DENIED:  April 14, 1993
                                                   
 
        
                              GSBCA 11662
 
 
                            DAVISTER, INC.,
 
                                                Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
        Terry L. Salazar of Winstead, Sechrest & Minick, Dallas, TX,
   counsel for Appellant.
 
        Gerald  L.  Schrader,  Office  of General  Counsel,  General
   Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges DEVINE, NEILL, and GOODMAN.
 
   GOODMAN, Board Judge.
 
        This  appeal arises  from  a  lease  awarded  to  appellant,
   Davister, Inc. (Davister  or appellant), by the  General Services
   Administration  (GSA  or  respondent)  for  the construction  and
   leasing of office, special purpose, and storage space in Lubbock,
   Texas, for  use by the  Department of Veterans  Affairs (VA).   A
   dispute arose as to the calculation of net usable space for which
   GSA was  to pay rent. Appellant  submitted a claim dated  May 15,
   1991, pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 disputing the
   contracting  officer's determination of the net usable space, and
   the contracting officer issued a final decision dated October  8,
   1991,  denying the  claim.   Appellant  appealed the  contracting
   officer's final  decision by  notice of  appeal dated  January 3,
   1992. 
        A hearing on the merits was held on August 26, 1992, in Fort
   Worth,   Texas.[foot #] 1       We   deny   appellant's   appeal,
   for the reasons set forth below.
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1   Judge Devine  conducted the hearing.   The case
   was reassigned to Judge Goodman on February 3, 1993.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
                            Findings of Fact
 
        1.  On  August 15,  1990, appellant  was  awarded lease  no.
   GS-07B-13499  (the lease)  by GSA  pursuant  to solicitation  for
   offers  (SFO)   R7-07-90,  dated   November 15,  1989,   for  the
   construction and  leasing  of  approximately  34,200  net  usable
   square feet of office, special  purpose, and storage space at the
   Terrace Shopping Center located in Lubbock, Texas, for use by the
   VA.  Appeal File, Exhibit 1.
 
        2.  The lease term  was for a period of  ten years beginning
   on January 14, 1991, through January 13, 2001 (subject to renewal
   and termination rights  as stated therein) with GSA  obligated to
   pay an annual  rental rate of $436,050 at the  rate of $36,337.50
   per month in arrears.  Based upon 34,200  net usable square feet,
   the  annual rental  rate is  $12.75 per  net usable  square foot.
   Appeal File, Exhibit 1.
 
        3.  Section 22 of the SFO incorporated into the lease reads,
   in pertinent part:
 
        NET USABLE SPACE  IS THE METHOD OF MEASUREMENT  FOR THE
        AREA FOR WHICH GSA WILL PAY A  SQUARE FOOT RATE.  IT IS
        DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS: 
 
        IF THE SPACE IS ON  A SINGLE TENANCY FLOOR, COMPUTE THE
        INSIDE GROSS  AREA  BY  MEASURING  BETWEEN  THE  INSIDE
        FINISH OF THE  PERMANENT EXTERIOR  BUILDING WALLS  FROM
        THE  FACE OF THE  CONVECTORS (PIPES OR  OTHER WALL-HUNG
        FIXTURES) IF THE CONVECTOR OCCUPIES AT LEAST 50 PERCENT
        OF THE LENGTH OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS.
 
        . . . . 
 
        IN ALL MEASUREMENTS, MAKE NO DEDUCTIONS FOR COLUMNS AND
        PROJECTIONS ENCLOSING  THE STRUCTURAL  ELEMENTS OF  THE
        BUILDING AND DEDUCT  THE FOLLOWING FROM THE  GROSS AREA
        INCLUDING THEIR ENCLOSING WALLS:
 
             TOILETS AND LOUNGES, 
             STAIRWELLS, 
             ELEVATORS AND ESCALATOR SHAFTS,
             BUILDING EQUIPMENT AND SERVICE AREAS,
             ENTRANCE AND ELEVATOR LOBBIES,
             STACKS AND SHAFTS, AND 
             CORRIDORS IN PLACE OR REQUIRED BY LOCAL CODES
               AND ORDINANCES.
 
   Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 8.
 
