Free Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 1 of 65

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ENVIRONMENTAL TECTONICS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 05-746C (Judge Susan G. Braden)

DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Background 1. On November 19, 1997, the United States Navy issued a solicitation requesting proposals

("RFP") for the design, fabrication, assembly, testing, and delivery of a pair of submarine decompression chambers ("SDCs"). The final due date for the submission of proposals was March 25, 1998. 2. Environmental Tectonics Corporation ("ETC") ETC submitted a proposal on March 24,

1998, and a "best and final offer" on September 25, 1998. 3. On September 25, 1998, the Navy awarded the contract to ETC. The contract was funded

in phases: contract line item numbers ("CLINs") 0001-0007, relating to the preliminary design, were awarded for a total of $839,536.58; and contract modification P00004 exercised CLIN's 0008-0032, relating to the final design and manufacturing, for an additional amount of $2,401,807.00. 4. The contract incorporated ETC's original technical and cost proposals dated March 24,

1998, and all subsequent revisions through September 25, 1998, including ETC's best and final

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 2 of 65

offer in the amount of $3,241,343.58. 5. The contract required final delivery within two years after contract award. Contract

modifications increased the contract by $189,960.58 to $3,431,304.16, and extended the completion date to August 31, 2003. As of May 30, 2007, testing of the SDC segments was nearing completion. 6. The SDC segments are part of a Submarine Decompression System ("SDS"), which is

part of the Submarine Rescue Diving and Recompression System ("SRDRS"). The SRDRS is designed to rescue submariners from disabled submarines, and to provide decompression treatment if needed. Because the system must be able to quickly respond to a disabled submarine anywhere in the world, its components must be transportable by air, land, and sea. 7. The SDC segments provide recompression and hyperbaric treatment to rescued

submariners exposed to pressures greater than atmospheric in the disabled submarine or during rescue. Up to 31 rescued personnel and two attendants can be accommodated in the closely monitored environment of each SDC chamber until hyperbaric treatment is complete. 8. Each SDC consists of the following major elements: a pressure vessel for human

occupancy ("PVHO"), the chamber where hyperbaric treatment takes place; a control room for monitoring and control of various SDC systems; a van that supports and houses the PVHO, control room, and other internal components of the system; primary and secondary pressure control assemblies to regulate pressure in the PVHO; a built-in breathing system ("BIBS") to provide oxygen for decompression treatment and emergency breathing air; PVHO environmental control assemblies to condition the chamber's air; PVHO gas analysis assemblies to monitor the atmosphere in the PVHO; potable water and sanitary assemblies; fire safety equipment; SDC 2

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 3 of 65

lighting system; supplemental van HVAC assemblies; furniture assemblies; and a communication system. Because the SDC segments are integrated into the SDS and SRDRS, there are tight mating tolerances on the connections to other SDS and SRDRS system components that must be carefully considered during design and construction. The Contract 9. Contract Section 1.1.2 DESCRIPTION OF WORK, provides as follows: The contractor shall provide all labor and materials for the design, procurement, fabrication, assembly, test, and delivery of the described SDC Segments. Further, the contractor shall prepare and submit all documents, records, and manuals specified herein. The work consists of: a. Provision of SDC Segments as described herein. Provision of SDC Segment system manuals. Submission of the design, fabrication, and test documents.

b. c.

10.

Contract Section 1.2.2 CONTRACTOR'S TECHNICAL RESPONSIBILITY, provides as

follows: This statement of work contains technical requirements to which the contractor must adhere; however, it is the contractor's responsibility to confirm by engineering analysis that component sizes cited herein are adequate to perform the "Operational and Performance Requirements" cited in Part C2. Typical of such items are piping, ventilation, and atmospheric controls. Data has been provided herein to demonstrate the conceptual feasibility of such an item. Other technical issues that are not specified herein are at the discretion of the contractor. The contractor shall cite its 3

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 4 of 65

intentions in these areas in the preliminary design. 11. Contract Section 1.2.3 CONFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS, provides as follows: Omission from the drawings or specifications or the misdescription of details of work which are manifestly necessary to carry out the intent of the drawings and specifications, or which are customarily performed, shall not relieve the contractor from performing such omitted or misdescribed details of the work, but they shall be performed as if fully and correctly set forth and described in the drawings and specifications. 12. Contract Section 1.2.4 CONTRACTOR'S SPECIFICATION CHECK, provides as follows: The contractor shall check all drawings and specifications furnished to him upon their receipt and shall promptly notify the Contracting Officer of any discrepancies. Numbers marked on drawings shall in general be followed in preference to scale measurements. Large scale drawings shall, in general, govern small scale drawings. The contractor shall compare all drawings and verify the data before laying out the work and will be responsible for any errors which might have been avoided thereby. 13. Contract Section 2.2.2.2 SDC Vans Operational Requirements, specifically 2.2.2.2 (b),

Dimensions and Weights, required that each of the SDCs, including its van, have a maximum weight of no more than 39,000 pounds. 14. The contract required ETC to both design and build the SDCs. The technical

requirements of the contract are identified in drawings and specifications. 15. The RFP drawing package contained three types of drawings: interface control drawings

("ICDs"), schematics, and guidance drawings. The ICDs provide the dimensions and tolerances 4

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 5 of 65

of the interfaces between the SDC segments and other parts of the SDS. The schematics describe the life support and electrical systems. The guidance drawings show the general arrangement of equipment and provide design concepts for some components. 16. The following specification sections define the differences between the three types of

drawings: A. Section 1.2.7 provides as follows: "The contractor's designs and all other work provided under this contract must assure in all instances that the finished hyperbaric facility conforms to the codes and standards listed below. Areas of conflict shall be brought to the attention of the Contracting Officer." B. The ICDs and schematics are listed in Section 1.2.7.b and "form a part of this specification to the extent specified herein." Exh. 1-2. C. D. E. The ICDs are RFP drawings numbered 7268140-7268148. Exh. 1-1. The schematics are RFP drawings numbered 7268122-7268129. Exh. 1-1. Section 1.2.11 provides as follows: "The contractor shall not make changes to the Interface Control Drawings (ICDs) or the drawings issued as part of the contract information package." Exh. 1-2. F. Section 1.2.12 provides as follows: "The final design shall reflect the operational and component arrangements depicted in the piping and electrical schematics issued in the contract information package. The contractor shall not make changes to the piping and electrical design without the consent of the Contracting Officer." Exh. 1-2. G. Section 1.2.8 provides as follows: "The following codes and standards are cited in this SOW 5

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 6 of 65

H.

