ny
 
 
   _________________________________________________________________
 
 
                    GRANTED IN PART: August 27, 1996
   _________________________________________________________________
 
 
                              GSBCA 12915
 
 
                 HERMAN B. TAYLOR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
 
                                           Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                           Respondent.
 
        Christina  Stone  of  Ogden,  Lieberman,  Gaughan  &  Stone,
   Houston, TX, counsel for Appellant.
 
        Kevin M. Myles, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services
   Administration, Fort Worth, TX, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges BORWICK, NEILL, and HYATT.
 
   BORWICK, Board Judge.
 
        Appellant,  Herman B.  Taylor  Construction Company  (Taylor
   Construction),  appeals  from a  decision  of respondent  General
   Services Administration's (GSA's) contracting  officer denying in
   substantial part  Taylor Construction's claim  for the cost  of a
   change  order  involving  a renovation  contract  for  the United
   States Post Office and Courthouse Building at Galveston, Texas.  
 
        Part of the contract required Taylor Construction to provide
   a generator building, including preparation of the excavation and
   building the foundation  for the building.   While excavating the
   generator building site in the late fall of 1992, Taylor Construc
   tion found embedded in the ground a foundation, having  potential
   archeological value, of  a late nineteenth century  customs house
   designed by a prominent American  architect.  In late December of
   1992, GSA stopped work on the generator building until mid-April,
   then issued a  change order  intended to  protect the foundation.
   The delays in access to the site, and the delays  associated with
   processing the change order increased Taylor Construction's costs
   because  the company  then had  to  excavate the  site after  wet
   weather.
 
        The contracting  officer denied Taylor  Construction's claim
   of $118,545.93  for the  change and associated  delays.   For the
   reasons below,  we grant  the appeal  in part.   We  award Taylor
   Construction  $62,046.57, and interest as allowed by the Contract
   Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C.    601-613 (1994).  
 
                            Findings of Fact
 
   Original contract provisions
                  1.   In June of 1992, Taylor Construction received
   a  contract from  GSA for  renovation of  the United  States Post
   Office and Courthouse  Building at Galveston, Texas.   Transcript
   at  43; Appeal  File, Exhibit  79.   The  contract involved  four
   elements: (1) replacement  and upgrade of major  building support
   systems, (2)  identification and  partial abatement of  asbestos-
   containing materials in mechanical and electrical rooms, plumbing
   pipes  and ceiling  plenums, (3) upgrade  and enhancement  of the
   existing fire safety system, and (4) miscellaneous  architectural
   improvements and alterations.  Appeal  File, Exhibit 1 at 01010-2
   to -3 (  1.2D.).  Included in the fourth element was the require-
   ment for construction of a new generator building.  Id. at 01040-
   10.
 
        2.  The  contract contained the standard  form Suspension of
   Work clause, FAR 52.212-12 (Apr.  1984).1  Appeal File, Exhibit 1
   at  40 (Clause 96,  GSA Form 3506).   The  contract contained the
   standard form Changes  clause, FAR 52.243-4 (Aug. 1987).   Id. at
   30 (Clause  80, GSA  Form 3506).     The  contract contained  the
   standard form GSA Supplement to the Equitable Adjustments clause,
   GSAR 552.243-71  (2)  (Apr.  1984).   That  clause  provided  for
   commission at a negotiated rate, not to  exceed ten percent, to a
   contractor for work  performed by other than his  own forces, and
   for a negotiated overhead rate and profit each not to exceed  ten
   percent, to  the contractor  and/or subcontractor  for work  per-
   formed by their own respective forces.  Id. at 31 (Clause 81, GSA
   Form 3506).  
    
   Initial  delay; conditions leading  to stop-work order  and stop-
   work order
 
        3.   Taylor  Construction was  to  begin performance  within
   thirty  calendar days  of receipt  of the  notice to  proceed and
   complete the contract within 696  calendar days after receipt  of
   the notice.    Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 1  (Standard Form 1442).
   The notice  to proceed  was issued  on September 3,  1992.   Id.,
                       
   ____________________
 
         That clause provides in pertinent part: "If the performance
   of all or any part of the work is, for  an unreasonable period of
   time  suspended, delayed  or interrupted  (1)  by an  act of  the
   Contracting    Officer   in    the    administration   of    this
   contract . . . an  adjustment shall be  made for any  increase in
   the  cost  of  performance of  this  contract  (excluding profit)
   necessarily caused by the unreasonable suspension. . . ."
   Exhibit 2.   Taylor  Construction had  originally scheduled  con-
   struction of  the generator building  to begin on March  2, 1993.
   Respondent's  Exhibit 56A.   Taylor Construction sought,  and was
   granted,  from GSA  an  early  start  date--October  23--for  the
   generator  building.    Appellant's   Supplemental  Appeal  File,
   Exhibit 2.  GSA failed to  remove a dumpster, which stood on  the
   generator building site.    Taylor Construction itself moved  the
   dumpster on November 16.  Id.   GSA has not explained its failure
   to remove  the dumpster so  that Taylor Construction  could start
   excavation of the generator building site by October 23.   
 
 
        4.  Taylor Construction started work on excavating  the site
   for the generator  building on November 23.   Appellant's Exhibit
   17.    Taylor Construction  managed  to excavate  about  half the
   trench for the foundation.  Transcript at 557-58.  During excava-
   tion, the contractor  came across an old  underground foundation,
   thought to have archeological significance, which obstructed part
   of the foundation site  for the generator building.   Appellant's
   Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibits 12, 15.  
 
        5.  On December 22,  1992, GSA issued to Taylor Construction
   a stop-work  order  for the  generator  building portion  of  the
   contract,  to enable GSA to  (1) evaluate the archeological value
   of  the  old foundation,  and  (2)  decide  how to  preserve  it.
   Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibits 12, 15.   After it
   imposed the  suspension, GSA repeatedly assured  Taylor Construc-
   tion that work  would begin shortly.   Transcript at 1083.   GSA,
   however, did not  lift the stop-work order until  April 13, 1993,
   three months and three weeks  after the stop-work order was first
   issued, and after the National Park Service had examined the site
   for GSA.  Appeal File, Exhibit 26. 
 
