______________________________________________ GRANTED AS TO ENTITLEMENT: July 20, 1994 _____________________________________________ GSBCA 12036, 12449 P. J. DICK INCORPORATED, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. John T. Flynn and Thomas J. Kelleher, Jr., of Smith, Currie & Hancock, Atlanta, GA, counsel for Appellant. Sharon A. Roach, Gerald L. Schrader, Martin A. Hom, Robert C. Smith, and M. Leah Wright, Real Property Division, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), BORWICK, and NEILL. BORWICK, Board Judge. Background These appeals involve a contract for the renovation of certain floors of the United States Courthouse and Post Office, Pittsburgh, PA, a thirteen story building. The contractor and appellant is P.J. Dick Incorporated (P.J. Dick). The respondent is the General Services Administration (GSA). As part of the renovation, P.J. Dick was to relocate floor drains in the basement of the building. The piping for the drains ran underneath the foundation slab; thus, P.J. Dick was required to cut and remove sections of slab, lay the pipe, and then repair the slab. The mechanical drawings, on which the piping and locations of the drains were shown, did not disclose the depth of the slab. Only one set of drawings -- portraying the elevator pit and a detail -- indicated the depth of the slab. Those drawings showed a building supported by a slab about seven inches thick with columns and footers. Based on the scale of those drawings and a subcontractor's (Sherry and O'Leary's) experience, P.J. Dick assumed the slab was between six and eight inches thick. Addendum one to the contract provided that existing floor conditions were noted on the demolition floor plans, but that for further verification drawings of the existing building construction could be viewed at the Architect's Office and a site investigation by the general contractor. There were as-built plans dated in 1930 scattered haphazardly throughout a basement office; these plans were not even located until the various versions of the change order request for proposals (RFPs) had been issued, during the course of the work. When P.J. Dick cut the slab to perform other work for an ammunition vault, and when Sherry & O'Leary cut the slab to perform the drain relocation, they found that the slab was deeper than they had expected. P.J. Dick immediately filed a notice of a category 1 differing site condition. GSA issued RFPs 85, 85B and 85-FINAL to account for the changed work. Later, however, the contracting officer decided that there was not a differing site condition because addendum one put P.J. Dick on notice not to rely on the drawings and because a responsible contractor would have known that a thirteen story Government building constructed in the 1930s would not have been supported by a six to eight inch slab with columns and footers. Therefore the contracting officer denied the claim. The denial also made certain other adjustments. During the hearing, the parties stipulated to a decision on entitlement only, i.e., whether the actual depth of the basement slab was a category 1 differing site condition. We grant the appeal as to entitlement. We find that P.J. Dick properly relied on the drawings to establish the depth of the basement slab. We find that the actual depth of the basement slab differed from the conditions shown on the drawings. We conclude that addendum one cannot shield GSA from the consequences of the differing site condition. We give guidance to the parties on the quantum to which P.J. Dick is entitled. Findings of Fact The Contract 1. The contract required installation of floor drains in the basement slab. Appeal File, GSBCA 11676, Vol. 2, Exhibit 1, 15410, 2.18 at 15410-9. Fifteen drains were to be installed across sections "B" and "C" of the basement, with piping to be run underneath the slab, as indicated in Drawings 9-P-19 and 9-P- 20. See Drawings 9-P-19 and 9-P-20.1 It was necessary to saw cut the slab in order to place the piping underneath it. Id. However, these particular drawings did not specify the depth of the slab required to be opened to install the pipe. Id. 2. Architectural detail of the elevator pit did indicate by indirection the depth of the basement slab. The detail in the drawing showed the elevator pit and the slab. The drawing was scaled at 1/4" to 1'. Drawing 3-A-70 (Detail 5), Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12036, Exhibit 3. The drawing showed the basement slab six feet in length on either side of the elevator pit.2 By applying the scale to the depth of the slab, P.J. Dick's bid-estimator determined that the slab was about seven inches thick. Transcript, Vol. 1 at 428.3 The bid estimator looked at the next drawing scaling the slab, and determined that the slab at that point was less than eight inches thick. Id. at 429. P.J. Dick's bid for saw cutting the slab was based on an assumed thickness of eight inches. Appellant's Hearing Exhibit 18; Transcript, Vol. 1 at 439-40. The drawing also showed columns and footers at the V and W lines. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12036, Exhibit 3; Transcript, Vol. 1 at 450. P.J. Dick used the slab dimension to estimate its bid on saw cutting concrete for the ammunition vault, and for elevator work. Appellant's Hearing Exhibit 18; Transcript, Vol. 1 at 439-40. 3. Addendum one to the contract stated that, "Existing floor conditions are noted on the demolition floor plans. Drawings of existing building construction may be viewed at the Architect's Office for further verification along with site verification by G.C." Appeal File, GSBCA 11676, Exhibit 2. The Differing Site Condition 4. On October 9, 1989, P.J. Dick's mechanical subcontractor, Sherry & O'Leary, wrote P.J. Dick: We recently started layout and exploration of basement floor thickness to prepare for under-slab piping ____________________ 1 An eight inch pipe was to run underneath the center of the slab "along wall in tunnel below." Cross-members of four inches were to run perpendicular to the center run. See drawings 9-P-19 ___ and 9-P-20. 2 The slab drawing was 1 1/2" in length on either side of the pit; applying the scale of 1/4" equals 1' gives a slab length of six feet. 3 The Board held two hearings, one in March, 1993, and one in May, 1993. The transcript of the March session is cited as Transcript, Vol. 1 at ____; the transcript of the May session is cited as Transcript, Vol. 2 at _____. excavation in the basement level. When pilot holes were drilled to find floor thickness, we discovered this floor to be reinforced concrete approximately 2 [feet] thick. Since this information was not available to us at bid time and could not have been known, we are requesting additional compensation to saw-cut and demolish this floor slab. Slab on grade floors generally run 6 [inches] thick and our bid price was based on this assumption. Had a building survey been available at bid time, this expense could have been included in the original price. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12036, Exhibit 5. 5. When P.J. Dick commenced demolition of the basement floor to excavate and install footings for the ammunition vault, P.J. Dick stated that it found that the existing concrete slab was more than thirty inches deep. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12036, Exhibit 19. On October 11, 1989, P.J. Dick notified GSA of a differing site condition, maintaining that the slab was thirty inches deep throughout most of the floor area, while contract drawings 7-S-2 and 3-A-70 showed that a slab of approximately four inches existed. P.J. Dick also forwarded Sherry & O'Leary's letter of October 9. Id.. 6. The differing site conditions clause in the contract provided in pertinent part: (a) The Contractor shall promptly, and before the conditions are disturbed, give a written notice to the Contracting Officer of (1) subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site which differ materially from those indicated in this contract, or (2) unknown physical conditions at the site of an unusual nature, which differ materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inhering in work of the character provided for in the contract. (b) The Contracting Officer shall investigate the site conditions promptly after receiving the notice. If the conditions do materially so differ and cause an increase or decrease in the Contractor's cost of, or the time required for, performing any part of the work under this contract, whether or not changed as a result of the conditions, an equitable adjustment shall be made under this clause and the contract modified in writing accordingly. Appeal File, GSBCA 11676, Construction Contract Clauses (Fixed Prices), 21, at 10. GSA's Response to the Differing Site Condition 7. On January 10, 1990, GSA (through its supervising architect, H2L2/RWL) issued RFP 85, which deleted from the contract work "demo[lition] excavation and disposal of 480 s.f. of floor slab" and "installation of footings, 8 [inch] insulated block wall, gravel fill and floor slab." RFP 85 added "drill and grout (36) 5/8 inch dowels along the center line of the above slab block wall." The stated reasons were: (1) "the basement floor drain installation design was changed because the basement floor was thought to be a standard 8 [inch] slab on grade. Once demolition began, it was found to be about 30 [inches]." (2) "Slab openings must be reinforced to maintain the floor bearing capacity." (3) "Additional field office space is required to accommodate growing files and the addition of a field inspector." (4) "The basement ammo vault foundation design was changed because the slab was not 8 [inches] as assumed, rather 30 [inches] thick." Appeal File, GSBCA 12032-12036, Exhibit 324. 8. On January 19, 1990, GSA, again through H2L2/RWL, issued RFP 85B. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12036, Exhibit 6. That version of the RFP deleted: (1) sixty feet of four inch cast iron pipe and one hundred eleven feet of cast iron pipe; (2) saw cutting in two concrete lines, four inches deep, of four hundred eighty-five linear feet; and (3) four hundred eighty-five linear feet of slab demolition times sixteen inches wide. RFP 85B added: (1) saw cutting in concrete two lines, sixteen inches deep, three hundred fourteen linear feet; and (2) breaking a trench three hundred fourteen linear feet by sixteen inches wide by sixteen inches deep, and filling the trench with pea gravel. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12036, Exhibit 6.4 Some of these items are described in greater detail in footnote five. 9. On or about January 29, 1990, the contracting officer orally gave P.J. Dick authority to start the work, with a price to be determined later not-to-exceed $15,000. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12036, Exhibit 7 10. On January 31, 1990, Sherry & O'Leary quoted P.J. Dick a price of $27,107.51 (including credits for deleted work) for performing the new saw cutting of the thicker slab as stated in RFP 85B and for supplying the gravel. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12036, Exhibit 11. On February 2, P.J. Dick advised the contracting officer that a $30,000 price to be determined later modification (PDL) would "be more in line to allow the work to begin." Id., Exhibit 8. On February 23, the not-to-exceed price was increased to $25,000. Id., Exhibit 7. On March 30, GSA issued modification AC92 under the changes ____________________ 4 The RFP also added reinforcement of slab openings to maintain floor bearing capacity and a change in the design of the foundation of the ammunition vault because of the greater than anticipated concrete depth, and it took a credit for shot- blasting on another item. clause, directing P.J. Dick to perform items one, two, and four of RFP 85B at a not-to-exceed price of $40,000.5 Appeal File, GSBCA 11676, Exhibit 95.6 11. On or about June 27, H2L2/RWL issued RFP 85C, which added the installation of additional floor drains in the basement floor, and requested pricing from P.J. Dick. Appeal File, GSBCA 12032-12036, Exhibit 334. On July 16, an engineer with H2L2/RWL advised an architect with that same firm that P.J. Dick had removed three hundred forty three lineal feet of trench, averaging fifteen inches in width and twenty inches in depth, which was forty-two percent of the trench to be removed under RFP 85C. Id., Exhibit 336. On July 16, P.J. Dick questioned the design of the additional floor drains as indicated on drawings accompanying RFP 85C. P.J. Dick warned that because of the configuration of part of the basement slab, completion of the work would require removal of sections of the slab, that the design could be simplified, that grades were missing in several places, and that the cost of performing the fill work would be high. P.J. Dick declined to provide pricing until the problems had been resolved. Id., Exhibit 337. 12. On August 30, 1990, GSA issued RFP 85-FINAL. Appeal File, GSBCA 12032-12036, Exhibit 343. The stated purpose of this version of RFP 85 was to summarize the work completed to date. Id., Exhibit 351. RFP 85-FINAL, nevertheless, listed credits for elimination of 60 feet of pipe (item 1a), deletion of slab demolition (item 1b) and saw cutting a trench four inches deep by four hundred eighty-five feet times two sides (item 1c); saw cutting three hundred forty-three linear feet of trench sides ____________________ 5 Item one deducted repositioning the floor drains per drawings 9-P-19 and 9-P-20, provided a credit for elimination of cast iron pipes, and provided a credit for slab demolition of a slab 485 feet by 16 inches wide, and a credit for saw cutting a trench 4 inches deep, by 485 feet times two sides. It added saw cutting 314 linear feet of trench two sides to 16 inches deep, breaking the trench out of the 30 inch thick basement floor slab, installation of pipe through the trench, then filling in the trench with pea gravel, and placement of a topping and reinforcing over the gravel. Item two added supplemental steel reinforcing through concrete penetrations larger than 12" by 12". Item four deleted demolition excavation and disposal of 480 square feet of floor slab for the ammunition vault and installation of footings, a block wall and a floor slab for the ammunition vault. Item five added drilling and grouting of thirty-six 5/8 inch dowels along the center line of the above slab block wall. 6 On April 13, H2L2/RWL advised GSA's design and construction division that demolition of the trenches for additional drains alone would cost a minimum of $40,000. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12036, Exhibit 13. fifteen inches apart and twenty inches deep to receive floor drain piping (item 2a); demolition and removal of the three hundred forty-three linear feet of concrete between the saw-cuts to twenty inches deep (item 2b); addition of structural steel support (items 3a); opening an archway in an existing wall (item 4a), addition of a ceiling in an adjacent office (item 4b), deletion of outlets in the room (item 4c); excavation and disposal of four hundred eighty square feet of floor slab (items 5a), and installation of footings and eight inch insulated block wall, and gravel fill and floor slab (items 5b); and drilling and grouting of 5/8 inch dowels (item 5c). Id., Exhibit 342. 