[statement of work] but are presented for guidance only." Exh. 12.. Section 1.2.8.b.2 includes RFP drawings numbered 7268115-7268121,

7268130-7268139, and 7268149, as the guidance drawings. Exh. 1-1. 17. The ICDs and schematics are part of the specification with which ETC was required to

comply. Changes to those drawings required the approval of the contracting officer ("CO"). 18. The guidance drawings are conceptual in nature and can be used for reference. The

contractor is not limited to the concepts depicted therein. 19. Section 1.2.5 provides as follows: STANDARD PRODUCTS: Whenever practical, use will be made of materials and equipment that are standard catalog products of manufacturers regularly engaged in the production of such materials and equipment and shall be the manufacturer's latest standard design that complies with the specification requirements. Where two or more products of similar type are used, they will be products of the same manufacturer. Where two or more products are of a similar type that the same manufacturer's model number can be used, all of the products shall be identical. Where standard products are available which have been proven successful for hyperbaric application, they shall be used. Each component used in this item will be clearly marked so that the manufacturer, model, serial number, and the principal characteristics of the item can be readily determined. 20. FAR 52.215-33, incorporated by reference into the contract, provides as follows: Any inconsistency in this solicitation or contract shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: (a) the Schedule (excluding the specifications); (b) representations and other instructions; (c) contract clauses; (d) other documents, exhibits, and attachments; and (e) the specifications. 21. The drawings are part of the specifications with no defined order of precedence between

the specifications and the drawings except as defined by specification Section 1.2.4 (line 12). 22. ICD and schematic drawings have more weight than guidance drawings. 6

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 7 of 65

Modification P00001 23. ETC, in Section 1.2.2 of its March 24, 1998 proposal submitted in response to the RFP,

demonstrated that the weight of the chamber and van system could vary from a baseline of 27,754 pounds to as little as 18,845 pounds, for a total of 8,909 pounds, by use of Division II design and construction criteria and by the use of lightweight metals. 24. ETC described the following four design approaches: 1) PVHO, Section VIII, Division 1 with steel SDC Van 27,754 pounds; 2) PVHO, Section VIII, Division 2 with steel SDC Van 26,044 pounds; 3) PVHO, Section VIII, Division 1 with aluminum SDC Van 20,554 pounds; 4) PVHO, Section VIII, Division 2 with aluminum SDC Van 18,845 pounds. 25. Further, ETC provided, in Section 2.5.1.14(f) of its Technical Proposal, an engineering

evaluation demonstrating the feasibility of using a ¼ inch hull thickness as a viable option with ASME Section VIII, Division 2. 26. During the October 23, 1998, post-award meeting, the Navy informed ETC that it would

send ETC a request for proposals for the following five changes to the contract: 1. Reduce overall SDC weight from 39,000 pounds to 35,600 pounds. This adjustment is due to the need to account for the weight of the aircraft loading pallets in the overall aircraft payload limit. 2. Wave slap: increase from 200 pounds per square foot to 500 pounds per square foot, which could also have weight implications.

7

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 8 of 65

3. Interface pins/wiring: called for 18-22 gage, but will go to 22 gage; also change from a 37-pin nonstandard connector (hard to get) to a more standard 54-pin connector. 4. Navy will have some "template" changes (van), as they now know more exactly what they need. 5. Interface controls: Navy now has the exact type of connectors and will provide the information to ETC. 27. During the October 1998, meeting, the Navy, in response to a point raised by Frank

Gorman of ETC, stated that it would entertain a proposal from ETC to go from a maximum allowable working pressure ("MAWP") of 100 psi to 82 psi. This change would allow some weight savings by permitting use of 1/4 inch plate instead of 5/16 inch plate. 28. On November 2, 1998, Rita Palmore, the CO sent a letter to ETC requesting a detailed

price proposal for the following changes: 1) ICD Electrical Wires/pin Connectors ­ In accordance with enclosure (1), make the following changes to the ICD Drawings. 2) Revised SDC Deck Template ­ In accordance with enclosure (2), replace the existing SDC Deck Template drawings with the drawings shown in enclosure (2). 3) Wave Slap ­ Change Contract Paragraph 2.2.2.2. ­ SDC Vans Operational Requirements, para a ­ Maximum Wave Slap Loading from "200 psf" to "500 psf". 4) Specific Interconnect Fluid Penetrators ­ In accordance with enclosure (3), change the specific interconnect fluid penetrators.

8

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 9 of 65

5) SDC Van Weight ­ Change Contract Paragraph 2.2.2.2 ­ SDC Vans Operational Requirements, para b- Dimensions and Weights ­ Change maximum weight from "39,000 lbs" to "35,600 lbs." 29. On or about November 9, 1998, ETC submitted five requests for information ("RFIs")

based upon action items raised in the October 23, 1998, post-award meeting. Included in these RFIs was a request to delete the corrosion allowance, and reduce the design pressure from 100 psig to 81 psig. Both changes, ETC claimed, would allow ETC to use a thinner plate thickness (1/4 inch plate instead of a 5/16 inch plate), which would assist ETC in meeting the changed weight requirement. 30. ETC indicated that none of the five RFIs submitted on or about November 9, 1998 would

have either a cost or time impact. 31. On February 4, 1999, ETC stated during a weekly phone meeting that it had made

significant progress with the weight issue, and would be prepared to present the final opinions on Monday, February 8, 1999. 32. On February 16, 1999, ETC stated during a weekly phone meeting that it could meet the

lower weight requirement "with the reduction of corrosion allowance and battery size." 33. In its March 1999, Monthly Report, ETC reported that weight reduction issue was

resolved. 34. On March 22, 1999, at a construction review board ("CRB") meeting, ETC put on a slide

presentation that contained an SDC weight comparison sheet. ETC stated "Target ­ 35,600 lbs @ 500 lbs/ft2 = Yes, we can make it." 35. On March 29, 1999, David DeAngelis, the Navy's Project Manager, sent a memorandum 9

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 10 of 65

to Ms. Palmore, requesting her to initiate a contract change ­ changing Contract Section C Paragraph 2.2.2.2. SDC, PVHO, (a), reducing the pressure requirement from "6.8 atm (100 psig)" to "5.44 atm (80 psig);" eliminating the corrosion allowance in Contract Section C, Paragraph 4.1.6; and reducing the "Maximum Weight" under Contract Section C, Paragraph 2.2.2.2, SDC Vans Operation Requirements from 17,706 kg (39,000 lbs) to 16,581 kg (36,532 lbs). The weight reduction represented 6.36% of the original weight. By reducing the pressure requirements and eliminating the corrosion allowance, the change was to be at no cost to the Government. 36. On April 6, 1999, ETC and the Navy executed bilateral modification P00001, which

incorporated the following relevant changes: SECTION C DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS C.1 Statement of Work: 1. Change Specification Paragraph 2.2.2.1.1 SDC, PVHO, (a), from "6.8 atm (100 psig)" to "5.44 atm (80 psig)." 2. Change Specification paragraph 4.1.6, CORROSION ALLOWANCE, to read "No corrosion allowance shall be included in the design." 3. Change Specification paragraph 2.2.2.2, SDC VANS OPERATION REQUIREMENTS, from "Maximum Weight: 17,706 kg (39,000 lbs)" to "Maximum Weight: 16,581 kg (36,523 lbs)." 37. In addition, bilateral modification P00001 also stated that the changes were no cost

changes "within the provisions of the contact as cited in FAR Part 43," and that "[a]cceptance of this modification by the contractor constitutes an accord and satisfaction and represents payment in full for both time and money and for any and all costs, impact, effect, and for delays and