        4.  GSA Form 3517,  General Clauses, pages 1-2  (REV 10/89),
   was attached to the lease and  made a part thereof, and provided,
   in pertinent part, as follows:
 
        7.   MEASUREMENT FOR PAYMENT (APR 1984)
 
             When space is offered and accepted, the space will
        be  mutually measured upon  delivery.  Payment  will be
        made  on  the  basis of  actual  measurement;  however,
        payment will not  be made for delivered  space which is
        in excess of the maximum square footage solicited.
 
   Appeal File, Exhibit 1, Lease at 3; GSA Form 3517 at 1-2.
 
        5.  Clause no. 17, 552.270-21-CHANGES  (JUN 1985), contained
   in the lease reads, in pertinent part:
 
             (a)  The Contracting Officer  may at any time,  by
        written order, make changes within the general scope of
        this lease in any one or more of the following:
 
             (1)  Specifications.
             (2)  Work or services.
             (3)  Amount of Space.
             (4)  Facilities or space layout.
 
             (b)  If any  such  change causes  an  increase  or
        decrease in the Lessor's cost  of, or the time required
        for, performance  under this contract,  whether or  not
        changed  by the  order, the  Contracting Officer  shall
        modify  the lease by (1) making an equitable adjustment
        in  the  rental  rate,  (2) making  a  lump  sum  price
        adjustment, or (3) revising the delivery schedule.
 
   Appeal File, Exhibit 1, GSA Form 3517 at 3.
 
        6.  The SFO  and the lease  provided, in pertinent  part, as
   follows:
 
        13 FIRE PROT. OCCUP. HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 
 
        BUILDINGS IN  WHICH SPACE  IS OFFERED  FOR LEASE  SHALL
        COMPLY   WITH  THE   REQUIREMENTS   OF  THE   GSA  FIRE
        PROTECTION,  OCCUPATIONAL  HEALTH,   AND  ENVIRONMENTAL
        SAFETY  STANDARDS AS DESCRIBED IN THIS SOLICITATION AND
        THE AGENCY HANDBOOK NUMBERED PBS  P 5900.2B. EQUIVALENT
        PROTECTION,  AS REQUIRED  BY THE  APPLICABLE STANDARDS,
        SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER.
 
        . . . . 
 
        33 EXITS AND ACCESS
 
        ALL EXITS, STAIRS,  CORRIDORS, AISLES, AND  PASSAGEWAYS
        THAT MAY  BE USED BY  THE GOVERNMENT SHALL  COMPLY WITH
        NFPA STANDARD NO. 101, . . . . 
 
   Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 5, 10.
 
        7.  The Life Safety Code, NFPA 101, Section 5-5, Arrangement
 
   of Means of Egress, states in 5-5.1.2:
 
        Where exits are not immediately accessible from an open
        floor area, safe and continuous passageways, aisles, or
        corridors shall be maintained leading directly to every
        exit and shall be so  arranged as to provide access for
        each occupant to at least two exits by separate ways of
        travel.
 
   Appeal File, Exhibit 11.
 
        8.  Under  the  provisions  of  the   lease,  appellant  was
   required to construct improvements to the lease space.  Section 6
   of the lease provided that "GSA shall deliver layout drawings and
   necessary  finish out selections to the successful offeror within
   14 days after award."  Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 2.  
 
        9.  Before the award of the  lease, the space in the Terrace
   Shopping Center which  was offered for lease to  GSA consisted of
   several  differently configured tenant spaces.  Transcript at 19.
 
 
        10.  After the lease was awarded, appellant hired RG General
   Contractors, owned and  operated by Rollo  Gurss, to perform  the
   construction required under the lease.  Transcript at 12.
 
        11.  The  pre-existing  tenant  space was  to  be demolished
   after lease award as part of the construction  services furnished
   under the lease,  in order to construct  the leased space to  the
   configuration  required  by  the  VA.    Appellant's   contractor
   testified that the  "existing lease spaces throughout  the entire
   proposed project  [were] gutted down  to the concrete and  to the
   bare ceiling."  Transcript at 19, 76-77.  
 
        12.  As  a part of  the interior construction  performed for
   the Government, a T-shaped corridor measuring approximately 2,392
   square  feet was constructed by appellant  within the confines of
   the  lease space obtained  under the lease.    Appellant contends
   that the T-shaped corridor did  not exist before it performed the
   construction of the leased space.  Transcript at 5-6.
 
