). The Transatlantic District-South’s review or approval did not relieve the Joint
Venture of its responsibility for any errors or omissions, or from complying with the
Contract’s requirements (id. at 221, 244).

       10. The Contract also encouraged the Joint Venture to propose alternative
designs and products commonly used in the region if the variations were equal in
performance from a technical standpoint and laid out a procedure to obtain approval
for such variation requests (Contract Variation Procedure) (R4, tab 5 at 90). In order
to request a variation, the Contract provided that:

              If design or construction submittals show variations from
              the contract parameters and/or requirements due to site
              conditions, the Contractor shall justify such variations in
              writing at the time of submission. Additionally, the
              Contractor shall also annotate block “h” entitled
              “variation” of ENG FORM 4025.

(Id. at 236) The ENG Form 4025 form—which was attached to the Contract—
indicated that “[a] check shall be placed in the ‘Variation’ column when a transmittal

                                              6
   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
   subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                         release.
is not in accordance with the plans and specifications—also, a written statement to that
effect shall be included in the space provided for ‘Remarks’” (id. at 244).

       11. The Contract required that the Contracting Officer approve any variation
(R4, tab 5 at 90, 240). The Contracting Officer did not delegate his authority (R4,
tab 436 (Emanuel decl.) ¶ 2). The ENG Form 4025 indicated that the Corps would
assign one of the following action codes:

              A—Approved as submitted.
              B—Approved, except as noted on drawings.
              C—Approved, except as noted on drawings. Refer to
              attached sheet resubmission required.
              D—Will be returned by separate correspondence.
              E—Disapproved (See attached).
              F—Receipt acknowledged.
              FX—Receipt acknowledged, does not comply as noted
              with contract requirements.
              G—Other (Specify)

(R4, tab 5 at 244)

        12. Under the Contract, the Joint Venture had to correct any Contract
noncompliance, and the CO could issue a stop work order until the Joint Venture took
corrective action. No part of the time lost due to such a stop work order could be the
subject of a claim for an extension of time, or for excess costs or damages. (R4, tab 5
at 95, 236)

II. Performance

       A. The Contracting Officer Did Not Approve a Variation or Modification
          Under the Contract Variation Procedure or the Code Modification Procedure
          for the Initially-Installed Assembly

       13. On April 10, 2012, the Joint Venture submitted an ENG Form 4025 (First
Transmittal), informing the Corps that the Joint Venture would use DERKIM
DEFOAM 431 (Derkim) as the foam and DC315 intumescent paint (Paint) as the
thermal barrier. The First Transmittal did not mention BASF or Bayer foam. In the
First Transmittal, the Joint Venture expressly indicated in block h that there was no
variation, failed to state in the remarks section or anywhere else that the transmittal
was not in accordance with the plans and specifications, checked the “for information
only” box instead of the “government approval” box, and did not justify any variation.
On the contrary, the First Transmittal certified that the Derkim foam was in strict

                                           7
   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
   subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                         release.
conformance with the Contract drawings and specifications, without specifically
discussing whether the Derkim foam complied with the Code § 2603.3. Thus, we find
that the First Transmittal was not a request for a variation under the Contract Variation
Procedure, or for a modification under the Code Modification Procedure, let alone a
request to use BASF or Bayer foam with 18 mil of the Paint. 6 (App. supp. R4, tab 282
at 1-4)

        14. On April 17, 2012, the Transatlantic District-South responded to the First
Transmittal on the ENG Form 4025 (First Transmittal Response). The First
Transmittal Response did not approve any variation by assigning an A Code (approved
as submitted), a B Code (approved except as noted on drawings), or a C Code
(approved except as noted on drawings . . . resubmission required). Instead, the First
Transmittal Response assigned an X Code (app. supp. R4, tab 288)—which we read to
mean FX Code (receipt acknowledged, does not comply as noted with contract
requirements) (R4, tab 5 at 244) 7—and stated that the Derkim foam “[d]oes not meet
the flame spread requirement” (app. supp. R4, tab 288). Nor is there any evidence that
the CO, or any other Potential Authority Having Jurisdiction (who had authority to
modify compliance with the Code), wrote or authorized the Fist Transmittal Response
(id.). Further, the First Transmittal Response did not make a finding that special
individual reasons made complying with the strict letter of the Code Foam Assembly
Provisions impractical; a modification complied with the intent and purpose of the
Code; and a modification did not lessen health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or
structural requirements. Therefore, we find that the First Transmittal Response was
not an approval of a variation under the Contract Variation Procedure, or of a
modification under the Code Modification Procedure, let alone for the use of BASF or
Bayer foam with 18 mil of the Paint.

    15. Indeed, the Joint Venture recognized that the First Transmittal Response did
not approve the First Transmittal by asking in an April 18, 2012, re-submittal of the
First Transmittal (Re-Submitted First Transmittal) that the Corps re-review the First
Transmittal. The Re-Submitted First Transmittal did not address BASF or Bayer
foam. In the Re-Submitted First Transmittal, the Joint Venture indicated in block h

6
  As discussed below, the Joint Venture initially installed—and the Transatlantic
       District-South rejected—BASF and Bayer foam with 18 mil of the Paint.
7
  Code X was a typo because the ENG Form 4025 did not list an X Code (R4, tab 5
       at 244). We find that the Transatlantic District-South meant to assign an FX
       Code because that was the only code with an X in it (id.). Moreover, an FX
       Code stood for “[r]eceipt acknowledged, does not comply as noted with
       contract requirements” (id.), which was consistent with the First Transmittal
       Response’s statement that the foam “[d]oes not meet the flame spread
       requirement” (app. supp. R4, tab 288).
                                            8
  DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
   subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                           release.
that there was no variation, failed to state in the remarks section or anywhere else that
the transmittal was not in accordance with the Contract’s plans and specifications,
checked the “for information only” box instead of the “government approval” box,
certified that the foam assembly was in strict conformance with the contract drawings
and specifications, included a Declaration of Conformity, and did not justify any
variation. Thus, we find that the Re-Submitted First Transmittal was not a request for
a variation under the Contract Variation Procedure, or for a modification under the
Code Modification Procedure, let alone for a variation or a modification to use BASF
or Bayer foam with 18 mil of the Paint. (R4, tab 132; app. supp. R4, tab 281)

       16. The Transatlantic District-South then conducted internal discussions about
how to code the Re-Submitted First Transmittal. In an April 21, 2012, email, a
Transatlantic District-South Structural Engineer, Adam Justice, recommended a
B Code (approved, except as noted on drawings) (app. supp. R4 tabs 284-85; R4, tab 5
at 244). However, we find that that opinion represented the internal opinion of one
engineer. That engineer’s opinion did not constitute approval of a variation request
under the Contract Variation Procedure, or of a modification request under the Code
Modification Procedure, because that opinion was not adopted by the Contracting
Officer—or anyone with authority—or even communicated to the Joint Venture—let
alone on an ENG Form 4025. Indeed, the engineer’s internal opinion was not even the
only internal opinion within the Transatlantic District-South. In an April 21, 2012
email, Lorenzo Lora recommended giving an E Code (disapproved). (App. supp. R4,
tabs 284-85; R4, tab 5 at 244)