10

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 11 of 65

disruptions arising out of, or incidental to the work as herein revised." 38. Richard E. McAdams, Executive Vice President for ETC, signed bilateral modification

P00001. 39. The bilateral modification was issued before ETC delivered the final design as per the

instructions of contract section 1.2.6. Bilateral Modification P00002 40. The contract required that the SDCs meet a 200 pounds per square foot wave slap,

representing the force of waves that the SDC be could be subjected to upon the deck of the vessel during their use. 41. The Navy requested ETC to submit a proposal for the cost of increasing the wave slap

requirement to 500 pounds per square foot. 42. 43. ETC submitted a proposal in the amount of approximately $800,000. On or about March 22, 1999, the Navy concluded that it no longer wanted ETC to

pursue a 500 pounds per square foot wave slap because the projected cost was to high; instead ETC was to proceed on the design based upon a 200 pounds per square foot wave slap. 44. On April 5, 1999, Mr. McAdams sent a request for equitable adjustment to Ms. Palmore.

In the letter Mr. McAdams stated that ETC was "unable to propose alternate and cheaper method of meeting the wave slap change." ETC, however, sought $37,291 for the amount it cost ETC to prepare the 500 ft/lbs wave slap estimate, as well as a time extension of 60 days for completion of Phases I and II in addition to a previously requested extension of 120 days. 45. On April 13, 1999, the parties executed bilateral modification P00002. The modification

was to compensate ETC for preparing the cost estimate for the wave-slap loading. The contract 11

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 12 of 65

price was increased by $37,291, the amount requested by ETC; and the contract completion date was extended by more than 180 days, the total amount requested by ETC, from a completion date of April 8, 1999, to October 13, 1999. 46. Bilateral Modification P00002 contained the following statement: Acceptance of this modification by the contractor constitutes an accord and satisfaction and represents payment in full for both time and money and for any and all costs, impact, effect, and for delays and disruptions arising out of, or incidental to the work as herein revised. Bilateral Modification P00005 47. 48. On or about November 5, 1999, ETC submitted RFI Nos. 75, 76, and 77. RFI No. 75 was an ETC proposal to use composite type, corrosion resistant panels, on the

exterior of the vans. ETC claimed there was both a cost and time impact for this requested change. 49. RFI No. 76 was an ETC proposal to revise the aft end of the van and chamber. ETC

claimed there was a cost impact (a decrease in cost) but no time impact for this requested change. 50. RFI No. 77 was an ETC proposal to add a potable water supply system instead of using

the bottled water method depicted in contract Section C3.3.5(b). ETC claimed there was both a cost and time impact for this requested change. 51. 52. On December 30, 1999, ETC and the Navy executed bilateral modification P00005. Bilateral modification P00005 incorporated RFI Nos. 75, 76, and 77, regarding Corrosion

allowances on the SDC Van, Aft End Revision, and Potable & Waste System Design. The contract amount was increased by $75,852, and the contract completion date was extended to May 31, 2001. 12

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 13 of 65

Bilateral Modification P00006 53. On June 14, 2000, ETC submitted RFI No. 84A (Rev.) requesting to change the specified

internal Scrubber and Environmental Control System to an external one. ETC claimed there was both a cost and time impact for this requested change. 54. On August 15, 2000, ETC and the Navy executed bilateral modification P00006, which

incorporated RFI No. 84, increased the contract value by $26,820 and extended the contract completion date to May 15, 2002. Bilateral Modification P00009 55. On September 17, 2002, ETC submitted RFI No. 157 for revisions to the Van Air

Conditioning Assemblies; Van Handrail; and Fore End Ladder. ETC requested a cost increase of $49,997.58 for the work, and a four-week time extension. 56. On February 20, 2003, the parties executed bilateral modification P00009, which

incorporated RFI No. 157, increased the contract value by $49,997.58 and extended the contract completion date to August 31, 2003. ETC's Claim 57. ETC submitted a draft request for equitable adjustment ("REA") on November 7, 2002,

in the amount of $3,668,554. On May 6, 2003, the CO requested that ETC formalize the REA. ETC responded on the same date by submitting a certified claim in the amount of $5,166,401. ETC submitted claim amendments on August 6, 2003, January 6, 2004, and April 28, 2004, increasing the total of the claim to $6,028,093. All of ETC's claim amounts included an estimate of the cost to complete the project. 58. The CO denied ETC's claim in full on July 22, 2004. 13

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 14 of 65

59.

ETC filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims on July 11, 2005,

seeking $9,109,617.50. Following the filing of the Government's motion to dismiss elements of ETC's complaint, ETC filed an amended complaint on May 16, 2006, seeking $7,995,398.00. Technical Issues 60. The Government retained Simpson, Gumpertz and Heger ("SGH"), a Boston consulting

firm, as its technical expert. In reaching its opinions in this matter, SGH reviewed the RFP, including the specifications and drawings, ETC's proposal, the contract, including all modifications, project documents, including meeting notes, RFIs, correspondence, and ETC designs, analyses, and reports. 61. In addition to reviewing approximately 400,000 pages of project documents, SGH

interviewed Jack Maison, a finite element specialist hired as a consultant by Oceaneering International Inc. ("OII") during the project to assist ETC, several fabricators, key Navy personnel, and consulted with Phil Nuytten, a design-build contractor of undersea equipment. SGH personnel also visited the ETC facility to inspect the SDCs on February 17, 2006, and again on February 9, 2007, with Phil Nuytten. 62. As part of its analyses, SGH performed an independent finite element analysis ("FEA") of

the SDC-1 chamber and van, the medical/supply lock door, and the manway door. 63. Of the 24 technical issues raised by ETC in its complaint, SGH is of the opinion that three

of the issues have full or partial technical merit. 64. SGH is of the opinion that there is technical merit for the portion of claim I.3, weight

constraint - manway door that is related to the Navy's direction, and subsequent abandonment of that direction, to ETC to perform a "3D" contact analysis. 14

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 15 of 65

65.