        13.  There is conflicting testimony by appellant's witnesses
   as  to  which  party  originated  the  concept  of  the  T-shaped
   corridor.    Mr.  Robby  Tompkins,  an  architect-consultant   to
   appellant's management company, Terra Group, Inc., testified that
   the  T-shaped corridor  was  originally requested  by  the VA  in
   preliminary design meetings with appellant's  contractor prior to
   submission  of appellant's proposal to GSA.  Transcript at 9.  He
   testified  further  that  the  design  concept  of  the  T-shaped
   corridor was  proposed by  either the  VA or  GSA in  one of  its
   preliminary drawings (admitted as Appellant's Exhibit A-1), which
   appellant's contractor  Rollo Gurss  incorporated into  the final
   layout drawings  transmitted by GSA  to appellant after  award of
   the lease.  Id. at 25-26.
 
 
        14.  Mr.  Rollo Gurss  of  RG General  Contractors testified
   that he "was  hired to design  and build space for  the Veteran's
   Administration.   .  .  .    [T]o  lay  out  the  space,  do  the
   architectural drawings, get  an architectural engineer stamp  and
   then  construct the  space."   Transcript  at 72.   He  testified
   further that he took the solicitation's performance specification
   guidelines,  which called  for a  certain  number of  rooms of  a
   certain  size,  and prepared  a  preliminary layout  in  which he
   arranged the rooms within the physical configuration of the space
   to  be  leased.   Id. at  72-74;  Appellant's Exhibit  A-6.   The
   preliminary layout  was prepared  in order  to furnish  appellant
   with  a construction  cost  estimate.   Transcript  at  73.   The
   preliminary layout, as prepared by Mr. Gurss, included a T-shaped
   corridor which was 8 feet in width.  Id. at 84-85.  
 
        15.  When cross-examined as to the inclusion of the T-shaped
   corridor  in his preliminary layout, see Appellant's Exhibit A-6,
   Mr. Gurss responded as follows:
 
        Q.  When  you were  doing  this  layout  for  your  own
        purposes  and  before  the   Government  had  told  you
        specifically how it wanted the layout grouped together,
        you had yourself put in a T-shaped corridor?
 
        A.  Yes, sir.
 
   Transcript  at 84-85.  Thus, according to appellant's contractor,
   it  was  not the  Government's  decision  to  include a  T-shaped
   corridor in the preliminary layout for the leased space.  
 
        16.  The  Government's  contracting officer  also  testified
   that it was  not the Government's decision to  include a T-shaped
   corridor   in  the  preliminary  layout  for  the  leased  space.
   Transcript at 125-26.
 
        17.  The  contracting  officer  also  testified  as  to  her
   understanding of the term "corridor(s) in place" in section 22 of
   the lease:
 
        Q.  What  is your understanding  of the meaning  of the
        term "corridor in place" or "corridors in place"?
 
        A.  It would be  exactly what it said,  a corridor that
        is in place, actually, you know, at the site.
 
        Q.  What is your  opinion as to the correctness  of his
        interpretation that  it applies to only corridors which
        were existing prior to lease execution?
 
        A.  That's not what  it says in paragraph 22.   It just
        says  corridors in  place;  it  doesn't  say  when  the
        corridors have to be in place.
 
        . . . . 
 
        Q.  Did you review Section 22.
 
        A.  Yes.
 
        Q.  At the time  the solicitation was issued,  what was
        your understanding  as a  representative of  GSA as  to
        what  that provision means with respect to corridors in
        place?
 
        A.  That when the lease is  built out, as it  obviously
        was, that  the main corridor would be  deducted, or any
        fire exit, any means of egress.
 
   Transcript at 127-28, 136-37.
 
        18.  The preliminary layout drawing was submitted to GSA and
   was forwarded to  GSA's fire/life safety  section for review  and
   approval.    Transcript  at  128.   The  Government  revised  the
   preliminary layout and returned it to appellant.  Id. at 26.  The
   Government changed the T-shaped corridor designed by Mr. Gurss by
   reducing  its width  from 8 feet  to 6  feet.   Consequently, the
   corridor which the  Government approved takes up  less space than
   the  one  Mr. Gurss  had  originally  designed.   Id.  at  84-85;
   Appellant's Exhibit A-1.
 
        19.  Mr. Gurss  thereafter took  those approved  preliminary
   drawings and added the  electrical circuits, heating, ventilation
   and air  conditioning (HVAC), and  other items required to  get a
   local building permit.  Transcript at 26.  Appellant then awarded
   the building contract, obtained a building permit, and RG General
   Contractors  proceeded  to  demolish  and  reconstruct the  space
   according to the approved plans.  Id. at 26, 76-78.
 
        20.  During  construction  of  the  space,  the  contracting
   officer  informed appellant that based upon her interpretation of
   the lease,  the area of  the T-shaped corridor would  be deducted
   from the gross area and that no rent would be paid for that area.
   Appeal File, Exhibit 2.
 
        21.  On or  about March 5,  1991, after the  construction of
   the VA clinic space was  completed, but before acceptance by GSA,
   the space was jointly measured by Rollo Gurss and George McCarty,
   representing appellant and  GSA respectively.  Transcript  at 58-
   59,  83-84; Appeal  File, Exhibit  4.   According  to appellant's
   architect, Mr. Tompkins, this measurement was for the purposes of
   GSA  Form 3517, page  1, paragraph 7,  "Measurement for Payment,"
   which was part of the lease.  Transcript at 59.  The leased space
   was accepted on March 8, 1991.  Id. at 58.
 
        22.  GSA, relying upon Section 22 of the lease, deducted the
   area of the T-shaped corridor from the net usable space for which
   GSA is  obligated to pay  an annual  square foot rate  of $12.75.
   Appeal File, Exhibit 2.
 
        23.  For several months thereafter, appellant made  repeated
   written requests to  the contracting officer that  the Government
   include the  T-shaped corridor  in the net  usable space  and pay
   rental on  the square footage  of the T-shaped corridor.   Appeal
   File,  Exhibits 5, 7.  By  letter dated May 15, 1991, appellant's
   agent   submitted  to  the  contracting  officer,  on  behalf  of
   appellant, an uncertified claim pursuant to the Contract Disputes
   Act requesting the  reversal of the prior decision  to deduct the
   T-shaped  corridor  from   the  net  usable  space   for  payment
   purposes.[foot #] 2 Id., Exhibit 9.
 
        24.  The lease  was amended by supplemental  lease agreement
   (SLA)  1  (undated)  which  established  March 1,  1991,  as  the
   acceptance date of  the lease space and provided  for the Govern-
   ment to pay appellant  annual rent of $396,601.50 at the  rate of
   $33,050.13 per month in arrears  for 31,106 usable square feet of
   space.  SLA 1 amended  the term of the lease to begin on March 1,
   1991,  through February 28, 2001,  and also contained  an express
   reservation by appellant  of its dispute over  the calculation of
   the net usable square footage.  Appeal File, Exhibit 15.
 
        25.  By  final decision dated June 26, 1991, the contracting
   officer denied  appellant's claim  and determined  that the  "'T'
   corridor was required to be 'in  place' by NFPA 101 and  Handbook
   PBS P 5900.2B and subsequently excluded when measurement was made
   for net  usable square  feet (NUSF)."   Appeal File,  Exhibit 11.
   Appellant refused to accept that  final decision as a valid final
   decision on the  dispute since it did not state the number of net
   usable square  feet of  space on which  the Government  would pay
   rental.  In response to  a request by appellant for clarification
   of the net usable square footage, a meeting was held on September
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 2   The  claim  value  of  the  square  footage  in
   dispute  accrued at  the rate  of $2,451.50  per month  ($12.75 x
   2,392 square  feet/12= $2,451.50/month).    When the  uncertified
   claim was  submitted to the  contracting officer on May  15, 1991
   (during   the  first  month  of  the  lease,  Supplemental  Lease
   Agreement (SLA) 1; Finding 24), the dollar value of the claim did
   not exceed $50,000.  The  value of the claim exceeded  $50,000 on
   November  21,  1992,   the  twenty-first  month  of   the  lease.
   Certification  was not  required when  the  claim amount  reached
   $50,000.  If a claim is genuinely under $50,000 when presented to
   the  contracting  officer  for  decision,  certification  is  not
   necessary if subsequent events, such as the mere passage of time,
   cause the claim to accrue and  exceed $50,000.  EMS, Inc.,  GSBCA
                                                   _________
   9588, et  al., 90-2 BCA    22,876,  citing Tecom, Inc.  v. United
                                              ______________________
   States, 732 F.2d 935 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 
   ______
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   16,  1991, between representatives of appellant and respondent to
   further discuss the matters in dispute.  Id., Exhibit 16.
 