        17. Ultimately, the Transatlantic District-South rejected both Mr. Justice and
Mr. Lora’s recommendations. On April 25, 2012, the Transatlantic District-South
responded to the Re-Submitted First Transmittal on the ENG Form 4025 (Re-
Submitted First Transmittal Response). The Re-Submitted First Transmittal Response
did not approve the Re-Submitted First Transmittal by assigning an A Code (approved
as submitted), a B Code (approved, except as noted on drawings), or a C Code
(approved except as noted on drawings . . . resubmission required). Instead, the Re-
Submitted First Transmittal Response merely acknowledged receipt by assigning an
F Code (receipt acknowledged), and included no remarks. Nor is there any evidence
that the Contracting Officer, or any other Potential Authority Having Jurisdiction,
wrote or authorized the Re-Submitted First Transmittal Response. Further, the Re-
Submitted First Transmittal Response did not make a finding that special individual
reasons made complying with the strict letter of the Code Foam Assembly Provisions
impractical; that a modification complied with the intent and purpose of the Code; or
that a modification did not lessen health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural
requirements. Thus, we find that the Re-Submitted First Transmittal Response was not
an approval of a variation request under the Contract Variation Procedure, or of a

                                             9
 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
  subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                       release.
modification under the Code Modification Procedure, let alone for the use of BASF or
Bayer foam with 18 mil of the Paint. (App. supp. R4, tab 131; R4, tab 5 at 244)

        18. Beginning in October 2012 and March 2013, the Joint Venture applied
BASF and Bayer foam 8—instead of Derkim foam—covered with 18 mils 9 of the Paint
to the arch-spans (Initially-Installed Assembly) (R4, tab 76 at 25-27; ASUMF ¶ 149).
The Initially-Installed Assembly did not comply with the Code Foam Assembly
Provisions because the BASF and Bayer foam (Non-Rated Foam) was not rated—i.e.,
it did not have a flame-spread index of not more than 75 and a smoke-development
index of not more than 450 where tested in the maximum thickness intended for use in
accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials E84 or Underwriters
Labs 723 (R4, tab 285 at 3; tab 432 at 13-15).

        19. Again recognizing that the Corps had not approved a variation or
modification for the use of the Non-Rated Foam, the Joint Venture submitted a new
ENG Form 4025 on December 25, 2012 (Second Transmittal), indicating that the Joint
Venture would use the Non-Rated Foam, but not mentioning the Paint. In the Second
Transmittal, the Joint Venture indicated in the Second Transmittal in block h that there
was no variation, failed to state in the remarks section or anywhere else that the
transmittal was not in accordance with the plans and specifications, checked the “for
information only” box instead of the “government approval” box, certified that the
Second Transmittal was in strict conformance with the contract drawings and
specifications, and did not justify any variation. Thus, we find that the Second
Transmittal was not a request for a variation under the Contract Variation Procedure,
or for a modification under the Contract Modification Procedure. (App. supp. R4,
tab 289 at 1, 4-15)

       20. The Transatlantic District-South responded to the Second Transmittal on
January 27, 2013 (Second Transmittal Response). The Second Transmittal Response
did not approve the Second Transmittal by assigning an A Code (approved as
submitted), a B Code (approved, except as noted on drawings), or a C Code (approved
except as noted on drawings . . . resubmission required). Instead, the Second
Transmittal Response again merely acknowledged receipt by assigning an F Code
(receipt acknowledged). Nor is there any evidence that the Contracting Officer, or any
other Potential Authority Having Jurisdiction, wrote the Second Transmittal Response.
Further, the Second Transmittal Response did not make a finding that special
individual reasons made complying with the strict letter of the Code Foam Assembly

8
  The components of the BASF foam were Elastospray H 1611/31 and Iso
       PMDI92140. The components of the Bayer foam were Baymer SHPU-40-27
       and Desmodur 44V20L (R4, tab 76 at 20).
9
  A mil is one-thousandth of an inch (ASUMF ¶ 115 n.10).
                                          10
   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
   subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                         release.
Provisions impractical; that a modification complied with the intent and purpose of the
Code; or that a modification did not lessen health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or
structural requirements. Thus, we find that the Second Transmittal Response was not
an approval of a variation under the Contract Variation Procedure, or of a modification
under the Contract Modification Procedure. (R4, tab 5 at 244; app. supp. R4, tab 289
at 1)

       B. Fires at Other Arch-Span Buildings and Suspension of the Foam Assembly
          Installation on the Camp Hero East Project_

       21. In 2012, there were two fires involving the Non-Rated Foam on other
arch- span building projects (R4, tab 255-59).

        22. In late March 2013, the Joint Venture finished installing the
Initially- Installed Assembly on the Camp Hero East Project (R4, tab 76 at 25-27).

        23. On April 7, 2013, the Transatlantic District-South Contracting Officer sent
a letter to the Joint Venture suspending work associated with the foam assembly
installation (R4, tab 65 at 1).

       C. A Dispute Between the Transatlantic District-South and the Transatlantic
          District-North Did Not Result in A Modification of the Code Foam
          Assembly Provisions by any Potential Authority Having Jurisdiction to
          Permit the use of the Initially-Installed Assembly on the Camp Hero East
          Project Under the Code Modification Procedure

       24. In May 2013, a dispute arose between the Transatlantic District-South and
the Transatlantic District-North about the acceptability of the Non-Rated Foam and the
Paint.

        25. On the one hand, while the Transatlantic District-South acknowledged in a
May 17, 2013 email that the Code allowed the Authority Having Jurisdiction to accept
non-rated foam under the Code Modification Procedure (app. supp. R4, tab 387 at 2),
a May 13, 2013 Transatlantic Division email and a March 10, 2013 Transatlantic
District-South email show that the Transatlantic District-South’s position was that
there had been no such modification of the Code Foam Assembly Provisions to permit
the Initially-Installed Assembly on the Camp Hero East Project (app. supp. R4, tab 94
(sheet 1 at rows 26, 36, 41, 42); tab 95 at 3, 7; see also app. supp. R4, tab 153 at 2). In
the May 17, 2013 Transatlantic District-South email, none of the three Potential
Authorities Having Jurisdiction granted a modification of the Code Foam Assembly
Provisions for the individual case of using the Initially-Installed Assembly based upon
a finding that special individual reasons made complying with the strict letter of the

                                            11
  DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
   subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                         release.
Code Foam Assembly Provisions impractical; a modification complied with the intent
and purpose of the Code; and a modification did not lessen health, accessibility, life
and fire safety, or structural requirements (app. supp. R4, tab 387 at 2). Thus, we find
that the May 17, 2013, Transatlantic District-South email does not demonstrate that a
Potential Authority Having Jurisdiction modified the Code Foam Assembly Provisions
under the Contract Modification Procedure to permit the Initially-Installed Assembly
on the Camp Hero East Project.

        26. On the other hand, a May 11, 2013 Transatlantic Division email, the
May 13, 2013 Transatlantic District-South email, the May 16, 2013 Transatlantic
District-South email, a May 16, 2013 Transatlantic District-North power-point, and a
May 17, 2013 Transatlantic District-North email (Transatlantic District-North
Documents) expressed the Transatlantic District-North’s position that non-rated foam
with the Paint was acceptable on other projects besides the Camp Hero East Project
under the Code Modification Procedure. Nevertheless, in the Transatlantic District-
North Documents, none of the three Potential Authorities Having Jurisdiction granted
a modification of the Code Foam Assembly Provisions for the individual case of using
the Initially-Installed Assembly on the Camp Hero East Project based upon a finding
that special individual reasons made complying with the strict letter of the Code Foam
Assembly Provisions impractical; a modification complied with the intent and purpose
of the Code; and a modification did not lessen health, accessibility, life and fire safety,
or structural requirements. Thus, we find that the Transatlantic District-North
Documents do not demonstrate that a Potential Authority Having Jurisdiction modified
the Code Foam Assembly Provisions under the Contract Modification Procedure to
permit the Initially-Installed Assembly on the Camp Hero East Project. (App. supp.
R4, tab 90; tab 93 (sheet 2 at rows 16, 17, 19, 26, 29); tab 108, tab 121 at 1; ASUMF ¶
183) 10 On the contrary, the May 11, 2013, email stated that “we really need a final
[Authority Having Jurisdiction] determination [no later than] 20-30 days” (app. supp.
R4, tab 90 at 1).