   Other activities during suspension period
 
        6.    During  the  suspension  period,  Taylor  Construction
   planned for  demolition of interior spaces of the courthouse, and
   started on the demolition and asbestos abatement of those spaces.
   Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File,  Exhibits 8, 24.   Later in
   the  suspension  period,  Taylor  Construction  complained  about
   alleged  differing  site  conditions hindering  electrical  work,
   ceiling work, and  placement of air-handling units.  Id., Exhibit
   39. 
 
   Condition of the site during suspension period
 
        7.  During the suspension  period, rain filled the partially
   completed excavation with sand and water.  Appellant's Supplemen-
   tal Appeal File,  Exhibit 15.  The construction  manager noted in
   an inspection report of January  7, 1993 that "rain [was] filling
   excavation with  water and  eroded fill  (sand)."   Id.   In  the
   opinion  of the GSA  construction manager,  Taylor Construction's
   first excavation was "a complete loss."  Transcript at 570. 
   The change order
 
 
        8.  The National Park Service (NPS) investigated the excava-
   tion and  concluded  that the  old foundation  was a  ruin of  an
   office and customs building constructed in 1888-1892 and designed
   by  the renowned  architect Nicholas  J. Clayton.   Appeal  File,
   Exhibit 23.   NPS recommended that GSA cover  the foundation with
   fabric and protect the foundation with an eight-inch thick  layer
   of sterile  sand, after  which the project  could proceed.   Id.;
   Transcript at  561-62.   GSA, therefore,  issued change  estimate
   fourteen, which called for the following additional work:
 
        1.   Provide  geotechnical  services  from Southwestern
        Laboratories  to  review foundation  bearing  surfaces,
        inspect foundation installation and foundation installa
        tion methods (including  construction de-watering meth-
        ods where required by geotechnical engineer.)
 
        2.   Provide  additional  excavation to  remove  eroded
        material filling open  foundation hole because  of rain
        water.
 
        3.   Provide additional excavation  to remove materials
        for  spread footing bearing surface as directed by geo-
        technical engineer. 
 
        4.   Provide  additional  excavation to  modify  spread
        footing foundation as shown on  Walter P. Moore & Asso-
        ciates Inc. sketches #1 through #6, 3-1-93.
 
        5.   Provide  work to  cover  all  exposed surfaces  of
        obstacles  (2) with filter  fabric.  Use  filter fabric
        "Miraff #140N" or  Amoco "filter fabric 34598"  or "45-
        99."
 
   Appeal File, Exhibit 25.  
 
        9.   The  new generator  building shape  is a  rectangle, of
   thirty-three feet, four inches by twenty-two feet.   Appeal File,
   Exhibit   1, Drawing  A02.  An  "L" shaped structure  of fourteen
   feet by  twenty-two  feet,  joins the  northwest  corner  of  the
   rectangle.  Id., Drawing S03.  The shape is as follows: 
 
       
   Id.  Sketches SK-1 and SK-3 attached to the change order directed
   that the  foundation bridge a  five-foot section of  old building
   foundation through  the time-tested  architectural device of  the
   arch.  Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 36, Sketches
   SK-1 and SK-3.   Per drawing, the foundation was  to be supported
   by a foundation spread footing two feet wide, except at the place
   it bridged the old-building foundation,  where it was to be three
   feet and six  inches wide.  Id., Sketch SK-1.  The footing was to
   be one foot deep, with the foundation wall itself to be  one foot
   and eight inches deep.  Id., Drawing SK-5.  The excavation itself
   was to be four feet deep.  Id., Drawing SK-1.  Before the change,
   the excavation was  to be at a  depth of three feet  nine inches,
   Transcript at 1191;  thus the  change called  for the  excavation
   three inches  deeper than specified by the base contract. Id.  at
   590.    
   Parties' pricing of the change
 
 
        10.  On  March 19, Taylor Construction priced  the change at
   $55,307.43--$3,600 for change item one, $7,294.82 for change item
   two, $7,294.82  for change item three, $35,817.11 for change item
   four and $1,300.68 for change  item five.  Appellant's Supplemen-
   tal Appeal File, Exhibit 38. 
    
        11.  On  April 12, GSA issued change  estimate fourteen, and
   unilaterally  adjusted the contract  price by  $24,604.04, $2,040
   for change  item one, $8,413.04  for change item two,  $1,954 for
   change  item three,  $11,514 for  change item  four and  $683 for
   change  item five.   Appeal File, Exhibit 25.   The GSA's pricing
   estimate,  prepared by the contracting officer's technical repre-
   sentative, was  based on  his experience in  how much  extra work
   needed  to be  done  beyond  what he  considered  base bid  work.
   Transcript at 581-82.  For example, he estimated  that excavation
   should take 120  hours and cost  $10 per  hour for "fine  excava-
   tion."  Id.  He allowed two weeks' rent of a backhoe by obtaining
   a quotation from a rental  company.  Id. at 583.   He allowed for
   no more than 403 pounds of additional steel.  Appellant's Supple-
   mental Appeal File, Exhibits 15, 18; Transcript at 583-85. 
    