 
        26.  As a result  of the meeting on September  16, 1991, and
   discussions between appellant and respondent, the parties entered
   into  SLA  3 dated  September 18,  1991, effective  September 16,
   1991, which further revised the  net usable square footage of the
   lease space by providing for 32,751  net usable square feet to be
   leased at an annual rental  of $417,575.25, payable in the amount
   of   $34,797.94  per   month  in   arrears.[foot #] 3     SLA   3
   also contained an express reservation by appellant of its dispute
   with GSA over the net  usable square footage calculation which is
   the subject of this appeal.  Appeal File, Exhibit 14.
 
        27.  After  the execution  of SLA  3, a  final decision  was
   issued  on October 8,  1991, which  referenced and  clarified the
   previous final decision dated June  26, 1991.  The final decision
   of October 8,  1991, determined the net usable square footage for
   payment  purposes to  be  32,751  as established  in  SLA 3,  and
   thereby  denied  appellant's  claim  that  the  area  within  the
   T-shaped corridor  should be included  in the  net usable  square
   footage calculation for payment purposes.  Appellant received the
   final decision on October 9, 1991.  Appeal File, Exhibit 16.
 
        28.  Appellant's  appeal   from  that  final   decision  was
   docketed by the Board on  January 7, 1992.  Appeal File,  Exhibit
   18.  Appellant filed this appeal action with the General Services
   Administration Board of Contract Appeals  seeking a determination
   from the Board  that under  the terms  of the lease,  GSA is  not
   authorized  to delete  the  square footage  area of  the T-shaped
   corridor (approximately  2,392 square  feet) from  the total  net
   usable space for which GSA must pay under the terms of the lease.
 
        29.  At the hearing  on this appeal, the  parties stipulated
   that the applicable gross  square foot area of the lease space is
   35,843 square feet;  that GSA is currently paying  for 32,751 net
   usable square  feet, exclusive  of the  square footage  contained
   within  a  T-shaped corridor  which is  located within  the lease
   space; that the area of the T-shaped corridor in question in this
   dispute is 2,392 square feet; and that the applicable square foot
   rental figure for the 2,392 square feet in question is $12.75 per
   square foot.  Transcript at 4-5.
 
        30.  Both appellant's  and respondent's  witnesses testified
   at the  hearing as to the relevance of local codes and ordinances
   to the T-shaped  corridor at issue.  Transcript  at 29-30, 34-53,
   55-58, 63-69, 79-84, 90-91, 95-123, 141-94.
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 3   The annual  rental rate  for net usable  square
   footage provided for in SLA 3 equates to an effective annual rate
   of $12.75  per net usable  square foot, which is  consistent with
   the rental rates provided for  in the original lease contract and
   SLA 1.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
                               Discussion
 
        Appellant's  claim is based on its interpretation of Section
   22 of the lease that the T-shaped  corridor which is the focus of
   this dispute  is neither a  "corridor in place" nor  "required by
   local  codes."   Under  appellant's interpretation,  the T-shaped
   corridor is to be included in the  net usable space for which GSA
   is to pay under the lease, and not excluded under the calculation
   required by Section 22 of the lease.
 
        Appellant argues  that a "corridor  in place" in  Section 22
   refers only  to a corridor  which presently exists in  the leased
   space and  which also existed before  the award of the  lease and
   the construction  of the  leased space.   Accordingly,  appellant
   believes  that whether the  corridor in question  pre-existed the
   lease is a pivotal issue.
 
        Appellant  also argues  that the  T-shaped  corridor is  not
   "required by local code,"  as the corridor was  constructed based
   upon  a design  choice of GSA  and the  VA, and GSA  retained the
   right to alter  its configuration of the corridor.   According to
   appellant,  this ability to alter the configuration presumes that
   the  corridor  was   not  originally  required  by   local  code.
   Appellant's Post-Hearing Brief at 21-22.
 
        The  Government's   interpretation  is  that   the  T-shaped
   corridor is a "corridor in place" as referenced in Section 22 and
   is  to be  excluded from  the  net usable  square  footage.   The
   Government contends that "corridor in place" in Section 22 refers
   to corridors in existence within the leased  space at the time of
   measurement   of  the  net  usable  square  footage  for  payment
   purposes, i.e., after  construction of the interior  build-out of
   the   leased  space.    Respondent's  Post-Hearing  Brief  at  8.
   According  to the Government's interpretation, whether or not the
   corridor  in  question  existed prior  to  the  build-out  of the
   Government's  space is irrelevant,  since measurement of  the net
   usable space occurs  upon delivery of the space,  i.e., after the
   space  is configured for the  use of the  VA.  Respondent further
   contends, based  upon testimony  of appellant's  contractor, that
   the inclusion of the T-shaped corridor was not a design choice of
   GSA  or  the VA,  but  was  included  in the  preliminary  design
   prepared     by     appellant's      contractor.          Finding
   15.[foot #] 4
 
        Respondent therefore  maintains that pursuant  to Section 22
   of the  lease, the  square footage of  the T-shaped  corridor was
   properly  deducted from  the gross  space  to arrive  at the  net
   usable square feet on which rent is paid, since the  corridor was
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 4   Whether appellant or  respondent originated the
   concept  of   the  T-shaped  corridor  has  no   bearing  on  the
   conclusions reached in this decision.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   a "corridor  in place" at  the time the parties  jointly measured
   the space  for the purpose  of determining the net  usable square
   feet.[foot #] 5
 
 
   1.   A "Corridor in Place" is  That Which Exists Upon Delivery of
 
        the Leased Space  and Need not Exist Before  the Delivery of
        the Leased Space
 
        In  interpreting a  contract, one  must give  effect to  the
   plain  meaning of terms whenever possible.  Hol-Gar Manufacturing
   Corp. v. United States, 169 Ct. Cl. 384, 351 F.2d 972 (1965).
     
        The language of the lease clearly and unambiguously supports
   the interpretation of respondent, i.e., that "corridors in place"
   refers to corridors which were in place at the time the space was
   measured for payment purposes, after construction of the space to
   be leased, regardless of whether they existed prior to that time.
    
        Section 22 of the lease established  the method of measuring
   the net usable space, which is defined therein as the "AREA [for]
   WHICH GSA WILL PAY A  SQUARE FOOT RATE."  First the gross area is
   to be  computed, and then deductions  are to be  made for various
   structures,  including "corridors in  place or required  by local
   codes and ordinances."  Finding 3.
 
        The  contract must  be  read  as a  whole  and all  writings
   forming part of the contract must be interpreted together.  Third
   and Pierce, Inc., GSBCA 3234, 74-1 BCA   10,452.  
 
         Section   22  of  the  lease  therefore  must  be  read  in
   conjunction with  the "Measurement for  Payment" clause contained
   in  GSA Form  3517, General  Clauses,  which is  included in  the
   lease.  This clause clearly  states the time when the  space will
   be measured  for payment  purposes - "When  space is  offered and
   accepted,  the space  will be  mutually  measured upon  delivery.
   Payment will be made on the basis of actual measurement .  . . ."
   Finding  4.   Since  the  space is  to  be  measured for  payment
   purposes only upon delivery of  the space, according to the plain
   meaning of the  lease language, and reading the lease as a whole,
   a "corridor in place"  is one which exists at the  time the space
   is  measured.   There  is  no  implication in  the  lease  that a
   corridor in place is one which must have existed before the space
   was delivered for use.
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 5   While the contracting  officer's final decision
   speaks in  terms of the  corridor being required by  certain code
   provisions  to be  in place,  and  testimony was  offered at  the
   hearing  regarding code requirement,  Finding 29, the Government,
   in its Post-Hearing Brief, appears to rely solely on the argument
   that the corridor  is "in  place" during  the life  of the  lease
   term. 
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
        Accordingly,  GSA properly deducted the area of the T-shaped
   corridor from the gross  area to arrive at  the net usable  space
   for payment purposes.
 
   2.   Respondent's Interpretation of "Corridors  in Place" and "or
        Required by Local Codes and Ordinances" is not Redundant and
        is Consistent With the Changes Clause of the Lease 
 
        According  to appellant,  respondent's interpretation  would
   render meaningless the  remaining language "or required  by local
   codes  and  ordinances" contained  in  Section 22  of  the lease.
   Appellant's Post-Hearing Brief at 10.  This is not the case. 
 
        Appellant contends that  if any corridor which exists in the
   leased space when the net usable square footage  is measured is a
   "corridor in  place" and its area is to  be deducted from the net
   usable  square footage,  there  would  be  no need  to  determine
   whether any of the corridors  existing at the time of measurement
   were required  by local  codes or ordinances.   Thus,  it appears
   that appellant is arguing that the terms "corridors in place" and
   "required by local codes and ordinances" would be redundant under
   respondent's interpretation.
 
