_____________________________________________
 
                       DENIED: December 14, 1992
             _____________________________________________
 
 
 
                           GSBCA 11800, 11801
 
 
 
                        GRIFFIN SERVICES, INC.,
 
                                                Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
 
        James  J. Griffin,  President  of  Griffin  Services,  Inc.,
   Atlanta, GA, appearing for Appellant.
 
        A.  R.  Dattolo,  Office of  the  Regional  Counsel, General
   Services Administration, Atlanta, GA, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges NEILL, HYATT, and VERGILIO.
 
   HYATT, Board Judge.
 
        Appellant,  Griffin Services,  Inc.  (Griffin or  GSI),  has
   appealed  a contracting  officer's  decision  denying two  claims
   asserted under its contract with respondent, the General Services
   Administration (GSA), for the provision of mechanical maintenance
   services  for two  government buildings  in  Florida.   Appellant
   alleges  that  it  is  entitled  to  an  equitable  adjustment to
   compensate  it for  supplying materials  and performing  services
   beyond     the      scope     of      its     contract.[foot #] 1
   Specifically,  in docket number  11800, Griffin seeks  to recover
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1     Both appeals  are submitted  for decision  on
   the  written  record.   Rule  11.   The  record  consists of  the
   pleadings, the Rule 4 file, correspondence submitted to the Board
   by Griffin, and the Government's brief.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   $138.56, representing  the cost of providing "emergency" services
   outside of  normal working hours.   In its second  appeal, docket
   number  11801, Griffin  claims  entitlement  to reimbursement  of
   $518.20, for  the cost of  purchasing and installing a  new wall-
   mounted water fountain in one of the buildings.  For  the reasons
   stated herein, the appeals are denied.  
 
                            Findings of Fact
 
        1.   Appellant entered into  a contract with GSA  to perform
   general  repair and  maintenance work  required  for the  Federal
   Building - Courthouse and  the U.S. Customhouse, both  located in
   Fort  Lauderdale, Florida.    The contract  commenced on  June 1,
   1990, and ran through May 31, 1991.  Appeal File, Exhibit 1.
 
        2.  The contract's scope of work was defined as follows:
 
        The   contractor   shall    provide   all   management,
        supervision, labor, materials,  supplies, repair parts,
        tools,  and   equipment,  and  shall   plan,  schedule,
        coordinate  and  ensure  the  effective and  economical
        operation, maintenance, and  repair of the facility  as
        specified . . . .
 
        All mechanical,  electrical and plumbing  systems shall
        be   operated  compatible   with  current   GSA  energy
        conservation   requirements,  and   maintained  at   an
        acceptable level,  throughout the  contract performance
        period.    An  "acceptable  level"  of  maintenance  is
        defined as the level of maintenance which will preserve
        the equipment in unimpaired operating condition;  i.e.,
        above the point where deterioration will begin, thereby
        increasing the normal life expectancy of the equipment.
        The contractor is responsible for performing  scheduled
        and unscheduled maintenance  and repairs, as necessary,
        on  a 24 hour a day, 7  days per week, basis, including
        emergency call-back service.
 
   The  machinery  to be  maintained  in accordance  with  the above
   provision  included the sanitary sewage equipment and systems and
   the water equipment and systems.  Appeal File, Exhibit 1.
 
   GSBCA 11800
 
        3.  The   monthly  contract  price   did  not  include  "any
   allowance for  additional services for overtime,  emergency call-
   back .  . . except  elevator services" -- overtime  and emergency
   call-back  services  were  priced  separately  at  hourly  rates.
   Appeal File,  Exhibit 1 at  55.  At  the same time,  the contract
   required that "continuity  of services must be maintained  at the
   utmost proficiency  without interruption;  and continuity of  all
   services shall be maintained by the Contractor."  Id. at 62.  The
   contract  further required the  contractor, on a  daily basis, to
   "report  to the  COR  [contracting officer's  representative] the
   status of  any major equipment  or system not operating,  or that
   becomes non-operational during the workday."  Id. at 150.  
 
 
        4. In accordance  with the contract,  appellant operated and
   maintained a sump  pump located in  the parking garage of  one of
   the buildings.  During a time period that the permanent sump pump
   system was under repair, appellant used a portable sump pump on a
   temporary basis to  take care of the building's  sump pump needs.
   To provide power to the portable unit, appellant ran an extension
   cord from a wall outlet  inside the parking level elevator lobby,
   through the  elevator lobby door  and across the parking  area to
   the  sump pump.   Letter  from Appellant  to  the Board  (May 27,
   1992).   It  appears  from  the  record  that  appellant  neither
   informed GSA  that  these  measures were  necessary  due  to  the
   failure of the permanent pump  nor placed any signs in the  lobby
   area warning that the extension cord must not be disconnected.
 
        5.  Sometime after working  hours on December 23,  1990, the
   extension  cord plugged into  the elevator lobby  wall electrical
   outlet was disconnected.   The cord was placed  outside the lobby
   door;  the lobby door was then  closed.  Letter from Appellant to
   the Board (May  27, 1992).  This disconnected  the power from the
   portable sump pump;  flooding resulted.  An employee of appellant
   was called in to correct the  flooding at 4 a.m. on December  24,
   1990.  He worked there for  four and one-half hours.  Thereafter,
   appellant submitted an  invoice to GSA for $138.56  (4.5 hours at
   the hourly rate  of $30.79), the cost of this work.  Appeal File,
   Exhibits 4, 5.
 
        6.  GSA refused  payment of the  invoice in  a letter  dated
   April 2, 1991.   Appeal File, Exhibit  6.   The reason given  for
   denying  payment was  that appellant  was  responsible under  its
   contract for  monitoring the  sump pump and  that failure  of the
   sump pump  was therefore appellant's  responsibility.  Id.   In a
   subsequent letter, dated  August 2, 1991,  GSA took the  position
   that the failure of the extension cord "can only be attributed to
   GSI  employees' improper  work  techniques."    Id.,  Exhibit  8.
   Letters  were exchanged between  appellant and GSA  regarding the
   appropriateness  of powering the sump pump  by an extension cord.
   Id., Exhibits  9, 11.   Appellant requested  a decision  from the
   contracting officer on December 26, 1991.   Id., Exhibit 12.  The
   contracting  officer  issued  a decision  on  February  10, 1992,
   denying Government liability for the cost of  the emergency call-
   back  services.  Id.,  Exhibit 13.   Appellant filed a  notice of
   appeal to  the Board  on April  13, 1992, claiming  its right  to
   $138.56 plus interest.
 
   GSBCA 11801 
 
        7.  In  addition  to  the   clause  making  the   contractor
   responsible for  maintaining  water equipment  and  systems,  the
   contract also provided that "[e]xcept for those items or services
   specifically  stated to be  Government furnished (See  Section H)
   the  Contractor shall furnish everything required to perform work
   under this  contract."   Appeal File, Exhibit  1 at  62.   It was
   thereafter  explicitly stated in the contract that the Government
   would not furnish any equipment or materials.  Id. at 93.
 
 
        8.  With  respect  to   its  maintenance  obligations,   the
   contract  specifically  stated  that  the  contractor  "shall  be
   responsible  for the  repair/replacement costs,  including labor,
   equipment, and supplies  for all equipment and systems  up to the
   limits contained in  Paragraph 5 of this exhibit."   Appeal File,
   Exhibit 1 at 161.   The dollar threshold established in paragraph
   5 is $1,500.  Id.
 
        9.  During  the period of this contract, appellant furnished
   and  installed one  wall-mounted  water  cooler  at  the  Federal
   Building-Courthouse, for which it submitted  an invoice to GSA in
   the amount of $518.20.  Appeal File, Exhibit 7.  
 
        10.  GSA  declined  to  pay the  invoice,  stating  that the
   purchase  and installation  of a  water fountain  was within  the
   scope of the  services required to be performed  by Griffin under
   the contract.  Appeal File,  Exhibit 11.  The contracting officer
   issued a  decision to  that effect on  February 10,  1992.   Id.,
   Exhibit 13.  
                               Discussion
 
   GSBCA 11800
 
        Since the monthly  contract price excluded an  allowance for
   additional services for overtime or emergency call-back services,
   ordinarily appellant would be entitled  to recover the cost of an
   emergency call-back outside of normal business hours.  To receive
   compensation for  emergency call-back services,  appellant is  to
   submit an invoice,  which it did.  In  these circumstances, where
   appellant's inactions contributed  to the need for  the emergency
   work, however, we find that  appellant is not entitled to recover
   the labor costs it incurred.
 