        27. Accordingly, on May 13, 2013, the Transatlantic Division referred the
dispute between the Transatlantic District-North and the Transatlantic District-South
“as to the acceptability of ‘equivalent’ systems to ensure [Code] compliance” to
Mr. Dalton as the Authority Having Jurisdiction (app. supp. R4, tab 93 at 2).

      28. On May 22, 2013, Mr. Dalton issued an “Authority Having Jurisdiction . . .
Decision” in response to the May 13, 2013 request, stating that:

10
     “ASUMF” refers to the Joint Venture’s Statement of Undisputed Material Fact.
        “GRASUMF” refers to the government’s response to the ASUMF.
                                            12
  DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
  subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                            release.
              I . . . find insufficient evidence to support code compliance
              or equivalency without further testing.

              Research indicates that Baymer, manufactured by Bayer
              and other installed foams have not been tested for
              compliance with [American Society for Testing and
              Materials ] E 84 as required by the Code section 2603. In
              order to establish code equivalency, whether Baymer and
              others complies with [American Society for Testing and
              Materials] E 84, I recommend that you continue with your
              plan to perform required testing as contracted with Michael
              Baker Jr. Inc.

(App. supp. R4, tab 148 at 1 (emphasis added); see also app. supp. R4, tab 153 at 2
(acknowledging Mr. Dalton’s decision and indicating that the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Training Mission-Afghanistan Commander agreed that the Corps should
comply with the Code))

       D. The Contracting Officer Lifted the Stay and Allowed a Variation and a
          Modification to use the Non-Rated Foam with 50 mil of the Paint

       29. On July 1, 2013, the Joint Venture advised the Corps that Bayer foam with
40 mils of the Paint, and BASF foam with 50 mils of the Paint, both passed the
National Fire Protection Association Code 286 test (R4, tab 385 at 1; see also app.
supp. R4, tab 335 (noting test results)). As a result, International Fireproof
Technology indicated that the warranty only would be extended if the Joint Venture
applied 50 mil of the Paint to the Non-Rated Foam (R4, tab 402 at 4).

        30. On July 5, 2013, the Contracting Officer sent a letter to the Joint Venture
lifting the April 7, 2013 partial suspension of work, and directing the Joint Venture to
submit a corrective action plan (R4, tab 87 at 1-2). On July 28, 2013, the Contracting
Officer issued a follow-up letter, indicating that the Non-Rated Foam did not meet the
Code, and therefore the Contract’s requirements. However, the Contracting Officer
indicated that the Corps would accept the Non-Rated Foam if covered by 50 mils of
the Paint or W.R. Grade Firebond bonding coat plus two 3/8-inch coats of Monokote
Z-3306 (cementitious) or Monokote Z-3306/G (gypsum-based) thermal barriers
because testing showed that such foam assemblies met thermal barrier requirements.
(R4, tab 92)

       31. Between October 11, 2013 and February 15, 2014, the Joint Venture
applied the additional Paint (ASUMF ¶ 261; GRASUMF ¶ 261).

                                           13
     DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
     subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                         release.
         E. Mr. Dalton and the Transatlantic Division Approved the use of the Non-
             Rated Foam with 50 mil of the Paint

      32. On August 28, 2013, Mr. Dalton issued a memorandum accepting the Non-
Rated Foam with 50 mil of the Paint based upon the testing (app. supp. R4, tab 312).

       33. In memoranda dated September 13, 2013 and January 21, 2014, and a
June 20, 2014 letter (Transatlantic Division Modification Documents), the
Transatlantic Division discussed how the Corps had authorized the use of the Non-
Rated Foam with 50 mil of the Paint because that assembly had passed National Fire
Protection Association Code 286 tests, without addressing the Initially-Installed
Assembly.11 In the Transatlantic Division Modification Documents, a Potential
Authority Having Jurisdiction did not grant a modification of the Code Foam
Assembly Provisions for the individual case of using the Initially-Installed Assembly
on the Camp Hero East Project based upon a finding that special individual reasons
made complying with the strict letter of the Code Foam Assembly Provisions
impractical; a modification complied with the intent and purpose of the Code; and a
modification did not lessen health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural
requirements. Thus, we find that the Transatlantic Division Modification Documents
do not demonstrate that a Potential Authority Having Jurisdiction modified the Code
Foam Assembly Provisions under the Contract Modification Procedure to permit the
Initially-Installed Assembly on the Camp Hero East Project. (R4, tab 203 at 1-2;
tab 415 at 1-2; app. supp. R4, tab 368 at 6, 11)

11
     The September 13, 2013 memorandum expressly mentions the approval of the Non-
         Rated Foam with 50 mil of the Paint (R4, tab 203 at 1-2). The January 21, 2014
         memorandum and the June 20, 2014 letter also clearly are discussing the
         approval of the Non-Rated Foam with 50 mil of the Paint—and not any
         approval of the Initially-Installed Assembly of Non-Rated Foam with 18 mil of
         the Paint—because: (1) the Transatlantic Division issued that memorandum and
         letter after the Contracting Officer rejected the Initially-Installed Assembly of
         the Non-Rated Foam with 18 mils of the Paint and the Transatlantic District-
         South subsequently modified the Code Foam Assembly Provisions to permit the
         Non-Rated Foam with 50 mils of the Paint; and (2) the January 21, 2014
         memorandum and the July 20, 2014 letter expressly referred to the accepted
         assembly passing the National Fire Protection Association Code 286 test (app.
         supp. R4, tab 368 at 6, 12), and the assembly with 50 mil of the Paint—but not
         the Initially-Installed Assembly with 18 mil of the Paint—passed that test
         (finding 29).
                                             14
  DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
  subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                     release.
      F. The Transatlantic Afghanistan District Requested Permission to Base the
          Paint Thickness on Opaqueness

       34. As the United States’ involvement in Afghanistan decreased, the Corps
closed the Transatlantic District-North and the Transatlantic District-South and
assigned their responsibilities to the new Transatlantic Afghanistan District on
July 9, 2013 (gov’t resp. to Board’s June 2, 2023 Order, ex. 1 (Adams aff.) ¶ 4(e)).

         35. In September 28, 2013 and October 15, 2013 memoranda (Transatlantic
Afghanistan District Memoranda), the Transatlantic Afghanistan District documented
its decision to use the opaqueness of the Paint on other projects besides the Camp Hero
East Project to determine the adequacy of the Paint thickness due to the operational
needs of those other projects, and requested approval for that approach from CJ-
Engineer Graham (app. supp. R4, tab 360 at 2; tab 363 at 1-3). In the Transatlantic
Afghanistan District Memoranda, none of the three Potential Authorities Having
Jurisdiction granted a modification of the Code Foam Assembly Provisions for the
individual case of using the Initially-Installed Assembly on the Camp Hero East
Project based upon a finding that special individual reasons made complying with the
strict letter of the Code Foam Assembly Provisions impractical; a modification
complied with the intent and purpose of the Code; and a modification did not lessen
health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural requirements (app. supp. R4,
tab 360 at 2; tab 363 at 1-3). Thus, we find that the Transatlantic Afghanistan District
Memoranda do not demonstrate that a Potential Authority Having Jurisdiction
modified the Code Foam Assembly Provisions under the Contract Modification
Procedure to permit the Initially-Installed Assembly on the Camp Hero East Project.