13. As built (circa 1930) plans did exist, showing a basement slab depth of twenty-one inches. Respondent's Hearing Exhibits 13 and 14. These plans were not attached to the contract. Transcript, Vol. 1 at 1013. The drawings were in a sub-basement, randomly scattered in file cabinets in a room next to H2L2/RWL's field office; they were found by GSA's resident engineer after the issuance of the various versions of RFP 85. Id. at 1012. Events Leading to Claim 14. On September 17, 1990, GSA partially terminated (for convenience) some of the contract work, including the "plumbing work associated with drain installation in the parking area [of the basement] except for that which has been completed to date." Appeal File, GSBCA 12131, Exhibit 321. 15. By memorandum of October 5, 1990 to the contracting officer, GSA's project operations branch (POB) estimated the work performed for items 2a-2b7 at $12,537, using P.J. Dick's quoted square foot and linear foot prices for the actual quantities performed. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12036, Exhibit 17. POB estimated, without explanation, $1,790 for performance of item 38, and a value of no dollars for item 4. POB then deducted the credits for the work not performed to arrive at a total estimated value of $1,085. POB noted that H2L2/RWL estimated the work performed for items 2a-2b at $27,812. Subtracting POB's deductions would result in an RFP value of $16,369. POB recommended that the price for the work be reduced to that value. Id. 16. On September 19, 1991, H2L2/RWL recommended to the contracting officer that GSA reclaim monies paid to P.J. Dick for the work performed on RFP 85 because the original drawings dated December 29, 1930, were available in the basement for bidders' inspection. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12036, Exhibit 20. ____________________ 7 The saw cutting of the four hundred eighty-five foot trench and removal of the concrete between the saw cuts. 8 Additional structural steel supports. The Claim 17. On July 8, 1992, P.J. Dick submitted a claim and a revised quotation to GSA for $52,706, as the price for all of the extra work performed in RFP 85. That quotation included $15,065 for P.J. Dick's direct and indirect costs, labor, material, and overhead, and $31,947 for subcontractor labor and material, for a subtotal of $47,012. Addition of P.J. Dick's ten percent commission ($4,701) brought the subtotal to $51,713. Addition of insurance, bond, and business and occupation tax of $992.89 resulted in a total claim of $52,705.89. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12036, Exhibit 22. P.J. Dick noted credit to the Government of $879 for deletion of the slab beneath the ammunition vault. Id. P.J. Dick stated that as the change order had been outstanding for two years, negotiations had ceased, and GSA had reduced payment against AC92, that P.J. Dick considered the matter in dispute and requested a contracting officer's decision. Id. 18. The contracting officer did not issue a decision, and an appeal was filed and docketed as GSBCA 12036 against the deemed denial of the claim. By letter of March 10, 1993, the contracting officer issued his decision together with a "record of change order negotiations" setting forth the rationale for the decision. Respondent's Hearing Exhibit 8. The contracting officer assessed a credit of $3,368.38 for item 1a and a credit of $9,275.85 for items 1b, 1c, 2a, and 2b. Id.9 19. GSA reasoned that for item three, Easley and Rivers (P.J. Dick's drywall subcontractor) and Moore and Morford (P.J. Dick's steel fabricators) were "trying to get additional compensation for items that they are already responsible to do under the base contract." Respondent's Hearing Exhibit 8. To compensate P.J. Dick, GSA relied upon an independent government estimate, awarding P.J. Dick $1,790. GSA accepted P.J. Dick's figure of $411.69 for item four, and assessed a credit against P.J. Dick for $5,382.03 for item five. The total cost was $15,824.57; adding P.J. Dick's commission at ten percent, and insurance, bond and B&O at 1.92 percent, the total credit was $17,741.24. Id. Since $40,000 was obligated to RFP 85, GSA added the $17,741.24 ____________________ 9 GSA assumed that P.J. Dick was responsible for removing the concrete slab to a depth of twenty inches. As Sherry & O'Leary had proposed $22,000 for cutting and removal of 714.58 cubic feet, that would reflect an average price of $30.787 per cubic foot. As the original contract (as interpreted by GSA) required removal of 1,010.42 cubic feet of concrete, GSA was entitled to a credit for the difference of 384.32 cubic feet or $11,832.06. With Sherry & O'Leary markups, that totals $13,203.99. GSA accepted Sherry & O'Leary's cost of $3,928.14 for re-estimating, making a total credit for items 1b-1c of $9,275.85. Respondent's Hearing Exhibit 8. to the $40,000 and assessed a total credit against the contract of $57,741.24. Id. 20. At the hearing on the merits of these appeals, the