The contractor renovated a building for the government. The contractor claimed it was not responsible for the cost of bringing the building’s exterior stairs up to code. The contractor argued that the contract only required it to renovate the building’s structure, and that the stairs were not part of the structure. The board noted that the stairs were the primary means of ingress and egress to the building. To say that the stairs were not part of the structure meant that the structure could not be entered or exited. The board determined this was absurd and found that the contractor was responsible for the repairs to the stairs.
Appeals of Meltech Corporation, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 61706, 61768
Background
The Army Corps of Engineers awarded Meltech Corporation a task order to renovate a building. Meltech submitted two claims to the Corps. The first claim concerned stairs leading into the building. The stairs were not up to code. Meltech believed the contract did not require the company to bring the stairs up to code. The Corps believed the work was within the scope of the contract. Meltech submitted a claim for the cost of bringing the stairs up to code.
Meltech’s second claim concerned the sidewalk. The Corps had asked Meltech to repair a crack in the sidewalk caused when Meltech installed underground utilities. Meltech did not believe it was responsible for the crack and submitted a claim for the costs of repairing the sidewalk.
The Corps denied both the staircase and sidewalk claims. Meltech appealed to the ASBCA. Both parties moved for summary judgment.
Legal Analysis
The Stairs Were Covered by the Contract
Meltech contended there was nothing in the RFP that had required the contractor to verify whether existing construction was code compliant. The board noted that the contract required a complete renovation of a building from the 1950s. The government had forewarned bidders that the building had not been upgraded for years and had limited maintenance and repair work. Indeed, during the bidding process, the Corps had informed offerors that it assumed they were doing a code analysis as part of the conceptual design effort. Meltech’s own proposal indicated that it understood it had to bring things up to code. The board was not going to allow Meltech to distance itself from its proposal.
Meltech also argued that it was only required to renovate the structure of the building and that the stairs were not part of the building’s structure. The board rejected this argument, too. Ample references in the specifications stated that the renovation of the building would include stairs for ingress and agreed. Thus, access to and from the building would require code compliant stairs. To say that the stairs were not part of the structure would mean there was a structure without means of ingress or egress. The board found the stairs necessarily had to be part of the structure.
Meltech Was Responsible for the Sidewalk
The board noted that neither party had provided much of an argument on this claim. Nevertheless, the contract charged the contractor with the repair of any damage caused by the construction. Meltech had offered no credible evidence to challenge the Corps’ determination that the damage was caused by anything other than Meltech’s construction. Melthech responsible for the sidewalk damage.
Meltech is represented by Victor G. Klinglehofer of Cordatis LLP, Leonard A. Sacks of Leonard A. Sacks & Associates, P.C., and Fred A. Mendocino and Lucas T. Daniels of Faughnan Mendicino PLLC. The government is represented by Michael P. Goodman, Martin Chu, and Adam J. Kwiatkowski of the Army Corps of Engineers.