        36. Contrary to any suggestion by the Joint Venture, there is no evidence that
CJ-Engineer Graham responded to—let alone approved—the Transatlantic
Afghanistan District Memoranda (app. supp. R4, tab 360 at 2; tab 363 at 1-3). Indeed,
the Joint Venture has failed to point to any documents in which CJ-Engineer Graham
granted a modification to the Code Foam Assembly Provision under the Code
Modification Procedures—let alone for the individual case of using the
Initially- Installed Assembly on the Camp Hero East Project.

        37. As a result of the above findings, we further find that there is no evidence
that the Contracting Officer—or any other Potential Authority Having Jurisdiction—
approved a variation under the Contract Variation Procedure, or a modification under
the Code Modification Procedure for the Initially-Installed Assembly on the Camp
Hero East Project.

                                           15
   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
   subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                       release.
III. Purported Prior Course of Dealing

   38. The Joint Venture submits affidavits asserting that it used foam with no
thermal barrier on other arch-span projects that included the Baker drawings and
required compliance with the Code and the Austere Standards (Hayward aff. ¶ 10;
McFerrin aff. ¶¶ 31-36; Musa aff. ¶ 12).

   39. The assertion regarding the Baker drawings is not credible because, at least
some of the other projects referenced in the affidavits did not use the Baker drawings
(R4, tab 375 at 2), and others used earlier versions of the Baker drawings (ASUMF ¶
62).

    40. The assertion regarding the use of foam without a thermal barrier also is not
credible because there is evidence that the Joint Venture often used thermal barriers on
other arch-span projects (app. supp. R4, tabs 137, 233, 235). Indeed, while the Joint
Venture’s Senior Program Manager, Dan McFerrin, complains about adherence
problems, he admits that another project used a cementitious finish thermal barrier in
particular (McFerrin aff. ¶ 34). Moreover, we do not find the declarant’s assertion that
the Joint Venture used foam with no thermal barrier credible in light of the
inconsistency with the declarant’s testimony in ECC Int’l, LLC, ASBCA No. 58993 et
al., 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,073 at 184,877, that the Joint Venture’s arch-span designs had
“polyurethane with a coat sealer over it” (app. supp. R4, tab 399 ¶ 44).

    41. Further, the Joint Venture has not shown that the Corps accepted arch-span
buildings without thermal barriers on prior projects as a matter of course. To the
contrary, the Joint Venture acknowledges that the Corps rejected its foam assembly on
at least two other occasions (McEerrin aff. ¶¶ 37-38).

   42. The Joint Venture fails to submit any contemporaneous evidence from those
other projects—such as the other contracts (see Hayward aff.; McErrin aff.; Musa aff.).

IV. Procedural History

    43. On April 19, 2019, the Joint Venture submitted a certified claim regarding the
foam assembly (R4, tab 3 at 1). The April 19, 2019 certified claim did not allege that
a Potential Authority Having Jurisdiction approved a modification for the Initially-
Installed Assembly under the Code Modification Procedure (id.). However, the
April 19, 2019 claim cited an August 3, 2013 letter from the Joint Venture to the
Contracting Officer (id. at 5). That April 19, 2019 letter alleged that:

              The Government, acting as the Authority Having
              Jurisdiction, agreed and approved those very same

                                          16
     DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
     subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                               release.
                 assemblies on virtually all Arch-Span buildings in
                 Afghanistan . . . . [I]t is evident that the Government has
                 exercised its discretionary authority, as the Authority
                 Having Jurisdiction, in determining the system’s
                 compliance across virtually every Arch-Span project in
                 Afghanistan.

(R4, tab 94 at 5-6)

   44. There was a deemed denial, as the Contracting Officer failed to issue a final
decision (ASUMF ¶¶ 206-07; GRASUMF ¶¶ 206-07).

      45. This appeal followed.

                                         DECISION

        The Corps did not constructively change the Contract when it suspended work
on the Initially-Installed Assembly, and then directed the Joint Venture to use 50 mils
of the Paint. 12 In order to establish that there was a constructive change, a contractor
must show that: (1) an official directed it to perform work not required under the
terms of the contract; (2) the official directing the change had contractual authority to
alter the contractor’s duties unilaterally; (3) the official enlarged the contractor’s
performance requirements; and (4) the added work was not volunteered, but resulted
from official direction. CDM Constructors, Inc., ASBCA No. 60454 et al., 18-1 BCA
¶ 37,190 at 181,011-12. In determining what work a contract requires, “clear and
unambiguous [contract provisions] must be given their plain and ordinary meaning,
and we may not resort to extrinsic evidence to interpret them.” Id. at 181,012.
(quoting Coast Fed. Bank, FSB v. United States, 323 F.3d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(en banc)). An ambiguity exists when a contract is susceptible to more than one
reasonable interpretation. Id. (quoting E.L.Hamm & Assocs., Inc. v. England, 379 F.3d
1334, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

      Here, the Transatlantic District-South did not direct the Joint Venture to
perform work not required under the terms of the Contract, or enlarge the Joint
Venture’s performance requirements, when the Transatlantic District-South suspended
work on the Initially-Installed Assembly, and subsequently directed the Joint Venture

12
     The Corps also gave the Joint Venture the option of using a cementitious finish—
         albeit a thicker one than required by the Contract to account for the fact that it
         would cover non-rated foam instead of the rated foam required by the Contract
         (finding 30). Because the Joint Venture ultimately installed the 50 mils of the
         Paint (finding 31), we focus on that direction.
                                              17
   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
   subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                          release.
to use 50 mil of the Paint. The Contract permitted the Corps to suspend work if it did
not comply with the Contract requirements (finding 12). The Contract unambiguously
required that the foam be covered with a cementitious finish, and comply with the
Code, which required foam to be rated and covered with an adequate thermal barrier
(findings 4, 8). The Initially-Installed Assembly did not comply with those contract
requirements because it included non-rated foam and did not include a cementitious
finish (finding 18). Therefore, the Transatlantic District-South did not direct the Joint
Venture to perform work not required under the terms of the Contract, or enlarge the
Joint Venture’s performance requirements, when it suspended work on the
Initially- Installed Assembly, and subsequently directed the Joint Venture to increase
the thermal barrier thickness.

        In response, the Joint Venture argues that: (1) the foam assembly did not need
to comply with the Code Foam Assembly Provisions because the Contract
incorporated the Austere Standards, which purportedly indicated that the Joint Venture
did not need to comply with the Code (app. br. at 108, 114, 116-17); (2) the
Contracting Officer approved a variation under the Contract Variation Procedure,
and/or the Authority Having Jurisdiction approved a modification under the Code
Modification Procedure (id. at 108-09, 114-15); (3) the extrinsic evidence of the prior
course of dealing and the Corps’ contemporaneous understanding establish that the
Initially-Installed Assembly met or exceeded the Contract’s requirements (id. at 108,
111, 115, 118-20); and (4) rebuttal documents establish that the Initially-Installed
Assembly complied with the Contract’s requirements (Hayward rebuttal aff., exs. 1-2).
As discussed in greater detail below, none of those arguments have merit.13

I. The Austere Standards

      The Contract required the Joint Venture to comply with the Code Foam
Assembly Provisions, despite its requirement that the Joint Venture also comply with
the Austere Standards. We read a contract as a whole so as to give meaning to all of