        12.  On April 13, Taylor Construction challenged the unilat-
   eral pricing of the change.   Taylor Construction maintained that
   GSA underestimated  the amount  of work to  be performed  and the
   dollar amount of the change.  Taylor Construction argued that "no
   consideration ha[d] been  given to the ongoing wet weather condi-
   tions which continue to flood  into the footing" and that "little
   or no consideration [had] been  given to working conditions  [or]
   site conditions."  Appellant's Supplemental Appeal  File, Exhibit
   44.   In a flight of  passionate rhetoric worthy  of William Jen-
   nings Bryan,  Taylor Construction wrote: 
 
        The  GSA representative who  sits in a  dry, air-condi-
        tioned office  in Fort  Worth doesn't  feel the  muscle
        pain,  the perspiration, the  wet feet, the  fatigue as
        the man  in the ditch,  who attempts to please  the in-
        spector.  Nor does the GSA representative allow for the
        loss  of production due  to the above  described condi-
        tions.  
   Id.   Taylor Construction  also  told GSA  that  it had  hired  a
   subcontractor to  excavate the  generator building  site and  re-
   quested more details as to the changed work.  Id.
 
 
        13.  On April 21, unmoved by Taylor Construction's rhetoric,
   GSA  directed Taylor  Construction to  proceed  with the  changed
   work.   At  this point,  GSA did  not heed  Taylor Construction's
   request for particulars on the  scope of the change.  Appellant's
   Supplemental  Appeal  File,  Exhibit  47.    Taylor  Construction
   received  GSA's directive and repeated its request for additional
   information.   Id., Exhibit 48.  
 
        14.   GSA responded  to this request  on May  3.  As  to the
   first item, GSA told Taylor  Construction that the purpose of the
   geotechnical services was to  review foundation bearing  surfaces
   and to determine  the soil bearing capacity in  pounds per square
   foot. Appellant's Supplemental  Appeal File, Exhibit  51.  As  to
   the  second and  third items--the  scope  of the  excavation--GSA
   advised that it: 
    
        expected  the excavation to  be three feet  deeper than
        before.   The additional four cubic yards of excavation
        can be reused to backfill.   The added four cubic yards
        of  concrete [were] figured in to the unilateral price.
 
 
   Id. (emphasis added).   This last  advice was wrong, in  that GSA
   meant the excavation to be  three inches deeper rather than three
   feet deeper.   The contracting officer's technical representative
   had calculated that an additional excavation of three inches over
   the base contract  work would result in an  additional four cubic
   yards of excavated soil.   Appeal File, Exhibit 25; Transcript at
   723. 
 
   Taylor Construction's performance of the changed work 
 
        Subcontractor work
 
        15.  Taylor Construction retained Southwestern  Laboratories
   to find out  the soil's bearing load.   Appeal File,  Exhibit 18.
   Taylor Construction used  White's Construction &  Service Company
   (White's Construction) as  its excavation  subcontractor for  the
   generator  building.     Appellant's  Supplemental  Appeal  File,
   Exhibit  64; Transcript  at 1184.   Having started  work, White's
   Construction  was  suspicious  of the  direction  to  excavate an
   additional three  feet.  In  the words of  White's Construction's
   owner, Mr. Albert White: "I knew we were going to hit water.  And
   I knew the banks were going to cave in."  Transcript at 1186.  He
   also testified:  "I didn't believe it [the depth instruction].  I
   couldn't see why  there was a purpose  for going that deep.   But
   no, I didn't ask anybody are you sure this is right, are you sure
   this is wrong."  Id. at 1187.  
        16.  White's Construction excavated about twenty-two  linear
   feet of trench to the  wrong depth when the contracting officer's
   technical  representative  visited  the  site  and  told  White's
   Construction of GSA's error.  Transcript at 1187-88; Appeal File,
   Exhibit  39.  During White's Construction's excavation, the sides
   of  the trench continually  caved in.   The wet  condition of the
   soil caused that  problem, however, as much as  the extra excava-
   tion depth  did.   When White's  Construction excavated  an extra
   three inches as  contemplated by the change, the  trench caved in
   as well.   Transcript at 1190-91.  White's  Construction thus had
   to de-water the site.   Id. at 581. During the  excavation, there
   was not enough room to store the  fill on the site.  The fill had
   become mixed with  sand and clay.   White's Construction,  there-
   fore, hauled the dirt away.  Id. at 1193-94.         
 
 
        17.  White's  Construction dug the  excavation and poured  a
   concrete slab at the bottom  of the excavation.  Taylor Construc-
   tion formed the footings and concrete of the foundation.  White's
   Construction  then returned  and backfilled  the foundation  with
   select  fill from  the dirt  it had  hauled away.   Transcript at
   1193-94.   The  excavation portion  of the  job took  eleven days
   (including  two weekends)--from  May 7  through May  18.   Id. at
   1219-20.  
 
        18.   White's Construction  submitted to Taylor Construction
   detailed  invoices for  White's  Construction's excavation  work,
   which we summarize as follows:
 
           Date    Description      Labor Material    Totals
           in May,                               s
           1993
 
            7      Supervision       $150   $32.50
                   and
 
           10      Supervision    $424.96  $595.95
                   and
           11      Labor and      $659.92 $1,738.9
                   Materials                     0
 
           12      Labor and      $659.92 $1,288.9
                   Materials                     0
           13      Labor and      $659.92 $1,408.9
                   Materials                     0
           14      Labor and      $659.92 $1,408.9
                   Materials                     0
           17      Labor and      $641.06 $1,408.9
                   Materials                     0
 
           18      Moving out       $0.00  $972.20
                   Totals        $3,855.7 $8,855.1
                                        0        5
                   Labor burden  $1,889.2
                   @49% direct          9
 
                   Total Labor   $5,744.9
                                        9
                   Total Labor &                   $14,600.1
                   Material                                4
                   Overhead                        $1,460.01
                   @10%
 
                   Subtotal                        $16,060.1
                                                           5
                   Profit@10%                      $1,606.02
                   Total                           $17,666.1
                                                           7
 
   See  Appellant's Supplemental Appeal  File, Exhibit 64.   White's
   Construction's invoice included rent  on a "690 DLC  Backhoe" and
   the cost of moving an "850 Case Dozer" to the site.  Id.  
 
