______________________________________________ GRANTED: June 15, 1994 _____________________________________________ GSBCA 11679, 12132 P. J. DICK INCORPORATED, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. John T. Flynn and Thomas J. Kelleher Jr., of Smith, Currie & Hancock, Atlanta, GA, counsel for Appellant. Sharon A. Roach, Gerald L. Schrader, Martin A. Hom, Robert C. Smith, and M. Leah Wright, Real Property Division, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), BORWICK, and NEILL. BORWICK, Board Judge. Background These appeals involve a contract for the renovation of certain floors of the United States Court House and Post Office, Pittsburgh, PA, a thirteen story building. The contractor and appellant is P.J. Dick Incorporated (P.J. Dick). The respondent is the General Services Administration (GSA). As part of the renovation, the contract required P.J. Dick to place topping (some of it concrete and some of it a cementitious substance called Fantinite) over an existing concrete (substrate) on the first, second, and third floors. At the time the work was performed, the substrate was approximately sixty years old. When P.J. Dick's topping subcontractor, Fantin Flooring, inspected the substrate, it warned P.J. Dick that cracking would develop in the topping. P.J. Dick passed this warning on to GSA and its consulting architect H2L2/RWL, but was instructed by GSA and its consulting architect to proceed with the work. The Government also relaxed control joint specification requirements to allow control joints at the center line of columns. P.J. Dick installed the topping, which cracked and debonded. After numerous tests, GSA concluded that the cracking and debonding were due to defective concrete and P.J. Dick's poor installation practices. GSA made P.J. Dick correct the work. GSA also charged P.J. Dick for the cost of the extra testing needed after the debonding and cracking became evident. P.J. Dick maintains that the Government should bear the cost of the extra testing (GSBCA 11679) and the corrective work (GSBCA 12132). P.J. Dick is correct. We grant the appeals, and award appellant $31,957.79 for GSBCA 11679 and $30,855 for GSBCA 12132. Findings of Fact Scope of concrete work 1. The contract required P.J. Dick to "renovate existing vacant space," estimated at 280,000 square feet, "on the first through fourth floors" of the building. P.J. Dick was to convert the existing basement, estimated at 80,000 square feet, for parking use. Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 1, Scope of Work. P.J. Dick was to provide fully finished newly constructed office area for the first through fourth floors. The renovation necessary to construct the office area included removal of the asphalt tile, terrazzo, and floor tile to the existing concrete floor slab (substrate), Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 1, following 00800, Demolition Keynotes 2.37-2.41, as indicated on drawings. Then, P.J. Dick was to sandblast the substrate to prepare it for acceptance of new concrete topping, placing concrete fill over the substrate. Id., Demolition Keynotes 3.5 and 3.9, as indicated on drawings. 2. The type of concrete used depended on the depth of fill necessary to bring the substrate to floor level. The specifications were stated in Section 03320-Concrete Floor Topping. Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 1. For depths between 0" and 1 1/2", P.J. Dick used a non-aggregate topping called Fantinite.1 Transcript, Vol. 1 at 467. A lightweight concrete fill was used for depths from 1 1/2" to 5". The average ____________________ 1 The contract called for a topping of this type for fill between depths of 0" and 3/4", Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 1, 03320, 1.02A. at 03320-1, but GSA's architect allowed use of the material to depths of 1 1/2". Transcript, Vol. 1 at 467. GSA's assistant resident engineer recalls that Fantinite was mostly used on the third floor. Id. at 985-86. Fantinite was ___ installed by P.J. Dick's subcontractor, Fantin Flooring, Inc. Id., Vol. 2 at 2165. The Board held two hearings, one in March ___ of 1993 and one in May of 1993. The transcript of the March session is cited as Transcript, Vol. 1 at ___; the transcript of the May session is cited as Transcript, Vol. 2 at ___. depth of the concrete fill used on the project was 3". Id. at 565. 3. For control joints, the contract provided: CONTROL JOINTS ARE REQUIRED IN LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE FILL - SUB-DIVIDING AREAS INTO 200 SQUARE FEET MAXIMUM BETWEEN CONTROL JOINTS. Appeal File, GSBCA 11676, Exhibit 1, following 00800, Supplementary Conditions. 4. P.J. Dick's contractual responsibility for the substrate was as follows: PART 3-EXECUTION 3.01 CONDITION OF SURFACES: A. Topping Applied to Hardened Concrete: Remove dirt, loose material, oil, grease, paint or other contaminants, leaving a clean surface. . . . . 3.05 PERFORMANCES: Failure of concrete topping to bond to substrate (as evidenced by a hollow sound when tapped), or disintegration or other failure of topping to perform as a floor finish will be considered failure of materials and workmanship. Repair or replace toppings in areas of such failures, as directed. 1. When base slab surface is unacceptable for good bonding, roughen surface by chipping or scarifying before cleaning. Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 1 at 03320. 5. The contract provided that, in placing the floor topping, P.J. Dick was required to "comply with requirements of Section 'Concrete Work' and the other requirements specified in the section 'Concrete Floor Topping.'" Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 1 at 03320, 1.03A at 03320-1. 6. The concrete specifications provided in pertinent part: 1.04 Quality Assurance: A. Codes and Standards: Comply with provisions of following codes, specifications, and standards, except where more stringent requirements are shown or specified: 1. ACI 301 "Specifications for Structural Concrete for Buildings". 2. ACI 318 "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete". 3. Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI) "Manual of Standards Practice". B. Concrete Testing Service: Engage a testing laboratory acceptable to Architect to perform material evaluation tests and to design concrete mixes. C. Materials And Installed Work may require testing and retesting at anytime during progress of work. Tests, including retesting of rejected materials for installed work, shall be done at Contractor's expense. . . . . 2.02 REINFORCING MATERIALS A. Reinforcing Bars: ASTM KA 615, Grade 60, deformed. B. Welded Wire Fabric: ASTM A 185, welded steel wire fabric. C. Supports for Reinforcement: Bolster, chairs2, spacers and other devices for spacing, supporting, and fastening reinforcing bars and welded wire fabric in place. Use wire bar type supports complying with CRSI specifications. . . . . 2.05 PROPORTION AND DESIGN OF MIXES: A. Prepare design mixes for each type and strength of concrete by either laboratory trial batch or field experience methods as specified in ACI 301. If trial batch method is used, use an independent testing facility acceptable to Architect for preparing and ____________________ 2 Chairs are supports for wire mesh; the chairs have feet which rest on a slab, and the concrete is poured over the chairs and the mesh. See Transcript, Vol. 1 at 556-57. ___ reporting proposed mix designs. The testing facility shall not be the same as used for field quality control testing. . . . . D. Lightweight Concrete: Proportion mix as herein specified. Design mix to produce a strength and modulus of elasticity as noted on drawings, with a split-cylinder strength factor (Fct) of not less than 5.5 for 3000 psi concrete and a dry weight of not less than 95 lbs. or more than 110 lbs after 28 days. Limit shrinkage to 0.03 percent after 28 days. . . . . K. Slump3 Limits: Proportion and design mixes to result in concrete slump at point of placement as follows: 1. Ramps, slabs, and sloping surfaces: Not more than 3" 2. Reinforced foundations systems: Not less than 1" and not more than 3". 3. Other concrete: Not less than 1" nor more than 4". . . . . PART 3 - EXECUTION . . . . 3.03 PLACING REINFORCEMENT . . . . ____________________ 3 A slump is a measure of consistency of freshly mixed concrete equal to the decrease in height measured to the nearest one-quarter inch of the molded mass immediately after its removal from a slump cone. Cyril M. Harris, Dictionary of Architecture __________________________ and Construction 451 (1975). A slump test is conducted by _________________ placing concrete directly from the truck in the slump cone, four inches in diameter at the top, eight inches in diameter at the bottom, and twelve inches in height. The concrete is then tapped down, removed from the slump cone, and placed next to the it; a metal rod is placed horizontally on top of the slump cone. The decrease in height is the difference between the rod's lower surface (i.e., an extension of the plane of the top of the slump cone) and the top of the concrete mass. Transcript, Vol. 1 at 945-46. E. Install welded wire fabric in as long lengths as practicable. Lap adjoining pieces at least one full mesh and lace splices with wire. Offset end laps in adjacent widths to prevent continuous laps in either direction. . . . . 3.07 CONCRETE PLACEMENT . . . . J. Maintain reinforcing in proper position during concrete placement operations. Appeal File, GSBCA 11676, Exhibit 1 at 03310-2 to 03310-12. 7. Paragraph 5.5.5 of ACI 301-84 provides that: welded wire fabric . . . shall be adequately supported during placing of concrete to insure its proper position in the slab either by the methods of Section 5.5.3 or by laying the fabric on a layer of the fresh concrete of the correct depth before placing the upper layer of the slab. Respondent's Hearing Exhibit 3 at 301-15. 8. The contract provided in pertinent part with regard to testing: 3.15 QUALITY CONTROL TESTING DURING CONSTRUCTION: A. The Owner will employ a testing laboratory to perform tests and to submit test reports. B. Sampling and testing for quality control during placement of concrete may include the following as directed by [the] Architect. C. Sampling Fresh Concrete: ASTM C 172, except modified for slump to comply with ASTM C 94. 1. Slump: ASTM C 143. . . . 2. Air Content: ASTM C 173. . . . . . . . 4. Compression Test Specimen: ASTM C 31. . . . 5. Compressive Strength Tests: ASTM C 39. . . . . . . . F. Additional Tests: The testing service will make additional tests of in-place concrete when test results indicate specified concrete strengths and other characteristics have not been attained in the structure as determined by the [the] Architect. Testing service may conduct tests to determine adequacy of concrete by cored cylinders complying with ASTM C 42, or by other methods as directed. Contractor shall pay for such tests when unacceptable concrete is verified. Appeal File, GSBCA 11676, Exhibit 1 at 03310-20 to 03310-21. 