13
     Even if the Contract’s requirement that the Joint Venture comply with the Austere
         Standards meant that it did not have to comply with the Code Foam Assembly
         Provisions, or the Authority Having Jurisdiction had modified the Code Foam
         Assembly Provisions (neither of which is the case), that would not excuse the
         Joint Venture’s failure to comply with the Baker Drawings’ cementitious finish
         requirement, which alone would justify the Transatlantic District-South’s stop-
         work order. Conversely, even if the parties’ prior course of dealing established
         that the Contract did not require a thermal barrier (which is not the case), that
         would not excuse the Joint Venture’s failure to comply with Code § 2603.3’s
         requirement that the Joint Venture use rated foam, which alone would justify
         the Transatlantic District-South’s stop-work order.
                                             18
   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
   subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                         release.
its provisions. Julius Goldman’s Egg City v. United States, 697 F.2d 1051, 1057-58
(Fed. Cir. 1983). Here, the Contract required compliance with both the Code and the
Austere Standards (findings 4, 6). While the Austere Standards generally exempted
contractors constructing projects for the Afghan National Security Forces from codes
applicable to United States construction, it made an exception (Specified Codes
Exception) where a contracting officer specified a code for construction in a contract
by stating that “however, codes will be specified for design and construction with only
specific exemptions as delineated elsewhere in these standards” (finding 6). The
Specified Codes Exception applied here because the Contract specified the Code for
construction, and the Austere Standards did not delineate specific exemptions
regarding the foam’s flame-spread and smoke-development limitations, or thermal
barriers (findings 4, 6). Therefore, when read as a whole, the Contract’s requirement
to comply with both the Austere Standards and the Code required the Joint Venture to
comply with the Code Foam Assembly Provisions.

       The Joint Venture argues that the Specified Codes Exception did not apply
because, while the Contract specified for construction the Code, it did not specify for
construction the specific sections of the Code addressing the foam assembly—i.e., the
Code Foam Assembly Provisions (app. sur-reply at 12). However, the Specified
Codes Exception applied when a contracting officer specifies for construction “codes;”
not specific sections of codes (finding 6). Thus, the Contract’s specification of the
Code was sufficient to require compliance with the Code Foam Assembly Provision
under the Specified Codes Exception (finding 4).

        The Joint Venture also argues that the Austere Standards delineated a specific
exemption from the Specified Codes Exception for thermal barriers by purportedly
stating that the foam will be left exposed (app. br. at 114, 116). However, the Austere
Standards stated that “[arch]-span walls will be left exposed with polyurethane
insulation” (finding 6). Thus, it indicated that the arch-span walls—and not the
foam—will be left exposed (id.). In any event, even if that language were ambiguous
(which is not the case) the Joint Venture’s initial installation of a thermal barrier—
albeit over non-rated foam—would demonstrate its contemporaneous understanding
that it had to provide a thermal barrier (finding 18). Further, the Joint Venture’s
argument does nothing to justify its use of non-rated foam.

       The Joint Venture next points to our decision in ECC Int’l, LLC, ASBCA
No. 58993 et al., 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,073 (app. br. at 6, 120-21 n.31). That case does not
address the relevant issue here of whether a contract that mandates compliance with
both the Austere Standards and the Code, and contains drawings showing a
cementitious finish, requires rated foam and a cementitious finish. 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,073
at 184,879.

                                          19
   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
   subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                          release.
       To the extent that the Joint Venture relies upon the Austere Standard’s
provisions stating that ceilings and interior walls do not need to meet fire boundary
code requirements (app. br. at 114), those provisions do not establish that the Austere
Standards delineated a specific exemption from the Specific Codes Exception for the
foam’s fire-spread and smoke-development limitations, or thermal barriers. It is clear
when read in context that the sentence stating that “[c]eilings do not need to meet fire
boundary code requirements” was referring to drop ceilings because the paragraph was
addressing drop ceilings (finding 6). Moreover, the sentence stating that “[i]nterior
walls do not need to meet fire boundary code requirements” expressly referred to
interior walls (id.). Those paragraphs were not referring to the interior of the arch-
span structure because, as the Joint Venture concedes, the arch-span structure did not
have drop ceilings or interior walls (app. br. at 2); ECCI, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,073
at 184,877. In any event, those provisions exempted drop ceilings and interior walls
from the fire boundary code; not foam from the Code Foam Assembly Provisions
(finding 6).

        Moreover, even if the Joint Venture were correct that the Austere Standards
exempted the Joint Venture from complying with the Code Foam Assembly Provisions
(which is not the case), that merely would establish an inconsistency between the
Contract requiring compliance with the Austere Standards and the Code. Under those
circumstances, the Contract expressly provided that the Contracting Officer should
resolve the discrepancy (finding 7). Here, the Contracting Officer resolved any
ambiguity by rejecting the Initially-Installed Assembly that did not comply with the
Code (finding 23). Thus, the Austere Standards do not establish that the Initially-
Installed Assembly met the Contract’s requirements.

II. Variation and/or Modification

        Nor was a variation or modification of the Code Foam Assembly Provisions for
the Initially-Installed Assembly under the Contract Variation Procedure, or the Code
Modification Procedure, such that the Initially-Installed Assembly met the Contract’s
requirements.

       A. The Contracting Officer Did Not Approve a Variation Under the Contract
          Variation Procedure

       First, the Contracting Officer did not approve a variation from the Code Foam
Assembly Provisions for the Initially-Installed Assembly under the Contract Variation
Procedure. The government’s approval of a submission that does not comply with a
contract’s requirements does not relieve a contractor of its obligation to comply with a
contract, unless a contract has a procedure for obtaining a variation, the contractor
complied with that procedure by pointing out a deviation from the contract’s

                                           20
  DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
  subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                      release.
requirements, and the agency approves a variation. Elter S.A., ASBCA No. 52327, 01-
1 BCA ¶ 31,421 at 155,162; see also BYA Int’l, LLC, ASBCA Nos. 58031, 58341, 13
BCA ¶ 35,424 at 173,778.

       Here, the Contract provided that approval of a submission by the Transatlantic
District-South did not relieve the Joint Venture of its obligation to comply with the
Contract’s requirements (finding 9). However, the Contract permitted the Joint
Venture to request a variation through the Contract Variation Procedure by annotating
ENG Form 4025 block h, stating in the remarks section that the transmittal was not in
accordance with the Contract’s plans and specifications, and justifying such a variation
in writing at the time of submission (finding 10). The Contracting Officer had to
approve any variation (finding 11).

       The Joint Venture points to the First Transmittal, the Re-Submitted First
Transmittal, and the Second Transmittal (collectively, Transmittals) as evidence that it
purportedly requested a variation; and the First Transmittal Response, the Re-
Submitted First Transmittal Response, the Second Transmittal Response (collectively,
Responses), and the April 21, 2012 engineer’s email as evidence that the Transatlantic
District-South purportedly granted a variation (app. br. at 108-09, 114-15). However,
the Transmittals did not request a variation to the cementitious finish and compliance
with the Code Foam Assembly Provisions requirements for the Initially-Installed
Assembly because they did not point out a deviation from the Contract’s requirements
by annotating block h, stating in the remarks section that the transmittals were not in
accordance with the Contract’s plans and specifications, and justifying any variation
(finding 13, 15, 19). Moreover, in the Transmittal Responses, the Contracting Officer
did not approve a variation for the Initially-Installed Assembly because there is no
evidence that the Contracting Officer wrote or authorized the Transmittal Responses,
and the Transmittal Responses assigned receipt acknowledged codes—namely the F
Code (receipt acknowledged) and the FX Code (receipt acknowledged, does not
comply as noted with contract requirements)—instead of approval codes—namely the
A Code (approved), the B Code (approved, except as noted on drawings), or the C
Code (approved except as noted on drawings . . . resubmission required) (findings 14,
17, 20).

