VA Appeal

VA Appeal

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS RULES THAT GRINNELL’S CLAIMS ARE NONSENSICAL

Something seemed a little fishy when Grinnell bid only $228,000 for repair of the fire sprinkler system at a Veterans Administration (VA) facility in Pennsylvania, since the VA had estimated that the job would cost closer to $300,000. But it soon became obvious how the game might unfold. Grinnell was going to make up some of the money by "change orders" and claims that they were required to perform work that wasn’t in the original contract. Ultimately, Grinnell had at least five claims for more money pending before the VA Board of Contract Appeals.

Ultimately, Grinnell had at least five claims for more money pending before the VA Board of Contract Appeals.

But the Board of Contract Appeals humiliated Grinnell in its review of the first two appeals. Although the contract plainly called for the flushing of the fire sprinkler system, Grinnell tried to claim that the fire protection codes did not require flushing and therefore Grinnell should be paid extra for flushing the system.

The board stated:

"Grinnell’s position is that it reasonably read [the contract and the codes] together as saying: ‘Flush but don’t flush.’ We find this interpretation, one that renders [the contract] a nullity, to be nonsensical in light of the language of the entire contract. "

Grinnell’s other claims faired no better. Grinnell tried to say that although the contract required maintenance for all of the sprinkler heads, that didn’t mean that Grinnell was required to maintain the sprinkler heads that were "hidden" above the ceilings. Part of the problem was that Grinnell didn’t bother to inspect the job site and count the sprinkler heads before submitting the bid. For this and other reasons, the Veteran’s Appeals Board lacked sympathy for Grinnell’s position, pointing out that the contract plainly stated it was the bidder’s responsibility to arrive at an accurate count of the sprinkler heads. The board ruled to deny the appeal.

Grinnell’s bald bid for unearned money from the VA was similar to a claim they made against The University of California’s Livermore Laboratory. In that instance, Grinnell also claimed they deserved an extra $37,863 for sprinkler head work in the concealed space above the suspended ceiling.

Grinnell also withdrew several other appeals under this contract. (VABCA 5672, 5859, 5946, 5947, 5948, under contract V514C-496)