CBCA 6383

GRANTED: June 18, 2019 CBCA 6383 THE AULSON COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent. Shaunna R. Jammal of The Aulson Company, Inc., Methuen, MA, counsel for Appellant. Harold W. Askins, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, Charleston, SC; and Donald Mobly, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, Denver, CO, counsel for Respondent. GOODMAN, Board Judge. Appellant, The Aulson Company, Inc., alleges it is due compensation for extra work performed in addition to the requirements for a construction contract with respondent, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Appellant elected to have this appeal processed under Board Rule 52, Small Claims Procedure (48 CFR 6101.52 (2018)). Under the small claims procedure, “[t]he presiding judge may issue a decision in summary form. A decision is final and conclusive, shall not be set aside except for fraud, and is not precedential.” Rule 52. The parties also elected to have this appeal processed under Board Rule 19, Record Submission Without a Hearing. CBCA 6383 2 Background On December 27, 2016, respondent awarded an indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity multiple award contract, VA241-17D-0006, to appellant for asbestos abatement for the Veterans Integrated Network Services 1 facilities, which are a part of the VA New England Healthcare System. On April 2, 2018, the VA issued a notice of task order request for proposal for abatement services at the VA Medical Center in White River Junction, Vermont. The task order’s scope of work described the following requirement: Replace pipe insulation, pipe labels, firestopping, rebuild and paint sheet-rock chases following VA recommendations for metal stud and drywall, provide and install carpet tile or vinyl sheet goods to match in kind flooring type removed, and replace lay-in ceiling tile and grid, including installation/reconnection of lights and diffusers. Repaint all walls of affected rooms or otherwise marred by this work. Return space to usable office space. Interested bidders were invited to conduct an accompanied site inspection on April 11, 2018. Questions asked during the walkthrough were recorded and subsequently responded to and distributed in an answered request for information (RFI) to all bidders by amendment 00001, which was issued by the contracting officer on April 20, 2018. This site-visit RFI—as it was referred to in amendment 001—included the following question and answer: 24. The intent is to paint all walls where a chase exists? Answer: Paint chase, and walls that are disturbed by Chase demo/restoration. Refer to Attachment A, and finish plan that will be provided to contractor after award. Attachment A, referred to in the answer to question 24, describes the required paint brands and finish types for different surfaces that were needed for pricing and sourcing the paint; it does not describe which walls must be painted after the asbestos abatement work. Even though mentioned in the answer, respondent has informed the Board that no finish plan was provided, as it was unnecessary, given the sufficient description in the finish schedule. Amendment 00001 was issued on standard form 30, and its section for the description of amendment/modification explained: The purpose of this amendment is to note the following[:] Attached Site Visit and Portal RFIs with their answers[.] CBCA 6383 3 All other terms remain the same. RFP Responses due date remains the same. Appellant submitted its price proposal on April 25, 2018. Respondent awarded appellant task order 36C24118N1290 on May 10, 2018. During the course of performance, a dispute arose about whether appellant was required to paint all of the walls in the rooms in which abatement work occurred or just the walls that were affected by the work. In an email dated August 8, 2018, appellant averred that painting was limited to walls affected by the work, given the response provided in the site-visit RFI and that this was confirmed several times during one of the parties’ first construction meetings.