GRANTED IN PART: May 25, 1993 GSBCA 11785 ELECTRO-CHEM ETCH METAL MARKINGS, INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Sy Haeri, President of Electro-Chem Etch Metal Markings, Inc., Brea, CA, appearing for Appellant. John Cornell, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges LaBELLA, NEILL, and VERGILIO. LaBELLA, Board Judge. Appellant, Electro-Chem Etch Metal Markings, Inc. (Electrochem), has appealed the General Services Administration (GSA) contracting officer's decision of January 7, 1992, which denied its claim for $20,237.48 in its entirety. Electrochem contends that GSA breached a contract for the purchase of etching devices by failing to test the product in accordance with the contract terms, by causing unreasonable additional expense during the inspection process, and by issuing an unwarranted safety alert on its product. Electrochem is asking for damages for costs incurred and the time its employees spent complying with the allegedly unreasonable demands of GSA, out of pocket expenditures, interest, legal fees, and lost business. For the reasons stated below, we find that GSA did breach its contract with appellant and grant this appeal in part. 2 Findings of Fact Contract 1. On June 20, 1990, GSA and Electrochem entered into contract GS-00F-08878 for the supply of hand held etchers. Appeal File, Exhibit 1. 2. This is not Electrochem's first Government contract. Over 50,000 etchers have been supplied to the Government by Electrochem under this and previous contracts. Transcript at 118, 310. 3. As a result of its satisfactory performance on previous contracts, first article testing was waived for this contract. Transcript at 139. Test Failures 4. By memorandum dated February 13, 1991, the Director of the Quality Assurance Division of GSA ordered that five Electrochem etchers manufactured under this contract be selected from current stock and sent for evaluation of workmanship, dimensions, and test characteristics. One additional etcher was to be sent to headquarters, Federal Quality Assurance (FQA). The GSA testing laboratory tested these five Electrochem etchers and failed all five for performance on February 21, 1991. The lab report indicated that the etchers were "pressure sensitive, and would not produce legible markings." Appeal File, Exhibit 3. This testing was requested either as a result of safety concerns or was just routine; the record is contradictory. Appellant's Pre-Trial Exhibit 1 at eighth unnumbered page; Transcript at 140. In any event, such testing was permitted under the contract. Appeal File, Exhibit 1, GSA Form 3507 at 52.246-2. 5. These Electrochem etchers were tested by the GSA laboratories for compliance with Military Specification MIL-E- 3118C, as applicable under the contract. Electrochem etchers are classified as type III etchers under the contract. A type III etcher must be UL (Underwriters Laboratories) listed, and its on/off switch must conform to UL standard 45. The tests for this type etcher consist of the reciprocating shaft test, which ensures that the shaft of the etcher reciprocates at a minimum of 7200 strokes per minute, and the performance test, which monitors continuous performance over the duration of one hour. Although GSA technicians believed a drop test to be required, no such test is required for type III etchers under this specification. Appeal File, Exhibit 2. 3 6. GSA technicians performed the reciprocating shaft test first. In order to see and measure the movement of the shaft a high amplitude of stroke must be obtained. This is accomplished by loosening the plastic thumb screw at the back of the etcher. The performance test was performed second. This test, for which appellant's products were given a failing mark, requires the etcher to mark a cold rolled steel plate for one hour. Marking of hard materials can only be successfully accomplished if the amplitude of the stroke is sufficiently narrow to prevent the device from skipping on the hard surface. Amplitude of stroke is narrowed by tightening the plastic thumb screw at the rear of the device. Failure to properly adjust the device will preclude proper performance. Appeal File, Exhibits 2, 4. 7. As a result of the February 21 test failure, Electrochem was issued a Quality Deficiency Notice (QDN) on June 3, 1991. The contractor also was put on lot by lot inspection of orders and was forced to obtain specific permission to ship each order. Transcript at 143, 205; Appeal File, Exhibit 3. 8. The Quality Assurance Specialist (QAS) for this contract delivered the QDN to Electrochem's president, Mr. Haeri, along with one of the failed etchers. Mr. Haeri was able to etch metal legibly with the "defective" etcher he was provided by simply adjusting the plastic thumb screw at the back of the device to decrease the amplitude of the vibration, thereby allowing it to write on the hard material without skipping. Transcript at 12. This indicates that the device could work if adjusted properly. San Francisco Trip 9. Despite Mr. Haeri's ability to use a product which the GSA testing facility had concluded could not write legibly, he was repeatedly denied permission to witness the testing of his product. After numerous requests, he was finally granted leave to view the testing in San Francisco. Appeal File, Exhibits 7, 9, 15, 16. 