Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:04-cv-00473-MBH

Document 28-4

Filed 10/19/2004

Page 1 of 2

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 make this declaration under penalty of perjury. I am the owner and president of the Plaintiff. 2. 3. The unit price Schedule is attached as "Exhibit 1." The technical specifications in the contract that apply to removal of roofing material are attached as "Exhibit 2." The gravel must be removed before 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 did not allow any pre-bid inspection for security reasons. I did not know that the amount of Aggregate Surfacing to be removed was more than 1200 times the amount stated in the contract. 6. The amount of Aggregate Surfacing that Plaintiff has removed is shown on 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 me to do the work and that they will not pay for it.

Case 1:04-cv-00473-MBH

Document 28-4

Filed 10/19/2004

Page 2 of 2

8.

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

S/ "Miguel Garcia" Dated: