Brero
Construction, Inc., 1997-BCA-4 and 1999-BCA-2 (ALJ Sept. 27, 1999)
U.S. Department of
Labor
Board of Contract Appeals 800 K Street, NW, Suite 400-N Washington, DC 20001-
8002
September 27, 1999
Case Nos.: 1997-BCA-4, 1999-BCA-2
Appeal of
BRERO CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Contract No.: E-4098-3-00-82-20
RULINGS ON APPELLANTS REQUESTS FOR SHOW CAUSE ORDER
FOR ISSUANCE OF SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH BOARD ORDER DATED JUNE 18, 1999; FOR ISSUANCE OF SANCTIONS
FOR ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION REGARDING AUDIT;
AND ON CONTRACTING OFFICER'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS
TO INTERROGATORIES
1. Appellant filed a show cause motion on August 6, 1999, requesting that sanctions
be applied for the alleged failure of the Contracting Officer to produce documents in accordance with the
Board's order dated June 18, 1999. On August 16, 1999, the Contracting Officer filed a detailed response
dated August 13, 1999, purporting to show compliance. The response was supported by detailed
explanatory affidavits. Subsequently, by letter dated August 25, 1999, filed August 30, 1999, the
Contracting Officer accounted for five documents in issue, and responded constructively regarding three
other documents not located in the box of documents originally asserted to be privileged. The Contracting
Officer also suggested that the issues raised in the motion for sanctions could have been dealt with more
efficiently had counsel dealt informally with the perceived problems.
The Board concludes that the Contacting Officer's response is sufficient and reflects
adequate diligence. The Board agrees that an effort should have been made informally to resolve this
matter, and, in the absence of further complaint or objection by Appellant, concludes that the issues raised
by the motion are moot. Under the circumstances, the Appellant's motion is denied.
2. By motion filed June 11, 1999, Appellant moved for an Order To Show Cause
why sanctions should not be imposed against the Contracting Officer for "misrepresenting" that
"an audit was being conducted and an audit report prepared when a consulting report entitled
'Consulting Services Report on Review of Additional Costs Claimed in a Request for Equitable Adjustment
Dated December 22, 1998' was actually being prepared." Appellant contends that the Contracting
[Page 2]
Officer represented that an "audit" would be conducted, and cites the disclaimer by the
examiners, "We were not engaged to and did not perform an audit, the objective of which would
have been the expression of an opinion on the total costs claimed by BCI and, accordingly, we do not
express such an opinion." Appellant asserts that "[t]his misrepresentation is an unconscionable
deliberate act on the part of Respondent and Respondent's counsel," and requests that they be
required to show cause why they made such a deliberate misrepresentation. No prejudice is alleged and
no other relief requested.
The Contracting Officer contends that the reviewers were conducting an audit, or
limited review which did not encompass a review of all costs claimed under the contract, but which
encompassed the costs claimed by Appellant in its REA, and adhered to guidelines and professional
standards appropriate to a government audit. The Contracting Officer contends that the parties agreed that
a review of the supporting documentation for appellant's claims would be conducted and that is what was
done. The review was obviously essential to discovery and preparation for trial in this case. In support
of his position the Contracting Officer submitted the affidavit of Jerome J. Subkow, Director, Office of
Grant and Contract Audits, Office of Audit, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Labor, who
engaged the reviewers, Tichenor & Associates, to perform work within the broad definition of a
government audit in in accordance with the professional consulting services standards established by the
AICPA and applicable professional standards in the Government Auditing Standards. As
Subkow declares, "The review of additional costs performed by Tichenor & Associates was not
called an "audit" because it d id not include all of the formal elements of an
"audit" as defined by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
(AICPA), which involves the expression of a formal written opinion on an organization's traditional financial
statements," and which requires an appropriate disclaimer in any reports on engagements less in
scope than full scale "audits." The Contracting Officer's response, which contends,
in substance, that the activity was within the reasonable compass of the word "audit" and that
there was no surprise or other prejudice affecting Appellant, is supported by the record before the Board
and by reason. Consequently, the Appellant's motion is denied as frivolous.
3. On or about May 14, 1999, the Contracting Officer moved to compel Appellant
to respond adequately to certain interrogatories earlier propounded. The Contracting Officer contends that
Appellant should have specifically identified documents in response to the interrogatories, and has alleged
that its failure to do so is disingenuous. Appellant contends that it has fully responded to the interrogatories
by identifying the specific business documents and by providing a narrative discussion of the related issues
which cites pertinent documentation and authorities. In so doing, Appellant contends that it has met and
exceeded the requirement of F.R.Civ. P. 33(d), which allows response to discovery requests by
identification of documents under specified circumstances. Appellant contends that its repetitive responses
contain discrete citations to its several reports containing the requested information by reference to the
particular tab under which the answer may be found. The references are to the voluminous submissions
by Appellant consisting of its Request for Equitable Adjustment ("REA"), Time Impact
Analysis ("TIA"), and Revised Quantum ("RQ"). Appellant contends that the
organization and contents of these documents make the answers to the interrogatories readily accessible
by reference to the pertinent tabs, and that greater identification would result only in an index of the contents
of each tab.