SGH is of the opinion that there is partial technical merit for claim IV.2,

out-of-scope-work - review of FEA load cases. 66. SGH is of the opinion that there is technical merit for the claim IV.6, out-of-scope-work -

performance of light study. Technical Issue: Complaint I.1, Weight Constraint-Thin Walled Chamber: $428,820.00 67. ETC claims that the reduction in maximum allowable weight of the SDC segments, and

the decision to use a ¼ inch thick shell, caused design and manufacturing problems. Regarding design, ETC claims that it was forced to add top saddles and belly bands to maintain the roundness of the SDCs and to mitigate stress concentrations. ETC claims that the addition of the top saddles complicated the FEA by requiring the SDC and van to be analyzed together; required creating and analyzing sub-models; and required additional design effort. ETC also claims that the bunk design needed to be modified as a result of using a ¼ inch thick shell. Regarding manufacturing, ETC claims that the use of the ¼ inch thick shell caused out-of-roundness problems, and the solution to these problems required ETC to re-examine the FEA. ETC also claims that the changes in bunk design caused additional procurement costs. ETC's claim implies that a post contract airplane-transport load criterion was related to the weight reduction. ETC claims that the reduction in weight and the decision to use a ¼ inch thick shell made the SDC segments the first chambers of such large size to be built with a thin wall. 68. SGH's analyses of this issue included reviewing the relevant documents and standards;

performing FEA modeling; performing design calculations; and interviews. SGH analyzed five different FEA models, each representing a different SDC design, to study the effect of the shell thickness, top saddles, and belly bands on the SDC design. SGH calculated the strength of the 15

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 16 of 65

bunk supports. SGH interviewed pressure vessel manufacturers to determine how a change in shell thickness would affect the manufacturing process. 69. Based on its analyses, SGH is of the opinion that ETC's claim for this issue has no

technical merit for the following reasons: A. ETC failed to demonstrate that the weight reduction and use of ¼ inch thick shell

caused design changes, such as the top saddles and belly bands, or that such changes would not have been necessary if ETC had used the 5/16 inch thick shell described in ETC's proposal. Moreover, prior to the change in hull thickness, ETC had not yet designed the SDCs with a 5/16 inch thick shell, so there was no design to modify. B. SGH's calculations demonstrate that changing from the originally contemplated

5/16 inch thick shell to a ¼ inch thick shell should not have required ETC to make "significant" design modifications to the chamber. C. The addition of top saddles and belly bands did not "drastically" increase the

complexity of the FEA; in fact, the more complicated FEA model was required to accurately model the interaction of the van and SDC. Additional sub-models were not necessary. The addition of top saddles was also used by ETC to strengthen the van. Therefore, even if top saddles were not necessary to support the SDC, ETC might still have used them to support the van. D. SGH's calculations demonstrate that the bunk design did not require

modifications as claimed as a result of using the ¼ inch thick shell. E. ETC failed to demonstrate that manufacturing problems that ETC experienced

were a result of the ¼ inch thick shell. Manufacturing problems with out-of-roundness were 16

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 17 of 65

most likely caused by ETC's failure to use the appropriate measures for preventing shell distortion that would have also been required if 5/16 inch thick plate was used. F. The RFP clearly indicated that the SDCs were intended to be transported by air.

The airplane-transport criterion was not added as a change to the contract. G. The SDC are not unique. Large thin-walled cylinders are used in general industry

and as part of other submarine rescue systems. Complaint I.2, Weight Constraint-Support Structures: $13,607.00 70. ETC claims that the use of the 1/4 inch thick shell led it to believe that filling the

chambers with water for contract required hydrotesting would deform the chambers. ETC claims that it incurred additional costs and experienced delays in the design, fabrication, and installation of temporary support structures to prevent deformations during hydrotesting. 71. 72. SGH's analyses of this issue consisted of the review of relevant documents. Based on its review and analyses, SGH is of the opinion that ETC's claim for this issue

has no technical merit for the following reasons: A. The RFP makes the contractor responsible for safety measures during testing.

ETC used the temporary support structures at its own discretion despite ETC's calculations that indicated that no additional support was necessary. B. ETC failed to demonstrate the relationship between the weight reduction, or SDC

shell thickness reduction, and its decision to use temporary supports. Complaint I.3, Weight Constraint-Manway Door: $54,573.00 73. ETC claims that the reduction in the maximum allowable weight of the SDCs required

ETC to design and manufacture a "lightweight, stamped Manway door" with a domed shape. 17

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 18 of 65

ETC claims that the lightweight door was more expensive to design and manufacture than the one it intended to use, and that because it could not locate a vendor able to supply the door, ETC was forced to develop contingency plans. ETC claims that the manway door needed to be reworked twice. ETC claims that the Navy required it to perform a contact analysis of the manway door, and then questioned ETC's modeling approach, insisting upon a more complex procedure. When ETC was unable to implement the Navy's more complex, ETC claims the Navy then agreed with ETC's original procedure. 74. SGH's analyses of this issue included a review of relevant documents, and the analysis of

the effects of different contact analysis modeling procedures. 75. Based upon its review and analyses, SGH is of the opinion that ETC's claim for this issue,

with the exception of the contact analysis claim, has no technical merit for the following reasons: A. B. The RFP and ETC's proposal both describe a domed, lightweight manway door. The RFP emphasized the need for weight control of the SDCs (even before

P00001), and included a note about the importance of a minimum-weight door. C. There were weight restrictions in the contract prior to P000001 that required ETC

to optimize the weight of the SDC components. The weight reduction required by P000001 did not create the need for a lightweight door, and did not change the design concept of the door described in the RFP and ETC's proposal. D. The RFP drawings depicting the manway door are guidance drawings. ETC was

free to prose other "lightweight" door concepts. E. door. 18 The need for rework was necessitated by distortion due to ETC's welding of the

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 19 of 65

F.

