________________________________________
 
                    GRANTED IN PART:  March 29, 1996
                ________________________________________
 
 
                              GSBCA 11029
 
 
                           STROH CORPORATION,
 
                                                     Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                                     Respondent.
 
        Ronald M. Kaplan, Jeffrey  D. Stone, and Jeffrey L.  Goodman
   of
   Shearer,  Templer  & Pingel,  West  Des Moines,  IA,  counsel for
   Appellant.
 
        Robert  W. Schlattman,  Office  of General  Counsel, General
   Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges BORWICK, NEILL, and HYATT.
 
   HYATT, Board Judge. 
 
        Stroh  Corporation   claims  entitlement  to   an  equitable
   adjustment  under a contract  for the replacement  of the cooling
   tower, chillers, and portions of the roof at the Federal Building
   in  Des Moines,  Iowa.   The  dispute arose  when the  Government
   ordered  Stroh to  wait  until  mid-October  to  remove  existing
   chilling equipment  in preparation  for the  installation of  new
   equipment.   Although  the contract  did  not expressly  prohibit
   removal of the existing cooling  system during the summer months,
   the  Government considered that  Stroh's plan to  remove chilling
   equipment  in  the  summer patently  conflicted  with  a contract
   clause  that   proscribed  interference  with   the  Government's
   continued conduct of business in the building.
 
        In an earlier decision in  this appeal, the Board ruled that
   the terms of the contract itself did  not bar Stroh's recovery if
   it could show that it incurred compensable delay as a consequence
   of the Government's order to wait until mid-October to remove the
   chiller units.   Stroh Corp. v. General  Services Administration,
   GSBCA 11029, 93-2 BCA   25,841, clarified on reconsideration, 94-
   2  BCA    26,784.   In  this decision,  the Board  held  that the
   absence  of  a   provision  in  the  contract  stating  that  the
   contractor could not remove the chiller units from the roof until
   the  end  of the  cooling  season  was not  an  obvious error  or
   omission  that imposed  on  Stroh a  duty to  inquire  as to  the
   Government's  intent.  The Board concluded that the "Government's
   order requiring Stroh to wait until the end of the cooling season
   to remove the chillers in effect changed the order of work  under
   the  contract, entitling  Stroh  to  reasonable compensation  and
   additional time for the delay."  93-2 BCA at 128,597.   The Board
   subsequently  clarified that its  decision did not  actually hold
   that  there was  in fact  a  compensable delay,  but rather  that
   appellant was entitled "to pursue  its claim further and  recover
   damages  for any demonstrable delay."   94-2 BCA  at 133,206.  No
   contractual bar would impede  recovery of damages if Stroh  could
   prove that the delay increased its cost of performance.  Id. 
 
 
        This matter is now before us for a decision  with respect to
   the  amount of  any equitable  adjustment to  which Stroh  may be
   entitled.  Stroh seeks  an award in the amount of  $214,505.  For
   the  reasons stated  below, we  find  that Stroh  is entitled  to
   recover the amount of $31,569.
 
                            Findings of Fact
 
   Background
 
        1.  On  May  16,  1990, Stroh  was  awarded  contract number
   GS06P90GYC0060  for the  replacement of  the  cooling tower,  two
   chillers, and  sections of the  roof around the cooling  tower at
   the Federal  Building in Des Moines, Iowa, for the fixed price of
   $676,000.   Appeal File,  Exhibit 4.   The contract  required the
   contractor to  commence work immediately upon receipt of a notice
   to proceed, to prosecute the work diligently, and to complete the
   work within 240 days of receipt of the notice to proceed.  Appeal
   File, Exhibit 1, Supplementary Conditions    4.01.  The notice to
   proceed was issued on June 5, 1990, and received by Stroh on June
   7, 1990.  Id., Exhibit 5; Transcript at 109.   In response to the
   notice to proceed, Stroh  proposed June 11, 1990 as the  date for
   starting work.  Transcript at 48, 109; Appeal File, Exhibit 5.
 
        2.  The contract contained the Changes Clause located at FAR
   52.243-4 (AUG 1987).  The clause provides in relevant part:
 
                  The  Contracting Officer  may,  at any  time,
             without notice to the sureties, if any, by written
             order  designated or  indicated  to  be  a  change
             order, make changes in the work within the general
             scope of the contract, including changes-
 
                  (1) In the specifications . . . 
 
                  (2) In the method or manner of performance of
                  the work;
                  (3) In  the Government-furnished  facilities,
                  equipment, materials, services, or site; or
                  (4) Directing acceleration in the performance
                  of the work.
 
                  (b)  Any other written or  oral order (which,
             as used in this paragraph (b)  includes direction,
             instruction, interpretation or determination) from
             the Contracting Officer that causes a change shall
             be  treated as a  change order under  this clause;
             provided,   that   the    Contractor   gives   the
             Contracting Officer written notice stating (1) the
             date, circumstances, and source  of the order  and
             (2) that  the Contractor  regards the  order as  a
             change order.
 
                  (c)  Except  as provided  in this  clause, no
             order, statement,  or conduct  of the  Contracting
             Officer  shall be treated  as a change  under this
             clause or entitle the  Contractor to an  equitable
             adjustment.
 
                  (d)  If any  change under this  clause causes
             an increase  or decrease in the  Contractor's cost
             of, or the  time required for, the  performance of
             any  part of the work under this contract, whether
             or  not changed by any such order, the Contracting
             Officer  shall make  an  equitable adjustment  and
             modify the contract in writing. . . .
 
                  (e)  The  Contractor  must   assert  its
             right  to  an  adjustment under  this  clause
             within 30 days after (1) receipt of a written
             change order  under  paragraph  (a)  of  this
             clause or  (2)  the furnishing  of a  written
             notice under paragraph (b) of this clause, by
             submitting  to  the   Contracting  Officer  a
             written  statement  describing   the  general
             nature and  amount of  proposal, unless  this
             period is extended by the Government. 
 
   Appeal File, Exhibit 1.
 
        3.   The  contract  also contained  the  Suspension of  Work
   Clause 
   set  forth  in  FAR  52.212-12  (APR  1984),  which  provides  in
   pertinent part:
 
             (a)   The Contracting  Officer may  order the
             Contractor, in writing, to suspend, delay, or
             interrupt all or any part of the work of this
             contract  for the  period  of  time that  the
 
             Contracting  Officer  determines  appropriate
             for the convenience of the Government.
 
             (b)  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,    delay,     or
             interruption, . . . .
 
   Appeal File, Exhibit 1.
 
        3.  On  June  7,  1990, Stroh  attended  a  pre-construction
   conference with  the contracting officer's  representative (COR),
   at which Stroh announced its intention  to begin work at the site
   within two weeks.   At  that time,  the COR  instructed that  the
   building's  existing cooling  system  could not  be taken  out of
   service until  the estimated  end of the  cooling season  in mid-
   October.   Appeal  File, Exhibits 6,  7; Transcript at  48.  This
   effectively  precluded the  commencement  of  on-site work  until
   October 15, 1990.  Transcript at 48.   
 
        4.  In a letter to  the contracting officer, dated June  29,
   1990, Stroh stated its position  that the COR's order prohibiting
   the  commencement  of demolition  of the  chiller units  prior to
   October 15 constituted a change  to the contract terms that would
   entitle it  to an  equitable adjustment for  additional costs  of
   performance and a  day-for-day (130 days)  extension to the  time
   for  completion.  Stroh estimated that its additional performance
   costs  would be  in the  neighborhood  of $110,000.   Stroh  also
   enumerated the following specific types of costs that it expected
   to incur as  a result of shifting the time  frame for performance
   of the work:  wage escalation, escalation in the cost of material
   and equipment, escalation of subcontractors' costs, loss of labor
   efficiency  due to  performing  the majority  of  the work  under
   adverse winter weather conditions,  extended equipment rental and
   standby costs,  escalation on  warranty  costs and  underabsorbed
   home office overhead.  Appeal File, Exhibit 7.
 
        5.  By  letter dated July  5, 1990, the  contracting officer
   responded  to Stroh's initial letter, taking the preliminary view
   that  the claim  was  not  supportable because  it  would not  be
   reasonable to  expect to shut  off the cooling system  during the
   summer  months.    The  letter  further  stated  that   if  Stroh
   nonetheless wished to pursue the matter, a detailed claim for the
   additional costs should be provided.  Appeal File, Exhibit 8.
    
        6.  Subsequently,  by  letter  dated July  25,  1990,  Stroh
   submitted a  more specific  request,  asking for  payment of  the
   amount of $129,876 and a time extension of 130 days.  This letter
   offered a brief explanation of  the types of costs claimed, which
   included, among other items,  1) wage escalation due  to shifting
   the bulk of  the labor hours to  be expended to the  period after
   December  31, 1990; 2)  loss of labor  efficiency attributable to
   shifting work to the winter construction season; 3) escalation in
   cost of  material and  equipment because  of delayed  purchase of
   items;       4)      additional       costs      charged       by
   subcontractors[foot #] 1;    5)    underabsorbed    home   office
   overhead;  6)  overhead,  profit  and  commission;  and  7)  bond
   premium.   Stroh added that an  extension of contract time by 130
   days  would  be necessary  because a  review of  Stroh's "planned
   sequence of  construction indicates  that, on  this project,  the
   time extension required will in fact be one day for each day that
   access  to  the project  is  effectively denied."    Appeal File,
   Exhibit 9.
 
 
        7.  Stroh's   letter  of  July   25  was  referred   by  the
   contracting  officer to the Chief, Project Operations Branch, for
   response.   In a  letter dated August  17, 1990,  this individual
   informed Stroh  of his  opinion that no  legal basis  existed for
   Stroh to recover these costs.  He further suggested that if Stroh
   continued to disagree, it should formally request a decision from
   the contracting officer  pursuant to the  Disputes Clause of  its
   contract.  Appeal File, Exhibit 10.
 
        8.  On August 22,  1990, Stroh submitted a  formal certified
   claim,  referencing its  two previous  letters  and requesting  a
   written  decision from  the contracting  officer.   Appeal  File,
   Exhibit 11.   By letter  dated November 6, 1990,  the contracting
   officer denied Stroh's claim for monetary compensation and a time
   extension.  Appeal File, Exhibit 13.
 
        9.  After receiving this decision,  Stroh considered that it
   had  no  choice  but  to  complete the  work  by  the  originally
   scheduled    contract    completion   date    of    February   4,
   1991.[foot #] 2       It    took   the    steps    necessary   to
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1   At the time it submitted its  original request,
   Stroh  anticipated  that  several  subcontracts  would  escalate.
   Appellant's Exhibit 1;  Transcript at 118-19.  Instead, Stroh was
   able to renegotiate  some subcontracts  and other  subcontractors
   did not assert claims despite  the modification of the  schedule.
   Transcript at 118-19, 193.  As a  result, Stroh did not incur any
   additional subcontract expenses and has not pursued this category
   of additional costs.
 
 
        [foot #] 2   A  bilateral contract  amendment, number  PC03,
   issued on December 4,  1990, added a small amount of  work to the
   contract  and extended  the completion  date  until February  13,
   1991.  Appellant's Exhibit 11.  Another  amendment, PC04, further
   extended  the completion date  through February 27.   Appellant's
   Exhibit 13.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   rearrange its  sequencing and scheduling  of work to  ensure that
   the work was completed by that date.  Transcript at 114.
 