        19.   White's Construction also invoiced Taylor Construction
   for the fill-in work after Taylor Construction poured the founda-
   tion.  That  work amounted to $11,833.83.  The  total for White's
   Construction's  work on this  contract was $29,500.   Appellant's
   Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 64.
 
        Contractor work and expenses
 
        20.   Taylor Construction incurred charges of $7,710.79 from
   Shepler Equipment Company for concrete forms sitting idly between
   January 7 and May 18, when White's Construction  vacated the site
   and  Taylor  Construction  could start  pouring  the  foundation.
   Appellant's  Supplemental Appeal File,  Exhibit 64.   Taylor Con-
   struction paid  Shepler the  full amount  charged.   Id.   Taylor
   Construction,  during the suspension  period, had an  idle "586C"
   backhoe which it says it intended to use to  backfill the excava-
   tion after it  had poured the foundation.  Transcript at 1084.  A
   "610 Bobcat" also  allegedly sat idly.   Appellant's Supplemental
   Appeal File, Exhibit 64.  
 
        21.  In its  claim, Taylor Construction  sought compensation
   for the  idled equipment  at "regular  rental rates"--$2,258  per
   month for  the backhoe and  $1,733 per month  for the bobcat--for
   the suspension  period, October 1,  1992 to  May 18, 1993,  which
   Taylor Construction says  is "nine months."   Appellant's Supple-
   mental  Appeal File,  Exhibit  64; Transcript  at  1086-87.   The
   stated date difference is not nine months as claimed; it is about
   seven-and-one-half  months.  The  claim also included  delay from
   October 1  through November 16  for the dumpster  blocking Taylor
   Construction's  access to  the site  of  the generator  building.
   Id.; Appellant's  Exhibit 17.    GSA, however,  allowed an  early
   start  date of  October  23, not  October  1,  for the  generator
   building construction.  There is  no evidence, moreover, that GSA
   caused  Taylor Construction's equipment to be idle between Novem-
   ber  16 and  December 22, 1992.   We  find that GSA  idled Taylor
   Construction's  equipment  between October  23  and November  16,
   1992, and between December 22, 1992 and April 13, 1993.  Findings
   3, 5. 
 
 
        Contractor's direct labor
 
        22.  During  excavation  by  White's  Construction,   Taylor
   Construction had an on-site supervisor  and a truck hauling  dirt
   off the site.   Transcript at 1072-74.   During White's Construc-
   tion's excavation, according to Mr. Al White, Taylor Construction
   placed  a flagman  and two  other  laborers to  keep the  streets
   clean.   Id. at 1207.   When White's Construction  backfilled the
   foundation, Taylor  Construction had several  laborers compacting
   soil.  Id. at 1208.   
        23.  For  direct labor, Taylor Construction claimed the cost
   of eleven workers.  Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit
   64.  For the week ending May 1, 1993, Taylor  Construction listed
   one worker, Mr. Lionel Reyna, as "pumping water" for thirty-seven
   and one-half  hours, and another three workers as "setting batter
   boards" for a total of one hundred and nine hours.  Id.  For  the
   week ending May  14, Taylor Construction  showed one worker,  Mr.
   Reyna,  flagging  traffic  for  twenty-eight hours,  and  another
   worker, Mr. Jose  Gonzales, checking batter boards  and assisting
   White's Construction  for forty hours.   Id.  The  labor cost for
   Mr. Reyna for the week ending May 28 was $699.45.  Id.  The labor
   cost for Mr. Gonzales was $518.57.  Id.  
 
        24.  For  the week ending May 21,  Taylor Construction noted
   that  two workers worked a  total of eighty  hours on "forms" and
   "administration," with a project manager working forty hours, and
   a  superintendent working  another  forty hours.   Form  work and
   grading footings allegedly took one hundred and nine and one-half
   hours.   Appellant's Supplemental Appeal  File, Exhibit 64.  That
   additional  effort, of course, was after White's Construction had
   left the site.  Id. 
 
   Contractor's claim
 
        25.  Taylor Construction sought the  following costs for the
   change: 
 
 
               1  Southwestern             $1,764.00
                  Laboratories
 
               2  Center Point             $2,453.74
                  Consultant Claim
                  Preparation Services
 
               3  Staffing Interior          $450.00
                  Estimators
 
               4  Pictures as                 $52.76
                  requested by
                  contracting
                  officer's technical
                  representative 
 
               5  Extra rebar                $572.54
 
               6  Cost of White's         $29,500.35
                  Construction
               7  Project manager Al       $2,250.00
                  LeMay
 
               8  Extra lumber and           $750.22
                  plywood
 
               9  Styrofoam                  $128.60
 
              10  Brick for rebar             $45.00
                  support
              11  Form rental              $7,710.99
 
              12  Concrete and grout       $1,533.60
 
              13  Idle equipment on-      $35,919.00
                  site
 
              14  Vehicle mileage 
 
                  Project manager--120        $90.00
                  miles per day, 3
                  trips, total of 360
                  miles @.25 per mile
                  Superintendent--120        $450.00
                  miles per day, 15
                  trips, 1800 miles
                  @.25 per mile
 
                  Workmen--120 miles         $660.00
                  per day, 22 trips, 
                  2640 miles @.25 per
                  mile
 
                  Rebar delivery from        $150.00
                  Houston (120 miles)
 
              15  Miscellaneous              $946.50
                  mileage and fuel
              16  Labor charges for        $8,065.21
                  eleven employees at
                  differing times
 
                  Labor burden for         $3,951.95
                  laborers
 
              17  Markups on White's
                  Construction's
                  Billings
 
                  White's Construction     $1,475.01
                  overhead @ 5%
                  Subtotal                $30,975.36
 
                  Profit @ 5%              $1,548.76
 
                  Total                   $32,523.62
 
                  Bond & Insurance @         $975.70
                  3%
                  Total                    33,499.32
 
              18  Taylor Construc-        $68,238.86
                  tion's Labor &
                  Material Expenses
 
                  Overhead @ 10%           $6,823.88
 
                  Subtotal                 75,062.74
                  Profit @ 10 percent       7,506.27
 
                  Total                   $82,569.02
 
                  Bond & Insurance @       $2,477.07
                  3%
 
                  Total Taylor            $85,046.09
                  Construction costs
                  Grand Total            $118,542.40
 
    
   Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 64.2 
 
                       
   ____________________
 
         In this table the items are as numbered by appellant and as
   continued by  respondent.  We reproduce the  numbers submitted by
   appellant, including the math and recording errors.  For example,
   Taylor Construction  erroneously recorded  White's Construction's
   charge  as $29,500.35,  when  the  total charge  was  $29,500.   
   Taylor Construction  derived a  total of  $32,523.62 from  adding
   $30,975.36  and $1,548.76.    The  proper  total  is  $32,524.12.
   Taylor  Construction  also  sought  double-recovery  for  White's
   Construction's  profit  and  overhead.    White's  Construction's
   invoice to  Taylor Construction for $17,666.17  included overhead
   and  profit of  ten percent,  Finding  18; in  its claim,  Taylor
   Construction sought additional overhead and profit.
   Contracting officer's pricing and decision on claim
 
 
        26.   The  contracting officer  made several  determinations
   regarding the claim.  She allowed item one with allowable markups
   of ten  percent and  three  percent bond  for a  total of  $1,999
   (rounded).   Appeal File, Exhibit  46.  She  denied items two and
   three  because she  felt the  small value  of the change  did not
   warrant use of an outside estimator.  Id.  She allowed item four.
   For item five,  she held to GSA's  estimate of $266, noting  that
   Taylor Construction did not submit invoices from Texas Wide Sales
   or show the actual amount of rebar  used.  Id.  On item six,  she
   allowed a total of $16,115.17 for the foundation excavation.  She
   deducted $1,111 to account for the mistake in excavating an extra
   three feet rather than three inches.  Id.  She denied the remain-
   der of the  after-excavation work billed by  White's Construction
   because the  amount "has  no substantiated  evidence or  backup."
   Id.  
 
        27.  On  item seven, the contracting  officer concluded that
   ninety percent  of the  supervisor's work was  for the  base con-
   tract, and  denied the amount.   She denied item  eight, save for
   $141 already offered in GSA's pricing of change estimate fourteen
   and denied any  adjustment for lumber.  Appeal  File, Exhibit 46.
   She added $14 for styrofoam for item nine, and noted that GSA had
   allowed the full amounts claimed by Taylor Construction for items
   ten  and eleven.   Id.  For  item twelve, she  noted that GSA had
   given Taylor  Construction $420, but  she added another  $860 for
   concrete, for a total of  $1,280.  The contracting officer denied
   the claim for  the backhoe and bobcat, item thirteen.  She stated
   that the backhoe was not "retained  on the job at GSA's request."
   Id.  She  denied the claim  for the  bobcat because she  believed
   Taylor  Construction did  not  own it.   Id.   She  denied Taylor
   Construction's claim for item fifteen because Taylor Construction
   had not demonstrated the purpose of the expense.  Id.
 
        28.   The contracting  officer denied Taylor  Construction's
   claim for  item sixteen because  the costs were for  "mostly base
   bid  work."   She  stated  that during  the  foundation work  the
   contracting  officer's technical  representative  never saw  more
   than three laborers  and usually saw two laborers  working on the
   foundation.  Appeal  File, Exhibit 46.   The contracting  officer
   offered $12,800.61 (including  bond, profit and commission)  more
   than  GSA's pricing for  change estimate fourteen.   Id.; Finding
   11.  
 
   Cost of contractor-owned idled equipment
 
        29.  The Board requested  from the parties copies of the  US
   Army Corps of Engineers' Construction Equipment Ownership Expense
   Schedule, or  of commercial guides  such as one published  by the
   Associated General  Contractors.   Board Order  (June 12,  1996).
   Taylor  Construction  has  submitted  pages  from  the  Automated
   Equipment  Dealers' (AED)  Green Book, which  lists rent  for the
   bobcat and backhoe.  The monthly rent for the  backhoe is $1,810.
   The monthly rent for the bobcat is $2,024.  There are twenty-four
   days (.8  months) between October  23 and November 16,  1992, the
   time  Taylor Construction's  equipment was  idle  because of  the
   dumpster on the site.  Finding 3.  There are eighty-one days (2.7
   months) between January  22, 1992 and April 13,  1993, the period
   GSA  unreasonably suspended  work to  process  the change  order.
   Finding 5; see discussion supra p. 15.  The total rent,  based on
   the AED rates, of the backhoe and  bobcat for the first period of
   unreasonable suspension would be  $3,067.20.  The total rent  for
   the  backhoe and  bobcat for  the second  period of  unreasonable
   suspension, based on those same rates, would be $10,351.80.   
 
 
                               Discussion
 
        This appeal concerns a dispute about the pricing of a change
   order.   The  general principles  applicable  to the  pricing  of
   change orders are well known.  As  we noted in Plaza Maya Limited
   Partnership, GSBCA 9086, 91-1 BCA   23,425, at 117,501:
 
        The starting point  for determining the  proper measure
        of  an  equitable  adjustment for  added  work  under a
        Government  contract is the cost impact on the contrac-
        tor.  In general, the actual costs incurred in perform-
        ing the additional work are recoverable so long as they
        are "reasonable."   Bruce Construction  Corp. v. United
        States, 163 Ct. Cl. 97,  324 F.2d 516 (1963).    Appel-
        lant has  the burden of showing, however, the amount of
        any  upward adjustment  to which  it  may be  entitled.
        Nager Electric Co. v.  United States, 194 Ct.  Cl. 835,
        442 F.2d 936 (1971).
 
        A  cost is reasonable if, in  its nature and amount, it does
   not exceed what  a prudent person would incur in the conduct of a
   competitive business.   48  CFR 31.201-3(a)  (1992) (FAR  31.201-
   3(a)).  What is reasonable depends on a variety of considerations
   and circumstances,  including (1)  whether it is  a type  of cost
   generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the conduct of
   the  contractor's  business  or  the  contract  performance;  (2)
   generally accepted  sound business  practices, arm's-length  bar-
   gaining,  and federal  and state  laws  and regulations;  (3) the
   contractor's responsibilities to the Government, other customers,
   the owners  of the business,  employees and the public  at large;
   and (4) any  significant deviations from the  contractor's estab-
   lished practices.  FAR 31.203-3(b).  
     
        With  the revision  of FAR  31.201-3  on July  30, 1987,  no
   presumption  of reasonableness is  attached to the  incurrence of
   costs by a contractor, and  the burden of proof to establish  the
   reasonableness  of the incurred cost is placed on the contractor.
   Buck Industries, Inc.,  ASBCA 45321, 94-3 BCA    27,061, at 134,-
   848.
 
        Applying  these  principles,  we consider  the  various cost
   items decided by the  contracting officer in her  final decision.
   We consider the largest items of the claim first.   
 
   Item six
 
        For  White's Construction's  work, GSA  allowed  a total  of
   $15,004.17.  We conclude that Taylor Construction is entitled  to
   more for  that item than  granted by GSA.   Taylor Construction's
   decision to hire  White's Construction to perform  the excavation
   for the generator building foundation was reasonable.  Conditions
   at the site had changed between October, when Taylor Construction
   had planned  to start  the excavation work,  and April,  when GSA
   lifted the  stop work order.   Between October and April,  due to
   poor weather, the site had  turned from dry and workable to  mud.
   Only in April was Taylor Construction able  to begin concentrated
   work  at the  site.   Taylor  Construction's decision  to hire  a
   professional excavator was reasonable.  See Minority  Enterprises
   Inc., ASBCA 45549, et al., 95-1 BCA   27,461, at 136,829 (approv-
   ing cost of equitable adjustment for professional surveyor due to
   Government's defective survey  control data).  White's  Construc-
   tion  submitted detailed invoices  for the excavation  portion of
   the work; while the invoice  was not detailed as to  the backfill
   portion of the work, the cost of that work is consistent with the
   excavation portion.   See finding 19.   There is no  dispute that
   White's  Construction  backfilled  the  excavation  after  Taylor
   Construction poured the foundation.
 
        We  would allow White's Construction's full charge to Taylor
   Construction of $29,500, save for White's  Construction's excava-
   tion  to an  erroneous depth  the  first full  day on  the  job. 
   Findings  15, 16.   White's  Construction's  owner was  correctly
   suspicious  of the Government's  mistaken advice in  this regard.
   Given the dimensions  of the site, a direction  to excavate three
   feet  deeper would not produce an extra  four cubic yards of soil
   as  noted in  the Government's  letter.   The  Government made  a
   patent  error, which either  Taylor Construction or  White's Con-
   struction should have recognized and brought  to the attention of
   the  contracting officer  before proceeding  to  excavate to  the
   extra depth.  
 
        Nevertheless, comparing  the costs of  the first day  on the
   job, May 11--when  the extra excavation occurred--with  the costs
   for  a  subsequent day's  work,  May 14,  for  instance--when the
   excavation  was  at  the proper  depth--it  appears  that White's
   Construction incurred only $330 of extra material costs.  Finding
   18.   We reduce  the quantum for  White's Construction's  work by
   $399.30  (which  includes  White's  Construction's  overhead  and
   profit on the unnecessary costs)for a direct cost of $29,100.70.
 
   Item thirteen
 
        Taylor Construction  presented a claim  for idled  equipment
   (the backhoe  and bobcat) for  $35,919.  This claim  was based on
   commercial rental rates for the equipment and is premised on lack
   of  site access  from October  through December  of 1992  and the
   suspension of work resulting from GSA's processing of the genera-
   tor building foundation change order.  
    
 
        When the cause of the delay is lack of access to a site, the
   matter has been considered both as a suspension of work under the
   Suspension  of  Work  clause, Merritt-Chapman  &  Scott  Corp. v.
   United States, 528 F.2d 1392, 1398 (Ct. Cl. 1976); Stroh Corp. v.
   General Services  Administration, GSBCA 11029, 96-1  BCA   28,265
   at  141,131,   and as  a  constructive change  under the  Changes
   clause, Pirini-Horn,  Morrison-Knudsen (JV),  ENG BCA  4621, 87-1
   BCA    19,545, at 98,771; Rivera General Contracting, GSBCA 5797,
   81-2 BCA   15,288,  at 75,698 (citing  Lincoln Construction, IBCA
   438-5-64, 65-2  BCA   5234).   In Pirini-Horn,  Morrison-Knudsen,
   the contract contained affirmative and unequivocal  guarantees of
   specific electricity outage  periods, a departure from  which the
   board considered  a change.   87-1 BCA at  98,771.  In  this con-
   tract, in contrast, there is  no specific and unequivocal guaran-
   tee of site availability.  However, to the extent that "the delay
   was caused by the unreasonable delay on the part of the contract-
   ing  officer  in  considering, acting  on  and  incorporating the
   changes into the  contract, [Taylor Construction] is  entitled to
   compensation  pursuant  to  the  'Suspension  of  Work'  clause."
   Fidelity Construction  Co., ASBCA  24882, 81-1  BCA   15,022,  at
   74,339.
 
        Here, GSA initially delayed in  moving the dumpster from the
   generator building site,  causing Taylor Construction a  delay of
   twenty-four days in starting excavation of the generator building
   site, and  idling Taylor  Construction's backhoe  and bobcat  for
   that many  days.  Findings  3, 29.   The  suspension period  from
   December  22, 1992,  through April  13, 1993,  involved delay  in
   processing the change order for  the redesigned foundation.   For
   this  matter, we conclude that it should  have taken no more than
   one month  for GSA  to obtain  the NPS's  advice and  to issue  a
   change  order based  on that  advice.   GSA unreasonably  delayed
   Taylor Construction  by two  and three-quarters  months.   Conse-
   quently,  Taylor Construction is entitled to an equitable adjust-
   ment  for periods of unreasonable suspension under the contract's
   Suspension of Work clause rather than its Changes clause.    
 
        A  contractor is  entitled to  an  equitable adjustment  for
   additional costs incurred in keeping equipment on-site which must
   remain exclusively dedicated to the project to assure the ability
   to perform.   Stroh Corp., 96-1 BCA at  141,132; Dillon Construc-
   tion Inc.,  ENG BCA PCC-101, 96-1  BCA   28,113, at  140,354; Tom
   Shaw, Inc., DOT  CAB 2106, et al., 90-1 BCA   22,580, at 113,331.
 
 
        Taylor  Construction  bases  quantum  on  commercial  rental
   rates.  Boards have not favored use of commercial rental rates to
   reimburse  contractors for  the  cost of  idled  contractor-owned
   equipment.    Tom Shaw,  90-1 BCA  at 113,333-34.   Boards  have,
   nonetheless, based  a jury verdict  on rental rates  specified by
   manuals  such as  those published  by the  AED, reduced  by fifty
   percent to  account for the  standby condition of  the equipment.
   Id. at 113,336.3 
 
 
        Before resorting to a jury verdict, the Board must determine
   (1) that clear proof of injury exists; (2) that there is  no more
   reliable method for computing damages; and (3) that the  evidence
   is sufficient for a court to make  a fair and reasonable approxi-
   mation  of  the damages.    Dawco  Construction, Inc.  v.  United
   States, 930 F.2d 872, 880 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Universal Development
   Corp. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 11252, 93-1 BCA  
   25,479,  at 126,939.   In  considering this  second test,  we may
   consider factors  such as the  size of appellant's firm,  cost of
   maintaining  more accurate records, and the nature and complexity
   of the project.  L.L. Hall Construction Co. v. United States, 379
   F.2d 559 (Ct. Cl. 1966); H.K. Enterprises, Inc., GSBCA 10166, 91-
   2 BCA   23,697, at 118,653 n.2. 
      
        Taylor  Construction meets these tests.  Taylor Construction
   suffered damage  for  a  period  due to  its  heavy  construction
   equipment being idled.  It could not use its equipment elsewhere,
   because the suspension  periods were uncertain.   See Finding  5.
   Taylor Construction  is a small  business, with a  record keeping
   system that is hardly state of  the art.  Taylor Construction has
   placed in the record AED's rental rate manual  for the bobcat and
   the backhoe.  Thus, there is sufficient evidence for us to make a
   fair and reasonable approximation of damages. 
 
        The cost  to Taylor Construction,  based on  the AED  rental
   rates  for the  backhoe  and  bobcat is  $3,067.20  for the  fall
   suspension period and $10,351.80 for the winter/spring suspension
   period for a total of $13,419.  Finding 29.  A reduction of fifty
   percent to  derive the standby costs  results in a  total of $6,-
   709.50. 
 
   Items seven and sixteen
 
        Taylor  Construction seeks  $8,065.21  plus labor  burden of
   $3,951.95 for laborers.  The  labor claim consists of charges for
   eleven employees  working at  unspecified times.   The  evidence,
   however, is that  Taylor Construction had three  employees at the
   site  during the period White's Construction was on-site excavat-
   ing.    We allow  the cost  of  two laborers,  Mr. Reyna  and Mr.
                       
   ____________________
 
         There are other  methods used to  establish a jury  verdict
   for idle contractor-owned  equipment.  One board  awarded quantum
   based on the rates used to price a contract modification  for the
   same  equipment that was idled.   The board  took a fifty percent
   reduction to account for the stand-by condition of the equipment.
   Dillon Construction, 96-1  BCA at 140,355.  In  the instant case,
   ___________________
   to   our  knowledge,   the   Government  never   priced   another
   modification based on use of this equipment.  
   Gonzales, during that  time for a total of  $1,218.12 (plus labor
   burden).  The  evidence is that these laborers  worked on changed
   work--de-watering the site and  assisting White's Construction in
   its work.   Taylor Construction's other charges  for "administra-
   tion" are  not direct costs  of the change.   Taylor Construction
   has not shown that the charges for labor after May 18--principal-
   ly  soil compaction and grading of footings--were attributable to
   the performance of the changed work rather than to performance of
   the base contract work.  
 
        We also grant as a jury verdict one-third of the cost Taylor
   Construction  claims for the project manager's time (item seven).
   In light  of the other  contract activities occurring  during the
   suspension period--demolition,  the beginning of  asbestos abate-
   ment, and questions concerning differing site conditions, finding
   6, we conclude that one-third is a fair approximation of the time
   the project manager would have  spent dealing with the  generator
   building problem, as opposed to the other aspects of the work.   
 
   Items two and three
 
         FAR 31.205-33, "Professional and consultant service costs,"
   provides in pertinent part:
     
        (A) Costs  of professional and consultant  services are
        . . . allowable  . . . when reasonable  in relation  to
        the  services rendered  and  when  not contingent  upon
        recovery of costs from the Government . . . .  
 
        The costs for such services are unallowable, however, if the
   services  are rendered in connection with  a judicial or adminis-
   trative  proceeding involving  fraud  or  similar misconduct  and
   there is a finding of  contractor liability or a monetary penalty
   in  a proceeding  not involving  fraud.   FAR 31.205-47(b).   The
   costs  are also unallowable  if they were  incurred in connection
   with  the prosecution  of claims or  appeals against  the Federal
   Government.   FAR 31.205-33(d).   If the contractor  incurred the
   costs for  materially  furthering the  negotiation process,  such
   costs should normally be  contract administration costs allowable
   under FAR 31.205-33 even when, as here, the negotiation fails and
   litigation eventually follows.   Bill Strong Enterprises  Inc. v.
   Shannon, 49 F.3d 1541, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1995). 
    
