______________________________________________
 
                      DENIED  :  September 8, 1994                  
                _____________________________________________
 
 
                                  GSBCA 11783
 
                           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, Office of General Counsel, General
   Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), BORWICK, and NEILL.
 
   BORWICK, Board Judge.
 
                                  Background
 
        This  appeal involves  a  contract  for  the  renovation  of
   certain floors  of the United States Courthouse  and Post Office,
   in  Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania,  a thirteen-story  building.   The
   contractor  and appellant  is  P. J.  Dick,  Incorporated (P.  J.
   Dick).   The respondent  is the  General Services  Administration
   (GSA).    The  renovation included  installation  of  an interior
   sprinkler system, to suppress fires.  The sprinkler system was to
   be tied into  the City of Pittsburgh water main  at Grant Street,
   which bordered the  building.  Grant Street is  paved with brick,
   and has granite curbs as well as Venetian terrazzo pavement.  The
   city, however,  refused  to allow  P.  J. Dick  to  tie into  the
   sprinkler  system at  Grant  Street.   Rather,  the city  granted
   permission for the tie-in at Seventh Avenue, which was around the
   corner.  The city's actions caused GSA  to issue RFPs 23 and 23A,
   which deleted the tie-in on Grant Street and  added the tie-in on
   Seventh Avenue.
 
        The parties  dispute the  quantum for both  the cost  of the
   deductive change in eliminating the  work on Grant Street and the
   added cost of the work on Seventh Avenue.  GSA's estimate for the
   deductive change is more reliable  than P. J. Dick's estimate for
   that change.   For the cost of performing the Seventh Avenue tie-
   in, P. J. Dick  has not proven its quantum with  the actual costs
   of the work.  P. J.  Dick did not demonstrate that its  estimates
   were  more  reliable  than  GSA's  for  the  cost  of  the  work.
   Consequently, we deny the appeal.  
 
 
                               Findings of Fact
 
 
   Contract work deleted and added
    
        1. Grant  Street is  constructed with 20  X 10  foot traffic
   slabs, nine inches thick,  topped with a 3/4 inch asphalt bed and
   3 inches of brick pavers.  Appeal File, GSBCA 11783, Exhibit 334.
   P.  J. Dick originally contemplated connecting the fire sprinkler
   system of the building to city water on the Grant Street  side of
   the building.  Transcript, Vol. 1 at 991.  
 
        2. To make the connection on the Grant Street side, the City
   of  Pittsburgh  would  have required  a  ten-step  process:   (1)
   removal and replacement of two slabs of rustic  Venetian terrazzo
   pavement; (2)  removal and  replacement of 32  linear feet  of 12
   inch X  12 inch  X 3  inch granite  blocks on  concrete pad;  (3)
   removal and  replacement of 32  linear feet of granite  curb; (4)
   removal and  replacement of 30 x 12 foot  x .75 inch brick pavers
   with 3/4 inch mastic setting  bed; (5) removal and replacement of
   30  x  12 foot  x  .75 inch  brick  pavement;  (6) protection  of
   existing 6 inch diameter pavement  under drain; (7) protection of
   existing  4 inch  diameter  plastic  conduit  containing  1  inch
   diameter plastic irrigation system line; (8) protection of 3 inch
   diameter   plastic   conduit   containing   traffic   interchange
   connection;  (9)  protection  of a  1-1/4  inch  diameter plastic
   conduit containing  3 number six  cables; and (10)  protection of
   high voltage oil-filled ductile orange pipe.  Appeal  File, GSBCA
   11783, Exhibit 337; Transcript, Vol. 1 at 676-77.  At the hearing
   on the  merits, a City  of Pittsburgh official testified  that if
   the City had  allowed P. J. Dick  to open Grant Street,  it would
   have  required  P. J.  Dick to  replace  fully the  30 x  12 foot
   concrete  slabs supporting the brick pavers.   Transcript, Vol. 1
   at 677.      
 