        The systems covered under the contract for the fixed monthly
   rate are  expected to "be  maintained at  the utmost  proficiency
   without interruption."    Finding 3.  The  disconnection of power
   to  the  sump pump  interrupted  a  service  that  appellant  was
   responsible for operating and maintaining.   Finding 2.  Although
   Griffin undertook to  make temporary arrangements to  ensure that
   the sump  would be  drained by a  portable pump,  its actions  to
   ensure that  the portable  pump would  continue  to operate  left
   something to  be desired.   Running an extension cord  through an
   area  normally subject to considerable tenant usage, and plugging
   the cord  into an  outlet without attaching  a sign  or providing
   some  other indication of the criticality of the connection, does
   not  constitute   performing  a  contractual  duty  with  "utmost
   proficiency."   Additionally, appellant failed to comply with the
   contractual requirement that it notify  GSA of the failure of any
   major  equipment  or   system.[foot #] 2    Had  it   given  such
   notice, perhaps GSA could have acted to ensure the plug would not
   be  disconnected.  Because  appellant failed to  act responsibly,
   let alone "proficiently," it has not met its  burden to show that
   in the  circumstances the risk  of the extra costs  incurred here
   should be shifted  to the Government.   See Gramercy Contractors,
   Inc., GSBCA 6495, 83-2 BCA   16,825.  
 
   GSBCA 11801
 
 
        Appellant  also  contends  that,  under  the  contract,  the
   Government was  responsible for providing replacements  for water
   coolers that  have exceeded  their normal,  useful, and  economic
   life.  Letter from  Appellant to the Board (Aug. 11,  1992).  The
   contract,  however,  also  provided   that  the  contractor   was
   responsible  for the operation and maintenance of water equipment
   and was required to provide  all materials and supplies to repair
   and replace  equipment as necessary  up to the contract  limit of
   $1,500.   Finding  8.    Moreover, the  contract  made clear  the
   appellant's  obligation to provide materials, specifying that GSA
   would supply "none"  of the necessary equipment.   See Finding 7.
   Appellant  has not demonstrated that the replacement of the water
   fountain fell outside of the scope of the contract requirements.
 
        Appellant asserts that GSA paid to replace a water cooler in
   the  Fort Lauderdale  Federal Building in  1989.   This contract,
   however, did not  commence until June of 1990  and, without more,
   we do  not find that  past conduct on  a different contract,  the
   terms of which are not  established in this record, is sufficient
   to justify  a departure from  the otherwise unambiguous  terms of
   the instant contract.  Appellant has not  met its burden to prove
   a  prior course  of  dealing in  this  regard.   Cf. L.W.  Foster
   Sportswear Co. v.  United States, 186 Ct. Cl.  499, 405 F.2d 1285
   (1969) (prior course  of dealing established by  showing reliance
   upon interpretation under at least five prior contracts that were
   "identical or  very closely similar"  to contract in issue).   As
   such,  there is  no  reason  to interpret  the  language of  this
   contract   other  than  in  accordance  with  the  plain  meaning
   ordinarily  attributable to  the  terms at  issue.   See  Hickman
   Mechanical, Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 11787,
   slip op. at 4-5 (Sept. 22, 1992).  Appellant has not demonstrated
   that it is entitled to  additional compensation to cover the cost
   of buying and installing the water fountain.
 
                                Decision
 
        For the reasons stated, these appeals are DENIED.
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 2    The fact that the failure of the sump pump for
   just a few hours caused flooding in the parking garage shows that
   it  qualified  as  the  type  of  important equipment  for  which
   appellant was contractually  obligated to notify GSA  of failures
   or other problems.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
                                      ___________________________
                                      CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                      Board Judge
 
 
   We concur:
   _______________________            __________________________
   EDWIN B. NEILL                     JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
   Board Judge                        Board Judge