       While an engineer opined that the Re-Submitted First Transmittal should
receive a B Code (approved, except as noted on drawings) in an August 21, 2012
email, that does not constitute approval under the Contract Variation Procedure
because it was not issued or approved by the Contracting Officer, or even sent to the
Joint Venture—let alone on an ENG Form 4025 (finding 16). On the contrary, the
August 21, 2012 email expressed internally one engineer’s opinion, which was
opposed by at least one other employee, and ultimately rejected by the Transatlantic
District-South (finding 16). Rather, the Transatlantic District-South responded to the

                                           21
  DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
  subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                        release.
Re-Submitted First Transmittal on the ENG Form 4025 with an F Code (receipt
acknowledged) (finding 17). Indeed, by submitting a Second Transmittal after the
August 21, 2012 email, the Joint Venture recognized that the Transatlantic District-
South had not approved a variation for the Initially-Installed Assembly (finding 19).

        The Joint Venture asserts that Corps personnel who were not the Contracting
Officer routinely approved Code variations, such as for the wall partitions (app. br. at
33-34; app. reply at 71). However, unlike for the foam assembly, the Contract did not
require that design features such as wall partitions comply with the Code because—
unlike for the foam assembly—the Austere Standards contained specific exemptions
from the Specific Codes Exception for the wall partitions (finding 6). Thus, there was
no variation requiring approval regarding those design features. In any event, the Joint
Venture’s argument amounts to an argument that some Corps personnel had apparent
authority, which we have found is an insufficient basis upon which to attribute an
official’s conduct to an agency. Meltech Corp., Inc., ASBCA Nos. 61706, 61768, 22-
1 BCA ¶ 38,117 at 185,156 (citing Winter v. Cath-dr/Balti Joint Venture, 497 F.3d
1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).

       The Joint Venture also argues that transmittals for foam required Transatlantic
District-South approval (app. reply at 35-36). That is accurate, but it was the Joint
Venture’s responsibility under the Contract to ensure that all transmittals were correct
(finding 9). Therefore, the errors in the Transmittals—including their failure to
request the Transatlantic District-South’s approval—were the fault of the Joint
Venture, and not the Transatlantic District-South.

       The Joint Venture finally points to Envtl. Chem. Corp., ASBCA Nos. 59280,
60760, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,166 at 185,361-62; (app. br. at 113-14). That case does not
establish that the Contracting Officer approved a variation under the Code Variation
Procedure here because, unlike in this case, the government official with authority
approved the transmittal in that case. Envtl. Chem. Corp., 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,166
at 185,361-62.

      In sum, the Joint Venture did not request, and the Contracting Officer did not
approve, a variation from the cementitious finish and compliance with the Code Foam
Assembly Provisions requirements for the Initially-Installed Assembly under the
Contract Variation Procedure.

       B. Modification Under the Code Modification Procedure

     While the Joint Venture’s modification under the Code Modification Procedure
argument is not a new claim, that argument lacks merit.

                                           22
     DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
     subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                       release.
             1. The Modification Argument is not a new Argument

        The Corps argues that we should not consider the Joint Venture’s modification
argument because that argument purportedly constitutes a new claim (gov’t reply 260-
62). 14 We will not entertain a claim if it is a new claim that an appellant failed to
present to the contracting officer. DLT Solutions, LLC, ASBCA No. 63069, 22-1 BCA
¶ 38,144 at 185,270. While an appellant may introduce on appeal additional facts that
do not alter the nature of the original claim, its appeal must be based upon a common
or related set of operative facts to those presented to the contracting officer. Id. A
claim is new when it presents a materially different factual or legal theory of relief. Id.
In determining the material facts presented to the contracting officer, we consider all
of the correspondence submitted by an appellant. Holmes & Narver, Inc., ASBCA
No. 51430, 99-1 BCA ¶ 30,131 at 149,054; Valco Constr. Co., Inc., ASBCA
Nos. 47909 48313, 96-2 BCA ¶ 28,344 at 141,552.

        Here, while the April 19, 2019 claim did not specifically refer to the Joint
Venture’s modification argument, the August 2, 2013 letter from the Joint Venture to
the Contracting Officer—which the April 19, 2019 claim cited and we must consider
as part of the claim, Holmes & Narver, 99-1 BCA ¶ 30,131 at 149,054; Valco Constr.,
96-2 BCA ¶ 28,344 at 141,552—alleged that the Authority Having Jurisdiction
modified the Code under the Code Modification Procedure (finding 43). That
allegation is not materially different than the modification argument the Joint Venture
raises in this appeal. Therefore, that argument is not a new claim.

             2. The Modification Argument Lacks Merit

       However, a Potential Authorities Having Jurisdiction—let alone the Authority
Having Jurisdiction (namely, the Contracting Officer (finding 5))—did not modify the
Code Foam Assembly Provisions for the Initially-Installed Foam on the Camp Hero
East Project. The Code Modification Procedure allowed the Authority Having
Jurisdiction to:

                grant modifications for individual cases, upon application
                of the owner or owner’s representative, provided the
                [Authority Having Jurisdiction] shall first find that special
                individual reasons make the strict letter of this code
                impractical and the modification is in compliance with the
                intent and purpose of this code and that such modification

14
     We grant the Corps’ motion to file a sur-reply regarding jurisdiction, and deny its
        motion to strike a portion of the Joint Venture’s sur-reply.
                                             23
     DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
     subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                            release.
                 does not lessen health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or
                 structural requirements.

(Finding ¶ 5)

        Here, the Joint Venture cites the Transmittals, the Transmittal Responses, the
April 21, 2012 engineer email, the May 17, 2013 Transatlantic District-South email,
the Transatlantic District-North Documents, the Transatlantic Division Modification
Documents, and the Transatlantic Afghanistan District Memoranda (collectively, Cited
Documents) (app. br. at 108-10). 15 However, none of the Cited Documents show that
a Potential Authority Having Jurisdiction—let alone the Contracting Officer—granted
a modification for the individual case of the Initially-Installed Assembly on the Camp
Hero East Project based upon a finding that special individual reasons made
complying with the strict letter of the Code impractical; a modification complied with
the intent and purpose of the Code; and a modification did not lessen health,
accessibility, life, and fire safety, or structural requirements (findings 13-20, 25-26, 33,
35). To the contrary:

         (1)    As discussed in greater detail above, the Transmittals did
                not request a modification, and neither the Transmittal
                Responses nor the April 21, 2012 engineer email approved
                any modification—let alone constituted any Potential
                Authority Having Jurisdiction making a finding that
                special individual reasons made complying with the strict
                letter of the Code Foam Assembly Provisions impractical;
                a modification complied with the intent and purpose of the
                Code; and a modification did not lessen health,
                accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural requirements
                (findings 13-20).

         (2)    The May 17, 2013 Transatlantic District-South email
                merely recognized that the Authority Having Jurisdiction
                had the power to modify the Code; not that he actually had

15
     The Joint Venture also cites opinions from fire experts that there was a modification
         under Code Modification Procedure (app. br. at 108-09). However, we do not
         give that testimony weight because an expert may not give testimony regarding
         ultimate legal conclusions, Lockheed Corp., ASBCA No. 36420 et al., 91-2
         BCA ¶ 23,903, and it is unsupported by contemporaneous communications.
         See Hurst Excavating, Inc., ASBCA No. 37351, 93-3 BCA ¶ 25,935 at 128,991
         (expressing a preference for contemporaneous evidence over post-hoc
         opinions).
                                              24
  DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
  subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                          release.
              done so for the Initially-Installed Assembly on the Camp
              Hero East Project (finding 25).