   Stroh's Quantum Claim
 
 
        10.  Because the existing equipment could not be dismantled,
   there  was little  work that  could be  accomplished at  the site
   prior to  the conclusion of  the 1990  cooling season.   At most,
   Stroh  could  have  delivered  some  drawings  and  brought  some
   materials to the site.   Transcript at 111.  Demolition commenced
   after  October 15,  1990.   The  new chillers  were delivered  to
   Stroh's subcontractor  in Des Moines  in late November  1990, but
   because demolition was  still in progress it was  not feasible to
   deliver this equipment to the site until late December 1990.  The
   old equipment  had  to be  cut  out and  removed before  the  new
   equipment could be installed.   Transcript at 34-35, 103-04.  The
   new chiller  equipment was set  in place on  December 20 and  21,
   1990.  Transcript at 103; Appellant's Exhibit 5.  
 
        11.  In  its  appeal, Stroh  alleges  that the  Government's
   refusal  to  allow  demolition  of  the  cooling  system  delayed
   virtually   all   field   work[foot #] 3  from   the   middle  of
   June to October 15, constituting  a 130-day delay.  Stroh alleges
   that  all of  its damages  stem from  this initial  delay  to the
   project and  the Government's  subsequent refusal  to extend  the
   period for contract completion.   Transcript at 170.  Stroh seeks
   these delay  damages even  though it  completed  the contract  on
   time.  
 
        12.  The dollar  amount of  Stroh's dollar  claim was  later
   adjusted to reflect actual costs  incurred by reason of the delay
   in  commencing  on-site work.    Stroh's initial  request  for an
   equitable adjustment on  July 25, 1990 sought  $129,876, based on
   estimated additional costs stemming from the change.  Appellant's
   Exhibit 1.   In a  February 6, 1992 response  to interrogatories,
   Stroh amended its claim amount to $151,734 to reflect an increase
   in  underabsorbed home office  overhead from $66,690  to $89,700.
   Appeal File,  Exhibit 147  (Appellant's Response  to Respondent's
   Second Set of Interrogatories). 
    
        13.  On  February  1,  1994,  Stroh  revised  its  claim  to
   $245,014,  changing its theory of recovery for underabsorbed home
   office   overhead[foot #] 4   and    seeking   "compressed   time
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 3      The only  field  work that  could have  done
   without  shutting down  the  building's  cooling  system  was  to
   establish a field office.  Transcript at 111.
 
        [foot #] 4   Stroh originally  applied the Eichleay  formula
                                                   ________
   and  used a  130-day alleged  delay in  its calculation.   Appeal
   File, Exhibit 1.   Beginning with its February  1, 1994 revision,
   Stroh changed  its formula from  one based on additional  days of
                                                      (continued...)
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   frame" damages.   Appellant's Exhibit  2.  On February  11, 1994,
   Stroh deleted from its calculation overhead on underabsorbed home
   office   overhead  and  reduced  its  total  claim  to  $217,882.
   Transcript at 166,  184; Appellant's Exhibit 3.   On February 25,
   1994, Stroh submitted  another revision to its claim, reducing it
   by $14,674 to exclude certain amounts based on increased costs of
   performance incurred as a result of the compressed time frame for
   completion.     At  that  point,  the  claim  totalled  $207,969.
   Transcript at 172; Appellant's Exhibit 4.  Stroh also revised its
   bond  premium  from .75  %  to  .63 %.   Appellant's  Exhibit  4.
   Stroh's  final  claim,  including  compression  damages,  was for
   $214,505.  Appellant's Post Hearing Brief, Exhibit A.
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 4 (...continued)
   overhead  to one based on the inability of its project manager to
   perform  his normal bidding duties and Stroh's subsequent loss of
   revenues   from   which   to   absorb   home   office   overhead.
   Specifically, Stroh explained:
 
             [Dick  Cook]  was  not  able  to perform  his
             normal estimating duties and therefore he was
             not  able to  help  Stroh secure  projects in
             early  to  mid  1991.   For  that  reason the
             revenues for the mechanical contracts dropped
             during that period of time until he could get
             this   project   completed,   get   back   to
             estimating new projects, get them on line and
             get revenues coming in to cover the overhead.
 
   Appellant's Exhibit 2.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
        14.  Stroh's  claim  as  presented  at  the  hearing  is  as
   follows:[foot #] 5
 
   I.   WAGE ESCALATION                              $        182
 
        727 labor hours shifted to later period at
        $.25/hour higher rate
 
   II.  LOSS OF LABOR EFFICIENCY                     $     17,313
 
        Mobilization                       $    461
        Demolition                         $  6,610
        Insulating blankets                $    653
        Domestic and chilled water piping  $    568
        Condenser piping                   $  1,847
        Chiller equipment                  $    552
        Cooling towers                     $    972
        Punch list                         $  2,425
        Vern Peterson                      $
   1,190[foot #] 6
        Electrical                         $  2,035
             Total                         $ 17,313
 
 
   III. MATERIAL & EQUIPMENT ESCALATION              $     11,212
 
        Material                           $    224
        Equipment                          $  5,991
             Subtotal                      $  6,215
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
        [foot #] 5   This  calculation includes costs incurred  as a
   consequence of performing in a  compressed time frame.  Stroh has
   separated out these claimed increased costs of performance in the
   event that the Board  determines that respondent's jurisdictional
   challenge  to  these  amounts  is  valid.    Most  of  the  costs
   associated with the compression of the time for performance occur
   in  the  loss  of  labor  efficiency  category.    Under  Stroh's
   alternative   calculation,   certain   of   these   labor    cost
   subcategories -- mobilization, domestic and chilled water piping,
   chiller equipment, and  electrical -- are attributable  solely to
   the  effect of compression of the time frame.  With the exception
   of  the insulating blankets category, which arises solely because
   of the  adverse effect  of  winter weather,  the amounts  claimed
   under  the  remaining  loss of  labor  efficiency  categories are
   reduced.   In  addition, the  amounts  claimed for  underabsorbed
   overhead and for the direct overhead  categories would be reduced
   if the time compression claim were to be rejected.
 
        [foot #] 6   Vern  Peterson was the foreman assigned to this
   project.  Transcript at 80.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
        Victualic Fittings                 $
   4,997[foot #] 7
             Total                         $ 11,212
 
   IV.  SUBCONTRACTOR ESCALATION                     $     - 0 - 
 
   V.   UNDERABSORBED HOME OFFICE OVERHEAD           $    152,375
 
        Dick Cook                          $
   12,834[foot #] 8
        Punch List - Dick Cook             $  2,060
        Underabsorbed Home Office Overhead $137,481
             Total                         $152,375
 
 
   VI.  OVERHEAD, PROFIT AND MISC.                   $     25,427
 
        a.   Overhead (18.2% of Items I,
             II, and III)                  $  5,225
 
        b.   Small Tool Expense (8.16% of 
             Items I and II Labor)         $  1,428
 
        c.   Profit (10% of Items I - V,    
             VIa. and VIb.)                $ 18,774
                  Total                    $ 25,427
 
   VII. BOND PREMIUM                                 $      1,343
 
        Subtotal Items I - VI              $213,162
        Bond Premium (0.63%)               $   1,343
 
   TOTAL REQUESTED                                   $    214,505
                                                     ____________
 
   Quantum Proof
 
        Wage Escalation
 
        15.  Stroh's chief mechanical  estimator initially projected
   that completion of the contract would require  2,675 labor hours.
   Transcript at 28.  These estimates  are set forth in a mechanical
   job estimate summary dated  April 10, 1990.  Appellant's  Exhibit
   21; Transcript at 247-48.  
 
        16.  Stroh's labor agreement provided for a wage increase of
   $.25 per  hour beginning on January  1, 1991.  Transcript  at 37,
   167, 169-70.  In bidding on the  contract, Stroh had planned that
   the  majority of  the required  labor  for the  project would  be
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
        [foot #] 7   The  term "victaulic fittings" is  explained in
   Finding 47.
 
        [foot #] 8   Mr.  Cook was the estimator and project manager
   for this contract.  Transcript at 27, 60.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   completed   before  December  31,   1990.    Transcript   at  38;
   Appellant's Exhibit 6.   As a  result of the  Government-mandated
   delay in the commencement of  field work, a significant number of
   labor hours were shifted from calendar year 1990 to 1991, costing
   Stroh an additional $.25 per hour for that labor.   Transcript at
   167.
 
 
        17.  In  bidding, Stroh estimated that its labor hours would
   be divided as follows:  2,408  man hours would be incurred on  or
   before  December 31,  1990 and  267 man  hours would  be incurred
   after December 31,  1990.  Appellant's  Exhibit 3; Transcript  at
   167-69.  
 
        18.  Stroh   calculated   its   claim   by   comparing   the
   distribution of its labor hours as bid to  the distribution as it
   actually  occurred.   Transcript  at  167-70.    Because  Stroh's
   accounting system  did not track man hours,  Stroh derived actual
   labor hours  by dividing  labor expenditures  by  an hourly  wage
   rate.   From its Committed  Cost Report dated February  15, 1990,
   Stroh determined that it expended $32,624.35 on labor through the
   end of December 1990.   Appellant's Exhibit 6; Transcript at 167-
   68.  Stroh divided this figure by its average wage rate of $23.03
   per hour for  the four men (two apprentices,  one journeyman, one
   foreman) on  the job  to determine  that approximately  1,417 man
   hours were expended through December 1990.  Transcript at 169.  
 
        19.  Stroh  then divided  its  total  labor  costs  for  the
   project  ($55,513.43) by  the average  hourly rate  of $23.03  to
   arrive  at  2,410  total labor  hours.    Appellant's Exhibit  9;
   Transcript at  169.  Stroh  subtracted the  1,417 pre-1991  labor
   hours from the  2,410 total labor hours  to arrive at a  total of
   994 post-wage  increase hours.   Stroh  then compared the  actual
   total  of  994  hours  to  the  bid  estimate  of  267  hours and
   determined  that it  had shifted  727  hours from  1990 to  1991.
   Transcript at 169-70.  Multiplying this number by the  additional
   labor rate of  $.25 per hour, Stroh calculated  the dollar amount
   of    $182    for    wage    escalation.         Transcript    at
   170.[foot #] 9
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 9 
                  Stroh's Wage Escalation Calculation
                  ___________________________________
 
   Labor dollars expended through 1990          $ 32,624.35 
                                                  _________
   Divided by Average Hourly Labor Rate               23.03  
   Equals Number of Labor Hours through 1990    =     1,417
 
   Total labor dollars expended                 $ 55,513.43
                                                  _________
   Divided by Average Hourly Labor Rate               23.03
   Equals Number of Total Labor Hours           =     2,410
   Minus Number of Labor Hours through 1990       -    1470
                                                      _____
   Equals Number of Labor Hours after 1990              994 
   Minus Estimated Labor Hours after 1990         -     267
   Equals Additional Labor Hours after 1990     =       727
                                                      (continued...)
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
        Loss of Labor Efficiency
 
             Generally
 
        20.  Stroh  performed much of  the labor required  under the
   contract  during winter  weather conditions  as a  result of  the
   delay  in  commencing  on-site  work.   Transcript  at  114, 172.
   Although the chillers  were originally scheduled to  be delivered
   in October, Stroh could have, if it had been permitted to proceed
   with  field  work  in  mid-June  as  it  had  planned,  performed
   significant preparatory work at the  site prior to the arrival of
   the new equipment.  Transcript at  109-10.  The delay of all  on-
   site  performance  from  mid-June  until  October  15  shifted  a
   considerable  portion of the  performance period from  summer and
   early autumn months into colder winter months.  Transcript at 85,
   100-01.
 