        3.  In  its original  bid, Sherry  & O'Leary,  P. J.  Dick's
   mechanical subcontractor, estimated the cost of the demolition of
   Grant Street at  $44,168, taking into account the  removal of the
   brick and  terrazzo pavement on the street.  Respondent's Hearing
   Exhibit  21; Transcript,  Vol.2  1  at 1205.    Sherry &  O'Leary
   reduced that estimate  by $25,000 during last  minute bargaining,
   after P. J. Dick's vice president told Sherry  & O'Leary that its
   base  bid  of  about  $946,000  for all  of  Sherry  &  O'Leary's
   contemplated subcontract work was "not going to get you the job."
   Transcript, Vol. 1 at 637.  The reduction by $25,000 was based on
   the premise  that "ninety percent  of the street openings  in the
   Pittsburgh area [could] be done from between $15,000 to $20,000."
    Id. 
 
        4.   The  City of Pittsburgh, however, refused to  let P. J.
   Dick  open Grant Street.   Appellant's Supplemental  Appeal File,
   GSBCA  11783, Exhibits 4,  5; Transcript, Vol. 1  at 639-40.  The
   city  was  willing   to  allow  the  tie-in  at  Seventh  Avenue.
   Appellant's  Supplemental Appeal  File, GSBCA 11783,  Exhibit 17.
   GSA was informed of this on March 7, 1989.  Id.   
 
   RFPs 23 and 23A
 
        5.    Consequently, GSA issued RFP 23,  which called for (1)
   relocation  of the  fire  sprinkler tie-in  from Grant  Street to
   Seventh Avenue; (2)  the redesign of the layout  of the sprinkler
   system;  and (3)  relocation of  the pump  room in  the basement.
   Appellant's Supplemental  Appeal File,  GSBCA 11783, Exhibit  42.
   On  September  11,  1989,  GSA issued  RFP  23A,  which contained
   further re-design of  the sprinkler system.    Appeal File, GSBCA
   11676, Exhibit 26.   On September 29,  GSA issued a  directive to
   proceed with items one through  six (including the Seventh Avenue
   tie-in) at a price to be determined  later not to exceed $33,000.
   Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 11783, Exhibit 56.   
 
 
   Parties' cost estimates for the changes
 
        6.    In October of 1991, GSA's  resident engineer estimated
   the  cost  of  making  the  Grant  Street  tie-in.    Appellant's
   Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 11783, Exhibit 110.  The resident
   engineer  estimated a  total   of  $12,044.98 for  the labor  and
   material cost to
   perform the ten  steps.  He  then used  Sherry & O'Leary's  total
   estimate  of  $18,236.40  for peripheral  surface  work  (such as
   removal   of  street  plates  and  lights,  excavation  and  core
   drilling, material  and sales  taxes for the  work) to  arrive at
   $30,281.84.  Bond  cost, overhead and profit resulted  in a total
   estimate  of $37,172.32  to perform  the work.   Id.; Transcript,
   Vol. 1 at 998-1000.  He then added a City of  Pittsburgh business
   privilege  tax   and  P.  J.  Dick's  commission and  arrived  at
   $42,044.75.   He estimated  that it would  cost Sherry  & O'Leary
   $24,552.58 to open  up Seventh Avenue to perform  the tie-in; the
   estimate was  based on Sherry &  O'Leary's backups to one  of its
   early  estimates.   Appellant's  Supplemental Appeal  File, GSBCA
   11783, Exhibit 110;  Transcript, Vol. 1, at 1004.   Therefore, he
   determined that  the Government was owed a  credit of $17,492.17.
   Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 11783, Exhibit 110.  
 
 
        7.   Sherry & O'Leary estimated that it would cost $3,562.36
   to change  the tie-in from Grant Street  to Seventh Avenue and to
   perform  the changed  tie-in as  stated in RFP  23.   This figure
   included an estimate of $28,182.58  to open up Seventh Avenue and
   a credit to the Government of  $24,620.22 for the deletion of the
   Grant Street tie-in.  Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA
   11783, Exhibit 63.  The  labor and material costs associated with
   the tie-in to  Grant Street merely referenced  saw cutting street
   and sidewalks, and removal  of plates and lights.   There was  no
   mention  of removing  brick, terrazzo,  and underlying  concrete.
   Appellant's  Hearing  Exhibit  29.   Consequently,  we  find that
   figure for  deletion of the  Grant Street tie-in was  premised on
   labor and  material costs for  a standard macadam street  and did
   not take into account the  special construction of Grant  Street.
   Id.  
 
 
        8.   After the issuance of RFP 23A, Sherry & O'Leary revised
   its estimate to  $15,832.53 for the total of  the cost to perform
   the tie-in at Seventh Avenue  minus the cost of the  deduction of
   the work  at Grant  Street.   RFP 23A  specified changes in  pipe
   runs, which  Sherry &  O'Leary estimated  would cost  $12,270.17.
   The estimate of the cost of the redesigned portions, added to the
   $3,562.36  estimated   for   performing  RFP   23,  amounted   to
   $15,832.53.  Appellant's  Hearing Exhibit 33; Transcript,  Vol. 1
   at 659-662.  The estimates were  not based on the actual cost  of
   the work performed.  Transcript, Vol. 1 at 666.            
 
        9.    On January  18, 1992, P.  J. Dick submitted  a revised
   quotation and claim for $253,364  for the costs of performing RFP
   23A.  Notice of Appeal,  Exhibit A.  The contracting  officer did
   not render a decision within sixty days, and did not advise P. J.
   Dick  when  a  decision  would  be  issued.    See  41  U.S.C.   
   605(c)(2),(3) (1988).   An appeal was thus filed  from the deemed
   denial.  See id.   605(c)(5). 
         
                                  Discussion 
 
        RFPs  23 and 23A deducted the sprinkler system's tie-in work
   at  Grant Street  and  added a  tie-in at  Seventh Avenue.   This
   appeal  involves  two  quantum  issues: (1)  the  amount  of  the
   deduction of contract price for  the elimination of the tie-in on
   Grant Street and; (2) the amount of the credit due P. J. Dick for
   the work performed on Seventh Avenue.  
 
   The deductive change
 
        The  Government "has  the burden  of proving  how much  of a
   downward equitable adjustment  in price should be made on account
   of the deletion of the [original contract work]."  Nager Electric
   Co.  v. United States,  194 Ct. Cl.  835, 853, 442  F.2d 936, 946
   (1971);  Singleton  Contracting  Corp., GSBCA  8546,  90-2  BCA  
   22,879, at  114,910.   The proper measure  of a  deductive change
   order is the reasonable cost to the appellant if it had performed
   the deleted  work.  G &  M Electric Contractors Co.,  GSBCA 4711,
   78-2 BCA   13,452, at 65,733 (citations omitted).  See generally,
   Dawson  Construction Co.,  VABCA 3558,  94-1 BCA    26,362.   The
   Government's  estimate  of  $37,172.32 is  based  on  an accurate
   assessment of  the   work necessary to  open up Grant  Street, as
   described by an official of the  City of Pittsburgh.  Findings 2,
   6.  
 
        P. J. Dick's claimed credit  of $24,620.22, in contrast, was
   based on  the work necessary  to open a standard  macadam street.
   Findings 3,  7.   The trouble  with that  approach is  that Grant
   Street was not  a standard macadam street; it  was constructed of
   paved brick, with  a granite curb,  and Venetian terrazzo,  i.e.,
   constructed with special  architectural details.  Findings  1, 2.
   The opening of Grant Street  would have required extensive  work.
   Finding 2.  
 
        P.  J. Dick also argues in  its brief that published City of
   Pittsburgh  guidelines  for  opening  a  brick-paved  street only
   require  a trench  of  the  necessary width  to  be dug,  with  a
   contractor only required to  go back one foot  on either side  of
   the  trench.   P.  J.  Dick's  Brief  at  5-6.   The  suggestion,
   therefore,  is  that  the  work  would not  be  as  extensive  as
   predicted by  GSA.   P.  J. Dick's  suggestion is  belied by  the
   testimony of  the City  of Pittsburgh's  official, who  testified
   credibly as to the extent of  the work to be done, including  the
   requirement for complete replacement of the pavers underlying the
   brick.  Finding 2.  
 
   The cost of the tie-in at Seventh Avenue
 
         P.  J.  Dick  has  the  burden of  proving  the  amount  of
   equitable adjustment due under the Changes clause  for the tie-in
   at Seventh Avenue.  Nager Electric, 194  Ct. Cl. at 853, 442 F.2d
   at  946  (1971).   Recently,  our  appellate  authority  showed a
   preference for "reasonable  computation [of damages] from  actual
   figures," Dawco  Construction, Inc.  v. United  States, 930  F.2d
   872, 880 (Fed. Cir. 1991), and held:
 
        The issuance of a change order request should signal to the 
      prudent contractor that it must maintain records detailing any
       additional work, just as should the encountering of differing
       site conditions.   The Claims Court  has not identified,  nor
   has        Dawco  presented us with,  any justification why  such
   precision,       or something  sufficiently close, could not have
   been
        accomplished as to Dawco's other costs, including any
        additional overhead.  Therefore, Dawco's inability to
        substantiate the existence, to any degree of certainty, of  
     costs beyond those incurred by [a subcontractor], precludes    
   resort to the "jury verdict method."  
 
        . . . .
 
        Clearly, the "actual cost method" is preferred because it   
    provides the court, or contracting officer, with documented     
   underlying expenses, ensuring  that the final amount  of the     
   equitable adjustment will be just that-- equitable--and not a    
   windfall for either the government or the contractor.
 
   Id. at 881-82.    
 
        In reaction to Dawco, one  board of contract appeals refused
   to  allow a  contractor to  prove the  cost of  a  change through
   estimates, without a satisfactory explanation of its inability to
   produce actual cost records:
 
        The only reason given by appellant for failing to produce   
    evidence of its actual costs was that when the work was being   
    performed, [appellant's employee] did not concern herself with  
     the cost of the change as she was then concerned with making   
    sure the  work was performed  correctly.   Tr. 284.   While     
   [appellant's employee] was  properly concerned with contract     
   performance, that  does not excuse appellant  from producing     
   evidence of the actual costs of the changed work.  The types of  
     costs being claimed are not based upon any complicated account-
      ing  data.   They  could  have  been proved  by  subcontractor
   payroll           records,  transportation  tickets  and  lodging
   receipts, daily       reports of contract activity and other such
   evidence.       Consequently, appellant's excuse is  not the type
   of
        "justifiable inability" to produce evidence of actual costs 
      that would warrant the use of the jury verdict approach.  
 
   Production Corp., DOT BCA 2424, 92-2 BCA   24,796, at 123,695.  
 
        P. J.  Dick used estimates,  not actual costs, to  prove the
   cost of the  tie-in on Seventh Avenue.   Finding 8.  Here,  P. J.
   Dick argues that Sherry & O'Leary's claim relating to the work at
   Seventh  Street was  part of  a larger claim,  and that  absent a
   change order accounting clause such as FAR 52.243-6, there was no
   obligation  for  P. J.  Dick  or  Sherry  & O'Leary  to  maintain
   separate  accounts for  each change  order  or series  of related
   changes.   P. J.  Dick's Reply  Brief at  5.   Award of  quantum,
   however, does  not turn  on the  obligation to  maintain separate
   accounts;  it  turns  on  the   method  of  acceptable  proof.   
   Regardless of how a contractor maintains accounts, P. J. Dick was
   obligated to prove its (and its subcontractor's) actual costs, or
   explain the justifiable  inability to substantiate the  amount of
   injury  with  specific  and  direct  proof.    If  it  is to  use
   estimates, it must  explain the reasonableness of  the estimates.
   Production Corp.   P. J. Dick has  done none of these  things and
   has not met its burden of proof.  Neither has appellant persuaded
   us   that  the  Government's   own  estimates,  Finding   6,  are
   unreasonable.  Those calculations, therefore, remain.     
 
                                   Decision
 
        The appeal is DENIED.
 
 
                                      ________________________      
                                ANTHONY S. BORWICK                  
   Board Judge
   We concur:
 
 
   ____________________               ____________________
   STEPHEN M. DANIELS                 EDWIN B. NEILL
   Board Judge                        Board Judge