Free Amended Complaint - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-01054-LB

Document 14-3 K-CON, Filed 03/18/2007 INC.

Page 1 of PAGE 3

02/07

P , 01
Commanding Offlcer Unlted State$ C O W Guard Facllniea Design & Con9tructlonCenter
(Atlantic) 6505 Robfn Hood Rd., Suite K Norrolk, Wrglnla 23613-2431 Staff Symbol: Phone; (757) 85.24449 FAX: (757) 852-3486

Re: Contract No. DTCG47-03-F-3EFK24, Design and Construct Prefabricated Cutter Support Building, Port Huron, MI

Dear Mr. Kieman:
CONTRACTJNG OFFICER'S FINAL DECISION

R e f m c e is made to your claim dated December 15,2006 in the m u n t of $196,126.38 and 1 86 calendar days (May 25,2006).

On January 20,2004, Conttact No. DTCG47-03-F-3EFK.24 was entered into betwcen your company and the Qovemment for Design and Construct Prefabricated Cuttcr Support Building, Port Huron, MI. The contract award price waa $582,641.00 with a contract completion date of
Navembcr 20,2004.

SUMMARY OF CLAIM
Your claim letter of December I. 5,2006, received December 20,2006, demands payment of $196,126.38 plus intvest for additional work and a time mtmsion of 186 calendar days (May
25,2006).

In connection with your claim, I hereby make the following findings offact: This contract was solicited and awatdcd as a designhuild type cantract. We did inquire about incorporating customer requested changm such as the eve height ofthe building and enlarging the MK Shop, howcver, at no time was n "stop work ord& issued or implied regarding our review commm8 and/or potential changes to the design. Below arc our comments directly relating to your letter.
a, 35% D R A r n T GAPPROVAL

Case 1:05-cv-01054-LB

Document 14-3 K-CON, Filed 03/18/2007 INC.

Page 2 of 3 PAGE

03/07

?. 02

(1) h w i n g Al. We didn't enlarge the building but sMninded K-Con that all. the furniture shown on the plans had to fit into the building.

(2) Drawing A1 Provisions for 1" air space is not a change but i accordance with standard n building practices for brick venccr walls,

.

(3) Vision panels in doors are standard building practice for personnel safety.
(4) Hose bibs are in accordance with standard building practices and the International Building Code.
b. 50% DRAWING APPROVAL

(I) The Telecom room comments brought the room into compliance with our conceptual floor plan, The required fufiiture would not fit i the oEce area with the oversize tclecom room. n
(2) You identified exterior lighting i your oRm. n

(3) The recommendation to reduce tho florescent lights from 8' to 49long was made to avoid conaim3 with the monorail. hoist.
(4) The f o l l l t mgfhmical o a u n d n were not changes but in accordance with %?Gdardbuildhg prac6ccs h d the htemationd Building Code. The adcul&ed welding arm s v P c c i f i e d in our scope of services and included in K-Con's offer. The ceiling fans w r never requested. Wc included ceiling exhaust fans i our scope of services. ee a

(5) Gcncral C o m t 1. K-Con included two furnaces in their offix. Based on our technical review we accmtcd and supported this recommwdation. K-Con never provided supporting informalion as to why they reduced their furnaces to one and whether their was sufficient evidence 20 support using only one furnace.

(6) G e n d C o m m t 3. The scope of services required K-COII. maintain the space between to 68-72 degrees, Adding hwt to a tclccorn room that already has a lmge heat load would not meet the scope of s a i c c . As a result, our mechanical engineer recommended a mechanical solution far your consideration.
(7) Structural Commt on Drawing 5-4. Our comment was limited to requesting clarification of their details. (8) Telewmnunication C o m m t 2. The louvered panel.in the bottom ofthe door was good design practice to dlow the 6ooln: ltir to enta the tdecom room that was displaced by the overhead exhaust fan.

Many of the items identified above were informational and cloarly noted ataas in which you were not in compliance with the Inkrnationd Building Code and standard coxlstruction practices. At no time did you assert that the U.S. Coast Guard commmts were a ch&ge to your contract and would require a modification to the contract.

Case 1:05-cv-01054-LB

Document 14-3 Filed K-CON, I N C . 03/18/2007

Page 3 of 3PAGE
P.03

04/07

Based on. the above findings, there is no evidence to support your claim, You have provided no information showing why you are not rcsponsiblc for the delay. Moreaver, we are not aware of any event or o c c m c e hat would excuse your latcr pdomance. Therefore, it is my final decision to deny your claim as it relates to t h i ~ issue. I do not intend to rcopa or reconsider this mattcr.
This is the final decision ofthe Contracting O f c r You may appeal this decision to t&e. agEncy fie, board o f eontract: appeals, If you decide to appeal, you musg w i a 90 days from the date you receive this decision, mail, or otherwise furnish writkn notice to the agmcy board of contract appeals and provide a copy of the Contracting Officer h r n whose decision this appeal is taken.
The notice shall indicate that an appeal i s intended, wfcrence this decision, ancl identify the contract by number, With regard t appeals ta the agency board of contract appeals, you may, o solely at your election, proceed under the board's small claim procedure for claims of $50,000or less or its accelerated procedure for claims afS100,000 or less. Instead of ~~~~i~ to the agency board of contract appeals, you may bring an action directly to the U i e States Court: of ntd Federal. Claims (except as provided in fie Contract Disputes Act of 1978,41 U.S.C. 603, regarding Maritime Contracts) within 12 months of the date you receive this decision.

Sincerely,

CATHY HROUSSARD

Contracting Officu

TOTAL P.03