Based on its analyses, SGH is of the opinion that ETC's claim for the issue

regarding the contact analysis has technical merit because the more complex contact analysis modeling approach was not necessary and not reasonably anticipated from the RFP documents. The Government's direction to perform a more complex analysis was therefore not justified. Complaint I.4, Weight Constraint-Van: $339,749.00 76. ETC claims that it interpreted the RFP to require a standard ISO container with wall and

floor reinforcements to support the SDC components. ETC claims it was required to design custom van frames after determining that a reinforced ISO container would not be adequate, and that the weight reduction made the design more complex. As in Complaint I.1, ETC claims that the connection of the chamber to the van via top saddles complicated the FEA effort, and that the connection required ETC to strengthen the van, adding weight and cost. ETC claims that the Navy decided to assist it by completing the van design, and that the Navy's assistance was motivated by its need for a van that exceeded the performance requirements of the RFP regarding wave slap. 77. 78. SGH's analyses of this issue included a review of the relevant documents. Based upon its review and analyses, SGH is of the opinion that ETC's claim regarding

this issue has no technical merit for the following reasons: A. ETC's claim that it planned upon using a standard ISO container is not consistent

with its proposal, which indicates that the van would be built around the chamber, as opposed to the chamber being inserted into a fully constructed or partially disassembled van. Weight estimates provided in ETC's proposal contain information indicating the use of custom frame members and skin panels, the use of which is not consistent with the use of a standard ISO 19

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 20 of 65

container. B. The RFP clearly indicated that a structural frame for the van, different than the

structure of a typical ISO container, was required. C. The RFP clearly indicated that ETC was required to design a van, whether made

of custom van frames or a reinforced ISO container. The need for a van design did not result because modification of a standard ISO container was not practical. D. The design concept to connect the top of the of the SDC to the van (ultimately via

top saddles) was first made to control stresses in the van. The connection results in reduced stresses in the van, contrary to ETC's claims. E. ETC failed to demonstrate that the connection of the SDC to the van or the

weight-reduction effort made the van design more difficult or added cost to the van. F. ETC requested assistance with the design of the van from the Navy. The

Navy did not impose its suggested van design upon ETC. Complaint I.5, Weight Constraint-Manway Forging Ring Nozzles: $213,067.00 79. ETC claims that the weight reduction required it to modify the design of the manway

forging ring nozzles by making them thinner and more lightweight. ETC also implies that more design effort was required. ETC claims that when the nozzles were installed in the SDCs, the nozzles deformed, and ETC was required to remove the nozzles, design a new means of installation, and purchase and install new nozzles. ETC claims that the deformation of the nozzles and associated rework was a result of the decreased nozzle thickness and reduced weight limit. 80. SGH's analyses of this issue included a review of relevant documents. 20

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 21 of 65

81.

Based upon its review and analyses, SGH is of the opinion ETC's claim with regard to

this issue has no technical merit for the following reasons: A. ETC failed to provide any technical support for the claim that the nozzle

deformations were caused by the thinner nozzle design. B. C. distortions. D. E. The RFP required that ETC design the nozzles. The weight reduction did not create additional design effort for ETC because ETC ETC's design and installation contributed to the distortions. ETC successfully installed a thin replacement nozzle similar to the first without

had not designed the nozzle prior to the weight reduction, ETC, therefore, did not have a design to "modify." Complaint II, Duplicative Design Effort: $331,488.00 82. ETC claims that the RFP drawings and specifications gave the impression that the pair of

SDCs were "virtually identical to one another" and, therefore, did not require separate design packages. ETC claims that it reasonably believed that SDC 1 and SDC 2 were basically identical (with the exception of the MTL and DTL flanges and their associated piping), and that only one design and one set of drawings were required. ETC claims that it was required to prepare and submit separate design packages for SDC 1 and SDC 2, along with detailed layout and piping drawings, and a piping and tubing flexibility analysis, for each segment. In addition, ETC claims it had to review and approve the purchase of piping components for two SDC segments. When ETC submitted its SDC 2 design package, ETC claims it included only the worst case load combinations as determined from the SDC 1 design. ETC claims that a limited analysis of SDC 21

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 22 of 65

2 was justified, but that the Navy demanded a full design package. ETC also claims that it was required to perform strain gauge analysis and testing twice, when such testing and analysis of SDC 1 had fulfilled the contract requirements. 83. 84. SGH's analyses of this issue included a review of relevant documents. Based upon its review and analyses, SGH is of the opinion that ETC's claim regarding

this issue has no technical merit for the following reasons: A. The RFP drawings show major differences between the two SDC segments. It is

apparent from the drawings that the SDCs are neither identical nor mirror images of each other. B. In addition to the fact that the RFP drawings showed major differences between

SDC 1 and SDC 2, the RFP indicated that the van, chambers, and piping would require separate designs. C. as one. D. The RFP contained many unique drawings for SDC 1 and SDC 2. The unique The differences in the SDC assemblies are too great to allow them to be designed

drawing sets indicate that separate designs are necessary. E. The RFP drawings show major differences in piping and component locations

between SDC 1 and SDC 2 that are too great to allow the use of a common layout. Complaint III.1, Space Constraint-Environmental Control System: $79,611.00 85. ETC claims that its analyses indicated that more environmental control units and

scrubbers than depicted in the RFP drawings were required to meet the performance requirements of the contract. ETC acknowledges that contract modification P00006 replaced the internal environmental control system ("ECS") depicted in the RFP drawings with an external 22

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 23 of 65

ECS, and that the modification compensated ETC for its re-engineering effort. ETC claims that it has incurred additional material costs associated with the new ECS, and that the new ECS is heavier than that depicted in the RFP drawings. 86. 87. 88. SGH's analyses of this issue included a review of the relevant documents. Based upon its review and analyses, SGH has no technical opinion regarding this issue. ETC overstates the weight increase associated with the new ECS by using an outdated

weight increase estimate of 435 pounds in its amended their complaint. The updated weight increase estimate included with RFI 084 shows a weight change of 251 lbs. 89. An internal ETC e-mail indicates that ETC anticipated a savings in material costs as a

result of the ECS design changes. In the April 2, 2000 email from Michael Allen to William Mitchell, Sr., Russell Peterson and Gene Davis, Mr. Allen writes: The RFI process has be a very positive process during this effort. The Navy has in many cases lowered their requirements, which I am happy to say has or will save ETC a lot of money in engineering but mainly in production and purchasing. In one such development we have successfully demonstrated that a different ECU system would be more capable and safer. We have just submitted the final ECU RFI for approval and this is expected to bring an additional $26K in revenue and at the same time save ETC approximately 30 to 40K in purchased components. 90. In addition, ETC agreed to changes in the ECS in contract modification P00006 without a

request for additional material costs. Complaint III.2, Space Constraint-Forced Convection Flow Analysis: $1,780.00 91. ETC claims that it determined that more environmental control units and scrubbers than

depicted in the RFP were required to meet the ECS performance requirements of the contract. ETC claims that after contract modification P00006 was executed, thereby allowing the change 23

