_______________________________________________
 
                  GRANTED IN PART:  February 27, 1995
            _______________________________________________
 
                              GSBCA 13059
 
                    GREENVILLE STORAGE & INVESTMENT,
 
                                                Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
        Earl Wilson  of Greenville  Storage & Investment,  Palmetto,
   GA, appearing for Appellant.  
 
        John  C. Ringhausen,  Office  of Regional  Counsel,  General
   Services Administration, Atlanta, GA, counsel for Respondent.
 
   NEILL, Board Judge.
 
        This case  involves a claim  by appellant for payment  of an
   invoice  in  the  amount  of  $1,402.60  allegedly  incurred  for
   additional janitorial services occasioned by the Government's use
   of appellant's warehouse  during the weekend of  July 9-10, 1994.
   Appellant   has  requested  that  this  dispute  be  resolved  in
   accordance   with  the  Board's  small  claim  procedure.    Rule
   13.[foot #] 1     Both  parties   have  agreed   that  the   case
   should be decided on the record without the benefit of a hearing.
   Rules 9, 11.   For the reasons  set out herein, the  Board grants
   this appeal in part.  
 
 
                            Findings of Fact
 
        1.  On  Saturday, July 9,  1994, the Federal  Supply Service
   (FSS), a division within the General Services Administration (GSA
   or Government) worked  forty-five federal employees for  an eight
   hour day performing  general warehouse  work.   On the  following
   day,  six Federal employees performed conveyor maintenance in the
   warehouse.   Appeal  File,  Exhibit  15.   The  normal number  of
   federal  employees working at the warehouse is approximately 160.
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1   48 CFR   6101.13 (1994).
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   Affidavit of Palma  F. Marron (Marron Affidavit)  (Jan. 20, 1995)
   at 1.        
 
        2.  The  lease  agreement  for the  warehouse  requires  the
   lessor to provide all services and maintenance in accordance with
   the solicitation which eventually led  to the award of the lease.
   Appeal File, Exhibit  1.  Both parties to  this dispute recognize
   that  this includes cleaning  of the premises  during the regular
   work week.  
 
        3.  The  lease   contains  a  typical   Government  contract
   provision relating to contract changes.   Appeal File, Exhibit 1,
   GSA Form 3517 at 3.   
 
        4.  Owing  to  a  dispute  regarding  payment  for  overtime
   services, the lessor had previously advised GSA that it would not
   provide  janitorial services  for overtime  work.   Appeal  File,
   Exhibits 2, 7.   In anticipation of having  to procure janitorial
   services for weekends from some source other than the lessor, the
   contracting  officer sought  from  the tenant  a  listing of  the
   services which would be required.  Id., Exhibit 8.  In reply, the
   following services were identified: 
 
        1.   Restroom  cleaning  and  maintenance  of  restroom
             supplies.
        2.   Operation of the FSS owned floor sweeper machine.
        3.   Removal  of  trash (paper,  packing  materials and
             fiberboard boxes primarily)  from area of  the bin
             modules.  
 
   Id., Exhibit 9.  
 
        5.  On  the  weekend of  July  9-10,  1994,  lessor  had  no
   employees  or  subcontractors  on site.    Appellant's  Answer to
   Respondent's   Interrogatories[foot #] 2   at    1.      Lessor's
   subcontractor  for  janitorial services,  TTR  Enterprises (TTR),
   states that upon arrival on the following Monday morning, 
 
        it was obvious that  much extra work would  be required
        while  still maintaining our daily routines.  This took
        time and management  to accomplish this task  which was
        over and above our normal operations. 
 
   Id. at  4.  A  contact record in the  appeal file reports  that a
   Government employee,  presumably also on site on  the same Monday
   morning, when asked later about the subcontractor's claim, stated
   that he did not notice anything out of the ordinary on  that day.
   Appeal File, Exhibit 12.    
 
        6.  By   letter   dated  July   13,  1994,   the  janitorial
   subcontractor,  TTR,  wrote  lessor seeking payment  of $1,402.60
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 2  Hereinafter designated  as Appeal File,  Exhibit
   16. 
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   for  additional services provided  during the week  following the
   July 9-10 weekend to  clean up after the  weekend activity.   The
   letter explains: 
 
 
        On  Saturday,  July  9, 1994,  Federal  Supply  Service
        worked  without requesting  janitorial  services.   The
        warehouse  on  the  following  Monday was  in  terrible
        shape.    The  carts that  collect  cardboard  from the
        various   locations    around   the    warehouse   were
        overflowing.    The  government personnel  had  started
        putting  the cardboard  in the  green  dumpsters.   The
        warehouse  floors  were  dirty with  spotty  pieces  of
        trash.   The offices  and restroom trash  cans were  in
        need of being  emptied.  This  idea of working  without
        janitorial services is one that can not continue.  [I]t
        put us under enormous strain to get it all clean again.
        The following is  an itemized list  of extra work  that
        was required to bring the warehouse back up to where we
        had left it on Friday evening.  
 