10. Not until Mr. Haeri traveled to San Francisco to witness the testing of Electrochem's product, and instructed the technicians in the proper adjustment and use of the device, did the GSA laboratory technicians have any success in operating the etchers. It is the opinion of the supervisory administrative contracting officer (SACO) that the testing problems would have continued in the absence of Mr. Haeri's guidance because GSA personnel would have continued to adjust the instruments improperly. Transcript at 150. Additionally, one of the lab technicians who performed the tests admitted that he was using the device improperly prior to Mr. Haeri's demonstration. Transcript at 304. 4 11. While its lab technicians failed to grasp the simple mechanics of this device, the Government introduced no evidence of field complaints concerning the adjustment feature, or the instructions for use, of this device. In fact, the instructions that were included with Electrochem's product are substantially similar to those included with an etcher of this type sold by Ace Hardware and intended for use by the general public. Appellant's Trial Exhibit 2. The performance complaints introduced by respondent emanate primarily from test failures, indicating that the problems experienced by the GSA laboratory were not caused by the instructions provided or the device itself, as was alleged by respondent, but were caused by laboratory personnel failing to use the device properly. 12. The original five etchers which were rejected by the Government, including the one Mr. Haeri was able to write with in the presence of the QAS, were not retested in Mr. Haeri's presence nor were they provided to appellant during discovery, even though this was requested. The Board was informed by government counsel that all five etchers were dismantled by GSA and are no longer available for inspection or testing. (Telephone conference, evidenced by Order dated October 6, 1992.) 13. In light of the testimony of the lab technician and the fact that Mr. Haeri was able to use one of the failed etchers when given the opportunity to properly adjust the unit, the Board finds that the original test failure was due to improper adjustment and use of the subject etchers, and that there is no credible evidence that the devices were in fact defective. Design Drawings 14. A second QDN was issued on August 2, 1991. This QDN stated that the contractor did not have appropriate design drawings on file, and required him to provide the QAS with drawings of the unit's molded plastic case and its relation to the reciprocating armature. Appeal File, Exhibit 23. 15. Appellant had the requested drawing prepared at a cost of $875. Transcript at 55-56; Appellant's Post-Hearing Brief, Appendix 1, Invoice from Simmons Engineering. 16. These drawings are not specifically required by the contract, but the Government contends they are a necessary component of the quality assurance plan under Federal Standard 368A. This standard is made applicable to the contract by the inspection requirements clause of the contract. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 20. Mr. Haeri, testifying as an expert, indicated that these drawings are not necessary to the design or production of the product, nor as a quality control measure. He averred that the information to be detailed in the drawing, the relative relationship between the plastic molded flange on the case and 5 the armature, was available in his design files. These files contained detailed drawings of the parts of the etcher, and the flange of the case could easily be measured. The plastic molded case of the etcher is made from a carved mold, not a drawing, so no design drawing was ever created, nor is one on file. A drawing of the type requested must be created for a specific purpose because, as a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional object, it lacks sufficient detail to convey the relationship between all the components of the device. Since only one cross section can be delineated in any specific drawing, a new drawing must be created for every specific relationship one wishes to portray. The potential number of individual cross section drawings is unlimited as any segment of the device can be viewed from any angle. Transcript at 266-68. 17. The Government produced no evidence to rebut this testimony. In fact the SACO who denied this claim indicated that he merely relied on his QAS's interpretation of the contract in concluding that the drawings were required by the contract. Transcript at 217. 18. The Board finds that the drawings requested by the second QDN were not specifically required by the contract, nor were they a necessary component of the quality control program mandated by Federal Standard 368A. As the Government required the contractor to provide the drawings, and the Board has concluded that such a demand is beyond the scope of the contract, the appellant is entitled to recover the cost of producing the drawings. Safety Alert 19. Due to reported short circuits of appellant's device, the quality assurance branch of GSA issued a safety alert concerning Electrochem's etcher on July 24, 1991. This alert advised all GSA clients to remove all Electrochem etchers from service and report quantities on hand to GSA. Appeal File, Exhibit 20. 20. The Small Business Administration industrial specialist assigned to this contractor, due to its status as a small business, felt the safety alert was premature and poorly investigated. Transcript at 118. 21. The SACO testified that he believed the safety alert to be unwarranted due to the fact that the cause of the short circuits was never accurately determined, and he refused to terminate the contract for reasons of safety even when asked to do so by the quality assurance branch. Transcript at 197-202. 22. In addition, the SACO determined: 6 based upon all contract documentation, the subject product is safe to use if operated properly in accordance with the operating instructions, and not misused. . . . The QAS community did not provide the ACO or SACO with any statistical analysis or any other substantive analysis to support why the subject product was not safe for customer use. It appears 1 or 2 units short circuited out of 50,000. The decision to deem the subject etcher unsafe was made on a purely reactive basis. There was no binomial probability distribution analysis, relative cumulative frequency histogram, pareto analysis or any other analysis with respect to dispersion of central tendencies of the product. Furthermore, subsequent to the issuance of the safety alert, the conclusions and recommendations from the QAS community are highly questionable based upon the documentation contained in the contract file. Appellant's Pre-Trial Exhibit 1 at third unnumbered page (emphasis added). 23. UL examined the two etchers reported as having short circuited and concluded that, despite the reported short circuits, the etcher was safe as manufactured. However, UL indicated there might be a few defective units scattered within the supply. Appeal File, Exhibit 17. 24. The first unit which short circuited is damaged. The molded plastic flange which is designed to prevent the armature from coming in contact with the on/off switch, even when the adjusting screw, which also accomplishes this function, is fully removed, has been chipped away enough to allow the armature to pass. Appellant's Trial Exhibit 1. 25. Despite his contention that an undamaged etcher would not short circuit under normal operating conditions, Mr. Haeri voluntarily changed the design of the unit to prevent the possibility of further short circuits, even in damaged units, by increasing the length of the metal armature and adding a plastic tab as insulation between the armature and the line side of the on/off switch. Appeal File, Exhibit 24. 26. These changes were effected at no cost to the Government, and were made in an attempt to prevent the unit from short circuiting, even under extreme conditions. Transcript at 59-61. Improper Testing/Evaluation Criteria 27. Under the contract in question the inspection level is S-2 with an AQL of 6.5 defects per one hundred units. Appeal File, Exhibit 2, page 8 at 4.2.2.3. The GSA laboratory tested 7 Electrochem etchers in July in test number 91-05159. The lot quantity for this test was 173. On a lot of that size five units should be tested, and one failure is a passing score, but two requires rejection. Transcript at 312-13. Only one etcher failed to pass the reciprocating shaft test component of this laboratory test. On August 2, 1991, a shipment of etchers was rejected on the basis of this test, despite the fact that one failure was insufficient to justify rejecting the shipment. Appeal File, Exhibit 27. 28. The Director of Quality Assurance issued a memorandum on September 12, 1991, stating that Electrochem's product does not comply with UL 45, "but is listed under the less stringent" UL 73. Appeal File, Exhibit 29. 29. Under MIL-E-3118C, the specification governing this contract, only the on/off switch of this product must conform to UL 45. Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 5. A letter from UL dated November 12, 1991, confirms that the on/off switch for Electrochem's product conforms to UL 45's endurance test and that overload testing was not required. Appellant's June 5, 1991, Supplement to the Appeal File at tenth unnumbered page. Another letter from UL indicates that UL 73 is not "less stringent" than UL 45, but merely more appropriate to the device in question. Appeal File, Exhibit 33. UL 45 is used for devices such as electric drills, electric saws, chain saws, and other appliances where there is some casualty hazard inherent in the device, while all hand held etchers are evaluated under UL 73. Transcript at 67; Appeal File, Exhibit 33. GSA has since issued a proposed revision to the specifications for this product which requires compliance with UL 73, not UL 45. Appellant's November 12, 1992, Supplement to the Appeal File, Exhibit 1. Furthermore, the government attorney stated during the hearing that the fact that Electrochem's product meets the applicable requirements of UL 45 is not in controversy, and the Government introduced no evidence indicating lack of compliance with those criteria. Transcript at 262. 30. Despite the fact that appellant's interpretation of the specification was consistent with that of UL, and had been acquiesced in by the Government on previous contracts for this product, GSA rejected purchase order F-W-P4674-1 for failure to conform to UL 45. Appeal File, Exhibit 3 at fifth unnumbered page; Exhibit 30. 100% Inspections 31. As a result of the QDNs and safety concerns, the Government instituted one hundred percent testing on a number of shipments. While Electrochem was not ordered to provide personnel to assist with these inspections, the inspections took place at Electrochem's facility, and in the interest of 8 expediting the processing and minimizing the disruption to the work at the plant, appellant provided two employees to assist with the inspections. Transcript at 54-57. 32. After the inspections on July 31 and August 12, 1991, the GSA inspectors left the articles unpacked and the facility a mess so that Electrochem had to expend an additional day each time to repack the order and clean up. This amounts to approximately one half of the total thirty hours claimed for this element of damage. Transcript at 54; Claim of Electrochem, Appendix 2. 33. Mr. Haeri testified that as a result of the additional administrative work caused by the Government's breaches of this contract, he had to decline a job which would have made his company $6,300 after direct expenses. This job was offered by Rembrandt Graphics, a company with which appellant deals regularly, but had to be completed within a specific time frame. This time frame could not be met due to the fact that Mr. Haeri's time was consumed by administration of the etcher contract. Transcript at 259-61. No documentary proof of this element of damage is in the record. Claim 34. Appellant's complaint requests a total of $26,297.64 in damages. The breakdown of these requested damages is as follows: Transportation and lodging for San Francisco trip $387.96 Mr. Haeri's time incident to experimentation on etchers $1,750.00 contract administration $5,600.00 San Francisco trip $680.00 Interest on delayed shipments $1,039.52 Labor expenses incident to QAS inspection $1,650.00 QAS mandated changes in procedure form and documentation $1,050.00 Drafting fees for drawings $875.00 Fees paid to UL for inspection $170.00 Lost income $6,300.00 Legal fees $6,795.16 Appellant's Post-Hearing Brief, Appendix 1. 9 35. Appellant submitted this appeal for decision on both entitlement and quantum of its claim. Respondent has chosen only to address the entitlement aspect of many claims, leaving the quantum of those claims unchallenged. 36. Appellant expended $387.96 to have Mr. Haeri travel to and stay at San Francisco to witness government testing of its product. Appellant's Post-Hearing Brief, Supporting Documentation. Mr. Haeri's travel time and the time he spent in the test amounts to a minimum of eight hours. 37. While appellant claims interest on delayed shipments as an element of damage, it is clear from Mr. Haeri's trial testimony that this "interest" is not an incurred expense, but a penalty it is attempting to impose on the Government. Transcript at 77. No contract clause authorizes appellant to charge interest on delayed shipments. 38. Mr. Haeri testified under oath that his shop rate for the employees who helped with the GSA inspections is fifty-five dollars an hour. This rate includes salary, benefits, overhead, and profit for these employees. Transcript at 81. 39. Mr. Haeri further testified that his own time is internally billed at seventy dollars an hour. Transcript at 87. Appellant is attempting to charge the Government eighty-five dollars an hour, the rate Mr. Haeri testified he charges for outside consulting, for Mr. Haeri's services in connection with the San Francisco trip. Transcript at 80. The Board determines that the seventy dollar an hour figure is more reasonable, and will base any award for Mr. Haeri's time on that figure. Discussion Breach The evidence clearly establishes that respondent has breached its contract with Electrochem. Under the contract the Government may only reject nonconforming supplies in accordance with the contract's acceptance/rejection provisions. Appeal File, Exhibit 1, GSA Form 3507 at 52.246-2(f). Nevertheless, GSA rejected goods based on flawed testing procedures and improper application of accept/reject levels. Findings 13, 27. GSA also rejected shipments for failure to comply with UL specification 45. Only the on/off switch of the etcher is made subject to that specification by the contract, and it conforms. Finding 29. Due to these various breaches of contract, appellant expended time and resources to facilitate the administration of this contract over and above what would have been required absent the Government's egregious conduct. Accordingly, appellant is entitled to some measure of relief. The respondent has chosen not to address the quantum aspect of many of appellant's claims, 10 instead relying on its lack of entitlement theory entirely. Where the Board has found entitlement despite respondent's arguments and there is sufficient evidence to support a requested amount which appears to be reasonable, the Board has awarded the uncontested claim. Travel to San Francisco Mr. Haeri expended $387.96 for transportation and lodging when he traveled to San Francisco. While the Government did not expressly require Mr. Haeri to witness the testing of Electrochem's product, its actions did necessitate the trip. The Government's witnesses admitted that the product would have likely failed a second test had Mr. Haeri not been present to instruct the lab technicians in the appropriate use of the device. Finding 10. The Government did not establish that the instructions for the device were deficient, or that users of the device, other than the laboratory personnel, had difficulty operating the device. In fact, appellant introduced the instructions from a similar etcher, sold by Ace Hardware for use by the general public, and these instructions are substantially similar to those included with the Electrochem product. This evidence, along with the uncomplicated nature of the device, indicates that the instructions were adequate for the average user. We conclude, therefore, that respondent's inability to operate this device was unreasonable and respondent should bear the cost of appellant's trip to San Francisco. Appellant is awarded $387.96 for travel related expenses, and eight hours of Mr. Haeri's time at $70 an hour. See Findings 36, 39. In awarding appellant seventy dollars an hour for Mr. Haeri's time we note that this amount, although questioned by respondent at trial, is not refuted in any way by the record. Mr. Haeri testified that this is the internal rate at which he bills his time. He requested eighty-five dollars an hour for this aspect of his claim, the rate he bills for outside consulting. Finding 39. The Board has concluded that the lower internal rate is the appropriate rate for award. The eight hours requested is a reasonable amount of time for witnessing the testing and travel to and from San Francisco. Employee Time Appellant claims the value of the time of its employees expended administering the contract and assisting with inspections. While respondent asserts contract clause 52.246- 2(d), which requires a contractor to furnish all reasonable assistance to the Government in the performance of its inspections, without additional charge, is a bar to these claims, reliance on this section is misplaced and ignores the Government's obligations under the contract. The Board agrees that respondent had the right to inspect appellant's product, but 11 respondent had an obligation to do so in a manner that would not unduly delay the work. Appeal File Exhibit 1, GSA Form 3507 at 52.246-2(c). However, proof of delay is insufficient to justify award. A contractor must expect to spend a reasonable amount of its executive and line employee time administering its contracts, and must prove that the Government required unreasonable attention to warrant recovery. Much of appellant's claim must be rejected simply because we do not view it as a natural consequence of the Government's breach. Mr. Haeri expended a number of hours of his time investigating the cause of the two short circuits which were reported to him. This endeavor was a self imposed quest to determine the cause of the short circuits, and the time spent in that search cannot be properly charged to the Government. Appellant's employees also assisted GSA personnel with inspections carried on at Electrochem's facility. Appellant provided the services of two employees in an attempt to expedite the inspection process, at its initiative, and cannot expect the Government to reimburse it for that volunteered labor. However, Mr. Haeri testified that the GSA inspectors left a huge mess at Electrochem's facility which required the use of employees to clean the area and repack the entire inspected order. Finding 32. Respondent cannot seriously contend given the circumstances in this case that its right of inspection allows it to leave a facility in materially different condition than that in which it was found. The labor required to clean up and repack is recoverable as an expense incurred due to the Government's breach of its duty not to cause unreasonable disruption of the facility during inspections. The record indicates that approximately half of the 30 hours requested by appellant for assisting with the GSA inspections were spent cleaning and repacking after the inspections on July 31, 1991, and August 12, 1991. Id. These fifteen hours are awarded to appellant at the requested rate of fifty-five dollars per hour, for an award of $825. See Finding 38. Drafting Fees Appellant incurred $875 in drafting fees to cure its second QDN. As the Board has determined that this QDN was unwarranted and the requested drawings were not required by the contract, this amount is recoverable. Respondent's argument that the drawings were necessary because etchers had developed short circuits is not persuasive. Appellant, testifying as an expert, declared these drawings to be of no real value, and duplicative of information already available. The testimony of the contracting officer that he relied solely on the expertise of his quality assurance people in determining that these drawings were required by the contract is not sufficient to overcome even that self serving testimony. We do not have the rationale of the 12 quality assurance personnel, but only the testimony of the contracting officer that he relied on their conclusion. As the contract is silent on the exact drawings to be included in the quality assurance plan, we accept appellant's unrebutted and persuasive expert testimony that these particular drawings were not required for the design or inspection of the devices. As