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 24 of 65

in the design of the ECS, ETC was required to perform a second forced convection flow analysis ("FCFA"). 92. 93. SGH's analyses of this issue included a review of relevant documents. Based upon its review and analyses, SGH is of the opinion that ETC's claim with regard

to this issue has no technical merit for the following reasons: A. The RFP and contract require that the FCFA be updated if the initial analysis

indicates that ducting is required. ETC recognized this requirement in its proposal. B. The new ECS allowed by contract modification P00006 includes ducting. The

contract required ETC to update the FCFA to reflect the new design. 94. In addition, regardless of the original requirements, contract modification P00006

implements the new ECS design and requires the associated analyses to be performed. Complaint III.3, Space Constraint-Piping and Control Panel Layout: $1,761,822.00 95. ETC claims that the RFP drawings "misrepresented the amount and size of piping, valves,

accessories and other equipment" required in the SDC segments. Specifically, ETC claims that the drawings showed that all required piping and components would fit on the control panel, but ETC claims it found this to be impossible after spending months trying to develop a layout. ETC claims that the drawings misrepresent the "complexity of the piping and accessories" in the control room and claims that the representations in the drawings were inconsistent with specification requirements regarding human factors. ETC claims that the amount of piping and components increased, but the available space in which to mount it decreased. 96. SGH's analyses of this issue included a review of relevant documents, standards, and

photographs of the control room and control panel. 24

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 25 of 65

97.

Based upon its analyses, SGH is of the opinion that ETC's claim regarding this issue has

no technical merit for the following reasons: A. The RFP clearly indicated that many systems and pieces of equipment needed to

be closely coordinated and distributed into tight spaces, including a densely packed control room. B. The fact that ETC understood the requirements of the RFP in this regard is clearly

reflected in ETC's proposal that included labor for coordination and integrated design and construction, including computer modeling and physical mockups. C. ETC implies that the RFP drawings depicting the control panel layout were

intended to show a final design. In fact, the drawings were guidance drawings intended to convey a design concept. The RFP required ETC to develop the final design, including piping and component sizes. D. ETC in its discretion made a design decision to locate the ECS equipment in the

control room that further crowded the control panel and control room. E. The Navy allowed ETC to use three walls of the control room for piping and

component support, expanding the space available from that depicted in the guidance drawings. F. ETC failed to demonstrate that ETC's claimed difficulties in designing the control

panel occurred or were a result of the alleged RFP misrepresentations. Complaint III.4, Space Constraint-Required Gauges on Regulator Inlets/Outlets: $24,102.00 98. ETC claims that the solicitation drawings did not depict gauges on regulator inlets and

outlets as required by the Specifications. ETC claims that it requested to omit the gauges, but that the Government directed ETC to supply them. 99. SGH's analyses of this issue included a review of relevant documents and standards. 25

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 26 of 65

SGH has no technical opinion regarding this issue. 100. Although the RFP drawings do not show all required gauges, specification section 1.2.3

puts the risk of RFP errors on the contractor. ETC acknowledged that it was aware of specification Section 1.2.3 in its proposal. Complaint III.5, Space Constraint-Gauge Calibration Valves: $18,475.00 101. ETC claims that the contract required a gauge calibration valve with each gauge, "except

when otherwise specified." Because the RFP drawings did not depict all of the gauge calibration valves, ETC claims that it believed that the "except when otherwise specified" provision applied. ETC claims that the Navy directed it to supply gauge calibration valves that were not shown on the RFP drawings. 102. SGH's analyses of this issue included a review of relevant documents. SGH has no

technical opinion regarding this issue. 103. Although the RFP drawings do not show all required gauge calibration valves,

specification section 1.2.3 puts the risk of RFP errors on the contractor. Moreover, ETC acknowledged that it was aware of specification section 1.2.3 in its proposal and stated that it would perform the necessary work as it was fully and correctly listed and described in the drawings.. Complaint IV.1, Out-of-Scope Work-Review of FEA Load Cases: $10,373.00 104. ETC claims that the Navy approved the load cases it intended to analyze with the FEA

models. ETC claims that the Navy later changed its position, and ETC spent significant time in discussions regarding the load cases. 105. SGH's analyses of this issue included the review of relevant documents and standards. 26

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 27 of 65

106.

Based upon its review and analyses, SGH is of the opinion that ETC's claim regarding

this issue has partial technical merit for the following reasons: A. cases. B. The turnover of ETC's FEA staff, and that staff's inexperience, contributed to the Both ETC and the Navy contributed to the difficulty in establishing the FEA load

difficulties experienced by ETC. C. The Navy's poor definition of load cases in the RFP, the Navy's initial acceptance

of ETC's load cases that did not meet the specifications, and the Navy's comments regarding the load cases contributed to the difficulties experienced by ETC. Complaint IV.2, Out-of-Scope Work-FEA Modeling Demands: $38,211.00 107. ETC claims that the Navy rejected its FEA model and required ETC to repeat the FEA

because it contained a small error in the diameter of the chamber. 108. 109. SGH's analyses of this issue included the review of the relevant documents. Based upon its review and analyses, SGH is of the opinion that ETC's claim regarding

this issue has no technical merit for the following reasons: A. The Navy's comment regarding ETC's error in using the incorrect diameter of the

chamber was one of several legitimate criticisms that as a whole required substantial refinement and correction of the FEA model. Given the other necessary corrections, and given that the changes were to an early (PDR) computer model, the change in chamber diameter is trivial. B. The RFP and contract required that ETC provide the Navy with an accurate FEA.

The Navy's comment regarding the SDC diameter did not create design effort beyond that required by the contract. 27

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 28 of 65

Complaint IV.3, Out-of-Scope Work-Pipe and Tubing Flexibility Analysis: $22,914.00 110. ETC claims that the RFP required a pipe and tubing flexibility analysis in accordance

with ASME B31.1. ETC claims that ASME B31.1 requires only hand calculations to perform the analysis, and that the Navy required ETC to perform the analysis using FEA. In addition, ETC claims that the Navy required ETC to integrate the pipe and tubing flexibility analysis in the FEA models of the chamber and van structures. 111. SGH's analyses of this issue included the review of the relevant documents and

standards. 112. Based upon its review and analyses, SGH is of the opinion that ETC's claim regarding

this issue has no technical merit for the following reasons: A. The language of ASME B31.1 does not support ETC's position. On the contrary,

ASME B31.1, in fact, limits the use of hand calculations to specific cases. B. ETC states in its proposal and preliminary design package that FEA will be used

to perform the analysis. C. ETC failed to demonstrate that the Navy directed ETC to use FEA to perform the

analysis; in fact, ETC, in its pdr report, noted its inability to generate simple calculations, to evaluate the piping, and indicated it would use fea in the final work. Complaint IV.4, Out-of-Scope Work-SDC Medical/Supply Lock Door: $66,848.00 113. ETC claims that it believed that the medical/supply lock door shown in the RFP drawings

was a functional design, but that ETC's analyses showed the design was insufficient. ETC claims that after several attempts to redesign the door, ETC determined that the Navy's overall design concept was inadequate. ETC claims that the Navy then recommended that a commercial 28

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 29 of 65

off-the-shelf product be substituted for the design depicted in the RFP drawings. 114. SGH's analyses of this issue included the review of the relevant documents and a

preliminary design of the medical/supply lock door. 115. Based upon its review and analyses, SGH is of the opinion that ETC's claim regarding

this issue has no technical merit for the following reasons: A. SGH's calculations demonstrate that the medical/supply lock door design

concept depicted in the RFP drawings is feasible. B. ETC's failure to produce a competent design was not caused by a deficient design

concept in the RFP drawings. C. ETC explored an off-the-shelf product months before encountering problems with

its design effort. Complaint IV.5, Out-of-Scope Work-Communication System: $4,863.00 116. ETC claims that the RFP required four communication stations, but the RFP drawings

depicted five. ETC claims that it sought clarification, and the Navy required ETC to supply the additional communication station. ETC also claims that the Navy required the supply of additional equipment and capabilities regarding the communication system. 117. 118. SGH's analyses of this issue included the a review of the relevant documents. Based upon its review and analyses, SGH is of the opinion that ETC's claim regarding

this issue has no technical merit for the following reasons: A. The RFP provided conflicting information regarding the communication system,

but the issue was clarified by an RFI early in the design process with no apparent cost or time impact. 29

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 30 of 65

B.

ETC failed to demonstrate that the Navy required ETC to provide equipment or

capabilities not included in the RFP. Complaint IV.6, Out-of-Scope Work-Performance of Light Study: $16,494.00 119. ETC claims that the RFP required a minimum illumination level within the SDC, and the

RFP drawings showed a specific number of lights inside each SDC. ETC claims that it determined that there was no basis to believe that the number of lights depicted would meet the minimum illumination level specified. ETC claims that it was required to conduct an analysis to resolve this issue. 120. 121. SGH's analyses of this issue included the review of the relevant documents. Based upon its review and analyses, SGH is of the opinion that ETC's claim regarding

this issue has technical merit for the following reasons: A. B. C. from the RFP. D. The Navy relaxed the illumination level requirements. The RFP contains both prescriptive and performance language that is in conflict. ETC was required to use engineering effort to resolve this conflict. The amount of engineering effort required could not be reasonably determined

Complaint IV.7, Out-of-Scope Work-Primary/Secondary Air Pressurization System: $6,169.00 122. ETC claims that the noise reduction equipment shown on the RFP drawings was not

sufficient to maintain noise levels below the specified limit. ETC claims that it was required to redesign the pressurization systems and provide noise reduction equipment beyond that shown on the RFP drawings in order to meet the applicable specifications. 123. SGH's analyses of this issue included the review of the relevant documents. 30

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 31 of 65

124.

Based upon its review and analyses, SGH is of the opinion that ETC's claim regarding

this issue has no technical merit for the following reasons: A. The RFP drawings depicting the noise reduction equipment do not show the size,

model, or type of equipment and, therefore, cannot be considered prescriptive. B. limits. C. The RFP performance specification pertaining to noise levels explicitly required The RFP contains a performance specification that clearly defines noise-level

that ETC design the equipment required to meet the noise level specification. D. ETC's proposal acknowledges its noise-control design responsibility.

Complaint IV.8, Out-of-Scope Work-Government Demand for Production Drawings: $0.00 125. ETC claims that it provided all of the drawings required by the specifications

with its final design package. ETC claims that the Navy required it to produce and submit production drawings that show a level of detail in excess of the detail required by the specifications. 126. 127. SGH's analyses of this issue included the review of the relevant documents and standards. Based upon its review and analyses, SGH is of the opinion that ETC's claim regarding

this issue has no technical merit because ETC presented sample drawings for the Navy's review showing the level of detail ETC proposed to provide on all drawings. The sample drawings had a level of detail consistent with production drawings. Complaint IV.9, Out-of-Scope Work-Excessive RFIs: $37,216.00 128. ETC claims that it was forced to submit an excessive number of RFIs as "a consequence

of the defects, ambiguities and shortcomings" in the contract. ETC claims that 70 per cent of the 31

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 32 of 65

RFIs were a result of conflicts between the specifications and drawings, information missing from the contract, and ambiguities in the specification. ETC also claims that the Navy's response time often exceeded the agreed 15 day period. 129. 130. SGH's analyses of this issue included the review of the relevant documents. Based upon its review and analyses, SGH is of the opinion that ETC's claim regarding

this issue has no technical merit for the following reasons: A. ETC and the Navy agreed to use RFIs for many purposes beyond simple

information requests, including transmittal of submissions, confirmation of CRB discussions, and initiation of contract modifications, thereby creating more RFIs than if their purpose was limited to simple information requests. B. The number, reasons, and subjects of the RFIs are consistent with the expectations

of a design-build project of this complexity and duration. C. ETC failed to demonstrate that the RFI process in general, or any specific RFI,

had a significant impact upon ETC's costs and schedule. D. ETC failed to demonstrate that the Navy agreed to respond to RFIs within 15

days. In fact, the Navy asked ETC to remove a clause requesting a response within 15 days from RFIs early in the project. Complaint IV.10, Out-of-Scope Work-Additional Design Submittal Review: $35,355.00 131. ETC claims that it was required to prepare and submit an additional design package

beyond the two design submittals that the specifications required. ETC claims that is was also required to respond to additional Navy comments resulting from the extra design submittal. 132. SGH's analyses of this issue included the review of the relevant documents. 32

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 33 of 65

133.

Based upon its review and analyses, SGH has no technical opinion regarding ETC's claim

on this issue. 134. review. 135. The requirement for additional design submittal and review is repeatedly mentioned in Bilateral modification P00005 required the submittal of additional design packages for

meeting notes and correspondence. 136. ETC never claimed the requirement for the additional design submittals constituted

out-of-scope work. Complaint IV.11, Out-of-Scope Work-Internal NAVSEA/NAVSEA Disagreement(s): $773.00 137. ETC claims that it received several different directives regarding ball valves in a

pressurization line as a result of disagreements between NAVSEA and NAVSEA CERT. ETC claims that the directives required it to repeatedly modify design drawings and a component database. 138. 139. 140. SGH's analyses of this issue included the review of the relevant documents and standards. Based upon its review and analyses, SGH has no technical opinion regarding this claim. ETC failed to demonstrate that the Navy gave directives to ETC regarding ball valves or

required additional work beyond that required by the contract. Complaint IV.12, Out-of-Scope Work-Van Access Panels: $23,630.00 141. ETC claims that the solicitation package drawings depict a van frame with no skin and

did not depict supplementary access panels. ETC claims that the Government directed ETC to add supplementary access panels. 142. SGH's analyses of this issue included a review of relevant documents. 33

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 34 of 65

143.