9. The contract also provided with regard to tests and inspections: 1.08 INSPECTIONS TESTS AND REPORTS: A. General: Required inspection and testing services are intended to assist in determination of probable compliances of work with requirements, but do not relieve Contractor of responsibility for those compliances, or for general fulfillment of requirements of contract documents. Specified inspections and tests are not intended to limit Contractor's quality control program. Afford [sic] reasonable access to agencies performing tests and inspections. Appeal File, GSBCA 11676, 01205, Exhibit 1 at 01205-5. Condition of substrate at beginning of job 10. The substrate, according to the testimony of GSA's resident engineer, was in "terrible" shape in that the substrate was poured around 1932 or 1933, and made up of different materials. Transcript, Vol. 1 at 959. The wear and tear of sixty years had caused the substrate to crack. Additionally, over the years, occupants had disturbed the aggregate with motorized carts, push carts, and hand dollies, weakening the aggregate with wooden blocking and different finishes. Id. at 959-60. The assistant resident engineer testified that the basement substrate was in bad shape, and that the condition of the substrate improved floor by floor, so that the second floor was better and the third floor was "pretty good." Id. at 979-80.4 11. GSA's consulting architect/engineer on the project was the joint venture of H2L2/RWL. Transcript, Vol. 1 at 747, 749. ____________________ 4 This assistant came on the job after forty percent of the concrete had been poured, including the concrete on the first floor. He did not know the condition of the substrate on the first floor. Before pouring the lightweight concrete on the project, P.J. Dick's project manager met with H2L2/RWL to discuss how the control joints were to be laid out. Transcript, Vol. 1 at 1344. H2L2/RWL decided to change the spacing of the control joints. As reflected in a contemporaneous memorandum: "joints will be located from column to column with a diamond shape around the columns. This will reduce major cracking and meet the intent of the specifications." Appellant's Hearing Exhibit 41.5 Therefore the control joints were placed nominally eighteen to twenty feet on center. Transcript, Vol. 1 at 597. 12. H2L2/RWL also allowed P.J. Dick to use plastic strips (known as "zip strips") to form the control joints in wet poured concrete, in lieu of cutting control joints after the pour had set. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 36; Transcript, Vol. 1 at 476. Both the changing of the spacing of the control joints and the use of zip strips were memorialized in RFP 137. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 36. The contracting officer approved the change order after the concrete had been poured, as it was a fait accompli. Transcript, Vol. 1 at 865-68. The Government received a credit of $36,750 for this change. Appeal File, GSBCA 11645, Exhibit 174. 13. There is a dispute of fact whether H2L2/RWL or P.J. Dick initiated changing the spacing for the control joints. The contracting officer speculated that P.J. Dick first raised the idea. Transcript, Vol. 1 at 865-68. P.J. Dick's project manager credibly testified that the initiative for changing the specification for the control joints was H2L2/RWL's. Id. at 1349. We find as fact that the initiative for changing the spacing of the control joints was H2L2/RWL's. Concrete work 14. In February of 1989, P.J. Dick submitted its concrete for testing; two types of lightweight concrete were tested air-dried, the first with a compressive strength of 2,500 pounds and the second with a compressive strength of 4,000 pounds. The former tested at a compressive strength of 110.15 pounds per cubic foot, with the latter tested at 109.45 pounds per cubic foot. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 7; Transcript, Vol. 1 at 486. On June 9, the structural engineer advised H2L2/RWL that the concrete did not meet contract ____________________ 5 ACI 302.1R-80 states that crack control joints should be spaced at 15-24 feet intervals in both directions "unless intermediate cracks are acceptable," and that shorter intervals should be used whenever there is reason to expect shrinkage. If columns are located farther apart than 20 feet, intermediate joints should be provided in the floor "if intermediate cracking is to be avoided." Respondent's Hearing Exhibit 4, 2.3.2. requirements, but met "material and strength requirements as listed on the submission." Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 7. GSA accepted the mixes "with the understanding that the contractor is responsible for this concrete." Id. 15. Beginning in March of 1989, P.J. Dick removed the floor covering the substrate. Transcript, Vol. 1 at 478. On July 24, Fantin Flooring advised P.J. Dick that it had inspected the areas where Fantinite topping was to be installed, concluding that the substrate had several structural cracks and that there were areas of the subfloor that sounded hollow when tapped. Fantin Flooring advised that it could not be responsible if the cracks telegraphed through the floor topping or for any delamination that might occur within the subfloor. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 12. P.J. Dick forwarded Fantin Flooring's letter to GSA and asked GSA to address the matter "so that we are not held responsible for probable repairs." Id. 16. On August 30, H2L2/RWL informed P.J. Dick that the cracking in the flooring "sounds very serious and may require corrective action." H2L2/RWL requested P.J. Dick to "identify locations where you see the potential for problems" and that "each of the locations will be specifically addressed within forty-eight hours of when your written list is presented." H2L2/RWL promised that if it agreed there was a problem, it promised to "instruct [P.J. Dick] accordingly." In the meantime, P.J. Dick was not to place topping over suspect areas without H2L2/RWL's prior approval. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 13. 17. The first lightweight concrete pour was scheduled for September 18. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 14. An issue had arisen concerning the placement of welded wire fabric in the concrete pour. A GSA employee had urged P.J. Dick to place chairs under the welded wire fabric to keep the reinforcement in the center during the concrete pour. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 14. The resident engineer advised GSA that "the specs do not identify any particular product type and they do not specifically say that mechanical means are to be used to hold the wire up into the center of the lightweight concrete fill." Id. P.J. Dick did not use chairs to support the welded wire fabric installed in the middle of the lightweight concrete pours, because it did not consider there was a contractual requirement to use such supports. Transcript, Vol. 1 at 556. 18. When installing the concrete, P.J. Dick's workers placed the welded wire fabric in the poured topping with hooks, Transcript, Vol. 1 at 956. Next, workers walked across the slabs to smooth the concrete and while so doing, pressed the welded wire fabric down to the bottom third of the slab. Id. Core samples show the welded wire fabric at the bottom of the cores. Respondent's Hearing Exhibit 5.6 19. On November 22, the resident engineer forwarded to an architect at H2L2/RWL sketches of crack surveys on the second and third floors received from P.J. Dick. The surveys showed extensive cracking of the substrate on most of the surface of the first and second floors and cracking of the substrate at the northern end of the third floor at the area bounded by columns C3-G3-G4-H4-H6-C6-C3. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibits 22, 25. H2L2/RWL refused to accept that the cracks would adversely effect the new topping, stating that "if the new topping is installed with the proper contraction joints and reinforcing mesh as specified" the existing cracking would not telegraph. Id., Exhibit 24. The quality of the lightweight concrete 20. On May 2, 1990, H2L2/RWL informed P.J. Dick that it had engaged a testing company, Construction Engineering Consultants (CEC) to run compressive strength tests on the lightweight concrete. The result of the most recent test of twenty core cylinders was that only two were within the compressive strength specification of 110 pounds per cubic foot. The cylinders were seven, fourteen, and twenty-eight days old. An analysis of the recent test results with others on file revealed to H2L2/RWL that 130 test results showed the lightweight concrete met specifications, but that 121 tests showed that the concrete was heavier than specifications. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 35. H2L2/RWL concluded that 48.2% of the lightweight concrete placed on the job failed to meet the 100 pound per cubic foot specification.7 21. On November 27, 1990, P.J. Dick's concrete supplier, Davison Sand & Gravel Company (Davison) disputed CEC's tests, maintaining they were not run according to ASTM C 567. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 60. We find as fact that the tests were not run according to ASTM c 567. Id., Exhibit 59. Davison retained Professional Service Industries, Incorporated, which took fifteen random core samples from the first through third floors, and tested the weight of the samples using modified ____________________ 6 While not a contract specification, ACI (American Concrete Institute) 302.1R.80, 2.2.1 provides that non-structural reinforcement should be positioned approximately two inches below the surface where possible. Respondent's Exhibit 4. 7 H2L2/RWL took the total tests--251--and divided that into the total number of non-compliant test reports--121--to arrive at 48.2% ASTM C 567 standards.8 The average weight of the cores was 109.9 pounds per cubic foot. Id., Exhibit 60. 22. On November 29, the contracting officer directed P.J. Dick to hire an engineer to evaluate the concrete placed on the floors. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 92; Transcript, Vol. 1 at 1189. P.J. Dick retained Gensert Bretnall Associates (Gensert Bretnall), Structural Engineers. Id., Exhibit 62. Gensert Bretnall examined three issues relating to concrete: (1) actual unit weight of concrete; (2) debonding of topping slab from substrate; and (3) cracking in topping and structural slab. 23. Gensert Bretnall inspected representative areas of the poured concrete, reviewed the concrete specifications, design mix submittals, and concrete test reports taken from September 15, 1989, through September 19, 1990. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 62. Gensert Bretnall noted that over 200 cylinders were weighed with a majority less than 110 pounds per cubic foot. Gensert Bretnall concluded that "the majority of the lightweight concrete meets the requirements of the specifications and that the slight increase in unit weight of some cylinders is not cause for concern." Id. Regarding cracking, Gensert Bretnall concluded that the "majority of the slab is in fine condition, there are isolated instances where there is cracking." In the structural slab, the cracks "appear to be reflective" while the random cracks in the topping slab "appear to be the result of the shrinkage of the concrete." Id. 24. At the hearing on the merits, the author of Gensert Bretnall's report testified that concrete will crack during the drying process; that one controls cracking in concrete by judicious placing of control joints to make the concrete crack at control joints. Transcript, Vol. 1 at 596. He further testified that, in his expert opinion, the spacing of control joints on the project was inadequate to control inevitable random cracks in the concrete. Id. at 597. He also testified that the placement of welded wire fabric in the topping would not prevent cracking, but ____________________ 8 ASTM C 567, Section 3 provides that air dry weight was "the unit weight of a lightweight concrete specimen cured for seven days with neither loss nor gain at 60 to 80 degrees F (16 to 27 degrees C), followed by 21 days of storage in a room with 50 plus or minus 5% relative humidity and an air temperature of 73.4 plus or minus 2 degrees F (23.0 plus or minus 1.1 degree C). Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 357. The contract did not specifically mention use of ASTM C 567 as a test standard, but it did specify lightweight concrete of "[a] dry weight of not less than 95 lbs. or more than 110 lbs after 28 days." Finding 6. The recognized test standard for lightweight concrete after a curing period of twenty-eight days is ASTM C 567. Transcript, Vol. 1 at 935. would determine the width of the cracks. The width of the crack would be inversely proportional to the depth of the welded wire fabric in the slab. 25. The contracting officer, by letter of October 25, 1990, expressed his displeasure with P.J. Dick's lack of control over the quality and placement of concrete, advising P.J. Dick that any settlement of the concrete issue would have to include P.J. Dick's reimbursing the Government for extra tests occasioned by P.J. Dick's lack of quality assurance. Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 356. 26. In mid-January of 1991, CEC was once again engaged to provide an analysis of the concrete. Transcript, Vol. 1 at 1189. CEC examined the concrete room by room. Respondent's Hearing Exhibit 11. CEC found multiple cracks in nearly all areas where the topping mixed was placed, with extensive cracking in Rooms 210-B, 300-L, 310-B and 344. Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 382. In areas where lightweight concrete was placed, crack control joints were placed from column center to column center, resulting in crack control joint spacing of about eighteen to twenty-two feet.9 ACI recommends control joint spacing of six to eight feet for a three inch concrete floor topping depth. Id. Examination of cores drilled though crack locations in lightweight concrete shows that of twenty-nine cores drilled, only one (3.4%) propagated from an existing crack in the base concrete. For the Fantinite, of the thirteen cores drilled, only two (15.4%) contained cracks that appear to have propagated from an existing crack in the base concrete. Id. 27. CEC conducted a petrographic study of the concrete. Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 382. To measure the density of the concrete, CEC used a modified application of ASTM C 642. CEC could not use ASTM C 567, as that test method involves use of recently cast concrete cylinders. Id. While a review of cylinders cast during recent placements, and tested to ASTM C 567 requirements, showed a significant portion exceeded the 110 pound per cubic foot standard, use of the modified ASTM C 642 showed that only twenty-five percent of the concrete exceeded that standard. Id. Finally, CEC concluded that "the greater majority of in-place lightweight concrete is below the 110 lbs/cu. ft. value due to more favorable drying conditions within the building." Id. 28. The petrographic report ascribed three causes to the cracking of the concrete: (1) reflections of pre-existing cracks in the base concrete; (2) restraint due to drying shrinkage imposed by the base concrete; and (3) typical differential drying ____________________ 9 See also Finding 11, where there was testimony that control joints were spaced between eighteen and twenty feet. The two foot disparity in the upper dimension is irrelevant to disposition of this case. shrinkage from top to bottom layer of the topping mixture. Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 382. CEC provided a separate commentary on the report. CEC stated that only a small portion of the cracks in the topping could be attributed to the first cause. CEC noted that properly spaced control joints would have prevented cracks. Finally, CEC stated that placement of reinforcing mesh high in the topping slab would have controlled the cracks due to the third cause. Id. The author of the report testified at his deposition that he could not say that poor curing of the concrete was a potential cause of the cracking. Respondent's Hearing Exhibit 10 (Deposition of Joseph F. Artuso (March 18, 1993) at 16. Nor could he ascribe high water content as a cause of the cracking. Id. at 17. The author was of the opinion that poor concrete control spacing was a major contributor to both cracking and debonding. 