        21.  Stroh presented expert testimony concerning the  impact
   of winter weather conditions on  labor efficiency.  Transcript at
   172-74.    It is  a well-recognized  concept in  the construction
   industry  that working in  winter weather conditions  will reduce
   the efficiency of labor.  The Mechanical Contractors' Association
   of America (MCAA) manual offers efficiency  reduction percentages
   to   estimate  the  probable  cost  effect  of  seasonal  weather
   conditions    on    labor    productivity.[foot #] 10        With
   respect to weather, for a  minor condition, the manual proposes a
   ten  percent adjustment;  for  an  average  condition,  a  twenty
   percent adjustment; and  for a severe condition,  thirty percent.
   Appellant's Exhibit 36.  In calculating  its quantum claim, Stroh
   has used the thirty percent factor for severe conditions.  
     
        22.  The mechanical job estimate summary did not  explicitly
   state the  crew size Stroh  planned to use to  accomplish various
   tasks,  such as demolition  of old equipment  and installation of
   new equipment, at the  time it prepared its  bid.  Transcript  at
   247-48.   Stroh's  estimator and  executive  vice president  both
   testified,  however, that Stroh  had determined that  overall the
   optimum crew size would be two men.   Working 80 hours a week the
   job would take  34 weeks or 238 calendar days.  Transcript at 29-
   30; 114.  This would have just allowed Stroh to complete  the job
   within the required 240 calendar days.  Transcript at 30.  
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 9 (...continued)
 
   Wage Escalation                         727  x  $.25 per  hour  =
   $182
 
 
        [foot #] 10     The  percentages  in  the  MCAA  manual  are
   accompanied by the  caveat that modifications may  be appropriate
   depending  on  the  individual   circumstances  which  vary  from
   contractor  to   contractor,  crew  to  crew  and   job  to  job.
   Appellant's Exhibit 36. 
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
        23.  Stroh was  not permitted  to commence meaningful  field
   work until October 15, 1990.  As a result  of the late start date
   for  demolition, Stroh assigned a larger  overall crew to perform
   the job than would otherwise have been needed  in order to finish
   by the deadline specified under  the contract.  Transcript at 37,
   114.
     
        24.  The  superintendent slated  to  oversee  this  job  had
   substantial  experience in successfully  completing this  type of
   project.  The need to increase crew size to complete the  work in
   less time detracted  from the efficiency of the  two-man crew and
   created  additional   coordinating  processes   that  would   not
   otherwise  have been necessary.   Transcript at  114-16.  Stroh's
   expert  confirmed  that expansion  of  the crew  size  may impact
   unfavorably   on  labor  productivity.    This  concept  is  well
   recognized in the industry.  The MCAA manual contains a  range of
   efficiency reduction  percentages to  estimate the  probable cost
   effect of crew size  inefficiency.  The impact percentages  range
   from  ten percent  for  minor conditions  to  thirty percent  for
   severe conditions.  Appellant's Exhibit 36.  Stroh has used a ten
   percent factor for this impact.  Stroh took its actual costs from
   cost reports  and multiplied  them by the  ten percent  factor to
   derive its claimed costs for this item.  Transcript at 174.
 
             Mobilization
 
        25.  As  a  result  of  the  delayed  start  and  compressed
   schedule, Stroh  added more men  to the job  and spent more  time
   organizing  tools and  man-power than  it  would have  otherwise.
   Transcript  at 40-41.  In particular, the project superintendent,
   Vern Peterson,  spent an  additional sixteen man  hours over  and
   above  what  he normally  would  have  spent  getting  the  right
   equipment to the  job and coordinating the  delivery of materials
   because the  shortened  job  time  required  tighter  scheduling.
   Transcript at  83-84, 171.   Stroh thus  claims $461  for sixteen
   hours of additional labor provided  by Mr. Peterson.  This amount
   was calculated  by multiplying  Mr. Peterson's  hourly wage  rate
   including  markups  by  sixteen hours.    Appellant's  Exhibit 3;
   Transcript at 171.  
 
             Demolition
 
        26.  Demolition  work included  removal of  the  chillers, a
   portion of the piping, and the cooling tower.  Transcript at  41,
   85.  The cooling tower had to be torn down and packed for removal
   by crane.  Transcript  at 85.  Stroh claims $6,610 for additional
   demolition costs occasioned by  the delayed start of  field work.
   Appellant's Exhibits 2-3.
 
             a.   Compression
 
        27.  Stroh  calculates a ten  percent impact of  $1,642 from
   compression  of  the schedule.    Stroh had  determined  that the
   optimum crew for the project was two.  Transcript at 42, 86.  The
   project superintendent testified  that if Stroh had  been able to
   start  the  on-site  work  in  June, it  would  have  immediately
   proceeded  with the  demolition work.    Transcript at  86.   The
   compression of the schedule into  a shorter period of time forced
   Stroh to  use a  "larger  than optimum"  crew size  of four  men,
   leading to  a loss  of efficiency.   Transcript at  41-42, 87-88,
   173.     The  superintendent's   work  was  slowed   because  his
   supervisory duties increased with a larger work crew.  Transcript
   at 87.  Mr. Peterson spent about thirty to thirty-five percent of
   his time supervising the four-man crew.  Based on his experience,
   he would have  spent about ten percent of  his time supervising a
   two-man crew.  Transcript at 87.  
 
        28.  Stroh's estimator  pointed to  the  labor units  column
   which stated 176  hours and total labor hours of  352 as evidence
   of an intent to use two men.  Transcript at 224.  
 
        29.  At  the same time, certain handwritten notes on Stroh's
   pricing sheets suggest that Stroh  intended to use four men crews
   on      at     least      portions     of      the     demolition
   work.[foot #] 11      Item   21,   above   the   entry   "cooling
   towers," contains the notations "4 men 1 wk  4 men 2 days S & S."
   Appellant's  Exhibit 21.   When  asked if  that was  his estimate
   (that Stroh  would assign four men  to work on  demolition of the
   cooling tower),  Mr. Cook responded,  "That is what I  would have
   been figuring, that to  do it in this time that  is what it would
   take.  Yes."  Transcript at 225.  When asked if his  estimate for
   chiller labor  was based on four men  working four days, Mr. Cook
   conceded that it could be.  Transcript at 224-25.  
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 11   Pricing  Sheet 1-SE reads "4 men,  2 days" and
   "3 men - 10 days" under the material column.  Appellant's Exhibit
   21.   Mr. Cook explained that "4 men,  2 days" refers to hoisting
   work involving use of a crane to  remove the old equipment out of
   the  basement to be  loaded onto a truck.   Transcript at 222-23.
   The notation above "3 men - 10 days" is difficult to  discern but
   significant in  that it refers  to a greater  than two man  crew.
   Appellant's Exhibit 21.   Pricing sheet 1  - SM, above  the entry
   "chillers," has handwritten "4 men, 4 day 4 men 8 OT."   Mr. Cook
   could not recall  why those notations were there.   Transcript at
   224.  
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
             b.   Weather
 
        30.  The  demolition  work,  in particular  removal  of  the
   existing cooling tower, had to be performed outdoors, principally
   on the  roof of the building.   Transcript at 83-84, 172.   It is
   significantly colder on top  of a ten story building  than on the
   ground.  Transcript  at 114.  The wind and other weather elements
   necessitated the wearing of heavy clothing and gloves, which  had
   a significant slowing effect on the amount  of work that could be
   accomplished.  Transcript at 41.
 
        31.  Stroh seeks $4,958 for the impact of adverse weather on
   labor  efficiency.  This  represents a factor  of thirty percent.
   Transcript at 41, 86, 88-89. 
 
             Insulating Blankets
 
        32.  On  December  17,  a  hole  was  cut  in  the  exterior
   foundation wall  of the  building to enable  Stroh to  remove the
   existing equipment and install the new  equipment.  Transcript at
   42, 91,  175; Appellant's Exhibit  5.  Because  the hole  was cut
   during  the winter,  the opening  had  to be  covered daily  with
   insulating blankets  to protect  the existing  piping from  cold.
   Accordingly, two  apprentices spent thirty to  forty-five minutes
   each morning and night tearing down and putting back up the heavy
   blankets.  Transcript at 42-43, 89, 91, 175.  Had Stroh been able
   to proceed with field work in  June, as it had planned, the  hole
   in  the building  would have  been cut in  October, prior  to the
   onset  of freezing temperatures  requiring the use  of insulating
   blankets to protect piping.  Transcript at 43, 89-90.
 
        33.   Stroh seeks  $653 for  the labor  costs incurred  as a
   result  of the  need to  protect existing  piping with  insulated
   blankets.   Transcript at 176;  Appellant's Exhibit 3.   This was
   considered to be the least expensive method of proceeding because
   it  would have  taken  many  more labor  hours  to transport  the
   equipment up and down the staircases to avoid using the hole.  In
   any event a  hole would still  have been needed  to bring  switch
   gear into the building.  Transcript at 43. 
 
             Domestic and Chilled Water Piping
 
        34.  Stroh  seeks a ten  percent compression impact  of $568
   for  interior  work   on  domestic  and  chilled   water  piping.
   Appellant's Exhibit  3; Transcript  at 177.   Labor  inefficiency
   resulted from the  use of a  four man crew instead  of a two  man
   crew.  Transcript at 44.  Mr. Peterson testified that his ability
   to supervise was affected "a little bit," but he managed his time
   to minimize the impact.  Transcript at 93-94.  
 
             Condenser Piping
 
        35.  Stroh seeks  an additional  $1,847 for  installation of
   condenser   piping.    The  piping  work  was  affected  by  both
   compression  and adverse  weather.   Transcript  at 95.   Of  the
   claimed   amount,  Stroh  attributes   $739  to  a   ten  percent
   compression impact because  the pipe work had to  be completed in
   half of  the time that would  have been available had  Stroh been
   allowed to proceed in mid-June.  Transcript at 178.
 
        36.  Because approximately  half of  the piping  was on  the
   roof of  the building,  about half  of the work  was impacted  by
   winter weather.   Transcript at 44-45.  The  condenser piping was
   located  outside on the top of the  tower and, at the time it was
   installed,  working  conditions  were impeded  by  ice  and snow.
   Transcript at 95.  Stroh thus claims a thirty percent  impact for
   the fifty percent  of condenser piping labor  performed outdoors.
   Transcript at 178.  The amount claimed is $1,108. 
 
             Chiller Equipment
 
        37.  Stroh  claims a ten percent impact of $552 in increased
   labor costs  due to the  need to  use a larger  crew in order  to
   complete the work of installing  the replacement chillers in less
   time.   Transcript at 45, 96-97, 179.   Stroh does not allege any
   extra costs by  reason of weather  because the chiller  equipment
   was all located indoors.  Transcript at 45.  
 
             Cooling Tower
 
        38.  Stroh  seeks $972 for  additional labor costs  for work
   associated with installing  the new cooling tower.  Transcript at
   181-82.   Although a subcontractor actually installed and erected
   the cooling  towers, Stroh had to  hoist the equipment  up to the
   roof  and hook  up the  cooling towers  after they  were erected.
   These costs were  increased both by the shortened  time frame for
   performance and by weather conditions.  Transcript at 46, 97.  
 
        39.  Stroh  claims a  ten  percent impact  for  work on  the
   cooling  tower  as  a  result  of compression  of  the  time  for
   performance and the need  to use a larger crew.   This amounts to
   $143 of the total requested sum  of $972.  Transcript at 50,  97,
   181-82.  
 
        40.  The new  cooling tower was  installed and hooked  up on
   the top  of the roof.  The cold  and severe weather impacted this
   work.  Transcript  at 47.  Stroh's foreman  testified that "there
   were days we had to step  in an out of wind to warm  up when your
   hands  get  so  cold  you  can't  hang  onto  tools  and  stuff."
   Transcript at 97.  Stroh claims $829 for a thirty percent weather
   impact on the cooling tower work.  Transcript at 182.  
 
             Punch List
 
        41.  The  winter weather and compressed schedule also led to
   additional errors in construction, contributing to an increase in
   the  punch list items that had to be  completed at the end of the
   project.   Transcript at  98-99.   Stroh's expert  explained that
   this  type of impact  is typical  in the  circumstances presented
   here,  where the  schedule  is  compressed  and outdoor  work  is
   shifted  into winter  months.    Transcript  at  183-84.    Stroh
   estimates the cost of completing  the additional punch list items
   over  and above  what would  normally be  expected to  be $2,425.
   Transcript at 183.  This amount was arrived at by applying the 30
   percent weather and the 10 percent compressed schedule factors as
   follows:  $1,819 for severe weather and $606 for schedule impact.
   Transcript at 183-84.
     
             Vern Peterson
 
        42.  Vern  Peterson was the  foreman assigned to  start this
   project during the  second week of June.   Transcript at 48,  80,
   115-16.  Because Mr. Peterson could not start field  work at that
   time,    he    was    sent   to    another    project.[foot #] 12
   Transcript  at  48, 185.    The  other  job, an  "average,  small
   project," could  have been done  by a first-year journeyman  at a
   lower wage rate.   Transcript at 80-81,  116.  As a  foreman, Mr.
   Peterson was  paid $1.30  per hour more  than a  journeyman would
   have earned  plus 28.24 %  in markups.   Transcript at 186.   Mr.
   Peterson remained on the  job until October 14 and  began work on
   the Federal Building on October 15, 1990.  Transcript at 82, 117.
   Stroh thus  claims the amount  of $1,190  for wages paid  to Vern
   Peterson that  were higher  than the rate  that Stroh  would have
   paid for a journeyman during the time Peterson was expected to be
   working   on   the   job   but   could   not   because   of   the
   delay.[foot #] 13  
 
             Electrical
 
        43.  The electrical work  was performed by a  separate crew,
   whose work was affected by the compressed period  for performance
   because it had  to track with the mechanical work.  Transcript at
   51,  117-18.   This resulted  in  a ten  percent inefficiency  of
   $2,035.  Transcript at 118, 187-88; Appellant's Exhibit 3.   
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 12   Stroh was not  willing to lay Mr. Peterson off
   on  a temporary  basis because  of the  high probability  that he
   would not be  available to work for Stroh when  the project could
   be started.  Transcript at 185.  
 
        [foot #] 13   Stroh's calculation is as follows:
 
             89 working days  (from June 11 - October 14,  1990) x 8
             hours per day x $1.67 (wage and benefit differential) =
             $1,190.     
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
        Material and Equipment Escalation
 
             Material
 
        44.  Stroh seeks an  adjustment of $224 for  higher material
   costs caused by the shifting of  the work to the later period  at
   the  Government's  direction.    Transcript  at  51;  Appellant's
   Exhibit  3.   Stroh calculated its  material escalation  claim by
   multiplying  its material cost  ($35,588) by the  1990 government
   escalation rate for materials (1.8%) by the 130-day alleged delay
   (.35 years).  Stroh's  expert explained that the  calculation was
   made this way because Stroh did not purchase all of its materials
   in one lump sum.  Transcript at 189.  Stroh originally planned to
   purchase  materials for  the project  right  after receiving  the
   notice to proceed during the first week of June 1990.  Transcript
   at 51.  After the  Government postponement of the demolition work
   prior to mid-October, Stroh decided not to purchase materials  in
   June in order to avoid storage costs.  Transcript at 188. 
 
             Equipment
 
        45.  Stroh claims  $2,035 for  equipment escalation.   Stroh
   multiplied  its total  equipment  costs  ($32,000)  by  the  1990
   Government  escalation rate  for equipment  (5.3%)  by the  delay
   period (.35 years).  Mr. Cook stated that if Stroh had  been able
   to negotiate  with its suppliers earlier, it  could have received
   better prices on the equipment.  Transcript at 52.   The chillers
   constituted the  majority of the  dollar value of  the equipment.
   Transcript at 53.  Although Stroh paid less for the chillers than
   it  anticipated, if  Stroh had  been able  to order  the chillers
   shortly after it  received the notice to proceed  (which it would
   have if it could have  begun field work immediately), Stroh would
   have paid even less.  Transcript at 53, 191.    
 
        46.  In addition to  the chillers,  Stroh purchased  cooling
   towers, pumps, and  chemical treatment equipment.   Transcript at
   53.   With  the exception  of  some  of the  smaller  items,  the
   suppliers of this other equipment agreed to hold to their prices.
   Transcript at 53-54.  
 
             Victualic Fittings
 
        47.  Initially,  Stroh  planned  to use  welded  fittings in
   installing  the  replacement equipment.    If there  had  been no
   delay, Stroh would in all  likelihood have had most, if  not all,
   of the welding completed  by the end of  October.  Transcript  at
   100.  Welding is not easy to perform in cold weather.  Transcript
   at  191-92.   After  the Government  ordered the  postponement of
   outdoor work until after October  15, 1990, Stroh made a business
   decision  to  use  victualic,   rather  than  welded,   fittings.
   Transcript at 246.   In a victualic system, the same pipe is used
   as with welding,  but the fittings are grooved  and held together
   by gaskets.  Transcript  at 54-55.  Stroh chose to  use victualic
   fittings to avoid the need for welding outdoors during the winter
   weather.   Transcript at 55, 192.  Because  of the wind and cold,
   it would have been necessary to build screens and barriers around
   the welds, which would have been very inefficient.  Transcript at
   55, 101.  
 
 
        48.  Victualic  fittings  are  more  expensive  than  welded
   fittings, but this  difference is offset to some  extent by lower
   labor  expenses  required.    Transcript  at  55.    For example,
   victualic work did not require screens.  Transcript at 101.  Even
   so,  victualic work  was impacted  to  a degree  by the  weather.
   Transcript at 55-56, 102.  In cold weather, the gaskets necessary
   for victualic sealing get very cold.  Transcript at 102.  Stroh's
   expert  testified that although there was a winter weather impact
   on the victualic fittings work, it was much less significant than
   the impact the weather would have had on welded pipe.  Transcript
   at 192-93.  
 
        49.  The expected  reduction in  man-hour requirements  from
   use  of  victualic fittings  was  not  realized on  this  project
   because Stroh could not groove the fittings and put them together
   at the  job site, which  did not have adequate  storage space for
   full lengths of pipe.  Transcript at 236-37.  Instead, Stroh  had
   to groove  the fittings off-site, bring them to the job site, and
   hoist them up to the roof.  Transcript at 236. 
 
        50.  Stroh  has calculated that $4,997 is the net additional
   cost of  using victualic  fittings in  lieu  of welded  fittings.
   Transcript at 56; Appellant's Exhibit 3.  This amount is the cost
   overrun for steel pipe and fittings as reflected in the committed
   cost report.   The job  estimate was  $17,296 for steel  pipe and
   fittings, revised  to $21,080  and the actual  cost of  victualic
   fittings  was $26,076.74, an additional $4,996.74.  Transcript at
   56-57; Appellant's Exhibit 3.
 
        Underabsorbed Home Office Overhead
 
             Dick Cook
 
        51.  Stroh claims $12,834  for the additional time  that one
   of its vice presidents, Mr. Cook, spent on the job as a result of
   the delay.   Transcript at 197; Appellant's Exhibit 3.   Mr. Cook
   served as the project  manager under this contract.  As  a result
   of the delay, he spent more time "coordinating with suppliers and
   subcontractors to get  [the work] done in a  quicker time and the
   materials there quicker and make  sure that they were there  in a
   timely manner when we needed them, and getting the contractors to
   work  --  do their  work  according to  the  weather conditions."
   Transcript at 56-57.  Mr.  Cook testified that from June 8  until
   the end of  June, he spent thirty-two hours  a week restructuring
   the job,  and that  he would  normally  spend four  to six  hours
   working on a similar project.   Transcript at 58, 122, 145,  195;
   Appellant's Exhibit  3.  From  July until October 15,  Mr. Cook's
   activities  on the project consisted of normal project management
   and required only the time that would usually be expected.  Thus,
   there was  no additional cost for this period.  Transcript at 58-
   60, 195-96; Appellant's Exhibit 3.  
 
 
        52.  Once  the field  work  began  on  October  15,  through
   substantial   completion   on   February  7,   Mr.   Cook   spent
   approximately  eighty percent of  his time (thirty-two  hours per
   week) on the project.  Transcript at 59-60.  During this time Mr.
   Cook  was coordinating work with Mr. Peterson and subcontractors,
   and rescheduling work  because of weather problems.   Ordinarily,
   Mr. Cook would have spent approximately four hours per  week on a
   project of this  nature.  Transcript  at 60; Appellant's  Exhibit
   3.[foot #] 14
 
        53.  For  the  first period,  Stroh  calculated twenty-eight
   additional hours per week were  spent, resulting in sixteen extra
   working days.   Transcript at 195.   For the second impact period
   Stroh calculated twenty-eight extra hours per week for a total of
   seventy-eight additional working days by Mr. Cook.  Transcript at
   196.   Adding the  sixteen extra days  to the  twenty-eight extra
   days yields  a total impact  of ninety-four working days.   This,
   divided by  five working days  per week, equals 18.8  weeks minus
   one week of  planned time, which equals 17.8  weeks.  Multiplying
   17.8 weeks by  twenty-eight hours yields  498.4 man hours,  which
   divided  by forty  man hours  per  week comes  to 12.46  billable
   weeks.  Multiplying  this by $1,030 per week  equals $12,834, the
   additional  overhead costs  sought for Mr.  Cook's time  over and
   above what would have been  required had the project proceeded as
   planned.  Transcript at 196-97.
 
             Punch List - Dick Cook
 
        54.  Stroh  claims $2,060 for additional cost of the project
   manager's time after  February 9, 1991.  Transcript  at 197.  The
   project  manager was  responsible for  managing  the punch  list.
   Transcript at 197.  Due to the  longer punch list, Mr. Cook spent
   more of  his time  overseeing its completion  than he  would have
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 14    Stroh provided the  following chart depicting
   the added time for Mr. Cook:
 
   Dates                    Estimated Normal Time    Actual Time
   _____                    _____________________    ___________
   June 8 - end of June     4 to 6 hours per week    32   hours  per
   week
   July - October 15        no impact
   October 15 - February 7  4 to 6 hours per week    32   hours  per
   week
 
   78 + 16 = 94 additional work days
   94/5 = 18.8 weeks - 1 week planned = 17.8 weeks
   17.8 x 28 hours/week = 498.4 man hours
   498.4/40 = 12.46 billable weeks
   12.46 weeks x $1030/week (Cook's salary) = $12,834.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   otherwise.  Transcript at 61,  197.  Based on his  experience, he
   was   required  to  spend   approximately  two  additional  weeks
   overseeing punch list  items caused by the impact  of the delayed
   start.   Transcript at 61.   Applying the thirty  percent weather
   factor and the  ten percent compression factor, this is allocated
   as $1,545 for weather impact and $515 for the compressed schedule
   impact.  Transcript at 198.  
 
 
             Underabsorbed Home Office Overhead
 
        55.  Stroh claims  the amount of  $137,481 for underabsorbed
   home  office  overhead.    Although  Stroh  originally  used  the
   Eichleay  formula,  applied   to  the  alleged  130   day  delay,
   Appellant's  Exhibit 1, Stroh subsequently modified its theory of
   recovery.   Stroh now  seeks money for overhead  it was unable to
   absorb because  it lost revenue after it  could not bid for other
   projects.   Stroh's claim  for this  item  is thus  based on  its
   reduced ability  to bid  for mechanical  work  because the  delay
   required  its mechanical estimator  to spend extra  time managing
   this job.  Transcript at 62.
 
        56.  At  the   time  the   contract  was  awarded,   Stroh's
   mechanical  estimator,  Mr.  Cook,  was  responsible for  between
   eighty to ninety percent of  Stroh's mechanical estimating.  This
   consisted of about  four to eight projects per  month, ranging in
   value  from $60,000  to $4  million.   Transcript at  62-63, 121.
   Stroh successfully bid for about twenty to twenty-five percent of
   the projects  that Mr.  Cook estimated.   Transcript at  63, 121.
   Because  of the  delay to  this  project, however,  Mr. Cook  was
   unable to estimate other projects during the period  from October
   15 to February 7, 1991.  Transcript at 62, 64, 200.  
 
        57.  Stroh's general  manager and executive  vice president,
   John    Stenberg[foot #] 15,   testified    that   no    one   at
   Stroh could replace Mr.  Cook as the project  manager so that  he
   could continue  estimating during the  period from October  15 to
   early  February  when  he  was   required  to  spend  extra  time
   overseeing this project.  It  is Stroh's customary policy for the
   person  who estimated a job to manage it because "the same person
   has the feeling for  the job.  He has taken it  off.  He know[s],
   he has some  feeling what  the labor  is, how to  put the  jigsaw
   puzzle  together."    Transcript  at  140.    Mr.  Stenberg  also
   testified that  time did not  permit him to take  over as project
   manager.   Transcript  at  140-41.   In  addition,  Mr. Cook  had
   started management  of the job  and dealt with all  the problems.
   Transcript at 204.  
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 15        Mr.  Stenberg  was  general  manager  and
   executive  vice president  for Stroh,  reporting  to the  company
   president.  As general manager, Mr. Stenberg oversaw all work for
   Stroh,  with primary  responsibility  for the  service  division.
   Transcript at 108-09.  
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
        58.  At  the  same   time,  Stroh  was  not   able  to  make
   arrangements  for a substitute  mechanical estimator.  Transcript
   at 126-28.  Other Stroh employees were not trained to perform the
   mechanical  estimating previously done by Mr. Cook.  Mr. Stenberg
   could  not   undertake  additional   estimating  responsibilities
   because he was  already working long hours and  had not estimated
   large projects  of this nature  in years.  Transcript  at 126-27.
   Stroh's  other   estimator  was   fully  occupied  with   project
   management   and  the   performance   of  electrical   estimates.
   Transcript at 127.  Stroh's  president did not have the expertise
   to  complete the  estimates.   Transcript at  128.   According to
   Stroh's expert, it was not  feasible to hire an outside estimator
   to  perform this  function temporarily  because  a new  estimator
   would not  be familiar with the  inner workings of Stroh  and its
   historical values,  and the estimator  would not have  Mr. Cook's
   management experience.   Transcript  at 203.   Even if  Stroh had
   been able  to find  another  estimator right  away, Mr.  Stenberg
   testified that  it would be  six months before the  estimator was
   sufficiently  familiar with  Stroh's  estimating  system and  had
   gained the confidence  of the firm  to replace  Mr. Cook in  this
   capacity.  Transcript at 128-29.   Furthermore, Mr. Cook was only
   occupied  on  this project  for  four  months  and an  additional
   estimator would not be needed after that.  Transcript at 129.   
 
        59.  The  inability of Mr.  Cook to estimate  new mechanical
   projects from October  1990 until February 1991 caused  a loss of
   income to  Stroh on projects it would otherwise have successfully
   bid  for.   There  were plenty  of  projects to  bid  during this
   period.  Transcript at 64, 130.  As a result of Stroh's inability
   to  estimate and  resultant  inability to  bid new  projects from
   October 15,  1990 through  February 1991,  Stroh's revenues  fell
   from February  of 1991 though  July of 1991.   Transcript at 124.
   In March, Mr.  Cook was able to begin  estimating again and Stroh
   returned to its "normal" sales  pattern in September and  October
   1991.  Transcript at 125. 
    
        60.  Stroh's  expert testified that  the revenue stream from
   the  project  was originally  scheduled  to begin  in  June 1990.
   Transcript at  199.  Instead,  Stroh's revenues  dipped in  June,
   July, and August.   Transcript at 199.   Accordingly, the project
   was  not  absorbing  Stroh's  overhead  during  those  months  as
   planned.  Transcript  at 200.  The billings were made up later in
   the November and December time periods when most of  the work was
   accomplished.  Transcript at 200.  
 
        61.  Stroh has provided the following calculations to arrive
   at its claimed amount for underabsorbed overhead:
 
   1.   Calculation of Amount  of Lost Revenue During  Impact Period
   as   Percentage of Expected Revenue
 
   1990 Monthly Revenue
   $2,898,700 (1990 Revenue)/12 (months) = $241,558
   Anticipated Revenue During Feb. - July 1991
   $241,558 (monthly 1990 revenue) x 6 (impact months) = $1,449,348
 
   Actual Revenue During Feb. - July 1991
   $595,794
 
   Lost Revenue  (Anticipated Feb.  to July -  Actual Feb.  to July)
   $1,449,348 - $595,794 = $853,554
 
   $853,554 (lost revenue)
   $1,149,348 (anticipated revenue) = 58.89% shortfall
 
   2.   Calculation  of  Mechanical  Overhead  and  Apply  Shortfall
 
        Percentage
 
   $1,839,457 (mechanical sales 1991)      = 39.59%
   $4,645,856 (total contract sales 1991)
 
   $1,179,252  (total company  overhead 1991)  x 39.59%  (mechanical
   share of sales) = $466,907 attributable to mechanical work
 
   $466,907/2 = $233,454 = mechanical overhead from Feb. - July 1991
 
   3.   Application  of  Shortfall  Percentage  to  Overhead  During
        Affected Period
 
   $233,454 x 58.89% = $137,481
 
        Overhead, Profit, and Small Tool Expenses
 
        62.  Stroh  claims  $5,225  for additional  direct  overhead
   expenses.   Transcript at 135, 210.   Stroh applied an 18.2% rate
   to additional costs from wage escalation, labor inefficiency, and
   material and equipment escalation, totalling $17,495.  Transcript
   at 210.   The 18.2% rate was based on historical data and Stroh's
   bid.  Transcript at 135-36, 209.
 
        63.  Stroh  claims   $18,774  for  a  ten   percent  profit.
   Transcript at 211.   Stroh's expert testified that  a ten percent
   profit  is standard  for change  orders and  was similar  to what
   Stroh originally anticipated.   Transcript at  211.  This  profit
   figure   was   applied  to   all  additional   expenses  claimed.
   Transcript at 211; Appellant's Exhibit 3.  
 
        64.  Stroh claims $1,428 for additional small tool expenses.
   As Stroh  buys small  tools, it  charges them  to its small  tool
   account.  Transcript  at 210.   At  the end of  the project,  the
   account equalled  8.16% of labor  cost.  Transcript at  146, 210.
   Stroh  applied this 8.16%  to its additional  labor costs because
   small  tool  expenses  increase   with  increased  labor   costs.
   Transcript at  136-37, 210.   Small tool expenses  compensate for
   wear  and loss  of  tools.   Transcript  at  136.   Mr.  Stenberg
   testified  that Stroh's  figure was  within  the industry  range.
   Transcript at 137.  Stroh  customarily bids its small tools  as a
   percentage of labor.  Transcript at 209.
 
   Bond Premium
 
 
        65.  Stroh seeks an  additional bond premium of  .63% on the
   additional contract monies awarded to compensate it for the costs
   incurred  as  a  result  of  the  Government's  order  postponing
   commencement  of demolition  prior to  October  15.   Appellant's
   Exhibit  3; Transcript  at  137-39,  212.   Stroh  pays its  bond
   premium based upon  the final contract amount,  including pricing
   adjustments.  Transcript at 212.  
 
                               Discussion
 
        In addition to challenging the adequacy of  Stroh's proof of
   its  increased  costs,  at the  outset,  the  Government disputes
   Stroh's entitlement  to recover  portions of  the costs  claimed.
   These  costs are the "compression damages" and the "underabsorbed
   overhead" sought by Stroh.  With  respect to "compression" costs,
   respondent  maintains  that  the  Board   lacks  jurisdiction  to
   entertain  this   aspect  of   appellant's  claim;   as  to   the
   underabsorbed overhead,  it  is respondent's  position  that  the
   Board similarly  lacks jurisdiction over appellant's  revision of
   this  claim  from  an  Eichleay-based  formula  to  a  claim  for
   underabsorbed  overhead  incurred  as a  result  of  a diminished
   revenue stream.  Respondent also maintains that even if the Board
   has jurisdiction to  decide this element of  Stroh's claim, there
   is no legal entitlement to recover such costs.  
 
   Jurisdictional Issues
 
        Compressed Schedule Costs
 
        Stroh characterizes its claim for  additional costs incurred
   by  reason  of loss  of  labor  efficiency  as  a result  of  the
   reduction in  the  contract performance  period  as  "compression
   damages."  According  to respondent, Stroh first  identified this
   element of additional cost in proceedings at the Board; the claim
   before the contracting officer only explicitly identified loss of
   labor  efficiency  due  to severe  winter  weather.   Appellant's
   Exhibits 1-4.   Respondent contends that the  elements of Stroh's
   damage claim described as "compression" costs actually comprise a
   claim for the effect of acceleration of the work, and as such was
   a new  claim that was required to be presented to the contracting
   officer  before   it  could   properly  be   considered  by   the
   Board.[foot #] 16      See   Placeway   Construction   Corp.   v.
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 16    In  addition  to   its  objection  that   the
   "compression"  elements  of  Stroh's  quantum  claim  were  never
   properly presented to the contracting officer, respondent asserts
   a second  basis for  questioning  the Board's  jurisdiction.   In
                                                      (continued...)
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   United States, 920 F.2d 903 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Santa Fe Engineers,
   Inc. v. United  States, 881 F.2d  856 (Fed. Cir.  1987).  In  its
   February 25,  1994 opinion the Board  did not rule on  this issue
   with  respect to  appellant's  "compressed schedule"  costs,  but
   recognized that a  claim for acceleration damages may, under some
   circumstances, require different elements of factual proof than a
   delay  claim and  thus could  be  a different  claim requiring  a
   separate decision by the contracting officer.  Stroh Corp.,  94-2
   BCA at 133,206 (citing Trepte Construction Co., ASBCA 38555, 90-1
   BCA   22,595).
 
 
        Respondent now  argues that  the compressed  schedule costs,
   which primarily  encompass reduced  productivity of  labor and  a
   portion  of the underabsorbed overhead  claimed by Stroh, can not
   be deemed part of the initial claim which was certified in August
   of  1990.   In  respondent's  view,  the  "compressed  timeframe"
   damages are necessarily based on a legal theory that acceleration
   of  contract  performance  was  constructively  ordered  by   the
   Government.  More specifically,  respondent contends that because
   Stroh  completed   contract  performance   on   time,  the   only
   permissible legal theory  for recovery of the  "time compression"
   damages is  constructive acceleration.   Relying on  Utley-James,
   Inc.,  GSBCA 5370,  85-1 BCA    17,816,  respondent asserts  that
   Stroh must,  with respect to  these costs, prove the  elements of
   acceleration, i.e. facts which demonstrate that there  was a need
   for  acceleration, a Government direction to accelerate, and that
   Stroh accelerated  its work.   The elements of  acceleration were
   not, according  to respondent, part  of the nucleus  of operative
   facts in Stroh's certified claim.
 
        Stroh, in response, defines its  claim in terms of the broad
   remedial  purpose  of  an equitable  adjustment  defined  as "the
   difference between  the reasonable cost  of the work  required by
   the contract and the actual  reasonable cost to (the  contractor)
   of  performing  the changed  work,  plus a  reasonable  amount of
   overhead  and profit."  Greenwood Construction Co., AGBCA 75-127,
   78-1  BCA    12,893,  at  62,831.    Thus,  any  costs  that  are
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 16 (...continued)
   particular, respondent cites SAE/Americon - Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v.
                                ____________________________________
   General Services Administration, GSBCA 12294,  94-2 BCA   26,890,
   _______________________________
   to support the argument that because Stroh's  entire claims dated
   February 1, 11, and 25, 1994 were never certified, the Board does
   not have jurisdiction over them.   Because we conclude that these
   claims  essentially  clarify  and  augment  the  certified  claim
   submitted   to  the   contracting  officer   in  1990,   however,
   recertification was  not required.   See, e.g., J.F. Shea  Co. v.
                                        ___  ____  _________________
   United States, 4 Cl. Ct. 46, 54 (1983); Lorentz Bruun  Co., GSBCA
   _____________                           __________________
   8504, et al., 88-2  BCA   20,719, at 104,699; cf.  Tecom, Inc. v.
                                                 __   ______________
   United  States, 732  F.2d 935  (Fed. Cir.  1984) (if  the initial
   ______________
   claim was  under  $50,000, a  revision based  on new  information
   which  causes  the  claim  to  exceed  $50,000  will  not require
   certification).  
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   reasonable  and can  be  connected to  the  Government delay  are
   recoverable.  The added  costs of proceeding under  the shortened
   time frame required by the Government-imposed delay are  a direct
   result of the  suspension of the work.   The Board is  not, Stroh
   maintains,  required to find  a constructive acceleration  by the
   Government to award these costs. 
 
 
        In light of the facts  in the fully-developed record in this
   case, a  reexamination of the holding of Trepte Construction Co.,
   ASBCA 38555,  90-1 BCA    22,595, persuades us  that there  is no
   jurisdictional  bar  to  Stroh's  claim  of  compressed  schedule
   damages.   In Trepte, after initially  claiming relief based upon
   impact damages arising  out of a stop-work order,  the contractor
   filed  an  amended  complaint  alleging that  certain  Government
   actions  constituted  a  "constructive  acceleration  for   which
   [appellant]  is entitled  to an  equitable  adjustment under  the
   changes clause in  the contract."   The amended complaint  sought
   recovery of $476,800,  the same amount as claimed  in the request
   for  the contracting  officer's  decision  and  in  the  original
   complaint.  Id.
 
        The  Government  moved  to  strike  the  paragraph  alleging
   constructive acceleration on  the basis that the  requirements to
   prove  constructive acceleration  differ from  those required  to
   prove  entitlement  to  delay damages,  and  therefore  the claim
   should have first been presented to the contracting officer.  Id.
   The  Board stated that  the determination of  whether allegations
   constitute a new claim "turns on whether the matter raised before
   the  Board  differs  from  the  essential  nature  or  the  basic
   operative facts of  the original claim."  Id.   The Board further
   explained:
 
             The introduction of additional  facts which do not
        alter  the nature  of  the  original  claim,  a  dollar
        increase in the amount claimed before the Board, or the
        assertion of a new legal theory of recovery, when based
        upon  the same  operative  facts  as  included  in  the
        original claim, do not constitute new claims.  
 
   Id. at 113,386-87.
 
        The Board then  compared the elements required  for proof of
   delay  damages with those  required for acceleration  damages and
   found that the elements were  different.  The Board observed that
   compensation for  delay damages required proof that the delay was
   Government   caused  and   establishment   of  its   effect  upon
   performance.     Id.  at  113,386.    In  contrast,  constructive
   acceleration had  three  distinct  elements,  including  (1)  the
   existence of excusable delay, (2) notice to the Government of the
   delay and a request for an extension  of time, and (3) an express
   or implied Government order.  Id.
 
        Because  the  elements of  proof  of the  two  theories were
   substantially   different  in   Trepte,   and  the   constructive
   acceleration  basis for  recovery  was  never  presented  to  the
   contracting  officer,  the  Government's  motion  to  strike  was
   granted.  Id.  The Board  observed that the return of appellant's
   acceleration  claim   to  the  contracting   officer  would   not
   necessarily  waste  resources  because  the  contracting  officer
   "could   very   well  have   increased   that  compensation   had
   constructive acceleration been claimed. . . ."  Id.
 
 
        In  contrast to  the circumstances  of Trepte, we  find here
   that the compressed schedule costs  do not constitute a new claim
   but rather an extension  of claims which the  contracting officer
   had the  opportunity to consider.   With the benefit  of a fully-
   developed  record, it  is clear  that  the claim  for compression
   damages is indeed based on the  same operative facts as the other
   claims:  the Government's insistence  that the cooling system not
   be  disrupted until October  15 and  subsequent delay  of on-site
   work,  resulting  in  a  shortened  performance  period.    Stroh
   explicitly notified  the Government that it objected to the delay
   in commencing performance and required an extension of time.  The
   Government effectively ordered  Stroh to proceed as  directed and
   complete the work within the original performance period.   Thus,
   even if constructive acceleration were the only permissible legal
   theory to support  recovery of compressed  time frame costs,  the
   facts  underlying such a  recovery were effectively  presented to
   the  contracting officer in  Stroh's original  claim and  are not
   substantively different  from those  litigated before  the Board.
   As such, there is no jurisdictional bar to recovery.   See, e.g.,
   Diversified  Marine Tech,  Inc., DOTBCA  2455, et  al., 93-2  BCA
     25,719.
 
        Underabsorbed Home Office Overhead
 
        In the claim initially submitted to the contracting officer,
   Stroh sought underabsorbed  home office overhead for  the alleged
   130 calendar days of delay from the  date of notice to proceed to
   the  date that  the cooling  system could  be shut  down.   Stroh
   calculated  its damages under  the Eichleay formula  and reasoned
   that "[b]ecause of the unanticipated nature of this change order,
   Stroh  is unable to replace  the 'lost' work  (due to lead times,
   restraints on bonding  capacity and lines of credit)  in order to
   'absorb' the  overhead  expense  during  the  originally  planned
   construction  period."   Appeal  File,  Exhibits  9, 11.    Stroh
   subsequently  changed  its  theory  of  recovery  for  unabsorbed
   overhead.  Beginning with its February 1, 1994 amended complaint,
   Stroh maintained that 
 
             [Dick Cook]  was not  able to  perform his  normal
        estimating duties and therefore he was not able to help
        Stroh secure projects  in early to mid 1991.   For that
        reason  the  revenues  for   the  mechanical  contracts
        dropped during  the period of  time until he  could get
        this  project completed,  get  back  to estimating  new
        projects, get them on line, and get revenues coming  to
        cover the overhead.
   Appellant's Exhibits 2-4; Findings 51-52.  
 
 
        The Government  argues that Stroh's claim  for underabsorbed
   home office overhead based on lost revenues is  a new claim which
   that Board  is without  jurisdiction to  consider because it  was
   never presented  to the contracting  officer.  In support  of its
   argument, the Government  observes that Stroh's new  legal theory
   has  resulted in  a different  period of  damages from  the claim
   submitted  to   the   contracting  officer.     Stroh's   initial
   calculation, based on  the Eichleay formula, resulted  in alleged
   damages occurring  from the  middle of June  to October  15, 1991
   (the delay  of on-site work),  while the new theory  alleges that
   the damages occurred during February through July 1991 (period of
   lost  revenues  from inability  to  bid  on  contracts).    Thus,
   according to the Government, Stroh has "changed its tune."
 
        Once again, the  "same operative facts" test  is applicable.
   Stroh's  original   computation  of  underabsorbed   home  office
   overhead  was based  on a  straight application  of the  Eichleay
   formula     using     a     figure     of     130     days     of
   delay.[foot #] 17     Stroh's  new   theory  is   based  on   the
   delay's alleged effect on the work of the project manager and his
   resultant inability to  bid on other mechanical work.    Although
   the new theory  (1) requires additional facts  regarding the work
   of the project manager and Stroh's mechanical estimating ability,
   (2)  increases the dollar  amount of the claim  and (3) asserts a
   new legal  theory of  recovery, each of  these is  permissible so
   long as  the significant operative  and related facts  remain the
   same.[foot #] 18  
 
   Quantum
 
        Appellant seeks an  adjustment to the contract  price in the
   amount  of $214,505, representing  the increased costs  it claims
   were incurred to perform  the subject contract as a result of the
   Government's  direction   to  postpone  the  removal  of  chiller
   equipment  until  after  October  15.   To  obtain  an  equitable
   adjustment,  a contractor  must  show  three necessary  elements:
   liability,  causation,   and   resultant   injury.      Servidone
   Construction Corp. v. United States, 931 F.2d 860, 861 (Fed. Cir.
   1991)  (citing Wunderlich Contracting  Co. v. United  States, 351
   F.2d 956, 968 (Ct. Cl. 1965)); Electronic and Missile Facilities,
   Inc.  v. United  States,  416  F.2d 1345,  1355  (Ct. Cl.  1969);
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 17   Stroh subsequently determined that application
   of the Eichleay  formula was inappropriate  because there was  no
          ________
   "uncertain length of the [delay in the] performance  period under
   the contract."  Appellant's Post Hearing Reply Brief at 3.
 
        [foot #] 18       Respondent's  challenge  to Stroh's  legal
   entitlement  to recover  underabsorbed  overhead  under its  non-
   Eichleay   formula  is  addressed  below  in  the  discussion  of
   individual items of cost.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   Warwick   Construction,  Inc.,  GSBCA  5070,  et  al.,  82-2  BCA
     16,091, at 79,854.  It is appellant's burden to demonstrate and
   prove the fact and amount  of loss with sufficient certainty that
   the  determination  of  the  amount  of  an  adjustment  due  the
   contractor  is more than  mere speculation.   Lisbon Contractors,
   Inc. v. United States, 828 F.2d 759, 767 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
 
 
        To the extent that the Government has changed the work under
   a  contract, the  changes  clause entitles  a  contractor to  the
   increased  costs  of  performance   resulting  from  the  change.
   Freeman Darling, Inc., GSBCA 7112, 89-2 BCA   21,882, at 110,102.
   The appellant must establish both (1) reasonableness of costs and
   (2)  causal connection  to delays  caused by  change orders.   An
   equitable  adjustment is  a corrective  measure  which is  simply
   intended to  keep a contractor  whole when the contract  has been
   changed by the Government.  E.g., Greenwood Construction Co., 78-
   1  BCA at 62,831.  The key is  to put the contractor in as good a
   position  as he  would  have been  but  for defendant's  actions.
   George Bennett v. United States, 371 F.2d 859 (Ct. Cl. 1967).  To
   the extent the Government's actions are more properly regarded as
   a suspension of the work, the contractor is similarly entitled to
   recover  increased  costs  of performance,  but  may  not recover
   profit associated with such costs.  Warwick Construction Co., 82-
   2 BCA  at 102,960; Dravo  Corp., ENGBCA 3915, 79-1  BCA   13,603;
   Finding  3.   In this  case,  the Government's  actions are  most
   properly  characterized as  a suspension of  the work,  for which
   recovery is provided  under the Suspension of Work  Clause of the
   contract.  
 
        Recoverable  increased  costs  of  performing  delayed  work
   include  escalation  in wages  and  the  price  of materials  and
   equipment.   See Berkeley Construction  Co., VABCA 1962, 88-1 BCA
     20,259;  Garcia  Concrete,  Inc.,   AGBCA  78-105-4,  82-2  BCA
     16,046;  Excavation-Construction, Inc.,  ENGBCA 3858,  82-2 BCA
     15,770,  reconsideration  denied, 83-1  BCA   16,388.   Another
   allowable  cost is  the  cost  of labor  and  equipment that  has
   remained  idle or is underutilized, subject to reasonable efforts
   to mitigate the expense.  Laburnum Construction Co., 325 F.2d 451
   (Ct. Cl. 1963); Hardeman-Monier-Hutcherson (JV), ASBCA 11785, 67-
   1 BCA   6210, at 28,748-49.  Loss of efficiency is also  a proper
   element of recovery.  Luria Brothers  & Co. v. United States, 369
   F.2d 701  (Ct. Cl.  1966); Youngdale &  Sons Construction  Co. v.
   United  States, 27  Fed. Cl.  516  (1993); Warwick  Construction,
   Inc., 82-2 BCA    16,091; Sun Shipbuilding  & Drydock Co.,  ASBCA
   11300, 68-1 BCA   7054.
 
   Individual Elements of Increased Cost
 
        Wage Escalation
 
        Increased labor costs occasioned by increases in wage scales
   that  become applicable as  a result of  Government-ordered delay
   are  properly compensable.   See J.D.  Hedin Construction  Co. v.
   United States,  347 F.2d  235, 257 (Ct.  Cl. 1965),  overruled in
   part on other grounds sub  nom. Wilner v. United States,  24 F.3d
   1397, 1402-03 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Garcia Concrete, Inc., 82-2 BCA  
   16,046.  Stroh seeks $182,  the amount it calculates was incurred
   by  reason of the  shifting of labor  hours that  would have been
   incurred in 1990 into 1991.   Since the Government is responsible
   for  these increased  costs, we  find that  Stroh is  entitled to
   recover this amount.  
    
 
        Loss of Labor Efficiency - Generally
 
        The loss of labor productivity resulting from improper delay
   is also a proper element of damages.  Luria Brothers, 369 F.2d at
   712.  To recover for loss of labor efficiency the contractor must
   demonstrate that a  particular work activity  was impaired by  an
   action taken  by the Government.   To prove this,  the contractor
   must show  the normal or  expected level of performance  and must
   also show the  extent to which  the Government's action  impacted
   that performance,  reducing labor efficiency.   Southwest Marine,
   Inc., ASBCA 39472, 93-2 BCA   25,682 (1992).
 
        It has also been recognized that loss of  labor productivity
   is difficult to prove with exactitude and that the need to resort
   to  estimates  does  not necessarily  preclude  recovery.   Luria
   Brothers, 369 F.2d at 713; Southwest Marine, 93-2 BCA at 127,764.
   In fact,  it is rare when the loss  of productivity can be proven
   by books and  records; the contractor  must frequently resort  to
   proof  by expert  witness.   Even  so, mere  estimations are  not
   sufficient.  Id.  In this case, Stroh has  met its burden to show
   that the Government's actions reduced the efficiency of its labor
   force in two ways:  1)  the work was shifted into adverse  winter
   weather conditions, and   2) the reduced amount of time  left for
   accomplishing   demolition   of   the   existing   chillers   and
   installation of the new equipment forced Stroh, at least for some
   of the work, to use a less than optimum crew size to perform  the
   work.
 
        Labor Efficiency - Compression of the Schedule
 
        Stroh had  less than half  of the original time  to complete
   the work  because the start of on site  work was pushed back from
   Stroh's planned  start on  June 11 until  October 15,  1990, when
   Stroh was allowed to shut down the  cooling system.  Stroh claims
   that  the reduction of  the on-site  performance period  from 240
   days to 110 days  caused Stroh to  abandon its original plans  to
   use a two-man crew for much of the work and forced Stroh to use a
   less   efficient   four-man   crew.[foot #] 19     Findings   22-
   23.    Stroh's  expert  witness  testified  that  loss  of  labor
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 19    As discussed  below, there  is evidence  that
   Stroh  would  have used  a  four-man  crew for  certain  efforts,
   particularly  demolition of the  existing equipment, even  had it
   not  been forced  to postpone commencement  of the  on-site work.
   Finding 29.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   efficiency due  to working under  a compressed schedule  is well-
   recognized in the construction industry.  Finding 27.  The expert
   relied  on the  Mechanical  Contractor's  Association of  America
   (MCAA) manual to  obtain the efficiency reduction  percentages he
   used  to calculate  Stroh's additional  costs.   The  ten percent
   factor used was  for a minor impact.  Finding 27.  Stroh took its
   actual  costs from  cost reports  and  multiplied them  by a  ten
   percent  factor from  the MCAA  manual.   Given the  testimony of
   Stroh's employees and its  expert witness, this was a  reasonable
   and supportable percentage to use for this purpose.  
 
 
        Labor Efficiency - Severe Winter Weather
 
        That winter weather  and adverse  weather conditions  reduce
   the efficiency of the labor force "only stands to reason."  Luria
   Brothers, 369 F.2d at 712.   Stroh persuasively maintains that it
   was forced  to perform  considerably  more of  the contract  work
   during winter weather  conditions as a result of the delay of on-
   site  work.    Findings  11-12.     Although  the  chillers  were
   originally  scheduled to  be  delivered  in  October,  Stroh  has
   demonstrated that  it would have  begun on-site work  in mid-June
   because there  was  work that  needed  to be  done  prior to  the
   arrival  of  the  new  equipment.   Finding  20.    The delay  of
   demolition activities at the site from mid-June until mid-October
   shifted the performance period into colder months.  Finding 26. 
 
        Stroh's  expert credibly testified  as to the  acceptance of
   the  concept of loss of labor efficiency from work done in severe
   winter weather.   Finding 30.  He  relied on the MCAA  manual for
   the percentages  he used  to calculate the  effect of  the winter
   weather  on   Stroh's  costs.     Similar   to  its   compression
   calculation, Stroh took  its actual costs  from cost reports  and
   multiplied  them  by  percentage impacts  from  the  MCAA manual.
   Finding 61.
 
        Although we agree  that Stroh was forced to  perform much of
   the  outdoor work  in colder  weather and  that this  reduced its
   efficiency, we are not persuaded that the severity of the weather
   has  been shown  to  justify application  of  the thirty  percent
   factor across the board.  There is substantial testimony that for
   a  substantial portion of  the performance period,  severe winter
   weather, particularly cold  temperatures and wind chill,  impeded
   labor productivity.   To  compensate for the  fact that  at least
   some of the outdoor work would have been performed in October and
   early  November, in relatively  moderate conditions, and  for the
   lack  of evidence  as to  daily temperatures  and conditions,  we
   conclude  that a  factor  of  approximately twenty-five  percent,
   representing a  compromise between  average  and severe  seasonal
   conditions,  should be applied.   The claimed  costs are adjusted
   accordingly. 
 
        Labor Efficiency - Quantum
      
             Mobilization Costs   
 
        Stroh does not specify the wage rate of Mr. Peterson, and we
   have not located it in the record.  Based  on the number of hours
   and dollar amount claimed for this item, however, it appears that
   Stroh    is     claiming    $28.81    per     hour    for     Mr.
   Peterson.[foot #] 20      We   allow    the   total   amount   of
   $461 as demonstrated and reasonable.
 
             Demolition
 
        The   added  demolition  costs   are  based  on   both  time
   compression and weather factors.  With respect to the compression
   costs requested, the evidence is inconclusive as to the size crew
   that Stroh would have used.   Although witnesses testified that a
   two man crew could have performed  the job had the Government not
   delayed  commencement  until  after   October  15,  the   written
   notations on the  estimating sheets, and testimony of  one of the
   witnesses, suggests  that Stroh may  well have intended to  use a
   four man crew for demolition.   Thus, we do not allow the  $1,162
   claimed for compression costs for this item. 
 
        We are persuaded  that Stroh has produced  credible evidence
   that   its  demolition   efforts  were   adversely   impacted  by
   unfavorable winter  weather conditions.   The  amount claimed  by
   Stroh for this impact is $4,958.  As discussed above, this amount
   is adjusted to reflect an approximate twenty-five percent factor;
   the amount awarded is $4,130. 
 
             Insulating Blankets
 
        Stroh has  shown that the  requirement to put up  and remove
   the  insulating blankets was  a result of  the Government-ordered
   delay.   Findings 32-33.   The contractor is entitled  to recover
   for the cost of extra protective measures required to protect the
   work against winter weather where those measures  are required as
   a direct result of the Government's actions delaying performance.
   J.D. Hedin Construction Co., 347 F.2d at 256.  We award $653, the
   amount of the labor costs Stroh has demonstrated were incurred in
   the performance of this task. 
 
             Chilled    Water     Piping/Condenser    Piping/Chiller
        Equipment/     Cooling Towers
 
        The   added  costs  claimed  by  Stroh  in  connection  with
   performance  of the installation of these replacement items under
   the  contract are  discussed in  Findings  34-40.   Based on  the
   evidence  of record,  the costs  associated  with the  compressed
   schedule  have been  sufficiently demonstrated  and are  allowed.
   These costs come to $568 for installation of domestic and chilled
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 20    This  figure matches  the entry  next to  Mr.
   Peterson's name in the expert's notes regarding appellant's claim
   and  interviews with appellant's employees.  Appeal File, Exhibit
   151.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   water piping; $739 for installation of condenser piping; $552 for
   installation  of  the  chiller  equipment;  and  $143  for  costs
   associated  with hooking up the cooling  towers.  Adverse weather
   had  an impact  on  the  work with  respect  to condenser  piping
   installed on the  roof and the hook  up of the cooling  towers on
   the roof.   Stroh claims  weather impacts on labor  efficiency of
   $1,108  (condenser  piping)  and $829  (cooling  towers).   After
   adjusting these amounts by a reduced weather factor, the  amounts
   allowable  for reduced labor  efficiency are,  respectively, $915
   and $650.
 
 
             Punch List
 
        The  evidence  of   record  supports  the  conclusion   that
   increased  costs were  in fact  incurred in  connection with  the
   performance of added punch list  items as a result of compression
   of the  performance time and winter weather  conditions.  Finding
   41.   Thus, we  allow the  claimed amount  of  $606 for  schedule
   impact and adjust the weather  factor claimed to award the amount
   of $1,515 for winter conditions.
 
             Vern Peterson
 
        Stroh's  decision to  retain  its  experienced foreman,  Mr.
   Peterson, to  ensure it  would be  in a  position to  perform the
   contract  properly  after  October  15  was  reasonable.    Stroh
   mitigated  the added  costs as  best  it could  by assigning  Mr.
   Peterson to  other work.   Finding  42.   The  claimed amount  of
   $1,190 is allowed.
 
             Electrical
 
        Stroh has  demonstrated entitlement  to the  extra costs  of
   performance of the electrical work  incurred as a consequence  of
   the compressed schedule.  We award the full amount of $2,035. 
 
        Material and Equipment Escalation
 
             Materials and Equipment
 
        Stroh's  witnesses credibly attested that had they been able
   to purchase materials and equipment when planned, in early summer
   1990, the  costs would have  been lower than those  incurred when
   they were finally able to order the equipment later in the  year.
   Stroh was not in a  position to order the equipment  earlier than
   it did  and store it  until it was  ready to  be used.   Stroh is
   entitled to recover the increased costs claimed of $6,215.
 
             Victualic Fittings
 
        We grant  Stroh the full  amount requested, $4,997,  for the
   increased  cost of  using victualic  fittings.   Stroh  presented
   credible testimony that choosing victualic fittings mitigated its
   weather  impact because welding would have been severely affected
   by  the weather  conditions.   Findings  47-50.   This amount  is
   reasonable and represents  an appropriate effort to  mitigate the
   effect of the suspension of work.
 
 
        Underabsorbed Home Office Overhead
 
        Stroh's claim for  "underabsorbed" overhead is divided  into
   three components  -- the cost  of additional time devoted  by its
   project  manager, a  home  office  employee,  to  overseeing  the
   project[foot #] 21;   the  cost   of  additional   time  of   its
   project manager in overseeing the correction of punch list items;
   and the  loss of revenues occasioned by the fact that its project
   manager  was also the principal estimator for mechanical projects
   and was  unable  to  perform his  estimating  duties  during  the
   compressed time frame for performance of the contract work.  
 
        Respondent offers  three principal arguments to  support its
   position that Stroh is not entitled to recover underabsorbed home
   office overhead.  First, respondent  contends that (1) the period
   for contract  performance was  not delayed.   Second,  respondent
   points  out  that  Stroh  failed  to  use  the required  Eichleay
   formula.   Third,  respondent   urges  that   such   damages  are
   unrecoverable because they are unforeseeable and speculative. 
 
        With respect  to  the argument  that the  overall period  of
   contract performance was  not delayed, we  note that Stroh  fully
   intended to begin contract work  before October 15 and that there
   was sufficient  work to  be done before  arrival of  the chillers
   such that Stroh  was effectively delayed  in its commencement  of
   the work  for 130 days  after receipt  of the notice  to proceed.
   The manner of performance is largely within the discretion of the
   contractor.  It would be good business sense for Stroh to plan on
   performing as much  of the contract as possible  before the onset
   of winter weather.  
 
        The  Government and appellant  disagree on whether  Stroh is
   required  to use  the  Eichleay formula  for  its calculation  of
   underabsorbed  home office  overhead.   The Government  maintains
   that under  Wickham Contracting v.  Fischer, 12  F.3d 1574  (Fed.
   Cir.  1994),    Eichleay  is  the  exclusive  method  to  recover
   underabsorbed  home  office overhead.    Appellant responds  that
   Wickham applies only  to unabsorbed  overhead, not  underabsorbed
   overhead,  and  that  the  Eichleay  formula  is only  used  when
   Government delays cause  the work period  to exceed the  contract
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 21     Had Stroh  reflected the  time spent  by its
   project  manager as  a  direct cost  chargeable  to the  contract
   rather than including his entire salary in overhead, this amount,
   and time devoted  to overseeing correction  of punch list  items,
   might  well have  been recoverable.    On the  record before  us,
   however, we are unable to adjust  Stroh's overhead claim so as to
   allow  recovery  of these  amounts  as  a  direct added  cost  of
   performing the contract.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   completion  date  or  intended early  completion  date.   Because
   Stroh's calculation of damages is not based on a completion date,
   Stroh  argues that  Eichleay is  not applicable.   In  its place,
   appellant  has utilized the  "Stroh formula," which  it claims is
   based on the same principles and data as Eichleay.  
 
 
        To  use  the  formula  for  home  office  overhead  recovery
   provided in  Eichleay, a  court  or board  must find  compensable
   delay and that the contractor could not have taken on other jobs.
   Wickham  Contracting,  12  F.3d  at 1577.    Where  the  Eichleay
   prerequisites  are  met,  Eichleay is  the  exclusive  method for
   allocating  overhead   to  delay   of  government   contracts  to
   compensate  the contractor  for unabsorbed home  office overhead.
   Id. Here, the  Eichleay prerequisites are not met.   The Eichleay
   formula requires some degree of uncertainty as to the duration of
   the delay which makes it impracticable for the contractor to take
   on work.  C.B.C. Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 978 F.2d 669
   (Fed. Cir. 1992).   In this case there was no such uncertainty as
   Stroh knew from the time it  was informed that on-site work could
   not commence in the  summer months that the delay would  be until
   October 15.  
 
        Furthermore,   Stroh  is  not   entitled  to  an   award  of
   underabsorbed home  office overhead  under its  modified Eichleay
   formula  because,  in  reality,  this  claim  seeks  recovery  of
   consequential damages.   See Prudential Insurance Co. of  America
   v. United States,  801 F.2d 1295 (Fed. Cir.  1986), cert. denied,
   479   U.S.   1086   (1987).[foot #] 22     To   be   recoverable,
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 22    In  Prudential, a  contractor terminated  the
                           __________
   Government's  lease,  but  the  Government  did  not  vacate  the
   premises  for ten  months.   During this  period, the  contractor
   informed the Government that it was negotiating a new lease which
   included the Government-occupied  space and that it  would suffer
   substantial  damages  if  the Government  did  not  vacate.   The
   contractor was  able to negotiate  a new lease that  included the
   Government-occupied  space with a tenant already in the building.
   Subsequently, the tenant  terminated the lease because  the space
   occupied  by the  Government was  not  available by  the required
   date.   As a result  of the Government's actions,  the contractor
   was damaged not  only by loss of a tenant for the property leased
   to the  Government, but  also loss of  revenues from  property in
   addition to that occupied by the Government.    
 
        The  Court of  Appeals  for  the  Federal  Circuit  followed
   Supreme  Court precedent as to contracts between private parties,
   holding that "the party who breaches a contract  can only be held
   responsible for such  consequences as may be  reasonably supposed
   to be  within the contemplation  of the parties  at the time  the
   contract was made."  801 F.2d at 1300 (citing Globes Refining Co.
                                                 ___________________
   v. Landa Cotton Oil Co, 190 U.S. 540, 544 (1902)).   The Court of
   ______________________
   Appeals upheld the Claims Court's determination that at the  time
                                                      (continued...)
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   consequential damages must be foreseeable at the time of contract
   award.   Land  Movers,  Inc.,  ENGBCA 5656,  92-1  BCA    24,473.
   Foreseeable means within the contemplation of the parties  at the
   time of  award.  For damages to be  recoverable, there must be no
   intervening incident; the Government's  actions "must produce the
   effect inevitably and  naturally."  Ramsey v.  United States, 121
   Ct. Cl. 426, 433 (1951); accord Clark & Hirt, IBCA 1508-8-81, 84-
   1 BCA   17,134, at 85,352-53.
 
 
        In  this case,  it  would  not be  realistic  to expect  the
   Government to have foreseen that Stroh would be unable to bid for
   other contracts  if the work  was delayed because Stroh  had only
   one mechanical estimator who would be forced to devote all of his
   time  from  October 1990  until  February 1991  to  the contract.
   Stroh's inability to bid on other mechanical contracts during the
   period from mid-October through early February was  not a natural
   and  probable  consequence  flowing  from the  Government-imposed
   delay.   Stroh's reliance on  a single person for  its mechanical
   estimating  and its  decision to  make him  project manager  were
   intervening causes of Stroh's damages.  
 
   Overhead, Profit, and Small Tool Expense
 
        The award to Stroh under  categories I (wage escalation), II
   (loss  of  labor  efficiency), and  III  (material  and equipment
   escalation) totals $24,999.  Applying Stroh's 18.2% overhead rate
   to this amount,  we find that  Stroh is entitled  to recover  the
   amount of $4,550 in increased  overhead.  Small tool expenses are
   computed as a  percentage of categories I  and II.   Applying the
   8.16% factor to the increased costs awarded of $ 12,938 yields an
   adjusted amount of $1,125.   Under the Suspension of Work Clause,
   profit  is not allowable.  The  amount claimed for profit is thus
   disallowed.  
        Bond Premium
 
        A  contractor is  entitled to  recover  the additional  bond
   premium it  is required to  pay on pricing  adjustments recovered
   under the contract.  See, e.g., Proserv, Inc., 78-1 BCA   13,066,
   at 63,811 n.1.  Stroh will incur a bond premium in the  amount of
   .63%  of the  pricing adjustment  of  $29,600 awarded  under this
   decision.  See Findings 13-14.  This amounts to $193.
 
        The total amount awarded is as follows:
 
   I.   WAGE ESCALATION                              $        182
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 22 (...continued)
   the lease  was entered it  was not foreseeable by  the Government
   that if it held over the  landlord would incur losses beyond  the
   loss of  a tenant for  the property that the  Government actually
   leased.  Id. at 1301.  
            ___
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   II.  LOSS OF LABOR EFFICIENCY                     $     14,157
 
 
        Mobilization                       $    461
        Demolition                         $  4,130
        Insulating blankets                $    653
        Domestic and chilled water piping  $    568
        Condenser piping                   $  1,654
        Chiller equipment                  $    552
        Cooling towers                     $    793
        Punch list                         $  2,121
        Vern Peterson                      $  1,190
        Electrical                         $  2,035
             Total                         $ 14,157
 
 
   III. MATERIAL & EQUIPMENT ESCALATION              $     11,212
 
        Material                           $    224
        Equipment                          $  5,991
             Subtotal                      $  6,215
        Victualic Fittings                 $  4,997
             Total                         $ 11,212
 
   IV.  SUBCONTRACTOR ESCALATION                     $     - 0 - 
 
   V.   UNDERABSORBED HOME OFFICE OVERHEAD           $     - 0 - 
 
   VI.  OVERHEAD, PROFIT AND MISC.                   $      5,820
 
        a.   Overhead (18.2% of Items I,
             II, and III)                  $  4,650
 
        b.   Small Tool Expense (8.16% of 
             Items I and II Labor)         $  1,170
 
        c.   Profit (10% of Items I - V,    
             VIa. and VIb.)                $ - 0 -
                  Total                    $ 5,820
 
   VII. BOND PREMIUM                                 $        198
        Subtotal Items I - VI              $31,371
        Bond Premium (0.63%)               $   198
 
   TOTAL AWARDED                                     $     31,569
                                                     ____________
 
                                Decision
 
        The appeal is GRANTED IN  PART as to quantum.  Specifically,
   Stroh  is entitled to  recover $31,569 plus  interest as provided
   under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978.  41 U.S.C.   611 (1994).
 
                                      _______________________
                                      CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                      Board Judge
 
   We concur:
   ______________________             _______________________
   ANTHONY S. BORWICK                 EDWIN B. NEILL
   Board Judge                        Board Judge