Court Opinion

ID: 2734446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-09-19 01:18:07.397021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:29:13.145526
License: Public Domain

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of --                                    )
                                                )
Gilbane Building Company                        )      ASBCA No. 57206
                                                )
Under Contract No. W9126G-07-C-0043             )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:                          Paul H. Sanderford, Esq.
                                                        Sanderford & Carroll, P.C.
                                                        Temple, TX

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:                        Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq.
                                                        Engineer Chief Trial Attorney
                                                       Lloyd R. Crosswhite, Esq.
                                                        District Counsel
                                                       Kendra M. Laffe, Esq.
                                                       Dawn-Carole Harris, Esq.
                                                        Engineer Trial Attorneys
                                                        U.S. Army Engineer District, Ft. Worth

                   OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JAMES

       This appeal arises from the contracting officer's (CO's) February 2010
decision which denied the $167,275 certified claim of Gilbane Building Company
(Gilbane) that alleged the wrongful government rejection of Gilbane's first elevator
subcontractor, PKD, Inc. (PKD). The Board has jurisdiction of the appeal under the
Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109. The parties have agreed to
submit the appeal on the written record under Board Rule 11. The record includes the
government's Rule 4 file and the declarations submitted with the parties' briefs. We
decide entitlement only.

                                  FINDINGS OF FACT

       1. On 11 June 2007, the U.S. Army Engineer District, Fort Worth (USACE)
issued Solicitation No. W9126G-07-R-0072 for completion of design and
construction of the Battlefield Health and Trauma (BHT) Research Facility,
Fort Sam Houston, Texas (R4, tab 4 at 11).

1
    Rule 4 cites are to Bates numbers less extra Os, e.g., page "4-000002" is "R4, tab 4 at 2."
     2. On 29 September 2007, the USACE awarded Contract No. W9126G-07-C-0043
(BHT contract) to Gilbane for the BHT Research Facility for a $91,998,321 "Guaranteed
Maximum Price" (R4, tab 4 at 2-4, 6).

       3. The BHT contract included, inter alia, the FAR 52.233-1, DISPUTES
(JUL 2002}-ALTERNATE I (DEC 1991) and 52.243-4, CHANGES (AUG 1987) clauses
(R4, tab 4 at 90, 116, 121, 128).

    4. The BHT contract specifications,§ 01 33 00, "SUBMITTAL
PROCEDURES," provided in pertinent part:

             1.4 APPROVED SUB MITTALS

             The [CO' s] approval of submittals shall not be construed as a
             complete check, but will indicate only that the general
             method of construction, materials, detailing and other
             information are satisfactory. Approval will not relieve the
             Contractor of the responsibility for any error which may exist,
             as the Contractor ... is responsible for ... the satisfactory
             construction of all work. ...

             1.5 DISAPPROVED SUBMITTALS

             The Contractor shall make all corrections required by the
             [CO] and promptly furnish a corrected submittal in the form
             and number of copies specified for the initial submittal. If the
             Contractor considers any correction indicated on the
             submittals to constitute a change to the contract, a notice in
             accordance with the Contract Clause "Changes" shall be
             given promptly to the [CO].

             1.9 SCHEDULING

            Submittals covering component items forming a system or
            items that are interrelated shall be ... coordinated and
            submitted concurrently. Certifications to be submitted with
            the pertinent drawings shall be so scheduled. Adequate time
            (a minimum of 21 calendar days exclusive of mailing time)
            shall be allowed ... for review and approval. ...

                                          2
               1.11.2 Deviations

               For submittals which include proposed deviations requested
               by the Contractor, the column "variation" of ENG Form 4025
               [TRANSMITTAL] shall be checked ....

                       a. Contractor-proposed deviations, including
                   variations and other departures from the contract
                   requirements, shall be noted/marked in red on each copy
                   of the submittal data and shall be provided with a letter
                   attachment to the ENG Form 4025 summarizing the
                   proposed variation, deviation, or departure. Variations,
                   deviations, or departures shall contain sufficient
                   information to permit complete evaluation.. . . At the
                   minimum the information shall include:

                         (1) An explanation in detail of the reason for the
                             variation and how it differs from that specified;
                         (2) The cost difference; and
                         (3) How the variation will benefit the Government.

