June 28, 1993
Appeal of
CHARLES J. FRANK, INC.
Under Contract No. 419980-92-B-0021
PSBCA No. 3384
APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANT:
Charles J. Frank
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
D. D. Anna, Esq.
OPINION OF THE BOARD
Appellant has appealed from a decision of a Contracting Officer denying its claim in the amount of $12,600, representing the cost of alleged additional work performed under its contract with Respondent. The Appeal is being processed under the Board's Accelerated Procedure (39 C.F.R. §955.36). A hearing, limited to the issue of entitlement, was held at the parties' election.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant, Charles J. Frank, Inc., was awarded Contract No. 419980-92-B-0021 in the amount of $3,258,000 on November 27, 1991, for the construction of a postal facility located in Severna Park, MD. The contract completion date was November 4, 1992 (Appeal File, Tab 9 (AF-9)).
2. The contract contained the usual "Changes (Construction)" and "Claims and Disputes" clauses (AF-9).
3. Structural drawing S5.1 of the Contract contains the following statement in its General Notes: "Structural Steel . . . All work shall conform to the AISC specification for structural steel buildings 1989" (AF-9).
4. The applicable AISC specification (5-176) states in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2.
"3.1 Structural Steel
In order to insure adequate and complete bids, the contract documents provide complete structural steel design plans clearly showing the work to be performed and giving the size, section, material grade and the location of all members, floor levels, column centers and offsets, camber of members, with sufficient dimensions to convey accurately the quantity and nature of the structural steel to be furnished.
3.2 Architectural, Electrical and Mechanical
Architectural, electrical and mechanical plans may be used as a supplement to the structural steel plans to define detail configurations and construction information, provided all requirements for the structural steel are noted on the structural steel plans." (AF-9)
5. Detail or Section 3 and 3A of structural drawing S4.1 of the contract depicts a typical parapet for the building. It shows no requirement for a steel channel, a structural support between columns (AF-9; Transcript (Tr.) 9-10, 29).
6. Detail 7 of architectural drawing A7.1 of the contract contains the following notation "Treated wood blocking on steel channel" with a line drawn from the notation to an area near the top of the parapet. No size, section, material grade or dimensions are shown for the channel (AF-9; Tr. 12).
7. Appellant's structural steel subcontractor did not include in its bid price to Appellant (and Appellant did not include in its bid price to Respondent) any amount for a steel channel for building parapets (Tr. 32-34).
8. Sometime in July 1992 a dispute arose between the parties as to whether the contract required Appellant to install a steel channel in the parapet area. Appellant contended the channel was a secondary structural member, was omitted from the contract's structural drawings and therefore was not a contract requirement. Respondent contended the channel was not a structural steel support and its requirement was clearly shown on architectural drawing A7.1 (AF-7, 8).
9. On August 13, 1992, Appellant was directed by the Contracting Officer to furnish and install the steel channel in dispute (AF-6). Appellant thereafter submitted a claim to the Contracting Officer on August 28, 1992, in the amount of $12,600 for furnishing and installing the channel in dispute (AF-5). By final decision dated October 22, 1992, Appellant's claim was denied by the Contracting Officer (AF-4). This appeal followed (AF-3).
DECISION
It is Appellant's position that the steel channel was not a contract requirement as it was not shown, contrary to AISC specification 5-176, on the contract's structural drawings. Respondent contends the channel was not a structural support, and thus was not required to be shown on the structural drawings, but was clearly shown on the architectural drawings.
Based upon the evidence in the record it is concluded that the channel in issue was a structural support member. Appellant's witness so testified, and Respondent's witnesss testified that the channel could well be structural in nature. Therefore the requirement for a channel should (as stated in AISC Specification 5-176) have been shown in detail on the contract's structural steel drawings. However, the channel requirement was omitted from such drawings. It thus was not part of Appellant's contract responsibility unless the notation on drawing A7.1 made it so.
It is a basic tenet of contract interpretation that every portion of a contract must be considered and given effect, if possible. HolGar Manufacturing Corp. v. United States, 169 Ct. Cl. 384 (1965). Further, it is settled that the Government is not required to write its specifications so that the work among the various trades is separated. Gail Landau Young Construction Company, Inc., ASBCA No. 21549, 77-1 BCA ¶ 12,515.
Appellant's interpretation on the contract would give no meaning to the notation pertaining to a steel channel set forth on drawing A7.1. That interpretation is not a reasonable one. Appellant was responsible for performing all the contract requirements, and one of those was the installation of the steel channel shown on drawing A7.1. That requirement was evident from examining A7.1. In the least the notation on the drawing should have alerted Appellant to the possibility of a discrepancy in the contract requirements, prompting an inquiry to the Contracting Officer prior to bidding. See Beacon Construction Co. Inc. v. United States, 314 F.2d 50 (Ct. Cl. 1963). The appeal is denied.
James D. Finn, Jr.
Administrative Judge
Vice Chairman
I concur:
James A. Cohen
Administrative Judge
Chairman