Free Proposed Findings of Uncontroverted Fact - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:04-cv-00473-MBH

Document 46-2

Filed 01/28/2005

Page 1 of 3

Appendix

Case 1:04-cv-00473-MBH

Document 46-2

Filed 01/28/2005

Page 2 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

M.G. CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

)

)
) No. 04-00473 (Judge Horn)

)
)

)
)

)
) DECLARATION OF MIGUEL GARCIA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE AGGREGATE SURFACING REMOVAL CLAIM 1. I makethis declaration under penalty of perjury. I amthe owner and president of the Plaintiff. 2. 3. The unit price Scheduleis attached as "Exhibit 1." Thetechnical specifications in the contract that apply to removalof roofing material are attached as "Exhibit 2." The gravel must be removedbefore any of the BUR material is removed. 4. The first item under demolition is 001AA,"Remove Aggregate Surfacing." It states an estimated quantity of 200 SF. My bid for this item was $1.50 a square foot. 5. The Government not allow any pre-bid inspection for security reasons. I did not did knowthat the amount of Aggregate Surfacing to be removed was more than 1200 times the amountstated in the contract. 6. The amount of Aggregate Surfacing that Plaintiffhas removed is shownon my attached

e-mail to this declaration. The e-mail is attached as "Exhibit 3." 7. No one from the Air Force has given me an explanation for the overrun. They just tell meto do the workand that they will not pay for it.

1

Case 1:04-cv-00473-MBH

Document 46-2

Filed 01/28/2005

Page 3 of 3

The amountof effort to removeone square foot does not change from one area to the next. It is very repetitive work. There Was increase or decrease in effort per unit of no work because of the overrun.

S/"Mi~uel Garcia" Dated:

2