(R4, tab 4 at 222, 224, 226)

       5. The BHT contract specifications,§ 14 21 23, "ELECTRIC TRACTION
PASSENGER AND SERVICE ELEVATORS,"~ 1.2, "SUBMITTALS," required
government approval of shop drawings, product data, design data calculated by a
"Registered Professional Engineer," test reports, and certificates of all required state
and local licenses of individuals performing for elevators and accessories "Quality
Assurance for Elevator Inspector ... Qualifications." Section 14 21 23, ~ 1.3,
"ELEVATOR SYSTEM," stated:

               Provide pre-engineered elevator system, by manufacturer
               regularly engaged in the manufacture of elevator systems, that
               complies with ASME Al 7.1 in its entirety, ASME Al 7.2l2l in
               its entirety, and additional requirements specified herein.

               Submit detail drawings including:

2
    ASME Al 7.1, Al 7.2 and Al 7.3 are not in the appeal record.
                                            3
                 dimensioned layouts in plan and elevation showing the
                 arrangement of elevator equipment, accessories, and data
                 sheet showing all:

                 a. [S]upporting systems,
                 b. Anchorage of equipment,
                 c. Clearances for maintenance and operation;
                 d. Details on hoistway,
                 e. DASBCA No. 24384, 80-2 BCA ir 14,550 and Brinegar & Fuller, Inc.,
ASBCA No. 22110, 80-1 BCA ir 14,334 for the interpretation that "manufacture"
includes "assembly" (app. br. at 8-12, exs. B, C).

       Respondent argues that PKD did not propose an elevator system "by a
manufacturer regularly engaged in the manufacture of elevator systems," and that
"None [of the elevator parts] appear [sic] to be related, and none of the individual
parts appear [sic] to have been designed to specifically work together" (gov't br. at
12-13). Further, PKD admitted that it did not manufacture the elevator system and the
cases appellant cites are inapplicable to an elevator system (gov't br. at 13-15).

                                           II.

      The disputed contract requirement is set forth in contract § 14 21 23, ir 1.3:
"Provide pre-engineered elevator system, by manufacturer regularly engaged in the
manufacture of elevator systems, that complies with ASME A 17 .1 in its entirety,
ASME Al 7.2 in its entirety, and additional requirements specified herein" (finding 5).

       PK.D's 21 February 2009 letter to Gilbane stated: "There are no
'pre engineered elevator system' [sic] that would meet the specified ... elevators; any
firms' [sic] elevator will be a special engineered/designed elevator" (finding 17).
PK.D's 21 February 2009 letter accompanying Gilbane's submittal Nos. 14 21 23-1.2
and 14 21 23-2.1 stated that "PKD, Inc. is the fabricator (manufacturer) ... of. .. our
elevators" (finding 20). PKD's 3 May 2009 letter to USACE clarified:

              [The government architect] stated to Gilbane that PKD
              appears tojust purchase various elevator components, that
              we did not manufacture the elevators.

              This is true, as it is for all elevator companies, large or
              small- components are outsourced. For federal projects,

                                            9
             all companies would be purchasing from some   if not all of
             the same suppliers we use ....

(Finding 26) The 7 May 2013 affidavit of PKD's vice president confirmed: "No
single elevator company manufacture[ s] all of the components of an elevator system.
They all obtain components from various vendors and combine those components to
fabricate or manufacture an elevator system" (finding 28). We hold that PKD has
acknowledged that it is not "regularly engaged in the manufacture of pre-engineered
elevator systems" and the past performance/experience documentation PKD submitted
corroborates its admission. That documentation establishes, at most, that PKD might
be considered a manufacturer on only one completed elevator project during the ten
years preceding its submittal. Accordingly, its submittals were properly rejected.
Since PKD has not established that it was regularly engaged in manufacturing
elevators, we need not analyze the terms "manufacturer" and "pre-engineered."

                                  CONCLUSION

      We deny the appeal.

      Dated: 13 August 2014

                                               Administrative Jud e
                                               Armed Services B
                                               of Contract Appeals

I concur                                       I concur

£~4U--
Administrative Judge                           Administrative Judge
Acting Chairman .                              Acting Vice Chairman
Armed Services Board                           Armed Services Board
of Contract Appeals                            of Contract Appeals

                                         10
       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. 57206, Appeal of Gilbane
Building Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter.

      Dated:

                                                JEFFREY D. GARDIN
                                                Recorder, Armed Services
                                                Board of Contract Appeals

                                          11