Based upon its review and analyses, SGH is of the opinion that ETC's claim regarding

this issue has no technical merit for the following reasons: A. The RFP drawings clearly required each van to have an outer skin and access

panels in the skin to allow access to the space between the van and chamber. B. panels. Complaint V, Improper Specifications of Components: $10,019.00 144. ETC claims that the specifications require pressure gauges with helical coil or bourdon ETC's proposal includes a preliminary design of van skin and provides access

tube sensing elements, and claims that a helical coil sensing device does not exist. ETC also claims that only one company manufactures gauges with helical coil bourdon tube sensing elements and that the contract, therefore, requires a sole source of supply. 145. SGH's analyses of this issue included the review of the relevant documents and interviews

with pressure gauge manufacturers. 146. 147. Based upon its review and analyses, SGH has no technical opinion regarding this claim. The claim that the specified gauges do not exist is based upon a small typographical error

in the RFP. The same error occurs in ETC's proposal. 148. 149. The RFP places the risk of the mis-description of details of the work upon the contractor. ETC failed to demonstrate that the required gauges are available from only one

manufacturer. 150. ETC contends that it incurred additional costs because the RFP did not adequately

apprise ETC that the SDCs were required to withstand transport loads. 151. The RFP made it clear that the SDCs would be transported by air. 34

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 35 of 65

A.

Section 1.1.3 provides as follows: SDS [submarine decompression system] is

design to response to worldwide emergency DISSUB [disabled submarine] alerts. SDS is to be air and road transportable. B. Section 2.1.2.1 provides as follows: Transportation Mode: SDC Segments are

non-operational, disassembled, and placed in a configuration for road, or air transportation. C. Section 2.2.1 provides maximum aircraft load dimensions.

D. Section 3.2.14 provides as follows: As a minimum, each SDC Segment shall be designed to be transported via C-5, C-141, C-17, and/or C-130. Components shall be able to fit in and be flown in all of the aircraft. E. Section 3.3.2 provides as follows: The system components shall be capable of

being loaded onto the aircraft via the use of a standard 40K loader. F. Section 5.1.14.c.8 provides as follows: Van Analysis: An [sic] complete structural calculation analysis package shall be prepared establishing the conformance of the design to the SOW requirements. This analysis shall be established and reviewed in an analytical form. This analysis shall draw together many of the previously listed analyses and some additional analyses and shall include the following: (a) Structural loading of the vans in all modes of transportation and operational use; (b) Transient loading of the van structure due to worst case conditions as created from air and ground transportation, shipping and rigging, placement, sea state conditions on the VOO [vessel of opportunity] with the structured [sic] burdened by the Spares and Control Vans where appropriate." 152. To the extent that ETC maintains that because of the thin shell, it had to address

unforeseen manufacturing problems, ETC is mistaken. 35

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 36 of 65

153.

According to SGH, the large ovaling of the thin shells resting upon the shop floor would

have been noticeable during fabrication and that means, such as spiders, for keeping the shells circular, were required during fabrication. Scheduling Issues 154. ETC is seeking damages for delay in association with all counts dealing with

technical issues. 155. While ETC's complaint makes reference to "delays in completion" and to "the delay

period," it does not quantify the duration of each alleged delay. 156. ETC is seeking $595,354.00 "materials and labor cost escalation" due to delays,

$638,789.00 for extended project management, $725,826.00 for lost profits due to delays, $298,004.00 for "cumulative delay impacts - unabsorbed / unrecovered overhead, and $935,182.00 in rental costs of manufacturing floor space due to delays. ETC, thus, is seeking at least $3M for costs allegedly attributable to Navy caused delays during the performance of the contract. 157. The Government retained Contract Solutions LLC to perform a critical path method

("CPM") analysis of this contract. 158. According to Contract Solutions, ETC submitted a late and incomplete preliminary

design that caused a 7.5 month critical path delay. 159. According to Contract Solutions, the reasons that the preliminary design was late and

incomplete include the following: ETC's failure to complete the required FEA structural analysis; the failure to complete a project schedule and update it for progress during the preliminary design phase; the failure to complete a drawing package as required by 36

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 37 of 65

specifications; the failure to submit a complete weight analysis for review; the failure to complete the carbon dioxide air flow analysis; the failure to submit any preliminary design elements for SDC-2; time spent performing wave-slap design analysis; and the weight reduction effort. 160. According to Contract Solutions, all of the factors that contributed to this preliminary

delay were the responsibility of ETC except for the factors relating to the wave slap design analysis and the weight reduction effort, and the resulting impacts to the FEA structural analysis and weight analysis. 161. The factors relating to the wave slap design analysis and the weight reduction effort were

the subject of bilateral modifications. 162. According to Contract Solutions, ETC submitted a late and incomplete final design for

SDC-1 that caused a critical path delay of twelve months. According to Contract Solutions, the final design submittal was delayed because of ETC's failure to include the Critical Design Review ("CDR") elements for SDC-2 in the December 7, 2000 final design submittal; the failure to meet specifications regarding FEA structural analyses; the fact that ETC made "piece meal" submittals of final design elements, which resulted in multiple iterations of submittals prior to completing a final design package; the failure to complete the Functional Test Plan for the final design submittal; ETC's proposed design changes for an external carbon dioxide scrubber system; and the failure to complete a van design that met specifications. According to Contract Solutions several of the factors causing this delay were the sole responsibility of ETC. 163. According to Contract Solution, ETC's final design and manufacturing work was delayed

by 10.2 months because of ETC's failure to include a complete final design package in its 37

Case 1:05-cv-00746-SGB

Document 40

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 38 of 65

submittal; ETC's failure to include a Quality Assurance Plan, a Manufacturing Plan, a Hydro-Test Plan, and Cleaning Plan in its submittal; the fact that ETC received three CRB citations for weld seams, chamber out-of-roundness, and penetrator locations; ETC's failure to begin purchasing long-lead material items; ETC's failure to install the DTL and MTL in the sequence shown in the original manufacturing plan; ETC's failure to begin van-frame manufacturing; and ETC's failure to begin saddle fabrication. In addition, the Navy's failure to answer RFI 126 contributed to the delay. 164. According to Contract Solutions, the final design and manufacturing work was delayed by

an additional 6.1 months because of the following factors: ETC's failure to submit a complete final design package to allow component material purchasing; the failure to begin purchasing component material items; the failure to complete the SDC 2 van frame manufacturing; the failure to begin general assembly; the failure to install the manway-doors; the failure to resolve final design comments from the government; and the failure to complete the manufacturing pla