      (3)    The Transatlantic District-North Documents merely
             showed that the Transatlantic District-North disagreed with
             the Transatlantic District-South’s opinion that the Initially-
             Installed Assembly did not qualify for a modification, and
             that the agencies referred the dispute to Mr. Dalton as the
             Authority Having Jurisdiction (findings 26-27). Mr.
             Dalton agreed with the Transatlantic District-South that the
             Initially-Installed Assembly did not qualify for a
             modification because there was inadequate testing of the
             assembly (finding 28).

      (4)    The Transatlantic Division Modification Documents
             merely recognized that the Authority Having Jurisdiction
             later granted a modification on the Camp Hero East Project
             for the Non-Rated Foam with 50 mil of the Paint; not that
             he had granted a modification for the Initially-Installed
             Assembly with 18 mil of the Paint (finding 33).

      (5)    The Transatlantic Afghanistan District Memoranda merely
             showed that the Transatlantic Afghanistan District asked
             CJ-Engineer Graham, as the Authority Having Jurisdiction,
             for permission to use the opaqueness of the Paint as a
             proxy for thickness on other projects besides the Camp
             Hero East Project due to the operational needs of those
             projects (finding 35). However, there is no evidence that
             CJ-Engineer Graham responded to the Transatlantic
             Afghanistan District Memoranda, let alone that any
             response modified the Foam Assembly Provisions for the
             individual case of the Initially-Installed Assembly on the
             Camp Hero East Project (finding 36). On the contrary, the
             Initially-Installed Assembly work already had been
             suspended on the Camp Hero East Project—and the
             Transatlantic District-South already had directed the Joint
             Venture to correct the deficient foam assembly—before the
             Transatlantic Afghanistan District Memoranda (findings
             23, 30, 35).

        The Joint Venture argues that the Corps retroactively approved the Initially-
Installed Assembly by ultimately approving a foam assembly that did not comply with

                                          25
   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
   subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                            release.
the Contract’s requirements (app. br. at 40). The Joint Venture is correct that the
Corps ultimately did not insist upon strict compliance with the Contract (i.e., by
requiring rated foam and a cementitious finish)—and instead accepted the Non-Rated
Foam with 50 mil of the Paint (finding 30). However, that was because the
Contracting Officer modified the Code Foam Assembly Provisions requirements for
the individual case of the Non-Rated Foam with 50 mil of the Paint based upon testing
showing that that the Non-Rated Foam with 50 mil of the Paint complied with the
intent and purpose of the Code, and that such a modification did not lessen health,
accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural requirements (findings 29-30). That
later approval of the Non-Rated Foam with 50 mil of the Paint did not retroactively
approve the Initially-Installed Assembly of Non-Rated Foam with 18 mil of the Paint
because the Initially-Installed Assembly had less Paint as a thermal barrier, and thus
the later testing did not show that the Initially-Installed Assembly’s Non-Rated Foam
with 18 mil of the Paint complied with the intent and purpose of the Code, and that
such a modification did not lessen health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or
structural requirements (findings 18, 29-30).

        Indeed, because we must decide whether the Transatlantic District-South
required the Joint Venture to perform work not required under the Contract and
enlarged the Joint Venture’s performance requirements when it suspended work on the
Initially-Installed Assembly, the relevant issue here is whether the Authority Having
Jurisdiction had rendered the Initially-Installed Assembly Contract-compliant by
modifying the Contract’s requirements prior to the suspension of work. All of the
Cited Documents—except Transmittals, Transmittal Responses, and the April 21,
2012 engineer email, which are discussed above—post-date the April 7, 2013
suspension (findings 23, 25-26, 33, 35). Thus, none of those Cited Documents are
relevant.

      In sum, a Potential Authority Having Jurisdiction did not approve a
modification for the Initially-Installed Assembly on the Camp Hero East Project under
the Code Modification Procedure.

III. Extrinsic Evidence

       We may not resort to extrinsic evidence of the parties’ contemporaneous
interpretation of the Contract or prior course of dealing, which, in any event, does not
establish that the Initially-Installed Assembly met or exceeded the Contract’s
requirements.

                                           26
     DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
     subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                       release.
         I. We may not Resort to Extrinsic Evidence

        We may not resort to the extrinsic evidence of the parties’ contemporaneous
interpretation of the Contract or prior course of dealing because the Contract is not
ambiguous. We only resort to extrinsic evidence of the parties’ contemporaneous
interpretation or prior course of dealing to interpret a contract if the contract is
ambiguous. United States v. Graham, 110 U.S. 219, 221 (1884); Banknote Corp. of
Am., Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Coast Fed. Bank, 323
F.3d at 1040; Raytheon Co., ASBCA Nos. 60488, 60785, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,637 at
182,733; TECOM, Inc., ASBCA No. 44122 et al., 94-1 BCA ¶ 26,483 at 131,821. 16
Here, as discussed above, the Contract is not ambiguous. Therefore, we may not resort
to extrinsic evidence of contemporaneous interpretation or prior course of dealing to
interpret the Contract.

         II. Purported Contemporaneous Interpretation Evidence Does not Establish
             That the Initially-Installed Assembly Met or Exceeded the Contract’s
             Requirements

       In any event, the purported contemporaneous interpretation evidence does not
establish that the Initially-Installed Assembly met or exceeded the Contract’s
requirements. “Only an authorized government representative may bind the
government to an interpretation of a contract.” Gen. Dynamics-Nat’l Steel &
Shipbuilding Co., ASBCA No. 61524, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,067 at 184,826; see also Unitec,
Inc., ASBCA No. 22025, 79-2 BCA ¶ 13,923 at 68,350 (holding that there must be a
meaningful connection to impute a government employee’s knowledge to the
authorized representative).

       Here, the Joint Venture again points to the Cited Documents in an attempt to
establish the Transatlantic District-South’s contemporaneous understanding (app. br.
at 119). 17 However, none of the Cited Documents bind the Transatlantic District-

16
   A contractor also may use prior course of dealing evidence to establish waiver of an
       unambiguous contract provision. Raytheon Co., 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,637
       at 182,733. Here, the Joint Venture does not argue that the Transatlantic
       District-South waived an unambiguous contract provision (app. br. at 118-21).
       Even if it had, as discussed above, the Joint Venture has failed to show that the
       prior course of dealing involved the same contracting agency and essentially the
       same contract provision.
17
   The Joint Venture also cites the Transatlantic District-South’s suspension and
       subsequent lifting of that suspension (app. br. at 119). Without explanation
       from the Joint Venture—of which there is none—we fail to see how the
       suspension of the Initially-Installed Assembly work and lifting of that
                                           27
  DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
   subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                         release.
South to an interpretation of the Contract because they were not from an authorized
Transatlantic District-South representative (findings 13-20, 25-26, 33, 35)—namely
the Contracting Officer (finding 2). Moreover, the Joint Venture does not even
attempt to show that the interpretations of the Cited Documents’ authors can be
imputed to the Contracting Officer (app. br. at 119). In any event, as discussed above,
none of the Cited Documents show that the author interpreted the Contract to permit
the Initially-Installed Assembly on the Camp Hero East Project (findings 13-20, 25-26,
33, 35). On the contrary, the Cited Documents and other contemporaneous records
show that the Transatlantic District-South interpreted the Contract to not permit the
Initially-Installed Assembly on the Camp Hero East Project, and that Mr. Dalton—
acting as the Authority Having Jurisdiction—agreed with the Transatlantic District-
South’s interpretation (findings 25, 28). Therefore, the contemporaneous
interpretation evidence does not establish that the Contract permitted the Initially-
Installed Assembly.

