___________________________________________________ DENIED: January 10, 1995 ___________________________________________________ GSBCA 12770, 12771, 12775, 12783 B.F. CARVIN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Paul J. McMahon, III, of Allen & Gooch, Lafayette, LA, counsel for Appellant. Lee W. Crook, III, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges PARKER, NEILL, and HYATT. PARKER, Board Judge. The General Services Administration (GSA) awarded contract number GS-07P-92-HUC-0078 to B.F. Carvin Construction Co., Inc. (Carvin) on December 28, 1992. The contract was for improvements to the interior spaces in the Federal Building and Courthouse in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Carvin appeals four final decisions of the contracting officer: 1) the denial of its claim for a time extension of 105 days and an equitable adjustment of $25,914 for the associated extended overhead costs; 2) the denial of its claim for the costs of estimating and negotiating a change order proposal; 3) the denial of its claim for an equitable adjustment of $3,808 for an electrical service hookup credit; and 4) the decision directing Carvin to provide an access door in front of an exhaust duct enclosure at no extra charge. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the appeals. Findings of Fact Extension of time and extended overhead costs 1. The contract established the time for completion of the project as 180 calendar days from the date the contractor received the notice to proceed. Appeal File, GSBCA 12770, Exhibit 1, Vol. II at 781. Carvin received the notice to proceed on June 1, 1993; thus, the date for completion of the contract was initially established as November 29, 1993. Id., Exhibit 2. Modifications PS12 and PS14 extended the time for completion of the contract by forty-two days so the new completion date became January 10, 1994. Id., Exhibit 1, Vol. II at 928, 932. Appellant completed the contract on January 7, 1994. Respondent's Memorandum of Position for GSBCA 12770 at 5. 2. The original project schedule submitted by the contractor was approved by letter dated July 2, 1993. Appeal File, GSBCA 12770, Exhibit 2. In the letter, the contracting officer stated that "the schedule must be updated after each meeting or activity, where revisions have been recognized or made." The approved schedule set November 29, 1993, as the intended date of completion, thus indicating the contractor's intent to use the entire 180 days to complete the project. There is no other completion schedule contained in the record. 3. The contract contained the standard Changes clause, FAR 52.243-4 (Aug 1987)(48 CFR 52.243-4)(1993). Change order number 6 (CE #6) revised the detailing and framing of all the exterior walls. Appeal File, GSBCA 12770, Exhibit 1, Vol. II at 900-03. Pursuant to GSA's request for proposal, Carvin initially requested a time extension of thirty days but, according to the Price Negotiation Memorandum, decided not to pursue it when the parties negotiated an agreement. Id., Exhibits 6, 8. Bilateral modification PS01 was signed by Carvin's president on August 9, 1993. Id., Exhibit 13. 4. By letter to the contracting officer dated December 8, 1993, Carvin requested an equitable adjustment to the contract price for the delay allegedly caused by CE #6. Appeal File, GSBCA 12770, Exhibit 14. Carvin calculated the delay as 105 calendar days and the corresponding extended overhead costs as $25,914. Id. The contracting officer denied Carvin's requests for an extension of time and equitable adjustment by letter dated January 26, 1994. Id., Exhibit 17. 5. On February 28, 1994, the Board docketed Carvin's appeal of the contracting officer's final decision as GSBCA 12770. Appeal File, GSBCA 12770, Exhibit 19. Estimating and negotiating expenses 3 6. Change order number 10 (CE #10) deleted the requirement for delivery of operation and maintenance manuals and changed the type of carpet backing materials to be used. Appeal File, GSBCA 12770, Exhibit 1, Vol. II at 930-01. GSA issued a request for proposal for CE #10 by letter dated October 8, 1993. Id., GSBCA 12771, Exhibit 2. Carvin's proposal included $242 for the cost of estimating and negotiating the change. Id., Exhibit 3. The estimator's time was itemized as $92 and the project manager's negotiation time was itemized as $150. Id. On December 16, 1993, after the parties failed to reach an agreement on the credit during negotiations, GSA issued unilateral modification PC13, which did not include reimbursement for appellant's estimating and negotiating expenses. Id., Exhibit 8. 7. On January 11, 1994, Carvin submitted a claim to the contracting officer for $242, its costs for estimating and negotiating the modification. Appeal File, GSBCA 12771, Exhibit 10. The request was denied by the contracting officer on January 27, 1994. Id., Exhibit 12. 8. On February 28, 1994, the Board docketed Carvin's appeal of the contracting officer's final decision as GSBCA 12771. Appeal File, GSBCA 12771, Exhibit 14. In its appeal, Carvin now seeks compensation for estimating and negotiating costs in the amount of $686. Electrical service hookup costs 9. Change order number 4A (CE #4A) involved the deletion of the air conditioning unit in the computer room, as well as the related duct work and electrical service. Appeal File, GSBCA 12770, Exhibit 1, Vol. II at 919-20. The request for proposal for the change order was issued on July 21, 1993. Id., GSBCA 12775, Exhibit 3. The independent government estimate calculated the credit for the deletion of the air conditioning unit as $5,773. Id., Exhibit 5. 10. On September 28, 1993, Carvin's project manager wrote a letter to the construction manager which explained that the cost proposal submitted by Carvin did not include any deduction for electrical service because the specifications and drawings did not require Carvin to hook up power in the computer room. Appeal File, GSBCA 12775, Exhibit 6. After unsuccessfully attempting to reach agreement, GSA issued unilateral modification PC08 on November 3, 1993, which provided a $7,445 credit to the Government. Id., Exhibit 10. The Government provided a detailed cost breakdown for PC08 consisting of the various components involved in this change. The cost breakdown shows that of the total amount of the credit taken for the deletion of the air conditioning unit, $1,324 was deducted for the electrical service hookup. Id., Exhibit 17. 4 11. The summary of work contained a general description of the contract and stated the following: The spaces in the building listed below will be completely finished under this Phase III Contract. These are tenant spaces, and at this time they have been assigned or leased by the Government. The final interior finish, including partitions, HVAC, etc. necessary for a complete job is shown at the time. Appeal File, GSBCA 12770, Exhibit 1, Vol. I at 95. 12. The specifications for the basic electrical requirements state in part: Provide all labor, materials, and equipment essential to the complete functioning of the systems described or indicated herein or which may be reasonably implied as essential whether mentioned in the Contract Drawings and Specifications or not. Appeal File, GSBCA 12770, Exhibit 1, Vol. II at 682. 13. The specifications provide for the installation of the computer room air conditioning unit: A. General: Install computer room air conditioning units where indicated on the drawings in accordance with equipment manufacturer's published installation Instructions. . . . . C. Electrical Wiring: Install electrical devices furnished by manufacturer but specified to be factory- mounted. Verify that electrical wiring installation is in accordance with manufacturer's submittal and installation requirements of Division 16 sections. Appeal File, GSBCA 12770, Exhibit 1, Vol. II at 609. 14. On December 1, 1993, Carvin submitted a claim to the contracting officer for the credit taken by the Government for the deduction of electrical services in the amount of $3,808. Appeal File, GSBCA 12775, Exhibit 12. This amount apparently represented the difference between the unilateral change order deduction, $7,445, and the deduction Carvin proposed for the modification, $3,637. On January 7, 1994, the contracting officer denied Carvin's request for additional compensation. Id., Exhibit 15. 5 15. On March 3, 1994, the Board docketed Carvin's appeal of the contracting officer's final decision as GSBCA 12775. Appeal File, GSBCA 12775, Exhibit 19. Carvin now requests an equitable adjustment in the amount of $4,736 for the electrical service hookup. This amount allegedly represents the difference between the credit taken and the amount Carvin now argues is the proper credit. Installation of the access door 16. The specifications for access doors provide in part: Obtain specific locations and sizes for required access doors from trades requiring access to concealed equipment, and indicated on submittal schedule. Appeal File, GSBCA 12770, Exhibit 1, Vol. II at 864. The drawings of the kitchen on the first floor show five access panels and four access doors. An access panel, rather than an access door, is located at the exhaust duct enclosure. Id., GSBCA 12783, Exhibit 2. 17. On December 10, 1993, the quality control specialist sent a memorandum to Carvin's project manager based on a report that Carvin did not intend to install an access door in front of the exhaust duct enclosure. The memorandum directed Carvin to provide a fifth access door in the kitchen area. Appeal File, GSBCA 12783, Exhibit 3. On December 13, Carvin responded to the memorandum, asserting that the contract only required the contractor to provide the doors as shown on the drawings. Id., Exhibit 4. On December 29, Carvin requested a final decision from the contracting officer to determine whether an additional access door would be required. Id., Exhibit 5. 