        When reading a contract  as a whole, the  contract is to  be
   construed  to  give  effect  to  all of  its  clauses.    Hol-Gar
   Manufacturing Corp., 169 Ct. Cl.  384, 351 F.2d 972.  Parties  to
   Government contracts  "have long been  on notice that  in reading
   contract documents they should seek  to find concord, rather than
   discord,  if  they properly  can."   Unicon  Management  Corp. v.
   United States, 179 Ct. Cl. 534, 538, 375 F.2d 804, 806 (1967).
 
        We  do not  find  the  terms "corridors  in  place" and  "or
   required  by  local codes  and  ordinances"  to be  redundant  in
   respondent's interpretation.   Appellant  is  correct that  under
   respondent's interpretation, there is no need to determine at the
   time  the space  is measured  whether corridors are  "required by
   local  code  or  ordinances,"  since  if  they  exist,  they  are
   "corridors in  place" even though  they may be required  by local
   code or ordinance.  However, this does not render meaningless the
   phrase "or required by local codes and ordinances." 
 
        Section 22 of the lease must also be construed together with
   the  Changes clause.   Finding  5.   This clause  recognizes that
   events occurring  after the  date  of occupancy  may increase  or
   decrease the  amount of leased  space or the facilities  or space
   layout. The  phrase "or required  by local codes  and ordinances"
   would apply to instances where corridors were not in place at the
   time of  the original measurement,  but were added  thereafter, a
   circumstance  well within the  realm of possibility.   The future
   inclusion of corridors  might be the result of  either changes in
   local  codes which required  additional corridors, or  changes in
   the configuration  of  the space  requested by  the tenant  after
   occupancy which required additional corridors by existing code. 
 
        Thus, the terms "corridors in  place" and "required by local
   code or ordinances," when read together  with the Changes clause,
   may   be   reasonably   construed   according   to   respondent's
   interpretation, and are not redundant as suggested by appellant.
 
 
   3.   Appellant's  Interpretation  of   "Corridors  in  Place"  in
        Section 22 of the Lease is Unreasonable
 
        Appellant argues that the plain meaning of "in place" refers
   to corridors that presently exist in the space leased to GSA  and
   which  were formerly  existing prior to  award of the  lease.  As
   stated above,  the clear  and unambiguous language  of the  lease
   does not support this interpretation.  
 
        Appellant   has   offered   no   rational   basis  for   its
   interpretation. Appellant  attempts to  support this  argument by
   reference to testimony of the contracting officer at the hearing,
   alleging the contracting  officer stated "that the  provisions of
   Sec. 22 in the  SFO are silent with regard to  when the corridors
   have  to be  in  place for  purposes of  exclusions from  the net
   usable  square footage."   Appellant's  Post-Hearing  Brief at  9
   (referencing Transcript at  127-28).  A  review of the  testimony
   shows  that the  contracting officer  testified that  it was  her
   opinion that "corridors in place"  meant actually in place at the
   site, and she disputed appellant's interpretation that it applies
   to only corridors which  were existing prior to lease  execution.
   Finding 17.
 
        Additionally, appellant argues that the interpretation urged
   by the Government is erroneous and contrary to the interpretation
   given to the  "exact same language in previous  decisions of this
   Board."  Appellant's Post-Hearing Brief at 8-9.  Appellant relies
   on this  Board's  previous decision  in Third  and Pierce,  Inc.,
   74-1 BCA    10,452.   Appellant's  reliance on  this decision  is
   misplaced, as  the rationale of  Third and Pierce,  Inc. supports
   respondent's position in this appeal.  In Third and Pierce, Inc.,
   we reviewed and  interpreted a similar lease  provision regarding
   deductions  from the gross area of a lease space to calculate net
   usable square footage.  The  primary issue of dispute was whether
   main corridors  connecting stairways  in  a multi-story  building
   leased to the Government were considered inside the gross area of
   a lease.  
 
        Third and  Pierce, Inc. involved the construction of a lease
   provision which  was similar to  Section 22 of  Davister's lease.
   The pertinent clause in that appeal read, in part, as follows:
 
        10.   DEFINITION  OF NET  USABLE  SPACE.   'Net  usable
        space'  is a  term meaning  the area  to be  leased for
        occupancy by Federal personnel and/or equipment.
 