29. Respondent's resident engineer on the project testified that the condition of the concrete slab, not the quality of P.J. Dick's work, was the cause of the concrete cracking on the project. Transcript, Vol. 1 at 974. Debonding of concrete and repair 30. In its concrete report for debonding, Gensert Bretnall recommended removal and replacement of concrete, or drilling and filling with epoxy filler, where hollow sounding areas exceeded four feet square. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 62. Where hollow sounding areas were less than four square feet, Gensert Bretnall recommended that the area be left alone. Id. CEC tested the concrete for debonding by looking for hollow sounds. Hollow indications were marked with a "P" for "pronounced" or "M" for moderate. Respondent's Hearing Exhibit 10. The areas so marked appeared to be patterned. See id. at 227-227A (Area Report for Lobby); Respondent's Hearing Exhibit 12. 31. P.J. Dick's project manager noticed the pattern and examined an area of substrate that had been cut by a plumber to install a drain. The project manager found an electrical conduit buried in the substrate. Transcript, Vol. 1 at 514. He then discovered old drawings in the basement of the building, which showed a network of embedded electrical conduit in about one-third of the third floor substrate. Appellant's Hearing Exhibit 25; Transcript, Vol. 1 at 516. Photographs introduced at the hearing show ductwork embedded in the substrate on the third floor. Appellant's Hearing Exhibits 24A-D. 32. In March of 1991, P.J. Dick was ready to install tile and carpet on areas of flooring that had been completed. On March 5, the contracting officer issued an order directing P.J. Dick to stop work until the concrete issues had been resolved. Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 374. On March 18, H2L2/RWL forwarded CEC's petrographic report to the contracting officer with a cover memorandum stating that debonding occurred due to improper application of the bonding agent and "in some cases" due to the presence of undesirable material such as asphalt in the substrate.10 Id., Exhibit 379. 33. On April 1, at a jobsite meeting, GSA's resident engineer gave P.J. Dick an informal list of repairs to be made on the third floor. Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 383; Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 80. On April 5, the contracting officer directed P.J. Dick to make specified repairs in rooms on the third floor, mainly by removal of the infill or by crack control. Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 383. That day, P.J. Dick's project manager and GSA's resident engineer walked the third floor where P.J. Dick was already removing the fill in the floor space to be occupied by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Removal of the fill revealed that the topping had bonded to the substrate, but that the substrate was disintegrating.11 Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 80; Transcript, Vol. 1 at 522. Further excavation revealed the old topping was placed over a clay tile wall. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 80. 34. P.J. Dick proceeded to remove substrate, and in one area, Bathroom 306-D, found that the topping was securely bonded to the substrate. Transcript, Vol. 1 at 522. P.J. Dick removed and repaired the substrate anyway. In another area, Room 310-F, P.J. Dick excavated the substrate and found an old terra cotta block wall within the substrate. Appellant's Hearing Exhibits 26A-E; Transcript, Vol. 1 at 525. 35. On April 8, P.J. Dick informed the contracting officer about the results of the excavation and maintained that removal and repair of topping caused by defective substrate was not within the scope of the contract. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 82. 36. P.J. Dick and H2L2/RWL walked the site again on April 11, 1991. It was agreed that H2L2/RWL would delineate with different colored paints areas that would have to be removed or repaired. ____________________ 10 H2L2/RWL also stated that improper placement of welded wire fabric was the cause of the cracking. 11 P.J. Dick's project manager showed the disintegrating substrate to GSA's resident engineer. GSA's resident engineer, according to a contemporaneous memorandum, "went into a tirade and went almost berserk. He threw his rod across the floor and went wild, telling [the project manager] that he was going to tear everything up and made other types of threats that [the project manager] would have to address." Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 80. Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 386.12 P.J. Dick, H2L2/RWL, and an engineer employed by GSA walked the site. Transcript, Vol. 1 at 532. The intent of the meeting was to identify those areas supposedly not-bonded which needed repair. Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 386.13 P.J. Dick's project manager showed GSA's engineer cracks that he considered minor, which could be repaired by flash patching. The engineer insisted that the topping be removed to the substrate. Upon removal, it was found that the topping was securely bonded to the substrate, but that there was evidence of reflective cracking. Transcript, Vol. 1 at 532-33. Nevertheless, the GSA engineer ordered P.J. Dick to continue the removal of the topping. Id. 37. There is a dispute of fact as to the cause of the concrete cracks and debonding of the concrete topping from the substrate. P.J. Dick maintains that the poor condition of the substrate and the defective specifications for the control joints caused severe cracking and debonding. GSA maintains that P.J. Dick's out-of- specification concrete and its failure to properly place