18. The contracting officer issued a final decision on January 10, 1994, directing Carvin to provide the access door at no additional cost. Appeal File, GSBCA 12783, Exhibit 6. Carvin installed the door. On March 7, 1994, the Board docketed Carvin's appeal as GSBCA 12783. Id., Exhibit 8. Carvin now seeks compensation for the access door in the amount of $581.09. The record contains no evidence whatsoever supporting the claimed amount of damages. Discussion GSBCA 12770 Appellant contends that it is entitled to $25,914 for extended overhead costs due to Government delays caused by change order number 6. Although appellant argues that CE #6 caused it 6 to complete its contract work 105 days beyond its originally scheduled completion date, the only production schedule in evidence is the initial schedule. That schedule shows the anticipated project completion date to be the same as the original due date for contract completion. Thus, under the original schedule, the contractor intended to use the entire 180 days to complete the project. Where a contractor asserts that it would have met a completion date earlier in time than the completion date specified in the contract, it is the contractor's burden to show that it would have finished on the earlier date, absent government delays. Wickham Contracting Co. v. Fischer, 12 F.3d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, the contractor substantially completed the contract ahead of schedule and has offered no evidence to support its claim that it could have finished even earlier, absent Government delays. Lacking such evidence, appellant cannot prevail. GSBCA 12771 Carvin requests its costs for estimating and negotiating CE #10. The general rule is that "a request to a contractor for an estimate for proposed changes is not considered to be extra work and the costs of preparing such estimates are usually considered as part of the overhead included in the total contract price." Acme Missiles & Construction Corp., ASBCA 11786, 69-2 BCA 8057, at 37,455. Exceptions to the general rule are situations in which elements of strong government compulsion are found which alter the "voluntary" nature of the contractor's efforts, Century Engineering Corp., ASBCA 2932, 57-2 BCA 1419, or where the contractor has expended significant efforts or incurred substantial costs beyond that which would normally be contemplated for a change order, Harman-B.J. Gladd Construction Co., VACAB 1093, 75-1 BCA 11,262. Here, the contracting officer's representative requested a cost proposal by appellant for CE #10, which would have resulted in a bilateral agreement for a credit to the Government if accepted. Appellant prepared its cost proposal and negotiations resulted, but because an agreement on the cost for the deleted work could not be reached, the contracting officer issued a unilateral modification. In appellant's claim to the contracting officer, appellant requested $242 for its costs of preparing the proposal. We find that appellant's efforts in connection with CE #10 did not involve the magnitude, complexity, or compulsion that is required for the appellant to be compensated for its proposal. See Greenhut Construction Co., ASBCA 14354, 70-1 BCA 8209. The appeal is thus denied. GSBCA 12775 7 Carvin contends that the Government improperly took a credit for the electrical service hookup for the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system (HVAC) in the computer room. Carvin argues that the contract drawings do not show the electrical service hookup and that the specifications also do not contain any power requirements for the area. GSA argues that electrical services were included in the specifications as part of the HVAC installation. We agree with GSA. A contract is to be interpreted in a manner that gives reasonable meaning to all of its parts. Coker Corp., GSBCA 6918, 84-1 BCA 17,007. The key to determining the extent of a contractor's obligation under the contract is to determine whether the disputed work was necessary to the performance of other contract work. Id. Here, the contract required Carvin to "[p]rovide all labor, materials, and equipment essential to the complete functioning of the systems described or indicated herein or which may be reasonably implied as essential whether mentioned in the Contract Drawings and Specifications or not." Finding 12. The Phase III contract included installation of the HVAC and completion of the interior spaces. A common sense reading of the contract suggests that hooking up the electrical services would be essential for the performance of the contract. The appeal is denied.[foot #] 1 GSBCA 12783 Carvin seeks to recover $581.09 for installing an access door. Appellant, not the Government, has the burden of proving how much of an upward adjustment in price should be made for additions to contract work. Nager Electric Co. v. United States, 194 Ct.Cl. 835, 442 F.2d 936, 946 (1971); Consolidated Construction, Inc., GSBCA 8871, 88-2 BCA 20,811, at 105,210. In this case, even assuming that installation of the access door could be considered additional work, appellant has failed to provide any proof of its costs. Unsupported assertions standing alone do not constitute proof. Accordingly, the appeal is denied. Decision The appeals are DENIED. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The unilateral modification PC08 provides a detailed breakdown of costs associated with the eliminated work. Appellant has not challenged the reasonableness of these deductions but claims instead that the work in question was never required under the contract. For the reasons already given, we disagree. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- 8 __________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge We concur: ____________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge ____________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge