CBCA 6750
Board: CBCA
Agency: General Services Administration
Appellant: Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC
Date: 2023-03-31
Outcome: remanded
THIS OPINION WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER
AND IS BEING PUBLICLY RELEASED IN REDACTED FORM ON
JUNE 28, 2023
GRANTED IN PART: March 31, 2023
CBCA 6750
BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION, LLC,
Appellant,
v.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
Reginald M. Jones, Nicholas T. Solosky, and Diana Lyn Curtis McGraw of Fox
Rothschild LLP, Washington, DC, counsel for Appellant.
Justin S. Hawkins, Kelly Y. Burnell, and Jessica A. Gunzel, Office of General
Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges SHERIDAN, KULLBERG, and OâROURKE.
KULLBERG, Board Judge.
Appellant, Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC (Balfour), appeals the contracting
officerâs (COâs) final decision (COFD) that denied its claim in the amount of $13,350,899.
Balfourâs claim consists of nineteen separate claims for increased costs related to its contract
with the General Services Administration (GSA) for the construction and expansion of phase
two of the central utilities plant (CUP2) for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 6750 2
headquarters at the St. Elizabeths West Campus (St. Elizabeths) in Washington, D.C.1
Through its nineteen claims, Balfour seeks to recover increased costs allegedly incurred
because of compensable delay, errors in the solicitation bridging documents, differing site
conditions, and changes to the contract. Balfour also seeks certain costs related to legal and
consulting fees.
The Board conducted a seven-day hearing, which commenced on July 12, 2021. The
parties submitted post-hearing and reply briefs. Only entitlement is at issue in this appeal.2
For the reasons stated below, the appeal is granted in part.
Background and Findings of Fact
I. The Solicitation and Contract
1. On March 25, 2016, GSA issued solicitation number GS-11-P-16-MM-C-7001
(solicitation), âDesign/Build for [CUP2] for the consolidation of [DHS] at St. Elizabeths.â
Appeal File, Exhibit 2.13 at STE00000199.4 The first phase of the solicitation was a request
1
St. Elizabeths Hospital was established as a psychiatric hospital by the United
States Government in 1852. Appeal File, Exhibit 2.14 at 910. The 300-acre St. Elizabeths
campus includes Gothic Revival buildings, which were built between 1852 and 1899. Id.
Sixty-two of the seventy buildings on the campus are national historic landmarks. Id. GSA
took control of the property in 2004. Id. âSt. Elizabethsâ has been historically written with
the omission of an apostrophe. Id., Exhibit 2.9 at 416 n1.
2
The Boardâs order on further proceedings, dated March 4, 2020, stated that the
Board would only determine entitlement in this appeal. In a subsequent order, dated
March 25, 2020, the Board, at the partiesâ request, revised its previous order to state that the
Board would decide both entitlement and quantum. At the hearing, the parties agreed that
the Board would determine only entitlement. Transcript, Vol. 1 at 48-49.
3
All exhibits are found in the appeal file, unless otherwise noted. The appeal
file consists of numbered exhibits 1 through 623 (Governmentâs exhibits) and 2001 through
2341 (appellantâs exhibits). Exhibit 2342 is the partiesâ joint statement of facts. Transcript,
Vol. 1 at 5. Exhibit 2343 is a September 6, 2018, email from GSA to Balfour. Exhibit 2344
is the Governmentâs expert testimony âslide showâ presentation at the hearing. Transcript,
| Vol. 7 at 68. Exhibit 2345 is appellantâs presentation from counselâs opening statement.
4
Subsequent page number citations in government exhibits will omit the letters
âSTEâ and the zeros that precede the actual page number in the exhibit. Both government
and appellant exhibits have page numbers that were imprinted on each page of the exhibits
REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 6750 3
for qualifications (RFQ) for the selection of highly qualified offerors, and the second phase
was a request for proposals (RFP) from a short list of highly qualified offerors. Id. at 204.
The RFQ described the project as âdesign/build efforts from approximately 30% bridging
documents.â Id. at 199.