DENIED: July 20, 1995 GSBCA 13184 AMTECH RELIABLE ELEVATOR CO., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Neil Fox, Branch Manager, Amtech Reliable Elevator Co., Upper Marlboro, MD, appearing for Appellant. Kathleen M. McCartney, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), BORWICK, and WILLIAMS. DANIELS, Board Judge. In performing a contract for elevator fire safety improvements in the J. Edgar Hoover Building in Washington, D.C., Amtech Reliable Elevator Co. provided and installed an elevator smoke detection system. Amtech's subcontractor, Russek Electric Co., installed alarm wiring in the same raceway[foot #] 1 with elevator control wiring. The General Services Administration (GSA) asserted that the contract required that the two types of wiring be run separately. At GSA's direction, Russek Electric removed the alarm wiring and installed it in its own raceway. Amtech maintains that the contract permitted it to install the alarm wiring in the manner it initially selected, and that ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 A raceway is "[a]n enclosed channel designed expressly for holding wires, cables, or busbars." National Electrical Code Article 100 (Definitions). Raceways may be of metal or insulating material, and the term includes numerous varieties of both rigid and flexible conduit and tubing. Id. ___ ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- the requirement to remove and reinstall this wiring constituted a constructive change to the contract, necessitating an equitable adjustment to the contract price. Amtech asserts that the cost of the extra work it performed at GSA's insistence was $24,852. We conclude that although the position GSA took throughout this dispute is not correct, the agency must still prevail. As GSA recognizes in its posthearing brief, the initial installation was contrary to a contract specification which was ignored by the parties throughout their dispute, until our hearing in this case. Since the Government is entitled to strict compliance with its specifications, it acted within its contractual rights in directing Amtech to remove and reinstall the alarm wiring. Thus, Amtech is not entitled to any compensation for the work Russek Electric performed in this regard. Findings of Fact 1. Generally, "[a]ll [electrical] work provided under this contract shall meet the requirements of the National Electrical Code [NEC]." Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 16010-1; see also id. at 01090-5, -9, page 12 of section 14200, 16120-1. More specifically, the elevator smoke detection system must conform to the requirements of this code. Id. at 16725-3. 2. The contract contains particular specifications as well. It mandates that in installing elevator fire alarm wiring, Amtech shall "[i]nstall all conductors in rigid metal conduit or electrical-metallic tubing [EMT]." Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 16725-14. A contract drawing includes this note: "All conductors from the elevator smoke control panel (ESDCP) shall be #16 in 3/4 inch EMT unless otherwise shown." Respondent's Exhibit 2. The drawing indicates no deviation from this note. Where drawings and specifications differ, the specifications govern. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at pages 18, 20 of construction contract clauses, 01090-3. 3. GSA required that the conductors be placed in rigid metal conduit or EMT to give "optimum protection" to the wiring. Transcript at 44-45. The agency was concerned that raceways made of sheet metal are not as sturdy as rigid metal conduit or EMT, do not have sufficient structural integrity, and can have openings in them (knockouts or covers which can easily be removed). Id. at 45. 4. Elevator smoke detection wiring and elevator control wiring are sometimes installed in the same raceway and sometimes installed in different raceways. Transcript at 8-12. Running the two kinds of wiring in the same raceway is easier and less expensive. Id. at 11-12. Joseph M. Russek, Russek Electric's president, believes, however, that putting the different kinds of wiring in different raceways is "an excellent idea" and is preferable to putting them in the same conduit. Id. at 23; see also id. at 66. 5. Notwithstanding Mr. Russek's preference for separating the wiring, when working on the project at the Hoover Building, he placed the alarm wiring in the same raceway with the elevator control wiring. He did so because "it was much simpler to intermix, and . . . there was nothing in the drawings or specifications that said a separate system was required, so I followed the National Electric Code." Transcript at 23. Mr. Russek used sheet metal troughs, rather than rigid metal conduit or EMT, as raceways for the wiring. Id. at 56-57, 71. 6. Mr. Russek relied on two provisions of the Code in particular. One is section 620-21, which states: "Conductors located in hoistways . . . shall be installed in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing, rigid nonmetallic conduit, wireways[[foot #] 2], or be Type MC cable or Type MI cable." Transcript at 65; Respondent's Exhibit 3 at 70-600 (emphasis added). The other is section 760- 15, which provides: "Power supply and fire protective signaling circuit conductors shall be permitted in the same cable, enclosure, or raceway only when connected to the same equipment." Transcript at 31; Respondent's Exhibit 3 at 70-704. When an elevator smoke detector determines that smoke is present, it sends a signal through the elevator smoke detection control panel to the elevator control system, directing the elevator cab to a predetermined floor. Transcript at 13-19, 65. Thus, according to Mr. Russek, all the wiring involved here is part of the elevator system and may consequently be placed in the same raceway. Id. at 24, 29-32. 7. A GSA inspector found the installation of the smoke detector wiring in the same raceway with the elevator control wiring to be defective. He considered this installation to be in violation of provisions of the contract specification set out at Finding 2 and also provisions of the NEC which deal with power- limited circuit conductors. Appeal File, Exhibit 7 at 2; Respondent's Exhibit 3 at 70-708 to -711, -714. The fire alarm wiring at issue here is not power-limited. Transcript at 32-33, 67; Appellant's Exhibit 2 at 2. 