wire mesh in the topping caused the conditions. We find as fact the poor condition of the substrate and defective specifications of control joints caused the severe cracking and debonding. At first inspection of the floor, P.J. Dick's subcontractor, Fantin Flooring, warned P.J. Dick that the condition of the substrate would cause problems. Finding 15. Upon being informed, and in spite of the warnings, GSA directed P.J. Dick to proceed with installation of the topping. Finding 19. GSA's resident engineer admitted that the substrate was in terrible shape. Finding 10. This is confirmed by the crack surveys compiled by P.J. Dick showing cracking of the substrate throughout the first and second floors and the northern portion of the third floor. Finding 19. Photographs and drawings introduced at the hearing also showed electrical ducts, terra cotta walls, and tile embedded in the substrate. Finding 31. There was evidence of reflective cracking and debonding due to the embedments. Id. The experts' studies conducted by Gensert Bretnall and CEC concluded that the poor placement of control joints was the major contributing factor to the concrete problems encountered. Findings 23-24. The author of the CEC report could not testify that curing of the concrete caused the problems, and believed that the poor concrete control spacing was a major contributor to the cracking and debonding. Finding 28. Finally, when the topping was removed and the surfaces examined, it appeared that the topping was firmly bonded to the substrate. Finding 33. ____________________ 12 The scope of repairs established at the walk-through was memorialized by a written directive of the contracting officer dated April 15, 1991. Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 386. 13 The follow up letter from GSA to P.J. Dick of April 15 noted that the purpose of the review was to address "P" and "M" (i.e., allegedly debonded areas) in places other than FBI space. Id. ___ The tests conducted by CEC, showing that the concrete was out-of- specification for density, are not reliable because the tests were based on an ASTM methodology neither explicitly nor implicitly required by the contract. Finding 20. Indeed, further testing by CEC in accordance with a modified ASTM C 567 shows that the majority of the cores were in compliance. Finding 27. Gensert Bretnall's analysis was consistent with the second tests run by CEC. Finding 23. Government claim for cost of inspection 38. On September 6, H2L2/RWL presented to GSA an itemization of the costs of services performed by H2L2/RWL and CEC in inspecting and testing the concrete beginning in February of 1991. CEC invoiced a total of $18,530.40, and H2L2/RWL incurred field office and employee expenses of $13,427.39. On January 6, 1992, GSA issued modification AOZ9 to reduce the total contract price by $31,957.79. Appellant filed an appeal, which was docketed as GSBCA 11679. The claim for concrete repairs 39. On July 31, 1992, P.J. Dick submitted a claim of $30,855 to the contracting officer for costs incurred after April 14, in repairing the defective concrete substrate and repairing topping placed by P.J. Dick which allegedly failed to bond to the defective substrate. The claim is supported by actual labor and material costs incurred after the contracting officer's directive of April 15.14 Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 11679, Exhibit 92; Transcript, Vol. 1 at 536. The contracting officer did not issue a decision on the claim, and an appeal was filed on the basis that the contracting officer's failure to decide the claim was, by operation of law, a denial of the claim. The appeal was docketed as GSBCA 12132. Discussion GSA's position in these appeals is straightforward: it maintains that the concrete did not conform to the contract requirements; therefore, the contracting officer properly required P.J. Dick to repair the cracks and properly deducted from the contract price both the costs of the extra testing required and the costs of the reinspection performed after the repairs were performed. Respondent's Principal Brief at 33-34. P.J. Dick maintains that GSA has the burden of proving its testing procedures were adequate, and that work it sought to have corrected did not conform to the contract in a material way. Benjamin M. White Co., ASBCA 36643, 90-1 BCA 22,420, at ____________________ 14 P.J. Dick tracked labor hours as they accrued, loading labor hour figures and rates into its accounting system. P.J. Dick's records show a book date of April 14, the starting date for the claim. Transcript, Vol. 1 at 539. 112,617; Arden Engineering Company Inc., ASBCA 24829, 83-2 BCA 16,603, at 82,553. P.J. Dick maintains that GSA has not met its dual burden here. Appellant's Principal Brief at 29-30. P.J. Dick has much the better case. The contract called for P.J. Dick to install concrete over an approximately sixty year old substrate, Findings 1, 10, yet limited P.J. Dick's responsibility for the substrate to providing a clean surface. Finding 4.15 The contract, as modified, required P.J. Dick to place crack control joints only from column center line to column center line. We have found as fact this change in crack control joints was at the initiative of H2L2/RWL, GSA's consulting architect and engineer. Findings 11-13. The contract did provide that "failure of concrete topping to bond to substrate (as evidenced by a hollow sound when tapped), or disintegration or other failure of topping to perform as a floor finish will be considered failure of materials and workmanship." Finding 4. We do not regard that provision as making P.J. Dick an insurer of the suitability of the substrate over which the concrete was poured or the resulting performance of the concrete poured over such substrate. Contract provisions are read as a whole. ITT Communications Services Inc., GSBCA 9072, 91-3 BCA 24,377, at 121,594, aff'd sub nom. Communications Services Inc. v. Austin, 1 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (table); Spectrum Emergency Care, Inc., ASBCA 43979, WL 100839, at 5 (March 17, 1994), Hol-Gar Mfg. Corp. v. United States, 169 Ct. Cl. 384, 351 F.2d 972 (Ct. Cl. 1965), and must give effect to P.J. Dick's limited responsibility for the condition of the substrate and the effect of the defective amended specifications for the crack control joints. All concrete is likely to crack when it is drying, Finding 24; placement of crack control joints and, in the case of a non- monolithic slab, the condition of the substrate, are major contributing factors to the extent of the cracking. Id. Absent properly spaced control joints, concrete will crack throughout a slab and will develop reflective cracks if poured over a substrate that is itself cracked. Findings 24, 28. GSA argues that P.J. Dick was responsible for the problems with the installation of the concrete. Respondent's position is not persuasive. Respondent was rightfully concerned about the quality of the concrete; it is evident that P.J. Dick's concrete was at or slightly exceeded the upper limit of the specification of 110 pounds per cubic foot. Finding 37. It is also evident that P.J. Dick did not use best practices when installing the concrete. P.J. Dick placed the welded wire fabric in the wet ____________________ 15 The contract required P.J. Dick to "remove dirt, loose material, oil, grease, paint or other contaminants, leaving a clean surface," and to roughen the surface where necessary. Finding 4. slab and pulled the welded wire fabric up by hooks. Workers then came behind and smoothed the concrete, forcing the mesh down to the bottom of the poured slab. Finding 18.16 Expert testimony, however, established that the placement of the mesh would control only the width of the cracks, not the amount of cracking. Finding 24. P.J. Dick did a mediocre job of installing the concrete, but the lesson of this case is that there will be problems even with good concrete if it is poured over a bad substrate with inadequate spacing of crack control joints. Finding 37. We cannot conclude that P.J. Dick was the primary contributor to the severe cracking and debonding which induced GSA to order inspection and repairs. Rather, we have found as fact that the principal causes of the severe cracking and debonding of the concrete topping were the defective specifications for the control joints and the poor condition of the substrate. Id. Originally, the contract called for crack control joints "sub-dividing areas into 200 square feet maximum." Finding 3. Since that dimension was the maximum, the specification gave P.J. Dick the discretion to place crack control joints sub-dividing areas of less than 200 square feet. Therefore, the specification is properly described as a performance specification. Blake Construction Co. v. United States, 987 F.2d 743, 746 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The modification, however, changed the specification to require crack control joints only at the center line of the columns, and was thus transformed into a design specification, which P.J. Dick was obliged to follow, with GSA warranting the result. Id. at 745. It was GSA, not P.J. Dick, which was responsible for the defective control joint specification and the poor condition of the substrate. See Walsky Construction Co., ASBCA 369400 [sic], 90-2 BCA 22,934, at 115,129 (in contract for repaving road, Government responsible for cost of corrective work upon failure of the repaving when road surface was poor, Government waived temperature specification, and work was performed at a temperature lower than specified). P.J. Dick spent $30,855 in making the repairs. Finding 39. As GSA must bear those costs, GSBCA 12132 is granted in the amount of $30,855. GSA must also bear the cost of the testing. As GSA took a credit of $31,957.79 against contract payments to ____________________ 16 The resident engineer was correct when he stated that the contract did not require use of chairs to support the welded wire mesh. P.J. Dick apparently agreed. The contract incorporates ACI 301 specifications, Finding 6, which require nothing more than the welded wire fabric be "adequately supported." Finding 7. The specification mentioning both welded wire fabric and chairs, Finding 6, lists types of reinforcements, but does not specify use. When the contract directed installation or use of a particular reinforcement, it did so explicitly. For example, the contract directs installation of welded wire fabric. Id. ___ defray the cost of the testing, we award P.J. Dick $31,957.79 in GSBCA 11679, and, by so doing, cancel the credit assessed by GSA. Decision The appeal in GSBCA 11679 is GRANTED. Appellant is awarded $31,957.79 plus interest as allowed by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. The appeal in GSBCA 12132 is GRANTED. Appellant is awarded $30,855 plus interest as allowed by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. _____________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge We concur: ______________________________ _____________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge Board Judge