   Appeal File, Exhibit 10.
 
        7.  TTR's itemized list reads as follows: 
 
        1.   One man on cardboard for (2) days = 16 man-hours
        2.   One man on  riding sweeper for (3) days  = 24 man-
             hours + machine charge
        3.   One man (3) hours emptying trash
        4.   (5) additional hours for Janitorial service on the
             restrooms and offices
 
 
        Cost  Breakdown  for  the  additional  services  is  as
        follows: 
        48 additional man-hours @ $6.25/hour    =    $ 300.00
        Additional Sweeper charge @ $150.00/day =    $ 450.00
        Additional Tugger charge @ $ 90.00/day  =    $ 180.00
        Workers Compensation 10.44% of $300.00  =    $  31.32
        Payroll Taxes 11.45% of $300.00         =    $  33.45
        Additional Trash Removal Costs          =    $  50.00
        Additional Supervision & Planning       =    $ 114.40
        ------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal                                     $1159.17
        TTR Enterprises Overhead 10%            =    $ 115.92
        ------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal                                     $1275.09
        TTR Enterprises Profit 10%              =    $ 127.51
        ------------------------------------------------------
        TOTAL                                        $1402.60
 
   Appeal File, Exhibit 10.
 
        8.  The lessor paid the TTR  invoice by check dated July 19,
   1994.  Appeal File, Exhibit 16 at 4.  
 
        9.  TTR's   representative   has   offered   the   following
   explanations regarding the invoice items.  
 
        The  cardboard  was  inappropriately  placed  in  green
        dumpsters, not gray carts.  Extra time required to pull
        cardboard out  of green  dumpsters was  incurred.   One
        man, Brian Mason  was doing  Monday's normal  cardboard
        bailing.   Stacey  Connally was  assigned  to catch  up
        Saturday's  work.   It took  him  two days  due to  the
        scattered placement of cardboard. 
 
        Spencer Hayes  was assigned to  catch up sweeping.   He
        did normal section sweeping for approximately two hours
        per  day and spent eight  hours for three days catching
        up on it. 
 
        In order to  rent a comparable  piece of equipment,  it
        would  cost approximately  $150 to  $200 per day  for a
        sweeper and $90 to $100 per day for a tugger.   We used
        the low end for quoting.  
 
        The  trash  cans  throughout the  warehouse  had  to be
        emptied from Saturday's work. 
 
        The bathrooms throughout the warehouse (nine sets) were
        used for Saturday's work.  This left them dirty, low or
        out of supplies and not satisfactory for use on Monday.
        Extra personnel were  assigned to bring them  up to the
        standard left from Friday's cleaning. 
 
   Appeal File,  Exhibit 16 at  3.  TTR's representative  has stated
   under  penalty of  perjury that  these  explanations provided  in
   response to respondent's discovery requests are true. 
 
        10.  TTR's representative has also explained that there were
   a crew of fourteen full-time employees and one part-time employee
   assisting with the additional janitorial work required during the
   week following the July 9-10 weekend.  He further states that the
   employees of TTR are not employees of appellant.    
    
 
                               Discussion
 
        At the outset we note that this  is not a claim by appellant
   for  overtime.    Rather,  it   is  a  claim  for  the   cost  of
   extraordinary services which appellant was allegedly required  to
   provide during  the normal  workweek.  The  services are  said to
   have been occasioned by weekend  activity at the warehouse on the
   weekend  of  July  9-10.    The services  in  question  are  not,
   therefore,  overtime services.  This  is a premise to appellant's
   claim  which the  parties have  accepted from  the time  of their
   first conference with the Board and which the Board itself adopts
   in deciding this claim.  
 
        In  its final  brief,  appellant  has  commingled  with  its
   argument references  to its  ongoing dispute  with GSA  regarding
   payment for overtime under the lease.  In addition, appellant has
   submitted with its brief eight supplemental exhibits which relate
   to overtime.  Since this is not a claim for overtime, counsel for
   respondent has objected to the introduction of these documents on
   the ground that they are not relevant to the claim.  His point is
   well taken.   Based  on the understanding  reached early  in this
   proceeding, overtime is not in  issue in this case.  Accordingly,
   we sustain  respondent's objection.  This  documentation proposed
   by appellant for inclusion in the record is rejected and will not
   be considered by the Board in deciding this claim.  
 
        Appellant has convinced us that, as a result of the activity
   at the warehouse site on  the weekend of July 9-10, the  lessor's
   janitorial  staff was  required to  do  more work  than it  would
   otherwise  have been required to  do in the  course of its normal
   weekday duties.   Respondent argues that any extra cleaning which
   may be needed when FSS works on the weekend is not covered by the
   lease.  Respondent's Brief at 2.   We disagree.  We consider that
   the work  in question can  be viewed as additional  or extra work
   within the  scope  of  the  contract  and  which  the  Government
   obviously  expected  appellant to  perform.   When  seen  in this
   light, the requirement to  perform this work can  be viewed as  a
   constructive  change  for  which  appellant  is  entitled  to  an
   equitable  adjustment under the  changes clause of  the contract.
   Mr. Klean's Janitor & Maintenance Service, Inc., GSBCA 9010, 91-2
   BCA   23,683.  
 
        Respondent  contends that  there  is  serious  doubt  as  to
   whether the work was  even required.  We believe otherwise.   The
   statement  of a  GSA  employee that  he  saw nothing  out of  the
   ordinary simply  lacks credibility.   We  cannot accept  the fact
   that the  weekend  activity would  not have  generated trash  and
   required   cleaning.    The  conflicting  statement  of  the  TTR
   representative is based on first hand knowledge while that of the
   GSA  employee may  simply  be attributable  to  an uninformed  or
   unpracticed eye.   Furthermore, the type of  conditions allegedly
   found  by TTR employees on Monday, July 11, called for work quite
   similar to  that  which  the  tenant  had  anticipated  would  be
   required in  the event the  facility was used outside  the normal
   workweek schedule.  See Finding 4.
    
        Much more  convincing  are respondent's  arguments that  the
   charges in question are unreasonable.  The record tells us little
   regarding the size of the  janitorial operation at the warehouse.
   The number of federal employees working on-site and the number of
   TTR  employees   involved  in  janitorial   operations,  however,
   suggests  that the janitorial duties are extensive.  Accordingly,
   any  cleanup  occasioned by  use  of the  facility  by forty-five
   persons could well be significant.  
 
        We find  the explanation  offered  in support  of the  labor
   required for cardboard disposal  credible.  Not so, however,  the
   twenty-four hours claimed for sweeping operations -- particularly
   when one assumes that normal day to day janitorial services would
   presumably involve  sweeping the  entire premises  at least  once
   over  a  two  to  three  day  period.    If  there  were  special
   extenuating circumstances in  this case which would explain why a
   total  of twenty-four  hours of  sweeping were  required just  to
   clean up after the weekend  activity, they have not been provided
   by appellant.  Based on  the information actually offered, we are
   prepared to allow no more than eight hours. 
 
 
        As to the cost said  to be associated with equipment rental,
   we  disallow it  in its entirety.   The explanation  given by TTR
   indicates  that,  in  fact,  TTR  used  its  own  equipment  but,
   considered   itself  entitled  to  "quote"  a  cost  for  renting
   equipment  since  its  own equipment  was  being  utilized beyond
   normally anticipated limits.  We agree with  respondent that this
   is  an inappropriate  cost for  recovery since,  in fact,  it was
   never incurred.   See Respondent's Brief at 3.  In the absence of
   a more  reasonable measure such  as one  which might be  based on
   depreciation of  the useful life  of the equipment, we  deny this
   portion of the claim. 
 
        We  recognize the contracting  officer in her  affidavit has
   expressed the opinion that "[t]he  restrooms in or near areas not
   worked would not  have been used."   Marron Affidavit at 1.   Her
   information, however, as  to what sections  were worked does  not
   appear to be  based on any  personal observation.   On the  other
   hand,  the information  provided  by  TTR  on  restrooms  needing
   servicing  presumably  is  based on  personal  observation.   We,
   therefore,  are prepared  to allow  the claim  for time  spent on
   restroom  cleaning  notwithstanding   the  contracting  officer's
   comment.   
 
        Finally,  we consider  the claim for  additional supervision
   and planning to be  part of TTR's overhead.   Presumably this  is
   already  provided for  in the  overhead markup  set out  in TTR's
   invoice.  We, therefore, decline to award it  as a separate item.
 
 
        Given  the  considerations  set out  above,  we  recalculate
   appellant's claim as follows: 
 
        1.   One man on cardboard for (2) days = 16 man-hours
        2.   One man  on riding  sweeper for (1)  day =  8 man-
             hours
        3.   One man (3) hours emptying trash
        4.   (5) additional hours for Janitorial service on the
             restrooms and offices
 
        Cost Breakdown for the additional services: 
 
        32 additional man-hours @ $6.25/hour    =    $ 200.00
        Workers Compensation 10.44% of $200.00  =    $  20.88
        Payroll Taxes 11.45% of $200.00         =    $  22.90
 
        Additional Trash Removal Costs          =    $  50.00
        ------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal                                     $ 293.78
        TTR Enterprises Overhead 10%            =    $  29.38
        ------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal                                     $ 323.16
        TTR Enterprises Profit 10%              =    $  32.32
        ------------------------------------------------------
        TOTAL                                        $ 355.48
 
 
                                Decision
 
        This appeal is  GRANTED IN PART.  We  find respondent liable
   for $355.48  in costs  associated with  the performance  of extra
   janitorial services required as a result of authorized activities
   at  the  warehouse  site  on  the weekend  of  July  9-10,  1994.
   Appellant is  entitled to  interest on  that  amount as  provided
   under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978.  41 U.S.C.   611 (1988).
 
                                           _________________________
                                           EDWIN B. NEILL
                                           Board Judge