        In Allied Materials & Equipment  Co., ASBCA 17318, 75-1  BCA
     11,150, the Armed  Services Board of Contract  Appeals approved
   as an allowable direct cost, allocable to a contract for cylinder
   assemblies,  the  contractor's  cost  of  attorney  services  for
   preparing an equitable adjustment request.  Allied Materials held
   that costs of preparing proposals to the contracting officer were
   properly  charged as direct costs because "to regard the expenses
   as indirect  costs would   . . . unfairly and inequitably  burden
   other contracts."  75-1 BCA  at 53,086.  Similarly, another board
   held that an estimator's fee for preparing  an estimate requested
   by the  contracting officer  was incidental  to contract  perfor-
   mance, and thus  allowable.  William Lagnion, ENG  BCA 4287, 82-2
   BCA    15,939, at 79,006;  see also Reinhold  Construction, Inc.,
   ASBCA 37052, et al., 92-3 BCA   25,031, at 124,772.
     
 
        Appellant's claim to consultant services is a valid one.  We
   disagree  with GSA  that the small  value of  the change  did not
   warrant use of an outside  estimator.  Taylor Construction priced
   the change  at  little more  than $118,000,  with the  Government
   initially offering $24,604.04.  The difference is significant and
   warranted Taylor Construction's retention of a claims consultant.
   Taylor Construction  is entitled  to $2,453.74  for item  two and
   $450 for item three.  
 
   Items fourteen and fifteen
 
        As  to item fourteen,  the contracting officer  allowed $330
   for the cost of trips for the workers, but denied the cost of the
   trips for the project superintendent.   We allow one-third of the
   cost  of the  project superintendent's  trips, for $150,  and the
   cost for rebar delivery of $150.  We allow $630 as the total cost
   for this item.   The contracting  officer denied completely  item
   fifteen.  We  agree with her conclusion; there  is no explanation
   in the record as to the purpose of this item.  
 
   Items five, eight, nine, and twelve  
 
        We agree with the contracting officer's decision as to items
   five,  eight,  nine  and twelve.    Taylor  Construction  has not
   established that  it is  entitled to a  greater amount  for those
   items.  Taylor  Construction is awarded $266 for  the extra rebar
   (item five),  $14 for the  styrofoam (item nine), and  $1,280 for
   the concrete (item  twelve).  Taylor Construction did  not submit
   invoices for the alleged extra  lumber (item eight); we deny that
   claim.   
 
   Items one, four, ten and eleven
 
        There is  no dispute  between the  parties regarding  Taylor
   Construction's entitlement as to items one, four, ten and eleven.
   Taylor Construction  is entitled to  $1,764 for the cost  of geo-
   technical  services, $52.76 for  the pictures, $45  for brick for
   rebar support, and $7,710.99 for the concrete form rental. 
 
   Quantum 
 
        Quantum is as follows:  We first consider the cost of Taylor
   Construction's  subcontractors.    We award  Taylor  Construction
   $29,100.70  for  White's  Construction's   work,  which  includes
   White's Construction's profit and overhead.  We also award Taylor
   Construction $1,764 for the geotechnical  services, $2,453.74 for
   the claims consultant, and $450  for the interior estimates.  The
   total  subcontractor cost is  $33,768.44.   Taylor Construction's
   commission at a ten percent rate,  which GSA does not dispute, is
   $3,376.84.  Total subcontractor award is $37,145.28.  
     
 
        We  consider Taylor Construction's material costs.  We award
   Taylor Construction $52.76 for item four (the pictures), $266 for
   item five (extra  rebar), $14 for item nine  (the styrofoam), $45
   for item ten  (brick), $7,710.79 for item eleven  (concrete forms
   rental),  and $1,280 for item  twelve (extra concrete and grout).
   Total award for material is $9,368.55. 
 
        We award  direct labor of  $1,218.12 with a labor  burden of
   forty-nine  percent  ($596.88),  and a  prorated  amount  for the
   project  manager of  $750  with  labor burden  at  the same  rate
   ($367.50).  GSA did  not dispute the rate for labor  burden.  The
   sum of those  figures is $2,932.50.  We allowed $630 for the cost
   of  trips for  workers  and  rebar delivery,  for  a subtotal  of
   $3,562.50.   The total  for material, labor,  and trips  is $12,-
   931.05. 
 
        The total  idle equipment  award  is $6,709.50.   The  total
   award for direct labor,  material cost, trips and idle  equipment
   is $19,640.55 ($12,931.05 + $6,709.50).   Overhead at ten percent
   is $1,964.05 for  a subtotal of $21,604.60.   We allow profit  on
   $14,895.10  of those costs, as there  is no profit allowed by the
   Suspension  of Work  clause for  the idle  equipment.   Profit on
   labor  and materials  is  $1,489.51.   GSA  did  not dispute  the
   applicable  rates.   The total  of labor,  material, trips,  idle
   equipment, and  profit  is $23,094.11.   The  subtotal award  for
   Taylor  Construction's  subcontractor work  ($37,145.28),  labor,
   material,  idle equipment, and profit ($23,094.11) is $60,239.39.
   Bond and  insurance at  three percent is  $1,807.18, for  a grand
   total of $62,046.57.    
 
                                Decision
 
        The  appeal is  GRANTED  IN PART.    Taylor Construction  is
   awarded  $62,046.57  plus  interest as  allowed  by  the Contract
   Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C.    601-613 (1994).  
 
                                 _________________________
                                 ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                                 Board Judge
 
 
   We concur:
 
 
   _________________________     _________________________
   EDWIN B. NEILL                CATHERINE B. HYATT
   Board Judge                   Board Judge