       III. Purported Prior Course of Dealing Evidence Does not Establish That the
           Initially-Installed Assembly met or Exceeded the Contract’s Requirements

       Nor does the purported prior course of dealing evidence—namely the affidavits
asserting that the Joint Venture used exposed foam without a thermal barrier on other
arch-span projects that included the Baker drawings and required compliance with the
Austere Standards and the Code—establish that the Contract did not require a thermal
barrier (app. br. at 120; findings 38-41). In order to establish a prior course of dealing,
a contractor must show that the prior dealings involved the same contracting agency,
the same contractor, and essentially the same contract provision. Raytheon Co., 20-1
BCA ¶ 37,637 at 182,734. Here, the Joint Venture has failed to show that the prior
dealings involved the same contracting agency (namely, the Transatlantic District-
South), that the prior dealings involved essentially the same contract provision, or that
the prior course of dealing was for the Transatlantic District-South to accept the foam
without a thermal barrier (findings 39-42). On the contrary, there is evidence that on
several other projects to which the Joint Venture appears to be referring, the Corps did
not use the same version of the Baker drawings, the Joint Venture installed a foam
assembly with a thermal barrier, or the Corps rejected the foam assembly (findings 39-
42). In any event, the vague affidavits upon which the Joint Venture relies are
insufficient to establish a prior course of dealing because the Joint Venture fails to
submit evidence from those other projects—such as the other contracts—that would
allow us to determine whether those other projects in fact were similar to the Camp

       suspension with a direction to install the Non-Rated Foam with 50 mil of the
       Paint shows that the Transatlantic District-South interpreted the Contract to
       allow the Initially-Installed Assembly. On the contrary, those documents prove
       the opposite.
                                            28
   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
   subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                        release.
Hero East Project. ACE Precision Indus., ASBCA No. 40307, 93-2 BCA ¶ 25,629
at 127,553; (finding 42). Thus, the Joint Venture cannot establish a prior course of not
requiring a thermal barrier.

IV. Rebuttal Documents

        Finally, the Joint Venture moves to admit a new affidavit it submits with its
reply brief. While Board Rule 11 generally permits us to consider affidavits that are
not in the Rule 4 file, the only purpose of the new affidavit in this case is to introduce
documents that are not in the Rule 4 file (Rebuttal Documents) into evidence (app.
reply to mot. to enter Hayward’s Affidavit into evidence at 7; Hayward rebuttal aff.). 18
Our pre-hearing orders required that all documentary evidence be submitted as part of
the Rule 4 file (Bd. corr. ltr. dtd. April 1, 2020), and the amended deadline for
supplementing the Rule 4 file was September 30, 2022 (Bd. corr. ltr. dtd. July 2, 2021;
Bd. corr. ltr. dtd. March 10, 2022; Bd. corr. ltr. dtd. July 20, 2022). Yet, the Joint
Venture did not supplement the Rule 4 file with the Rebuttal Documents by September
30, 2022. To admit those documents now—when the Corps will not have a chance to
respond—would unduly prejudice the Corps. Cf. CBRE Heery, Inc., ASBCA
No. 62420, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,927 at 184,199 (citing Hannon v. Dep’t of Justice, 234
F.3d 674, 680 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that a party waives arguments that could have
been—but were not—raised in an opening brief); Dan’s Janitorial Services, Inc.,
ASBCA No. 27837, 85-1 BCA ¶ 17,924 at 89,748-49).

      In any event, the Rebuttal Documents—particularly the October 17, 2012
Preparatory Phase Checklist and the May 20, 2013 email 19—do not help the Joint
Venture. The October 17, 2012 Preparatory Phase Checklist does not establish that the
Contracting Officer approved a variation for the Initially-Installed Assembly under the
Contract Variation Procedure because the Contracting Officer did not issue the

18
   In addition to seeking to admit the Rebuttal Documents through the new affidavit,
        the Joint Venture moves to “repair” the Rule 4 file, which we read as a motion
        to correct the Rule 4 file. Several documents in the Rule 4 file merely contain
        place holders with a bates number and a statement that the document was
        produced in a native format. The Joint Venture seeks to substitute those place
        holders with PDFs. That motion is granted because—unlike with the motion to
        admit a new affidavit—the Joint Venture merely seeks to correct the Rule 4 file
        instead of adding new documents. Because the Joint Venture originally
        produced an index and provided bates numbers—which allowed the Corps to
        identify the documents—we see no prejudice to the Corps.
19
   The remaining Rebuttal Documents address quantum or a tangential dispute
        regarding Mr. Garabedian’s contemporaneous statements, neither of which are
        relevant to our denial of this appeal on the merits.
                                           29
  DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
   subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                          release.
Preparatory Phase Checklist, he did not issue the Preparatory Phase Checklist in
response to a transmittal—let alone on an ENG form—from the Joint Venture
justifying a variation, and the Preparatory Phase Checklist did not approve a variation
from the Code Foam Assembly Provisions (Hayward rebuttal aff., ex. 1). Nor does the
October 17, 2012 Preparatory Phase Checklist establish that the Authority Having
Jurisdiction modified the Code Foam Assembly Provisions under the Code
Modification Procedure because none of the Potential Authorities Having Jurisdiction
issued the October 17, 2012 Preparatory Phase Checklist, or issue the Preparatory
Phase Checklist based upon a finding that special individual reasons made complying
with the strict letter of the Code impractical; a modification complied with the intent
and purpose of the Code; and a modification did not lessen health, accessibility, life
and fire safety, or structural requirements (id.). On the contrary, the October 17, 2022
Preparatory Phase Checklist addressed worker safety in installing the foam assembly,
and not its flame-spread and smoke-development limitations once installed (id.).

       Nor can we resort to the May 20, 2013 email as extrinsic evidence of the
Transatlantic District-South’s contemporaneous understanding of the Contract
because—as discussed above—the Austere Standards unambiguously indicated that
the arch-span walls—and not the foam—would be left exposed (finding 6). Moreover,
the May 20, 2013 email was not written by—and cannot be imputed to—the
Contracting Officer (Hayward rebuttal aff., ex. 2). In any event, while the May 20,
2013 email stated that the Austere Standards called for “unfinished exposed foam
insulation,” it ultimately interpreted the Contract to require rated foam with a thermal
barrier (id.). 20 Thus, the Rebuttal Documents do not help the Joint Venture, even if we
were to admit them into evidence (which we decline to do).

20
     We are not saying that we agree with the May 20, 2013 email’s interpretation. We
         merely are pointing out that, if the Joint Venture wishes to use the May 20,
         2013 email as evidence of the Transatlantic District-South’s contemporaneous
         interpretation, then it cannot ignore its ultimate conclusion that the Contract
         required rated foam with a thermal barrier.
                                             30
   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
   subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                     release.
                                  CONCLUSION

           For the foregoing reasons, we deny the appeal.

           Dated: September 20, 2023

                                                   JAMES R. SWEET
                                                   Administrative Judge
                                                   Armed Services Board
                                                   of Contract Appeals

I concur                                            I concur

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

                                             31
    DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is
    subject to an ASBCA Protective Order. This version has been approved for public
                                            release.
       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. 62124, Appeal of ECC
International Constructors/ Metag (JV), rendered in conformance with the Board’s
Charter.

      Dated: September 20, 2023

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

                                          32