8. The inspector felt that "[t]he main problem was that the smoke detector wiring and the elevator wiring . . . were in the same raceway or wireway, if I may, in the hoistway." Transcript at 56. When Amtech objected to the characterization of its installation as defective, the GSA contracting officer's representative told the contractor that the two types of wiring would have to be placed in separate raceways. Appeal File, Exhibits 8, 9. Mr. Russek then removed the fire alarm wiring ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 Wireways are "sheet metal troughs with hinged or removable covers covering and protecting electric wires and cables and in which conductors are laid." Transcript at 57 (quoting from National Electrical Code). They are a variety of raceway. National Electrical Code, Article 100 (Definitions). ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- from the raceway where it had initially been installed and put this wiring in EMT. Transcript at 72. 9. Amtech subsequently submitted a claim for an equitable adjustment in the amount of $24,852. The contractor continued to maintain that the contract permitted it to run the two kinds of wiring in the same raceway. Appeal File, Exhibit 10. The contracting officer denied the claim, on the ground that the wiring had to be installed separately since the elevator smoke detection system is not part of the elevator control system. Id., Exhibit 12; see also Transcript at 41-43, 48 (specification writer believes one system is not part of the other because they are described in different sections of the contract). Amtech appealed from this decision. Appeal File, Exhibit 13. Discussion When the GSA inspector reviewed subcontractor Russek Electric's installation of the smoke detector wiring in the same raceway with the elevator control wiring, he noted two problems with it -- violations of both a contract specification and provisions of the National Electrical Code. Finding 7. When Amtech, the contractor, objected, the inspector and his associates in GSA focused solely on the Code violations. Amtech, following the agency's lead, did so as well. Findings 8, 9. As GSA concedes in its posthearing brief, Amtech's position as to application of the Code is correct. Neither of the provisions especially relied on by Russek Electric, Finding 6, nor any other sections to which either party has called our attention, prevented the contractor from making the installation it did. Trade practice is in accord with the Code. Finding 4. GSA personnel misunderstood the nature of the fire alarm wiring; it is not power-limited, so sections of the Code which apply to power-limited wiring do not apply to it. Finding 7. Furthermore, the agency officials' position, that the fire protection system for the elevators is not a part of the elevator control system because the two are described in different contract sections, Finding 9, is illogical. The two are clearly linked, and the former can direct the latter when appropriate. Finding 6. Placing both kinds of wiring in the same raceway was permitted by the Code. The contract specified, however, the particular product in which the elevator fire alarm wiring had to be placed: either rigid metal conduit or electrical-metallic tubing.3 Finding 2. ____________________ 3 A contract drawing is more restrictive still; it insists that the conductors be placed in EMT and makes no allowance for rigid metal conduit. Finding 2. The contract provides, however, that where drawings differ from specifications, the specifications govern. Id. The difference ___ (continued...) The parties neglected, until the end of the hearing, the inspector's secondary reason for rejecting Russek Electric's initial installation: the contractor did not place the fire alarm wiring in either one of these products. Findings 5, 7. While we can appreciate Amtech's ignoring this requirement, in light of GSA's persistence in looking only at the National Electrical Code, the specification turns out to be the contractor's Achilles heel. Had Amtech's subcontractor placed this wiring in the same raceway as the elevator control wiring, it would have been within its rights -- but only so long as that raceway was rigid metal conduit or EMT. "[T]he government generally has the right to insist on performance in strict compliance with the contract specifications and may require a contractor to correct nonconforming work." Granite Construction Co. v. United States, 962 F.2d 998, 1006-07 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also S. S. Silberblatt, Inc. v. United States, 433 F.2d 1314, 1323 (Ct. Cl. 1970); H&H Bentonite & Mud, Inc., GSBCA 10688, 91-3 BCA 24,334, at 121,576; Blake Construction Co., GSBCA 8451, 89-3 BCA 22,114, at 111,228. Where the work substantially complies with specifications and replacement of it would result in economic waste, the rule does not apply. Granite Construction, 962 F.2d at 1007; Gramercy Contractors, Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 11843, 93-3 BCA 26,204, at 130,433. Amtech has not shown that this exception applies in this case, however. To the contrary, a sheet metal trough, as used by the contractor, does not meet GSA's needs for optimum protection of fire alarm wiring; and Russek Electric's president agrees that using separate conduit for the different wires is a better practice. See Findings 3, 4. We consequently conclude that the agency permissibly insisted on strict compliance with its specifications, and that when Russek Electric removed the fire alarm wiring from the trough and reinstalled it in EMT, it was doing no more than the contract required. ____________________ 3(...continued) between the two documents is immaterial to this case because the contractor did not use rigid metal conduit. Decision The appeal is DENIED. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge We concur: _________________________ __________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge Board Judge