Appeal of -- Montage Inc., Under Contract No. AOC05C0052
2006-2 (HOBC), Jun 21, 2010
Montage Inc. (Appellant) appeals three final contracting officer decisions issued by the Architect of the Capital (Respondent) on December 15, 2005 concerning its contract No. AOC05C0052 for the installation of an emergency generator in the Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. One contracting officer's final decision terminated Appellant's contract for default for failure to make progress under and repudiation of the contract (Count I). Rule 4 (R4), Tab 112, at 001095-97. A second contracting officer's final decision denied Appellant's request for reformation or rescission of the contract based upon an alleged mistake in its proposed price (Count II). R4, Tab 110, at 001087-89. The third contracting officer's final decision consolidated and denied Appellant's three requests for costs and additional time based on Respondent's alleged unreasonable delay of the project for failing to approve a staging plan submitted by Appellant under the contract and Respondent's directive that all construction and staging activities under the contract be confined to an area designated as the Limits of Disturbance (LOD) (Count III). R4, Tab 111, at 001091-93. The three appeals have been docketed and consolidated into this decision. On January 16, 2006, Appellant filed notices of appeal of all three contracting officer final decisions. This Board was created on May 15, 2006 by the House Office Building Commission (HOBC), the head of the agency with regard to this contract. Jurisdiction over these appeals is authorized pursuant to the Disputes clause in the contract and the appointment of the Board by the House Office Building Commission.
A complaint and several amended complaints were filed by Appellant and answers were filed by Respondent. After completion of discovery by the parties, Respondent filed motions for summary judgment and Appellant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment with regard to all three appeals. We denied the parties' respective motions regarding Counts I and III because we found that material facts were in dispute and further evidence was necessary to decide those appeals. As to Count II regarding the alleged mistake in bid, we granted Respondent's motion for summary judgment and denied Appellant's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Board conducted a 4-day hearing during which the Board took testimony with regard to issues relating to the propriety of the termination for default. In reaching its decision, the Board has considered the evidence admitted into the record through the Rule 4 file and during the hearing, the hearing testimony, and the various party pleadings. We deny the appeals.