[CG] Superintendent barred from flightline · Construction Exercise Map

Scenario descriptions

The situation, for each audience

Keep the trainer context out of trainee packets and read-aloud materials.

Trainee facing · Read aloud

Current situation

Because you stopped the award and worked with Airfield Operations (713 AOS) and Security Forces (713 SFS), every member of Outer Heaven Builders' and Northern Beacon Electric's initial team received complete flightline access in time for the notice to proceed. The Government provided the access it promised.

During performance, Airfield Operations barred Avery Stone, Outer Heaven's C-02-approved onsite superintendent, from the flightline for inappropriate conduct. Because the contract requires acceptable onsite superintendence, work stopped while Outer Heaven nominated a replacement and that new individual completed the established flightline-access process.

Outer Heaven emailed the Contracting Officer one day after the delay began, reporting that the Government had suddenly barred its approved superintendent and that FAR 52.236-6 prevented field construction without an acceptable replacement. The email does not explain why Stone was removed. The order was later accepted four calendar days late. FAR 52.211-12 states $8,500 per calendar day, so the Government is preparing to assess $34,000 in liquidated damages. Outer Heaven requests relief from that assessment without requesting compensation or submitting an REA. Decide whether to grant the requested relief or assess the four days, and identify what fact you need before deciding.

Trainer only · Do not issue

Facilitator context

Use at Increment 7 only after the good [C] response. Release CG-01 and CG-02 initially. CG-01 is a contemporaneous 9 June email and CG-02 is the later liquidated-damages-relief request; both identify Stone's individual removal and both deliberately omit the reason. The email satisfies the timing and written-cause notice in FAR 52.249-10(b)(2), but it does not prove that the cause was beyond contractor control and without contractor fault under paragraph (b)(1). If trainees ask why Stone was barred, what conduct occurred, or what authority Airfield Operations used, release CG-03.

CG-03 shows that Stone entered a controlled movement area without authorization, drove past a hold line after an instruction to stop, disregarded tower and escort instructions, operated without required radio contact, bypassed the approved access point, and threatened Airfield Management personnel. AFI 13-213, paragraphs 4.30.1, 4.30.2, and 4.30.4 authorize Airfield Management action after violations. The memo also confirms that Outer Heaven could nominate a replacement through the already functioning process.

Offer only granting or denying relief, and ask trainees to justify the selection before revealing the consequence. The intended response is to deny relief and assess four days × $8,500 = $34,000. FAR 52.249-10(b) does not excuse contractor-fault delay; FAR 52.236-6 places acceptable onsite superintendence on Outer Heaven; and FAR 11.501 explains that liquidated damages compensate rather than punish. A correct denial based on supposedly late notice is still the wrong rationale because CG-01 was timely. A Contracting Officer should not casually waive a valid assessment: FAR 11.501(d) reserves reduction or waiver to higher-level action with the required Treasury approval.

Trainer clue bank

Regulatory signposts

5 sources

Direct trainees to a citation when they need a narrower clue. Have them apply the contract’s actual clauses, current thresholds, local policy, and the facts before treating any signpost as dispositive.

Release 01

Give initially

2 records

These establish the decision without answering the factual questions trainees should identify.

CG-01

Contemporaneous superintendent-removal delay notice

Email sent to the Contracting Officer on 9 June 2027, one day after the delay began. It invokes FAR 52.249-10(b)(2), explains that the onsite-superintendent requirement has stopped work, and blames the Government's sudden removal decision without stating why Stone was barred.

Draft document availablePDF · 1 page · Editable Word copy

View PDF Download PDF Download Word

CG-02

Superintendent-removal liquidated-damages relief request

Dated 29 June 2027, it requests relief from four days at the task order's $8,500 daily rate, identifies the 9 June notice email, and requests no price adjustment, compensation, or Contracting Officer's final decision. It still omits Stone's conduct.

Draft document availablePDF · 1 page · Editable Word copy

View PDF Download PDF Download Word

Release 02 · Oral inject

Trainer addition

1 prompt

Give only after trainees have read and discussed the event. Use it to narrow attention without disclosing the answer.

After trainees discuss the contractor’s notice and relief request, ask: ‘What makes a construction delay excusable rather than inexcusable, and where is that test in this contract?’ If needed, direct them to FAR 52.249-10(b)(1) and (b)(2). Require them to distinguish timely notice from proof that the cause was beyond contractor control and without contractor fault or negligence.

Release 03

Give only after trainee prompting

1 record

Use the prompt as a release gate; close-enough trainee questions should count when they seek the same underlying fact.

Prompt / triggerHandoutExercise purpose

PromptAsk why Stone was barred, what he did, or what authority Airfield Operations used

HandoutCG-03
Airfield Operations permanent-bar memorandum

Draft document availablePDF · 1 page · Editable Word copy

View PDF Download PDF Download Word

PurposeDocuments six serious airfield violations, the individual revocation decision, and the fact that the established replacement-access process remained available to Outer Heaven.

Facilitation lens

What a strong analysis should surface

CG-02 asks only that the Government not assess four calendar days of liquidated damages. It is not an REA, a request for compensation, or a claim.
The exercise task order incorporates FAR 52.211-12 with an $8,500-per-calendar-day fill-in. Four days therefore equal $34,000. FAR 11.501 treats liquidated damages as compensation rather than punishment and does not give the Contracting Officer a casual waiver power.
Absent a supported extension, the 21 June completion date makes 22 through 25 June the four calendar days of delay under FAR 52.211-12; completion and acceptance on 25 June stop further accrual.
CG-01 satisfies the separate procedural point in FAR 52.249-10(b)(2): it notified the Contracting Officer in writing within 10 days from the beginning of the delay and identified the asserted cause. Timely notice preserves the request for investigation; it does not establish that the cause was beyond contractor control or without contractor fault or negligence under paragraph (b)(1).
FAR 52.249-10(b)(2) directs the Contracting Officer to ascertain the facts and extent of delay. CG-03 supplies the omitted cause and establishes contractor-caused misconduct instead of a qualifying excusable cause.
AFI 13-213, paragraphs 4.30.1, 4.30.2, and 4.30.4 authorize suspension or revocation of airfield-driving privileges after violations. FAR 52.236-6 requires the contractor to maintain acceptable onsite superintendence.
The intended result is to deny the requested relief and assess $34,000. The Government had provided complete timely access; Stone's conduct and Outer Heaven's lack of a ready acceptable replacement caused the four-day delay.
Require the team to state its rationale before identifying the result. A denial is strong only when tied to contractor fault and the developed CG-03 facts; a correct selection based merely on untimely notice is the right answer for the wrong reason because CG-01 was timely.

Trainer-controlled decision menu

Available response options

2 options

Offer options in plain language and accept equivalent trainee analysis. Do not reveal the assessment labels. Use each availability gate before accepting a contextual response, and use the trainer line to redirect a superfluous answer immediately.

How to run this node: Offer only these two dispositions and ask every team to justify its selection before revealing the consequence. CG-01 is timely written notice and CG-02 asks solely for relief from four days of liquidated damages. Timeliness does not decide whether the delay was beyond contractor control and without contractor fault. If trainees ask why Stone was barred, what conduct occurred, or what authority Airfield Operations used, release CG-03. For any side proposal, say: 'That might matter in a broader delay claim, but CG-02 asks only whether the four liquidated-damages days are relieved or assessed—which do you choose, and why?'

CG1Weak

Grant Outer Heaven relief from the four days of liquidated damages.

Available when: Initially available
Trainer line: “Timely CG-01 notice preserved the inquiry but did not make the delay excusable. CG-03 shows contractor-controlled misconduct, and FAR 52.236-6 left Outer Heaven responsible for acceptable onsite superintendence. Granting relief would surrender the $34,000 contractual remedy despite no qualifying FAR 52.249-10(b)(1) cause.”
Leads next: After the team explains its rationale, identify why the selected result is unsupported and close the issue; no new branch follows.

CG2Strong

Deny the requested relief and assess four days of liquidated damages at $8,500 per day.

Available when: Initially available as a disposition; fully supported after trainees request and use CG-03
Trainer line: “The $34,000 assessment follows the FAR 52.211-12 fill-in. CG-01 was timely, but Stone's violations and Outer Heaven's inability to maintain acceptable superintendence caused the delay; FAR 52.249-10(b)(1) does not excuse contractor-fault delay.”
Leads next: Assess $34,000 and close the issue. If trainees rely on supposedly late notice rather than contractor fault, identify that as the right selection for the wrong reason; no new branch follows.