             It is determined by:
 
             a.  Computing  the inside gross area  of the space
        by  measuring from the normal inside finish of exterior
        walls, or  the room side  finish of fixed  corridor and
        shaft  walls,  or  the  center  of  tenant   separating
        partitions.
 
             . . . . 
 
             c.  Deducting  from the gross area  the following,
        including enclosing walls when applicable:
 
             . . . .
 
             (8)  Corridors in place (emphasis added).
 
   74-1 BCA at 49,419-20.
 
        In  Third  and  Pierce, Inc.,  the  definition  of  the term
   "corridors in place" was not at  issue.  The dispute involved the
   definition  of "fixed corridor."  However, the reasoning employed
   by  the Board  in that  decision is  beneficial in  resolving the
   instant  appeal.  Appellant,  in the instant  appeal, argues that
   the  Board, in  Third and  Pierce, Inc.,  determined  the correct
   interpretation of the  clause to mean that  "fixed corridors were
   excluded from  the inside gross  area only on those  floors where
   the  corridors were laid  out in the  same place  as they existed
   formerly  for the purpose  of linking the  stairwells, elevators,
   and mechanical rooms."  Appellant's Post-Hearing Brief at 9.  
 
        Appellant  further argues, apparently  by analogy,  "[i]t is
   interesting  to note  that in  Third and  Pierce, Inc.,  that the
   Board was affirming the government's interpretation of 'corridors
   in place' as  meaning those 'laid out  in the same place  as they
   existed formerly'  and in this  case, the government has  taken a
   diametrically  opposite  position   with  respect  to  the   same
   language." Appellant's Post-Hearing  Brief at 9, n.5.   Appellant
   uses  the  terms   "fixed  corridor"  and  "corridor   in  place"
   interchangeably in its argument.
 
        The Board, in Third and  Pierce, Inc., held that where there
   was a fixed corridor which existed before the lease commenced and
   the corridor was left in its existing state or reconstructed (and
   not  demolished) in  the space  to  be leased,  the corridor  was
   properly excluded  from net usable  space.  Also, the  Board held
   that if fixed corridors  existed before the lease commenced,  but
   were demolished  and not reconstructed  in the leased  space, the
   area formerly occupied  by the fixed corridor was  to be included
   in the net usable space. 
 
        In  Third  and Pierce,  Inc.,  the  area  where  a  corridor
   previously  existed in  the  leased space,  and  remained in  the
   reconfigured space, was excluded from net usable space.  The area
   where  a  corridor  previously existed,  but  was  demolished and
   thereafter did  not exist in the reconfigured space, was included
   in net  usable space.  The  deciding factor in  Third and Pierce,
   Inc. was whether  a corridor  existed at the  time the space  was
   delivered for use  by the tenant, not whether  a corridor existed
   before the tenant space was built or reconfigured.  
 
 
        The Board did not  deal with a situation such  as alleged by
   appellant in the  instant appeal, i.e., where a  corridor did not
   previously  exist before the lease and was thereafter constructed
   in the lease  space.  Under  the rationale  in Third and  Pierce,
   Inc., focusing on  the configuration which exists  when the space
   is delivered for occupancy, it  appears that the Board would have
   excluded   the  area  from  net  usable  space,  consistent  with
   respondent's interpretation in the instant appeal. 
 
        Contrary  to the assertions  of appellant, the  reasoning of
   the    Third and  Pierce,  Inc.  decision  does not  support  its
   interpretation of section  22 of the lease.   Rather, it supports
   respondent's  interpretation, even though  it does not  deal with
   "corridors in place."  
 
        Appellant offers no viable rationale for its interpretation.
   There is no dispute that the pre-existing tenant configuration in
   the space  to be occupied by  the VA was  demolished before being
   rebuilt by appellant.  Findings 9-12.  Whether a corridor existed
   previously, or  did not exist  previously, has no bearing  on the
   calculation  of net  usable space under  the lease.   Appellant's
   interpretation  is unreasonable, is contrary to the plain meaning
   of the contract, and fails to construe Section 22 in harmony with
   the Measurement for Payment clause and Changes clause.
 
 
                                Decision
 
        For the foregoing reasons, appellant's appeal is DENIED.
 
                                      ______________________
                                      ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                      Board Judge
 
   We concur:
 
 
 
   ______________________             ______________________
   DONALD W. DEVINE                   EDWIN B. NEILL
   Board Judge                        Board Judge