[Page 3]
The Contracting Officer contends that neither the Board's rules nor the Office of
Administrative Law Judges rules of practice and procedures allow response to interrogatories simply by
providing access to business records. The Contracting Officer contends that, in any event, Appellant has
not properly invoked Rule 33(d), or demonstrated that it has satisfied the conditions of the rule, including
its explicit invocation, and reliance thereon. The rule requires, in pertinent part, that "[a] specification
[to the pertinent record] shall be in sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to locate and to identify,
as readily as can the party served, the records from which the answer may be ascertained." F.R.
Civ. P 33(d) The gist of the Contracting Officer's argument is that turning over a mass of business records
does not normally satisfy this requirement, and clearly does not do so in this case. The Board agrees.
Examination of the Appellant's Answers to Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories
transmitted by Appellant in unsigned form by letter dated April 14, 1999, confirms the Contracting Officer's
complaint that the responses do not satisfy the requirements of F.R.Civ.P. 33(d) as suggested by Appellant,
and do not provide an adequate response to the propounded interrogatories. Treating Interrogatory No.
1 as an example of the patent deficiencies in Appellant's response, it is noted, first, that the Contracting
Officer requests, in substance, that Appellant identify the differing site conditions upon which Appellant bases
its claim for $75,684 in lost time compensation. In its answer, Appellant states that it does not claim
$75,684 on COP #12 as alleged. It refers to "Appellant's Proposal," Tab COP 12;
"Appellant's Request for Equitable Adjustment," Tab COP 12; Appellant's Time Impact
Analysis; and Appellant's Revised Quantum. However, if the stated claim is repudiated, it is not apparent
what is Appellant's pending claim under COP 12.
There is no reference to page or other particularization of the latter two references
to documents in Appellant's answer to Interrogatory No. 1. Appellant's Proposal, which bears the
reservation that it is to be used only for settlement discussions, contains a Tab COP 12 which contains a half
inch of various documents, headed by a ten page narrative whose last sentence is "Based upon the
foregoing, BCI is entitled to $75,684 under COP #12." The Request for Equitable Adjustment
contains apparently identical material under its Tab COP 12. There is no particularized reference to the inch
and a half of assorted documentation contained in the Revised Quantum that identifies the basis for differing
site condition claims, or relevant treatment of COP 12. Nor is there particularized reference to any relevant
documentation in the ten volumes of Appellant's Time Impact Analysis. It is apparent, therefore, that
Appellant's answer to Interrogatory No. 1 is nonresponsive, if not disingenuous, particularly since there is
no apparent explanation for its repudiation of its claim for $75,684 in lost time compensation which is
expressly set forth in the documentation it cites as disclosing its answer. In addition, the inability readily to
discern what differing site condition or conditions Appellant is specifically relying upon from the collected
documents referred to establishes a failure to comply with the requirements of F.R. Civ. P 33(d)'s
requirement that "A specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to locate
and to identify, as readily as can the party served, the records from which the answer may be
ascertained." The answer to the interrogatory is patently inadequate. The defective pattern is
followed in the subsequent responses to the Respondent's other interrogatories.
[Page 4]
A second example is provided by the deficiencies in the Appellant's answer to
Interrogatory No. 2, which are obviously similar in character to those in Interrogatory No. 1 to which the
answer to Interrogatory No. 2 expressly refers. Moreover, although the Certified Payrolls to which the
Contracting Officer is referred for the answer are apparently not before the Board, it is apparent that no
particularization of reference is provided, and it may be assumed that such Certified Payrolls would not
reflect the particularized task specific allocations of time requested. As another example, Interrogatory No.
12 requests that Appellant explain the relationship between the Appellant's Time Impact Analysis and
Support Documentation and particular Change Order Proposals submitted by Appellant. The second part
of the interrogatory requests an explanation of the purpose of the Time Impact Analysis and Support
Documentation in relation to particular Change Order proposals referred to. Appellant has responded that
the interrogatory is vague and unintelligible. The Board does not agree. The relationships which are the
subject of the Interrogatory No. 12 are not apparent from the amorphous documentary data to which the
Contracting Officer is referred. An effort to understand those relationships is not unreasonable. Appellant's
recorded answer does not appear to reflect a good faith effort to understand the questions and provide
appropriate answers to them. The subject relationships would appear to be basic to the merits of
Appellant's claim, which the Contracting Officer must prepare to meet.
It is not necessary to treat the defects of each answer to Respondent's interrogatories
as the deficiencies of Appellant's answer follow a pattern, and many refer expressly to and depend upon the
deficient answer to Interrogatory No. 1. Consequently, the Contracting Officer's motion to compel answers
is granted. Appellant is directed to respond fully and appropriately to all of Respondent's interrogatories
as soon as practicable, but in such manner as to be delivered to Respondent not later than Friday, October
8, 1999.
So ordered.
EDWARD TERHUNE MILLER
Member, Board of Contract Appeals