parties limited the issue for trial to whether the actual thickness of the basement slab was a differing site condition within the meaning of the differing site conditions clause of the contract. Transcript, Vol. 1 at 412-16; Respondent's Reply Brief at 1. Discussion The parties have limited the issue in this case to one of entitlement. Finding 20. The issue is whether the actual thickness of the basement slab encountered by P.J. Dick when it performed work on the basement slab to relocate floor drains was a category 1 differing site condition, i.e., "subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site which differ materially from those indicated in this contract." Finding 6. We find that it was a category 1 differing site condition. A contractor must prove six elements for a category 1 differing site condition: (1) the contract documents must have affirmatively indicated or represented the subsurface conditions which form the basis of a contractor's claim; (2) the contractor must have acted as a reasonably prudent contractor in interpreting the contract documents; (3) the contractor must have reasonably relied on the indications of subsurface conditions of the contract; (4) the subsurface conditions actually encountered within the contract site area must have differed materially from the subsurface conditions indicated in the same contract area; (5) the actual subsurface conditions encountered must have been reasonably unforeseeable; and (6) the contractor's claimed excess costs must be shown to be solely attributable to the materially differing subsurface conditions within the contract site. Weeks Dredging & Contracting v. United States, 13 Cl. Ct. 193, 218 (1987), aff'd, 861 F.2d 728 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Table). As to the first element, while the contract indication need not be explicit or specific, the contract documents must still provide sufficient grounds to justify a bidder's expectation of conditions materially different from those actually encountered. P.J. Maffei Building Wrecking Corp. v. United States, 732 F.2d 913, 916 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In this contract, drawing 3-A-70 showed a portion of the basement slab and by applying the scale in the drawing, it was possible to determine the depth of the slab. Finding 2. This is exactly what P.J. Dick's bid estimator did. Id. The contract drawings thus affirmatively indicated the depth of the slab. As to the second element, there is no ambiguity in the drawing; deriving the thickness of the slab from the scale is a matter of mathematics. GSA questions whether P.J. Dick should have relied on the elevator pit drawing to establish the thickness of the slab. GSA argues that it is only an elevator pit drawing. Respondent's Post-hearing Brief at 11. The depiction of the slab was an integral part of the drawing, prominently displayed; there was nothing in the drawing telling P.J. Dick to ignore the slab depiction in the drawing. Finding 2. P.J. Dick reasonably relied on the drawing to establish the dimension of the slab and the extent of the work. Id. GSA questions whether P.J. Dick proved the third element. It argues that the drain work in the basement was performed by Sherry & O'Leary, which did not rely on the drawing, but merely assumed that the slab would be six inches in depth, an assumption which GSA argues is unreasonable given the age of the building and the use of the basement to receive mail trains. Respondent's Post-hearing Brief at 13-14. GSA's position is not persuasive. GSA is correct that Sherry & O'Leary did not rely on the drawing, Finding 4, but P.J. Dick did. Findings 2, 5. P.J. Dick as the general contractor is responsible for administering the contract, coordinating work, supervising subcontractors, and ultimately, timely and successfully completing the contract work. See Decker & Co. GmbH, ASBCA 41089, 94-2 BCA 26,759, at 133,121; Hobbs Construction & Development Inc., ASBCA 29910, 91-1 BCA 23,518, at 117,934; Greenhut Construction Co., ASBCA 36912 90-3 BCA 23,259, at 116,696. P.J. Dick sent Sherry & O'Leary's letter along with its notice of differing site condition referencing the drawing, Finding 5; obviously, Sherry & O'Leary's letter merely reinforced P.J. Dick's reliance on the condition depicted in the drawing. There is no question that P.J. Dick has met the fourth element. GSA issued change orders recognizing that subsurface conditions had changed from what was thought was an 8" slab to a much thicker slab, what GSA called in the change order a 30" slab. Finding 7. For the fifth element, GSA argues that P.J. Dick should have foreseen that the basement slab was thicker than the six to eight inches than indicated by the drawings. GSA argues that a reasonable site investigation would have revealed the age and structure of the building and that "a site investigation would have revealed that no other form of lateral support for the columns exists, other than the slab on grade floor at the basement level. Simple logic would reveal that a thirteen story building as large as the . . . structure . . . would require more than 6" of concrete for a lateral support system." Respondent's Posthearing Brief at 14. GSA's position is not persuasive. Site investigations are limited to visual inspections, and do not require resort to expensive procedures such as core drilling or destructive testing. Elliot's Roofing Co., IBCA 1330-1-80, 81-2 BCA 15,336, at 75,946; see also Tec Construction, Inc., DOTCAB 2725 (1994 WL 220297) (generally, contractor chargeable with knowledge of conditions that could have been discovered upon reasonable visual inspection). GSA does not explain how a visual inspection of the basement slab would have revealed its depth. Second, from the drawings, P.J. Dick learned--erroneously--that the building was built with columns and footers supporting a basement slab between six and eight inches thick. Finding 2. GSA has not established that a reasonable contractor should have assumed that a building built in the early 1930s, some sixty years before, would have had a thicker slab to act as a lateral support between the columns. It may be that large Government buildings were so designed in the early 1930s, but the contract did not so advise P.J. Dick; in fact, it told P.J. Dick quite the opposite. The law does not demand that P.J. Dick have the knowledge of an architectural historian and ignore what the contract told it. Finally, GSA relies on the addendum to the contract as relieving it of any responsibility under the differing site conditions clause. GSA argues: Since . . . the contract specifications stated that drawings of the existing building may be viewed at the site, it was reasonable for appellant to go to the site and review those drawings. Had appellant taken advantage of the available suggested information, it would have understood the actual conditions at the site. Respondent's Posthearing Brief at 11. GSA is incorrect. These plans were not found in the basement until well into the performance of this work, after the various versions of RFP 85 had been published. Finding 13. The plans were not readily available. Further, the differing site conditions clause is a remedial clause. Its purpose is to reassure bidders that they may rely on the description of subsurface conditions in the contract documents so that bidders will not increase their bids to cover risk. Cherry Hill Construction, Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 11217, 92-3 BCA 25,179, at 125,476. Thus, exculpatory clauses will not be given their full literal reach and read in such a manner as to negate the Government's liability for changed conditions under the differing site conditions clause. Id. The exception is the rare case where the exculpatory clause makes the contractor responsible for assessing the exploratory work of the Government. See A.S. McGagughan Co. v. United States, 24 Cl. Ct. 659, 666 (1991), aff'd, 980 F.2d 744 (table). The addendum upon which GSA relies here does not make P.J. Dick responsible for ascertaining the accuracy of the Government drawings. P.J. Dick is entitled to an equitable adjustment for the category 1 differing site condition for installing the floor drains. As the parties did not litigate quantum, we will at a later date schedule further proceedings to address this matter. To speed resolution of the matter, we take this opportunity to give guidance on adjustment of quantum. P.J. Dick is entitled to the difference between what it cost to perform the extra work and what it would have cost to perform the work contemplated by the contract. Cherry Hill Construction, Inc., v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 12087 (11317-REIN) 93-2 BCA 25,810; Coastal Marine Corp., AGBCA 89-190-3, 90-2 BCA 22,895, at 114,894. Thus, P.J. Dick is entitled to the difference between the costs of saw cutting, and subsequent removal, of three hundred forty-three linear feet of basement slab fifteen inches apart and twenty inches deep, and the costs of saw cutting, and subsequent removal, of four hundred eighty- five feet linear feet of slab seven inches thick, which was the depth originally contemplated on the contract by virtue of the scale on the detail drawings. Finding 2.10 When GSA issued the various versions of RFP 85, it assessed a credit based on a cut four inches deep, Findings 8, 12, to account for the work that would have been performed. However, the four inch cut was less than the cut originally contemplated by the contract. GSA was correct in deleting slab excavation underneath the ammunition vault; there is no dispute that work was never done, Finding 17; GSA's deduction was therefore proper. P.J. Dick is also entitled to the cost of the extra work in the RWL/H2L2 office. Decision The appeal is GRANTED AS TO ENTITLEMENT. ________________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge We concur: _________________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge _________________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge ____________________ 10 The reduction in the distance of the linear cut was never explained, but the parties do not contest it.