Civilian Board of Contract Appeals

Case no.: CBCA 8529
Date filed: August 28, 2026

The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals has ruled that a clause in a federal architectural services agreement, calling for the architect to “check the contractor’s . . . schedules,” was ambiguous. The architect argued that it should not have been required to review the contractor's CPM schedule updates monthly.

The Department of Veterans Affairs awarded an architectural services agreement to Michael Avramides Architects (MAA) to design a sterile processing facility. The agreement included a description of the architect’s responsibilities during the construction of the facility.

“The A-E shall check the contractor’s shop drawings and detail drawings, schedules, descriptive literature, and samples, and review the color, texture, and suitability of materials for conformity with the contract documents and recommend approval, disapproval, or other suitable disposition.”

During construction, the VA ordered MAA to review the contractor’s monthly critical path method (CPM) schedules. MAA protested that this had not been required on prior VA projects. The VA responded that it no longer had the resources to review monthly CPM schedules.

The VA relied on the contract language “check the contractor’s . . . schedules” to support its directive. MAA provided the services, but submitted a claim for compensation for the alleged extra work. The VA denied the claim. The architect appealed. The VA moved for summary judgment.

The board said the contract did not define the term “schedules.” MAA argued that when viewed in context, the language referred to the material and equipment schedules typically found in construction contracts: door schedules, hardware schedules, finish schedules, etc. The VA countered that the architectural services agreement contained several references to performance schedules. The architect was required to assist the VA in developing a CPM network for the project and a preliminary construction schedule.

The board concluded that because the term “schedules” had more than one reasonable interpretation, the term was ambiguous. Therefore, the board could not grant summary judgment in favor of the VA and would have to evaluate extrinsic evidence to determine the term's intended meaning.

The architect argued that on prior projects using similar contract language, it had not been required to review monthly CPM schedules. There was evidence that the architect had not been required to perform the reviews. But the board would have to examine and interpret the contract language under which the architect had been working.

The board said it would also rule on whether the ambiguity was latent or patent. If it were apparent on the face of the contract, it would have to be construed against the architect.

Many federal agencies are currently working with reduced staffing levels. Under these circumstances, an expansive reading of contractual scopes of work is not unexpected.

Participants:
For Michael Avramides Architects: Pro se
For Department of Veterans Affairs: Timothy M. Saffles; Redwood, California
Before: Board Judges Sheridan, Sullivan, and O’Rourke
Opinion by: Board Judge Sullivan
Outcome: VA’s motion for summary judgment denied

Source: Please click here to read the complete opinion.