Mr. Haeri explained, the case of the etcher was designed by carving a three dimensional prototype model, which was then used to create molds for the injection molding process. There was no need for a design drawing of the case. So long as information in the design files could establish the relative relationships between the various components of the etching device, the concerns of the Government incident to safety could be easily allayed. Federal Standard 368A's requirement for a written quality control system cannot reasonably be read to require a contractor to have a drawing covering every conceivable angle or relationship between parts of a device. Appellant's unrebutted testimony states that the relationship between the molded plastic flange and the armature could be ascertained using existing information. We are unpersuaded by the evidence presented by respondent that the drawings produced in response to the second QDN were required by the contract. Accordingly appellant is awarded the $875 in drafting fees incurred to produce those drawings. UL Inspection Fees UL charged Electrochem $170 over and above the normal listing fee for the extra work caused by GSA's concerns about Electrochem's product. To recover this element of the claim, appellant must prove that the Government unreasonably caused it to incur these charges. In this case, GSA had documented at least two short circuits in the field, and was understandably concerned about potential safety risks. While it is unclear who ordered the testing to which these fees relate, it is clear that the SACO relied heavily on UL's conclusions in determining not to terminate this contract for default. The Board cannot conclude that it was unreasonable for the Government to be concerned about possible safety problems with this product, nor that it was imprudent for appellant to incur an expense for testing to assuage the Government's concerns. Appellant successfully persuaded UL and the contracting division of GSA that its product is safe, especially as now modified, but appellant has not shown that the short circuits experienced by GSA were not a reasonable cause for concern at the time they occurred. Nor has appellant shown that the Government, rather than appellant, ordered the extra work which is the subject of this claim. In the absence of proof that the Government either directly ordered inspections outside the scope of the contract for which appellant has been charged, or that it unreasonably caused appellant to expend funds 13 on unnecessary testing, these fees are not properly chargeable to the Government. Lost Business Appellant also requests $6,300 in lost business. Appellant testified in detail as to the nature of the opportunity lost due to the excessive demands on his time resulting from the Government's breaches of this contract. The Board agrees with appellant that both QDNs were unwarranted, and that the Government caused excessive administrative time by insistence on lot by lot traceability of components. These actions amount to breaches of the contract and they required Mr. Haeri to devote time to this contract which could have been used in another money making venture. Appellant, however, has not provided any documentary evidence of the lost business opportunity it alleges. It is unclear from the record if the consulting arrangement Mr. Haeri testified about would have benefitted appellant, or only Mr. Haeri, and we have only Mr. Haeri's unsupported and selfserving testimony to establish the existence of the alleged lost business opportunity. This proof is insufficient to authorize award, and this element of appellant's claim is denied. Interest Appellant has asked for interest on orders in which shipment was delayed pursuant to GSA order. Mr. Haeri's trial testimony, however, establishes that this "interest" is not an element of damage actually incurred, but is instead a penalty being imposed on the Government for delaying shipments due to the safety alert and increased inspections. Finding 37. Interest of any type may only be imposed on the Government when it is authorized by statute or contract. Shaw v. Library of Congress, 478 U.S. 310 (1986). There is no evidence that these particular late payment charges were authorized by statute or contract provision; therefore they are denied. See Mann & Sons Construction Co., GSBCA 4542, 76-2 BCA 12,087. Legal Fees Appellant alleges it has incurred $6,795.16 in legal fees. While legal fees could be recovered if appellant proved that these fees were incurred as a termination settlement expense, we understand this claim to relate to fees incurred in the course of pursuing this dispute before the Board. Such fees are not recoverable in this proceeding, but may be recoverable under a separate motion asking for attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. 504 (1988). W. H. Kruger, ASBCA 33081, 88-3 BCA 21,043. Such a motion, together with supporting documentation, should be filed with the Board no later than thirty days after the decision in this appeal becomes final. 14 Decision This appeal is GRANTED IN PART. Respondent is ordered to pay appellant $2,647.96, with interest, in accordance with 41 U.S.C. 611 (1988). VINCENT A. LaBELLA Board Judge 15 We concur: EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge