GSBCA 13244 GRANTED IN PART; GSBCA 13331 DENIED;
              GSBCA 13534 GRANTED IN PART AS TO ENTITLEMENT:
                             October 24, 1996
                                                             


                         GSBCA 13244, 13331, 13534


                   ENVIRONMENTAL DATA CONSULTANTS, INC.,

                                             Appellant,

                                    v.

                     GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

                                             Respondent.

     Claude R. Simpson, White Plains, NY, counsel for Appellant.

     Kevin S. Anderson and Sharon J. Chen, Real Property Division,
Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration,
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.

Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), DEVINE, and HYATT.

DANIELS, Board Judge.

     The contract at issue here, between Environmental Data
Consultants, Inc. (EDC), and the General Services Administration
(GSA), was for the replacement of underground fuel oil storage
tanks at a federal office building in Brooklyn, New York.  In this
decision, we consider three claims that arose under this contract. 
First, GSA demanded a $171,217 credit for work not performed due to
contract modifications.  Second, the contracting officer terminated
the contract for default.  Third, EDC sought $918,341.41 from the
Government, primarily to cover what the contractor calls "extra
costs and materials not covered under the base contract"; the
contracting officer denied this claim in its entirety.  EDC
appealed all three contracting officer decisions.

     We grant in part the contractor's challenge to the
Government's monetary claim (GSBCA 13244); our calculations show
that GSA is entitled to a credit which is $20,612.69 less than the
agency demanded.  We deny the appeal of the default termination
(GSBCA 13331); in our view, the agency's action was justified.  The
parties have presented evidence regarding the contractor's claim
which goes only to entitlement.  We grant a very small part of this
claim (GSBCA 13534).

Government's monetary claim (GSBCA 13244)

     The contract required EDC to excavate soil from the job site,
and then to construct a cofferdam -- a structure to keep the walls
of the excavation from collapsing -- seventy-nine feet long,
thirty-nine feet wide, and eighteen feet deep.  The contractor had
to install steel sheeting, and brace it, to form the walls of the
cofferdam.  EDC was then to install three new oil storage tanks
within the area enclosed by the cofferdam.  Appeal File, Exhibit
1 at 02160-1 to -3, 02200-6, dwgs. 9M1, 9M2.

     We reject both of EDC's positions which are in opposition to
our finding as to the planned size of the cofferdam.  EDC first
suggests that because a contract drawing shows a "proposed . . .
line" for the steel sheeting with which the cofferdam was to be
constructed, the size of the cofferdam was not specified.  This
argument fails to account for the remainder of the instruction:
"Locate for tank removal and installation.  Probe to determine
location of concrete pad under existing tanks -- position sheeting
to clear the concrete pad obstruction."  Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at
dwg. 9M2.  Clearly, the line is "proposed" only in the sense that
the cofferdam may be placed in an appropriate spot slightly
different from the one shown; the size of the cofferdam is not
optional, however.  That size is mandated by the notation of a
scale on the drawing.  Id.  EDC's second position is that the
dimensions on the drawing of "minimum 48'-0"" and "minimum 40'-0""
apply to the cofferdam.  This is plainly not true; these dimensions
are for the concrete apron slab to be placed at grade, above the
installed oil storage tanks.  Id.

     EDC's excavation subcontractor, Soil Solutions, Inc., engaged
Maybey Bridge, Inc., to supply materials for the cofferdam
construction.  Maybey Bridge could not build a cofferdam to the
Government's specifications; had it done so, its bracing would have
interfered with placement of the tanks.  Transcript at 129-31, 157. 
EDC consequently asked to be allowed to build a smaller cofferdam
than specified -- only 50' by 40' by 18'.  Roy Feinzig, the
engineer who designed the project, and whose firm (Rose, Beaton &
Rose) was hired to review shop drawing submittals, approved the
modification.  Id. at 16, 177-78, 181, 186-87; Supplemental Appeal
File, Exhibit 15.  Mr. Feinzig recognized that although EDC's
alternative design was acceptable, it would result in the
contractor's removing less soil (including oil-impacted soil) from
the site, and using less sheeting, bracing materials (called
"whalers"), and backfill.  Transcript at 190, 195.

     The contract provided that if the contracting officer made
changes in the work within the general scope of the contract, a
corresponding adjustment to the contract price would be made. 
Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 27-28 of GSA form 3506.  The contracting
officer asked EDC to propose a deduction in the contract price,
consequent to the change in the size of the cofferdam. 
Specifically, she asked EDC to price reductions in (a) the labor
and materials needed to build the cofferdam itself; (b) the
backfill and compaction required; and (c) the contaminated soil to
be removed.  Id., Exhibits 11, 21.  EDC proposed a deduction only
for construction of the cofferdam, and while it gave a figure of
$8,000, it did not explain the derivation of this amount.  Id.,
Exhibits 13-14; Transcript at 18-19.

     The contract also required EDC to remove and dispose of
existing pavement on the entire construction site, and later to
install new asphalt paving consisting of a five inch thick sub-base
course, a 3-1/2 inch asphalt base course, and a 1-1/2 inch asphalt
wearing course.  Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at dwgs. 9M1, 9M2.  The
contract includes a soil borings report which shows blacktop and
concrete to a depth of one foot below grade.  Id. at 02200-3,
Appendix D.  GSA directed EDC not to remove the concrete at the
northeast corner of the site, and to pave over that concrete only
an asphalt wearing course.  Transcript at 51-52, 91.  The
contracting officer asked EDC to propose a price for a contract
modification relating to these changes as well.  Appeal File,
Exhibit 21.  EDC returned the request unsigned.  Transcript at 19.

     The contracting officer then asked her technical
representative, Peter Pavlounis, and the agency's construction
quality manager for this project, Heery International, to estimate
the fair and reasonable value of the work deducted from the
contract.  Transcript at 20.  Mr. Pavlounis made measurements of
the affected areas and otherwise collected relevant information. 
Id. at 46.  He gave his findings to Heery, whose Gregory Ridgely,
using a computer program which applies a database of cost estimates
by R. S. Means, calculated values for the work.  Id. at 55, 326,
330-32; Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 24; Respondent's Exhibit
A.  The amounts established by Mr. Ridgely form the basis for the
unilateral change order and subsequent Government claim in the
amount of $171,217.  Transcript at 20; Appeal File, Exhibit 29;
Supplemental File, Exhibit 31.

     "As a general proposition, the Government is entitled, when it
deletes clearly required work from a contract, to impose a
deductive change, decreasing the contract price to reflect the
reduced cost to perform the work."  Plaza Maya Limited Partnership,
GSBCA 9086, 91-1 BCA  23,425, at 117,500.  The Government has the
burden of proving the extent of the downward adjustment in the
price.  P. J. Dick Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA
11783, 94-3 BCA  27,172, at 135,402.  The proper measure of the
change is the reasonable cost to the contractor of performing the
deleted work.  P. J. Dick; Plaza Maya.  The facts related above
demonstrate that the Government is entitled to a deductive change
as a result of the modifications in the size of the cofferdam and
the paving requirements.  We analyze below the extent of the
downward price adjustment consequent to that change with regard to
each of the five elements of the Government's claim.

     (1)  Construction of cofferdam.  As specified in the contract,
the cofferdam was to be 79' by 39' by 18' in size, and thus to
require a total of 4248 square feet of steel sheeting.  As
constructed, the cofferdam was 50' by 40' by 18', and thus needed
3240 square feet of sheeting.  The difference between the two
figures is 1008 square feet.  Mr. Ridgely calculated the cost of
installing a square foot of sheeting as $23.81.  Transcript at 330-
35; Respondent's Exhibit A at 7, 11-12.  At this price, the cost of
installing 1008 square feet is $24,000.48.  Mr. Ridgely calculated
a higher figure of $31,572, principally because he, perhaps
following Mr. Pavlounis' advice, believed that the cofferdam as
originally designed was to have been twenty, rather than eighteen,
feet deep.  See Transcript at 56-59; Respondent's Exhibit 35 at 1. 
We have been unable to find support for this theory, and in its
posthearing brief, GSA asserts that the correct figure is eighteen. 
Respondent's Posthearing Brief at 9, 52.

     EDC has suggested two different ways of valuing the cost of
installing sheeting.  One is contained in EDC's proposal for an
increase in the contract price resulting from the installation of
more sheeting -- a matter that is discussed in the context of GSBCA
13534, the contractor's monetary claim.  EDC maintains there that
the cost is $35.73 per square foot.  Appeal File, Exhibit 13 at 5. 
This price is based on sheeting of a considerably greater depth
than used here, and is therefore not applicable.  Id. at 6.  EDC
also offers a general rejoinder to all the cost figures advanced by
Mr. Ridgely: we should use figures contained on a GSA form 184-A
completed by the contractor and provided to GSA.  This form
establishes a payment schedule for the contractor's completion of
various items of work; it does not establish the value of any
particular item.  Transcript at 22, 322.  EDC presented no evidence
in support of Mr. Chance's assertion that he used figures from the
R. S. Means book to compile the numbers on the form; Mr. Chance
admitted that he could produce no worksheets in support of this
contention.  See Transcript at 369-70, 412-13.  We accept Mr.
Ridgely's per unit prices as to the cofferdam's steel sheeting and
other elements of the Government's claim.

     The sheeting had to be kept in place by whalers.  Messrs.
Pavlounis and Ridgely determined that the amount of whalers needed
was 210 pounds per linear foot of sheeting.  Transcript at 58;
Respondent's Exhibit A at 7.  The reduction in the size of the
structure decreased the number of linear feet of sheeting by 56,
and thus the amount of whalers by 11,760 pounds or 5.88 tons.  Mr.
Ridgely calculated that the cost of installing a ton of whalers is
$306.78.  Respondent's Exhibit A at 11-12.  Consequently, $1,803.87
was saved in whaler costs by building the smaller cofferdam.  The
total amount saved in costs of sheeting and whalers was $25,804.35.

     (2)  Backfill and compaction.  The contract required EDC
generally to backfill the area excavated for the cofferdam and
compact the backfill material.  Three feet, three inches of depth
at the bottom of the cofferdam, and eight inches near the top, were
to be filled with concrete.  Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 02200-8,
dwg. 9M4.  Only about fourteen of the eighteen feet of depth
therefore had to be backfilled with soil.  Considering this space
alone, the change in the size of the cofferdam reduced the amount
of space within that structure by 560 cubic yards.  Mr. Ridgely
calculated the cost of backfilling the space to be $51.66 per cubic
yard.  Respondent's Exhibit A at 13-14; Transcript at 336. 
Multiplying the last two figures by each other, reducing the size
of the cofferdam saved $28,929.60 in backfill costs.

     (3)  Removal of contaminated soil.  The contract noted that
some of the soil to be removed from the job site was expected to be
impacted with oil.  The document stated, "The Contractor[']s base
bid shall include the removal, transportation and proper disposal
of 4000 cubic yards of oil-impacted soil (non-hazardous).  If less
than 4000 cubic yards are impacted then a credit shall be issued
for the difference at 80% of the price submitted with the Separate
Price Item Schedule."  Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 02200-14, 2 of
solicitation amendment 2. 

     EDC provided to GSA manifests which show that EDC's excavation
subcontractor, Soil Solutions, Inc., removed 1,944.47 tons of oil-
impacted soil and had that material transported to Soil Safe
Incorporated in Baltimore, Maryland.  Supplemental Appeal File,
Exhibits 16, 17.  Soil Safe verified to Mr. Pavlounis that the
manifests correctly represent the material it received from this
site.  Transcript at 48-49.  EDC maintains that it actually removed
4,008.337 tons of oil-impacted soil.  Complaint, GSBCA 13534,  15;
Transcript at 462.  In support of this position, EDC presented
copies of additional manifests which were allegedly from Soil
Solutions and testimony that another firm, PJS Construction,
removed more oil-impacted soil after EDC discharged Soil Solutions
from the job.  Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 21; Transcript at
396-97.  Each of the additional manifests contains Soil Solutions'
name and address at the top, the legend "Falsification Or
Misrepresentation Of Any Of The Information On This Bill of Lading
is A Violation of State Laws And Is Subjected To Appropriate
Statutory Or Regulatory Penalties" at the bottom, and is signed by
Mr. Chance.  Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 21.  Vincent DeJana,
Soil Solutions' vice-president, testified convincingly that each of
the additional manifests bearing his company's name "is a phony." 
It is in a different print, and is completed in a different way,
from the real manifests.  Transcript at 141-43; see also id. at
132-38, Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibits 16, 17.  Mr. Chance
admitted that EDC has no manifests from PJS or any other form of
documentation that more soil was removed by that firm.  Transcript
at 449, 462-64, 895.  Mr. Pavlounis testified that the successor
subcontractor did not remove any contaminated soil.  Id. at 121-22. 
We have no basis for concluding that EDC removed more than 1,944.47
tons of oil-impacted soil from the site.

     As noted, according to the contract, a credit for the cost of
removing less than four thousand cubic yards of impacted soil is to
be calculated in accordance with a price submitted with a separate
price item schedule.  We have been unable to find such a schedule
in the contract, and neither party has mentioned one.  We have two
guides to an appropriate credit, however.  Mr. Ridgely, using his
computerized model, calculated the total credit as $81,710.  Mr.
Ridgely assumed in making his calculations that EDC removed
1,944.21 tons of contaminated soil -- 2,055.79 tons less than
4,000.  Transcript at 337-38; Respondent's Exhibit A at 15.  Thus,
his figure is $39.75 per ton.  EDC maintains, in its own monetary
claim, that it is entitled to additional payment of $870.38 for
removing 8.337 tons of contaminated soil in excess of the 4,000 on
which the contract price was based.  Complaint, GSBCA 13534,  45A. 
This comes to $104.40 per ton.  We do not know how EDC derived its
figure, and in any event find Mr. Ridgely's determination to be
soundly based.  Making a tiny adjustment to Mr. Ridgely's number to
account for his minuscule error as to the amount of contaminated
soil removed, the appropriate credit to the Government for this
item is $81,699.66.

     (4)  Asphalt modification.  Mr. Pavlounis measured the area in
which EDC was directed to provide only an asphalt wearing course,
but no sub-base or asphalt base courses, as 360 square yards. 
Transcript at 63-66.  Mr. Ridgely thought that the contract drawing
showed 591 square yards, so he rounded Mr. Pavlounis's number up to
400.  Id. at 341-42.  The two men agree that the labor rates,
person-hours, markups, and adjustments used by Mr. Ridgely are
correct.  Id. at 68, 341-42.  Mr. Ridgely determined that the value
of the asphalt work EDC was required by the contract to perform in
this area, but which was deleted at GSA's direction, was $23.62 per
square yard.  Respondent's Exhibit A at 16-17.  We apply this
figure to the actual measured area, which we find to be more
accurate than the area assumed by Mr. Ridgely, and consequently
conclude that the appropriate credit to the Government for this
item is $8,503.20.

     (5)  Concrete modification.  According to Mr. Pavlounis, GSA's
direction to EDC not to remove some of the pavement at the job site
affected about 250 square yards of concrete.  The remainder of the
area was occupied by an old oil storage tank, which had to be
removed (as, consequently, did the concrete immediately above it). 
Transcript at 53, 66-67.  Mr. Ridgely's calculations show a value
for concrete removal as $22.67 per square yard.  Id. at 342-44;
Respondent's Exhibit A at 18.  This amount multiplied by 250 square
yards yields a credit to the Government for this item of $5,667.50.

     The total credit to which GSA is entitled, as a consequence of
the reduction in the size of the cofferdam and the deletion of
certain pavement work, is the sum of the five items above --
$150,604.31.  GSA claimed a credit of $171,217.  EDC's appeal of
the contracting officer's decision asserting this credit is granted
in part, because our determination is $20,612.69 less than the
contracting officer's.

Termination for default (GSBCA 13331)

     The contract contained a standard default termination clause,
FAR 52.249-10--Default (Fixed-Price Construction) (APR 1984), which
provides in relevant part:

     If the Contractor refuses or fails to prosecute the work
     or any separable part, with the diligence that will
     insure its completion within the time specified in this
     contract including any extension, or fails to complete
     the work within this time, the Government may, by written
     notice to the Contractor, terminate the right to proceed
     with the work (or the separable part of the work) that
     has been delayed.

Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 38 of GSA form 3506.  The clause
precludes the Government's exercise of this right if the delay in
completing the work arises from unforeseeable causes beyond the
control and without the fault or negligence of the contractor, and
the contractor timely notifies the contracting officer in writing
of the causes of the delay.  Id.

     The contract required the work to be complete not later than
365 days after the contractor received GSA's notice to proceed. 
Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 00800-3.  EDC received this notice on
February 1, 1994.  Id., Exhibit 2 at 1.  Thus, the job had to be
complete by February 1, 1995.  On that date, GSA declared that
EDC's work was substantially complete.  Id., Exhibit 8; Transcript
at 489.  Mr. Pavlounis explained that this determination was based
on a finding that the power plant building was able to get oil
through installed pipes from a single, new storage tank. 
Transcript at 490, 504.  According to the contracting officer, GSA
has never reconsidered its conclusion that the contract was
substantially complete.  Id. at 673.

     At the same time that GSA found the project substantially
complete, however, it also told EDC that it would give the
contractor a punch list of items which remained to be completed. 
Transcript at 491, 515.  The agency issued a preliminary punch list
on February 15 and a final list on May 4.  Appeal File, Exhibits 9,
11.  Both lists noted incomplete work regarding piping containment
chambers and underground piping.  Id.

     The contract required EDC to install a piping containment
chamber on top of each of the three oil storage tanks.  Appeal
File, Exhibit 1 at 15590-9, dwgs. 9M3, 9M4.  The chamber allows
access to all piping connections for testing.  Each chamber has a
bolt-down lid which allows the chamber to remain watertight
throughout its life.  Above the lid is a highway-load rated manhole
cover.  Transcript at 201-03.

     Keeping the chamber watertight is extremely important to the
proper operation and lifespan of the tanks.  The chamber contains
an electronic transmitter which sends continuous signals to a
control panel inside the power plant, indicating the amount of fuel
remaining in the tank and giving alerts as to the amount of water
in the tank.  The transmitter is not designed to function in a wet
environment, and water can damage it.  Water can also damage the
steel connections inside the chamber; rust and corrosion, over
time, can shorten the life of the fittings and cause leaks in the
chamber.  Water could enter the tank through leaks in the chamber. 
Transcript at 204-05, 298, 301-04.

     EDC proposed using piping chambers other than the ones
specified in the contract.  Transcript at 209; Supplemental Appeal
File, Exhibit 1 at 4.  Mr. Feinzig, the designer of the project,
approved the use of a particular alternative product, provided that
the item was installed in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions.  Transcript at 209-12, 219; Supplemental Appeal File,
Exhibit 1 at 14.  In February 1995, Mr. Feinzig visited the site
and noticed that the components of the chambers were not installed
properly.  Transcript at 215-26.  GSA included as a punch list item
the failure of the chambers to be watertight; the agency required
EDC to work with Mr. Feinzig's firm to solve this problem.  Appeal
File, Exhibits 9, ll; Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 7 at 4;
Transcript at 517-18.  EDC constructed a jerry-built sheet metal
enclosure around each chamber, but did not coordinate with the
engineering firm or follow the manufacturer's instructions. 
Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 24 at 2; Transcript at 553-54.

     The other punch list item which was mentioned in the default
termination pertained to underground piping.  The contract required
EDC to "[r]emove underground piping in its entirety" insofar as
such piping was connected to three old tanks which were to be
removed from the site.  Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at dwg. 9M1.  EDC's
Mr. Chance told GSA officials on February 1, 1995, that this task
had not been performed.  Transcript at 497.  GSA listed it on both
punch lists.  Appeal File, Exhibits 9, 11.

     According to Mr. Chance, on May 10, 1995, he cut a hole in the
pavement outside the power plant, removed the underground piping
through the hole, and patched the pavement.  Supplemental Appeal
File, Exhibit 21; Transcript at 549-51.  He then sent GSA a letter
stating that EDC had finished all items on the punch list. 
Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 22.

     The contracting officer remained unconvinced that the punch
list items regarding the piping containment chambers and the
underground piping had been completed, however.  As to the
underground piping, she thought the asphalt patch was too small to
cover a hole big enough to allow a man to work within it, and
Steven Frasca, the Heery inspector for the project, said he had not
observed any removal of pipes.  Transcript at 554, 649;
Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 24 at 2.  On June 2, she told EDC
that the agency had not accepted these items and warned that if
within ten days, the work was not completed and EDC had not
provided evidence that it would be able to submit the manifests for
oil-impacted soil it contended it had removed from the site, she
would have grounds for terminating the contract for default. 
Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 27 at 1-2.  (The contract
required EDC to provide the manifests as part of a closure report,
since oil-impacted soil is considered "regulated soil material." 
Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 02200-14 to -15.)

     Mr. Chance then did some work, which was not approved by Mr.
Feinzig's firm or in accordance with manufacturer's instructions,
intended to make the piping chambers watertight.  Appeal File,
Exhibit 17; Transcript at 558-59, 561-65.  He also gave more
written assurances that the underground piping had been removed. 
Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibits 27 at 3-4, 28.

     GSA, Heery, and EDC representatives visited the site on the
afternoon of June 15 to assess the state of the work.  The piping
chambers were dry.  Transcript at 816.  The reason, however, was
not related to any correction of their construction.  That morning,
Mr. Chance had visited the site alone and emptied liquid from the
chambers into a bucket.  Although Mr. Chance maintains that he
spent the morning helping a lady from his church arrange for
construction work to her house, id. at 823, 884-85, we do not
believe his testimony.  We credit instead the testimony of the
fleet manager of the GSA motor pool located next to the site, a
disinterested witness who observed Mr. Chance at the site, using a
cup to remove the liquid.  Id. at 1053-67.  This testimony is
buttressed by the contemporaneous notes of the fleet manager and
Mr. Frasca, the Heery inspector.  Appeal File, Exhibits 20, 21. 
EDC did not call as a witness the woman whom Mr. Chance allegedly
helped.

     On July 5, 1995, the contracting officer issued a decision
terminating the contract for default.  She based this decision on
EDC's failure to complete the punch list items with respect to the
piping containment chambers and underground piping, and also on
EDC's failure to keep fuel oil tank number one from taking on water
and the contractor's failure to provide manifests for the removal
and disposition of contaminated soil.  Appeal File, Exhibit 25.  At
hearing, the contracting officer suggested that the fact that Mr.
Chance misrepresented that he had removed the underground pipes
from the site is an additional reason justifying the default
termination.  Transcript at 660.

     A default termination is a drastic sanction which should be
imposed only for good grounds and on solid evidence.  The
Government has the burden of demonstrating that ending a contract
in this way is proper.  Sierra Tahoe Mfg., Inc. v. General Services
Administration, GSBCA 12679, 94-2 BCA  26,771, at 133,157 (citing,
among other decisions, Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. United States,
828 F.2d 759, 763-65 (Fed. Cir. 1987), and J. D. Hedin Construction
Co. v. United States, 408 F.2d 424, 431 (Ct. Cl. 1969)).  We hold
that GSA has met this burden here.

     EDC maintains that "[i]t is axiomatic that Substantial
completion of the work prior to termination will preclude a
termination for default."  Appellant's Posthearing Brief at 14. 
Even if this were true, it would not help the contractor in this
case, because the contracting officer's statements notwithstanding,
we conclude that the project was never substantially complete. 
"Whether a construction contract is substantially complete is
determined by whether the facility in question is occupied and used
by the Government for the purposes for which it was intended." 
Thermodyn Contractors, Inc. v. General Services Administration,
GSBCA 12510, 94-3 BCA  27,071, at 134,909 (citing several other
decisions).  GSA bargained here for a complex of three oil storage
tanks, which, with associated piping, would supply a power plant
with necessary fuel.  The record contains numerous readings of high
water during June 1995 in one of the three tanks EDC installed. 
Appeal File, Exhibits 18-20; Appellant's Exhibit 13.  The parties
have stipulated that this tank has not been used because it has
consistently had a high level of water in it; if the tank were
used, water, rather than fuel oil, would be drawn into the heating
system.  Oil has to be ordered on a more frequent basis than
standard to ensure that it is available for the system. 
Stipulations (Mar. 20, 1996).  Thus, GSA has only two-thirds of the
storage capacity that it anticipated receiving through this
contract.

     EDC maintains that it is not responsible for this situation. 
According to Mr. Chance, before EDC connected the power plant's
return line pipes to the new tanks, these pipes contained much
water.  Transcript at 762-63; "Explanation of Water in Tank Claim
by GSA" (appellant's filing, Mar. 21, 1996).  Mr. Chance says that
he asked the contracting officer for authorization to install cut-
off valves on the supply and return lines for each tank, and
elsewhere, to assist in isolating the source of the water, but the
contracting officer denied his request.  Transcript at 774-80.  Mr.
Feinzig, the designer of the project, visited the site for the
purpose of appraising the validity of these assertions.  He found
no water lines of any type or source connected to the fuel lines. 
He concluded that EDC's theory that water was coming from the power
plant's plumbing through the return lines "is not true."  Id. at
1071-78.  In Mr. Feinzig's judgment, installing cut-off valves, as
proposed by EDC, "wouldn't be a cure.  It would actually create
more problems than it does solve, and it wouldn't address the
problem at all."  Id. at 1078-80.  Mr. Feinzig believed that the
only conceivable source of water in the return lines could be water
in the tanks themselves.  Id. at 1080-82.  We found Mr. Feinzig to
be a highly knowledgeable and credible witness, and adopt his
findings as our own.  We reject EDC's attempt to blame GSA for the
lack of substantial completion of the project.

     Even if we had agreed with EDC's defense, however, or
otherwise agreed that the project was substantially complete at the
time of termination, there would remain good cause for the default
termination.  EDC's contention as to the effect of substantial
completion is overbroad.  As the Veterans Administration Board of
Contract Appeals explained in a study of this issue, a project can
be suitable for its intended purpose, but not complete in the sense
of providing the recipient with the benefits of its bargain.  R. M.
Crum Construction Co., VABCA 2143, et al., 85-2 BCA  18,132, at
91,006-09.  "[E]ven after use commences, . . . [w]hen completion of
a facility is unduly prolonged, or even when only the correction of
punch list items is unduly prolonged, so as to indicate a lack of
diligence, or when effective progress of correction action ceases,
a termination for default is legally justified, for the correction
of punch list items is also a contractual obligation."  Two State
Construction Co., DOT CAB 78-31, et al., 81-1 BCA  15,149, at
74,938; accord R. M. Crum, 85-2 BCA at 91,009.

     The record is clear that despite many opportunities over
several months, EDC did not complete at least two significant punch
list items.  It did not install the piping containment chambers in
accordance with the terms of the modification agreed to by Mr.
Feinzig, on behalf of GSA -- the chambers were not watertight and
were not installed in accordance with their manufacturer's
instructions.  Mr. Chance's attempt to mislead the agency as to the
watertightness of the chambers was to no avail.  Testimony also
established that in March 1996, during the course of an underground
survey conducted by EDC's bonding company to determine the extent
of remaining work, the Government secured conclusive proof that EDC
never removed the underground piping.  GSA and Heery employees
found that the piping was still in place, and that Mr. Chance's
patch over what he alleged was the hole from which he removed the
pipes covered only the asphalt wearing course; the concrete below
the asphalt remained intact.  Transcript at 582-91, 650-53, 900-01;
Respondent's Exhibits 14-18.

     EDC's alleged failure to provide GSA with manifests for all
the oil-impacted soil it removed could not serve, however, as a
ground for defaulting the contract.  It is true that failure to
comply with important reporting standards, even when those
standards are not related to contract performance, may justify a
default termination.  Kelso v. Kirk Brothers Mechanical
Contractors, Inc., 16 F.3d 1173, 1176 (Fed. Cir. 1994).  GSA has
not established the importance of the manifests, however.  The New
York State statutes which the agency says contain requirements
pertaining to these documents relate to hazardous waste, whereas
the contract identifies oil-impacted soil as non-hazardous; and the
state regulations GSA points to relate to permits for activities in
state parks.  Letter from GSA Counsel to Board (July 30, 1996) and
accompanying declaration; Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 02200-14. 
Furthermore, the record contains no proof that EDC removed from the
site more contaminated soil than is described in the manifests
which GSA now has.  Indeed, we granted the Government's monetary
claim as to the removal of contaminated soil precisely because of
this lack of proof.  We therefore cannot find that EDC did not
provide manifests for soil it removed.

     GSA suggests that Mr. Chance's misrepresentations as to the
removal of the underground piping constitute fraud and form an
independent basis for the default termination.  In support of this
theory, GSA cites two decisions of the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, Joseph Morton Co. v. United States, 757 F.2d 1273
(Fed. Cir. 1985), and Daff v. United States, 78 F.3d 1566 (Fed.
Cir. 1996).  In Morton, the Court acknowledged that "there is
support for the argument that any fraud warrants termination for
default as a matter of law," 757 F.2d at 1279, but it did not
expressly adopt this proposition or rest the holding on it. 
Instead, the Court held only that a specific representation by the
contractor, which had been the basis of a criminal conviction, was
sufficient to justify the Government's default termination.  In
Daff, the Court did not need to reach the issue because it found
that the contracting officer had a separate basis for the
termination.  We have identified misrepresentations made by Mr.
Chance, EDC's owner, as to Soil Solutions' removal of oil-impacted
soil, the watertightness of the piping containment chambers, and
the removal of underground piping.  In light of our conclusion that
other, valid reasons support the default termination of the
contract, we need not examine whether any of these
misrepresentations constitute fraud or analyze whether the law
should be extended into an area in which the Court of Appeals has
not yet tread.

Contractor's monetary claim (GSBCA 13534)

     EDC claims that GSA owes it $918,341.41 for a myriad of items
pertaining to performance of this $989,754 contract.  The parties
presented evidence as to the contractor's entitlement to be paid
for each of these items; they agreed to address the extent of
recovery at a later date, when it would encompass only those items
for which we have found entitlement.

     Further proceedings in this case will be very short, since we
are able to find for EDC on only one of these items.  As to this
matter, called "unpaid balance on monitoring wells" and valued by
EDC at $4,189, GSA concedes entitlement.  Transcript at 914.  

     As to all other items listed by EDC in its complaint, the
contractor has not convinced us that it is entitled to any
additional compensation.  We discuss these below, using the
headings employed by the contractor and noting for each the amount
sought.

     All aspects of work required under the contract for which
payment has not yet been made ($87,994.14).  EDC presented no
particular evidence as to this matter.  As explained in our
discussion of the default termination of the contract, the
contractor did not fulfill contractual requirements to provide a
third watertight oil storage tank, to install piping containment
chambers properly, and to remove underground piping.  Thus, all
aspects of contractual work have not been completed.

     Removal and disposal of 8.337 tons of contaminated soil
(beyond the requirements of the base contract), including overhead
and profit ($870.38).  As explained in our discussion of the
Government's claim for an adjustment to the contract price
consequent to EDC's removing from the site less than four thousand
tons of contaminated soil, we are not persuaded that the contractor
removed more than the amount of oil-impacted soil shown in the
manifests provided to GSA.  There is no credible basis for
concluding that EDC removed 4,008.337 tons, as the contractor
contends it did.

     Install and repair electric utilities ($54,419.34).  The
contract warned EDC that underground utility lines were present on
the site, and that GSA did not know their exact locations.  EDC had
the "sole responsibility to notify the appropriate utilities, etc.
and to locate and mark the underground lines prior to opening up an
excavation."  In fulfillment of this responsibility, the contractor
had to notify Dig Safe, Inc., and retain a private independent firm
specializing in locating and marking the lines.  EDC had to protect
the lines and relocate, remove, or support them "as necessary or as
directed by the Contracting Officer."  Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at
02200-3 to -4, 02160-2, dwg. 9M1.  Before EDC began its excavation
work, GSA reminded the contractor of the need to identify the
underground utility lines before digging.  Transcript at 1185-86.

     EDC did not employ Dig Safe or a private independent firm to
mark the specific location of underground utility lines; instead,
it told GSA that "[w]hen the utilities are uncovered, EDC will look
for utilities that may not be shown on any of the drawings." 
Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 13 at 3; see also Transcript at
917-18, 1106-07 (containing general statements by Mr. Chance which
are not inconsistent with this conclusion).  EDC excavated the area
with a backhoe, and in the process, some of the utility lines fell
apart.  Transcript at 915, 921-23; Appellant's Exhibit 3 at 86. 
EDC proposed that the contract be modified to provide that the
contractor relocate the lines from the area and bring them up to
code.  Transcript at 925-28, 1187-88; Appellant's Exhibit 3 at 86. 
EDC priced this work at $54,419.34 and purchased materials to
perform it.  Transcript at 932-33; Appellant's Exhibits 3 at 97-98,
12 at 14.  Because GSA considered the price too high and a design
for the relocation lacking, it rejected the proposal and directed
EDC simply to repair the damaged lines.  Transcript at 929, 933-34,
1189.  EDC performed the repair work, the extent of which was
enlarged because more lines became damaged while the contractor was
excavating for the installation of steel sheeting and was tardy in
backfilling the excavation.  Id. at 934, 1190-93; Supplemental
Appeal File, Exhibit 34.

     The contract obligated EDC to relocate, remove, or support the
utility lines, as necessary or as directed.  Thus, performance of
this work was encompassed within the contract price.  The record
demonstrates that EDC's failure to comply with contract
requirements for marking utility lines before digging, the
contractor's use of large machinery prior to learning the location
of the lines, and the contractor's approach to sheeting
installation and backfilling all contributed to the need for repair
of the lines.  EDC has not demonstrated that any action by GSA
contributed to the need for repairs or that the work was in
addition to contract requirements.  Furthermore, because GSA never
authorized relocation of the lines, the price EDC quoted for
relocation has no relevance to the cost of repairs and any
purchases the contractor made in anticipation of receiving such
authorization were its own responsibility.

     Work done beyond the scope of the Contract to provide
additional sheeting, materials, supplies, equipment rental,
engineering, administration and overhead ($36,441.17).  This is the
matter, referenced in footnote 2, for which EDC sought an
adjustment to the contract price in response to GSA's request for
a price decrease resulting from the change in the size of the
cofferdam.  To ensure that during excavation, soil would not
collapse away from underground utility lines, EDC installed
approximately thirty-five linear feet of steel sheeting in the area
to the east of the cofferdam.  (Mr. Chance testified that the
sheeting was as long as the width of the cofferdam (forty feet);
Soil Solutions' Vincent DeJana, who supervised the installation,
estimated the length as thirty to thirty-five feet.)  Transcript at
155-56, 398-99, 930-31.  EDC maintains that it had to install the
sheeting "as a result of differing site conditions."  Complaint
 45A.  The differing site condition asserted is the deteriorated
condition of the utility lines.  Appellant's Posthearing Brief at
18-19.

     Neither the location nor the condition of the lines is shown
or described in the contract.  EDC has provided no evidence that
the state of these lines, or the surrounding soil, was unusual or
unexpected.  Mr. DeJana testified that the sheeting had to be
installed as a precautionary measure because the wires were not
rerouted.  Transcript at 155.  As we have found, GSA could not
approve rerouting because EDC never completed a plan for such
action.  We conclude that installation of the sheeting was
necessitated not by any differing site conditions, but rather, by
EDC's ill-advised approach to dealing with the underground utility
lines.

     Extra concrete demolition due to differing site conditions
($32,000).  According to Mr. Chance and EDC, a concrete slab was
discovered under the construction site during the course of
excavation.  The slab, depending on the time Mr. Chance and EDC
were describing it, was eight, ten to twelve, or twelve to sixteen
inches thick.  Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 15 at 1;
Transcript at 945, 1116.  Mr. Chance maintained that the slab was
not shown on the drawings, and that concrete is usually only two to
four inches thick under asphalt pavement.  Transcript at 945, 950-
51.  EDC contends that it is entitled to additional payment for
removal of the exceptionally thick slab.

     As the contracting officer noted in response to this
contention, the contract directs EDC to remove and dispose of
existing pavement, and it shows that the pavement (blacktop and
concrete) extends to a depth of one foot below grade.  Supplemental
Appeal File, Exhibit 34 (referencing Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at
02200-3, Appendix D); see also Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at dwg. 9M1;
Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 37 at 3.  In removing the thick
concrete slab, EDC was doing nothing more than the contract
required.

     EDC also maintains that it is due an additional payment for
removing concrete pile caps -- blocks which were driven into the
ground to add structural stability and support to buildings --
which it encountered but which were not shown on the contract
drawings.  Transcript at 956-57.  Mr. Pavlounis testified that
there were only four or five pile caps on the site, and that EDC's
backhoe was able to scoop them up routinely along with ordinary
soil.  Id. at 1205.  EDC has not demonstrated that the removal of
the pile caps entailed any additional work.

     Demolition of concrete for removal of gasoline tank ($7,000). 
The contract drawings noted that work on two of the underground
tanks which had to be removed involved removal of "concrete anchor
pads and appurtenances thereto," but that work on the gasoline tank
would additionally involve removal of a "platform."  Appeal File,
Exhibit 1 at dwg. 9M1.  When the gasoline tank was uncovered, it
was found to be encased in a layer of concrete.  Transcript at
1014, 1214.  GSA maintains that the surrounding layer was a
"platform," as described in the drawing.  See id. at 1214.  This
makes little sense; a "platform" is "a horizontal flat surface
usually higher than the adjoining area, as an elevated ledge or
shelf used especially for the reception or transfer of materials." 
Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1735 (1986)
(definition 2f).  We agree with EDC that the concrete encasing the
tank was not described in the contract.

     EDC has not demonstrated that removing the concrete involved
any extra work, however.  Mr. Chance testified that the concrete
was two and one-half to three feet thick in some places, and that
demolishing it required special equipment.  Id. at 1014, 1016. 
More persuasive evidence is to the contrary, however.  A
construction report prepared contemporaneously, in the normal
course of business, by Heery inspector Mr. Frasca notes that the
tank had "[m]inimal additional concrete casing."  Supplemental
Appeal File, Exhibit 18.  Mr. Pavlounis, who observed the tank
being removed, testified that after only three or four whacks with
EDC's backhoe, the casing "broke like an eggshell."  Transcript at
1215.  Removing the tank in its entirety took just half an hour. 
Id.

     Disposal of 12 drums of contaminated soil left by previous
contractor ($5,000).  Drums which contained oil-impacted soil were
near the job site, but outside it, when EDC began its work. 
Transcript at 1194-95.  Mr. Chance alerted GSA to the presence of
these objects.  Id. at 939; Appellant's Exhibit 4 at 107.  GSA gave
EDC permission to move the drums, but did not direct the contractor
to dispose of them.  Transcript at 1195-96.  If EDC actually
disposed of the drums and their contents, it has presented no
evidence, such as a manifest, demonstrating that this soil was in
addition to the truckloads of contaminated soil whose removal and
disposal has already been noted in our discussion of the
Government's monetary claim.  Further, because the disposal (if
any) was not at GSA's direction, EDC undertook it as a volunteer
and is therefore not entitled to compensation for this effort. 
Gilroy-Sims & Associates, Ltd., GSBCA 9405, 91-1 BCA  23,406, at
117,444.

     Redesign dewatering system ($14,000).  The contract called for
provision of "an adequate system to lower and control groundwater
in order to permit excavation, construction of structures, and
placement of fill materials under dry conditions."  Appeal File,
Exhibit 1 at 02140-2.  The dewatering system originally proposed
and installed by EDC did not work properly, so it had to be
replaced.  Mr. Chance asserted that an unusually heavy
contamination of oil in the ground was the reason for the failure
of this system.  Transcript at 984-89.  Mr. Feinzig, on the other
hand, concluded that the amount of oil had no effect on the success
of the first dewatering system or on the need for a new design. 
Id. at 230.  We give more credence to the testimony of the
project's designer.  EDC has not established that there was any
reason for replacing the original system other than the fact that
the system did not work properly.

     Extra pressure test requested by GSA ($1,000).  The contract
required EDC to perform three kinds of pressure tests on the tanks
and piping: one on each tank (at five pounds per square inch, or
psi), one on the piping, isolated from the tanks (at 100 psi); and
one on the tanks together with the piping (at 30 psi).  Appeal
File, Exhibit 1 at dwg. 9M4, 15990-2 to -4.  EDC maintains that Mr.
Frasca required two different tests on the piping alone -- one at
30 psi, and a second, which necessitated different gauges, at 100
psi.  Transcript at 991-93.  Messrs. Frasca and Pavlounis agree
that EDC was directed to conduct a second test, which was
successful, but maintain that the reason was that EDC conducted the
first test at the wrong pressure.  Id. at 683, 689, 901-02.  The
record does not contain any credible evidence that the incorrect
test was made at Mr. Frasca's direction.  There is no proof that a
second test had to be made for any reason other than EDC's own
negligence in conducting the first test at a lower pressure than
required by the contract.

     Emergency repair to parking lot and smoke stack lights
($5,000).  While EDC was performing its work on this contract,
lights at the adjoining parking lot and the power plant's
smokestack failed.  Transcript at 994-98.  According to Mr. Chance,
EDC's electrical subcontractor did a considerable amount of work to
find the cause of this problem, which turned out not to be related
to anything EDC had done.  Id. at 996-1001.  Then, Mr. Chance
continued, either GSA's Rashid Mattoo or Heery's Richard Conklin
orally directed EDC to repair the lights.  Id. at 1125.  EDC did
not call Mr. Mattoo or Mr. Conklin as a witness, however, so the
record contains no corroboration of this alleged direction.  Mr.
Pavlounis testified that GSA's files contain no authorization for
any repair of the lights by EDC.  Id. at 1207-08.  We conclude that
EDC has not met its burden of proving that GSA is liable for
whatever repairs the contractor may have made.

     Extra work in relation to Maybey Bridge ($4,150).  EDC
maintains that after it discharged its original excavation
subcontractor, Soil Solutions, it incurred additional costs in
dealing with Maybey Bridge, the company whose products had been
installed in the cofferdam under Soil Solutions' supervision. 
Apparently, EDC believes that GSA should reimburse EDC for these
costs because GSA's actions caused EDC to discharge Soil Solutions. 
Transcript at 1011-13.  EDC has not produced convincing evidence as
to the cause of its decision to replace Soil Solutions on this job,
however.

     Extra equipment required as a result of changes ordered by GSA
-- monitoring probes, warning panel, etc. ($5,000).  The oil
storage tanks required by the contract were double-walled.  Appeal
File, Exhibit 1 at 15590-5, dwg. 9M4.  A probe had to be placed
between the walls of each tank, to detect the presence of a liquid,
and the probe had to be connected to a control panel which was
capable of registering an alarm.  Id. at 15590-13 to -17.  Mr.
Chance recognized that the contract specifications allowed the
provision of either discriminating probes, which can distinguish
between water and oil, or non-discriminating probes, which cannot. 
Transcript at 759.  According to Mr. Chance, he originally ordered
non-discriminating probes, but Mr. Frasca told him to exchange them
for discriminating instruments, and there followed a series of
misadventures in which control panel modules and probes were
replaced until finally, EDC had in place non-discriminating probes
and control panel modules which would function with them.  Id. at
761-62, 1018-20.  EDC never questioned Mr. Frasca on this matter at
the hearing, however; nor did it present any evidence other than
Mr. Chance's testimony which would indicate that GSA or its agents
were in any way responsible for the misadventures.  Mr. Feinzig, on
the other hand, testified that in reviewing a contractor submittal,
he had explained to EDC that non-discriminating probes were more
appropriate for this project, since they were less expensive and an
alarm as to any liquid in the space between the tank walls should
prompt an investigation of potential problems.  Id. at 238-39.  We
conclude, based on the totality of this evidence, that EDC's
replacements of probes and associated equipment were not made at
the direction of GSA or its agent.

     Delay in installation of surface slab caused by GSA ($3,500). 
This part of the claim is buttressed only by Mr. Chance's vague
testimony that concrete could not be poured for the slab below the
tanks on the day EDC desired because GSA and Heery representatives
left the site early on that day and were consequently unable to
inspect the preparations for the pour.  Transcript at 1004-08.  EDC
did not call any witnesses from the concrete subcontractor; nor did
it call (or even identify) the GSA and Heery employees who were
allegedly involved.  EDC did not present any critical path analyses
to show the effect of the alleged delay.  The appellant has not met
its burden on this item.

     Winter blankets for concrete supplied by Island Concrete
($768); joint sealer material supplied by Island Concrete ($140). 
Island Concrete was EDC's concrete subcontractor.  These items both
relate to costs incurred because the concrete was poured in January
1995, rather than in September or October 1994, as EDC had
allegedly planned.  The weather was colder in January, and
additional precautions had to be taken and different materials used
because of the difference in temperature.  Transcript at 1008-10. 
EDC has not demonstrated that the delay in pouring the concrete was
attributable to any actions of GSA or its agents, however.

     Extra work required by Island Concrete due to delays caused by
GSA ($4,631.40).  EDC has not explained what matters this item
includes that have not already been addressed in the two preceding
paragraphs.

     Emergency redesign of rigging and hoisting ($15,000).  The
contract required EDC to engage a professional engineer licensed by
New York State, for the purpose of assuming various
responsibilities regarding hoisting and rigging needed to remove
existing tanks and install new ones.  The engineer was to submit a
rigging procedure plan to the contracting officer for approval, and
also to be present during all of the hoisting and rigging work, to
ensure that the rigging operation followed the plan.  Appeal File,
Exhibit 1 at 02210-1 to -2, dwg. 9M4.

     In August or September 1994, EDC brought a crane onto the site
and used it to remove the old tanks.  There is no indication in the
record that GSA objected to this work.  Transcript at 1033-34.  In
late September, however, and again on December 6, the contracting
officer reminded EDC to have a full-time professional engineer on
site during future hoisting and rigging operations.  Supplemental
Appeal File, Exhibits 26, 43 at 2.  And on December 8, Mr.
Pavlounis and the contracting officer both told Mr. Chance that
because EDC had no hoisting and rigging plan on file with GSA, the
contractor would not be permitted to install the new tanks. 
Transcript at 1211-12.

     Notwithstanding the warning, on December 9, EDC brought a
crane to the site and began to lower a new tank into the excavated
area.  The contracting officer immediately issued a stop work order
because of the lack of a plan and the absence from the site of a
professional engineer.  Transcript at 715, 1039-41; Supplemental
Appeal File, Exhibit 46 at 4-5.  EDC was not allowed back onto the
site until December 21.  Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 50 at 2-
3; Transcript at 1046.

     Mr. Chance maintained in December 1994, and again at hearing,
that in March 1994, EDC had filed a hoisting and rigging plan which
had been approved by a professional engineer.  According to Mr.
Chance, he had submitted the plan in March to Joseph Bailey, a GSA
engineer who was then the contracting officer's technical
representative for this project, and Mr. Bailey had orally approved
it.  Transcript at 723-24, 1034-38, 1044; Supplemental Appeal File,
Exhibit 47.  

     The evidence is to the contrary.  Mr. Chance's engineer,
Andrew Mireku, gave inconsistent testimony on this matter.  On
direct examination, he said that he had approved a document which
EDC maintains was its March 1994 hoisting and rigging plan. 
Transcript at 724; Appellant's Exhibit 1 at 15-21.  On cross-
examination, he said that he approved only the rating of the cable
to be used, and not the other parts of the document.  Transcript at
730, 734, 736.  Mr. Mireku appeared thoroughly confused on the
witness stand -- as, for example, in this exchange with Government
counsel:

     Q    Do you recall reviewing the contract drawings on
     this project, Drawings 9M1 to 9M4, that are sitting here
     next to you?

     A    Yes, I remember them.  There is my seal on them,
     right.

     Q    I don't think so, Mr. Mireku.  [The seal is clearly
     that of Daniel Beaton of Rose, Beaton & Rose.]

     A    No.  Oh, okay.

Id. at 735-36.  Mr. Mireku admitted that he did not inspect the rig
and equipment that was to be used for the rigging and hoisting
operations on this project, and did not understand that the
contract required such an inspection.  Id. at 737-38.

     Furthermore, Mr. Bailey cautioned Mr. Chance by letter on
April 1 that EDC had not yet submitted the mandated hoisting and
rigging plan.  Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 3 at 1.  This
letter adds credibility to Mr. Bailey's testimony that he never
received such a plan.  Transcript at 1157.  We also credit Mr.
Bailey's testimony that the document Mr. Chance called a hoisting
and rigging plan is so sketchy that it could in no way qualify as
a plan fit for approval.  Id. at 1158-59.  All in all, the record
makes clear that EDC was entirely responsible for the problems with
hoisting and rigging which occurred in December 1994.

     Transportation of steel for new bracing ($900).  In issuing
the stop work order in December 1994, GSA required EDC to stabilize
the cofferdam by replacing cross-bracing it had removed to make
additional space for the tanks.  Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit
46 at 4.  Mr. Chance asserts that he had steel for new bracing
trucked to the site, but that because the tanks fit within the
cofferdam, EDC did not have to use this material and had to return
it to the supplier.  Transcript at 1001-03.  Why he wanted the
steel is unclear, since GSA's order was to put back in place what
had been removed, not to provide any new bracing.  Id. at 1209-10. 
Mr. Chance's testimony that GSA directed him to have the steel on
site is not convincing; he could not remember whether the direction
was written or oral, or which GSA employee gave it.  Id. at 1003. 
There is no reason why the agency should have to pay the
transportation costs for this material.

     Additional administrative costs ($138,000).  The only specific
allegation made by EDC which appears to fit under this heading is
that GSA prescribed confusing arrangements for the submittal of
shop drawings.  The contract required EDC to submit various shop
drawings to the contracting officer or an individual designated by
her.  Work on items involved could proceed only as approved. 
Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 7-8 of GSA form 3506,  01300.  When the
project began, Joseph Bailey, the contracting officer's
representative at the time, told Mr. Chance that if he needed to
submit shop drawings immediately, he should send them to GSA; after
a contract with Roy Feinzig's firm (Rose, Beaton & Rose) for shop
drawing review had been completed, however, the drawings should go
to that firm.  Transcript at 372, 958-60, 1156-57, 1167-68.  The
contract with Rose, Beaton & Rose was completed on March 29, 1994,
and by EDC's admission, within the next six weeks, the contracting
officer on three occasions directed EDC to send its shop drawings
to that firm.  Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 15.

     Mr. Chance maintains that he was confused as to where to send
his submittals, and that because of his confusion, "I was spending
15 times the amount of time on submissions as I would normally
spend" and had to make extra payments to at least one supplier. 
Transcript at 981, 983.  Even if EDC had to spend extra time and
money in submitting shop drawings, the record does not establish
that any GSA action caused this state of affairs.  Mr. Feinzig's
testimony suggests a more likely reason:  Some of EDC's submittals
showed a poor understanding of what the project design was intended
to accomplish; many extra submittals were necessitated by EDC's
changes in suppliers and proposed design; and many submittals were
just plain incorrect.  Id. at 307, 309-10.  Although Mr. Feinzig
went out of his way to expedite the work, such as by accepting
submittals by facsimile transmission and discussing modifications
(sometimes more than one during a day) over the phone, EDC's
inability to produce acceptable drawings was a constant problem on
the project.  Id. at 246-49.

     Excess costs incurred as a result of canceled deliveries,
absence of crucial GSA personnel during normal scheduled work
hours, denied access to work site, stop work orders, differing site
conditions, etc. ($299,876.10).  According to Mr. Chance, work on
the project was delayed on December 23, 1994, because Heery
inspector Steven Frasca had left the site early that day.  EDC's
owner testified that he had planned to put gravel around the tanks
as backfill that afternoon, but had to refuse delivery of the
gravel since the tanks had not yet been inspected.  Transcript at
1021-25; Appellant's Exhibit 1 at 62.  The record shows, however,
that backfill could not have been placed on the site on December 23
for reasons having nothing to do with Mr. Frasca's absence.  Some
work remained to be performed on the tanks; it was not completed
until December 27.  Further, EDC did not have on the site on
December 23 any of the machinery which was necessary for putting
the gravel into the cofferdam.  Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit
51 at 3.

     In addition to this event, and the other matters discussed
above which relate to this particular element of the claim, EDC's
presentation of evidence as to this item can be described most
kindly as impressionistic.  Mr. Chance asserted in his testimony
that EDC was improperly barred from the site on numerous occasions,
that GSA's failure to perform timely inspections caused many delays
in the work, and that differing site conditions resulted in delays. 
Transcript at 1026, 1029-33, 1144-45.  He and EDC presented
virtually no specifics in support of these contentions, however. 
They provided us with almost no dates, documentation, or analyses
of impact on the critical path.  EDC has failed to carry its burden
of proof on this item.

     Machine and equipment rental ($4,998.09); extra engineering
costs ($16,890.44); total other indirect costs ($25,052.40); total
overhead and profit ($135,629.60).  EDC presented no evidence
specific to any of these categories of alleged extra costs.  To the
extent that GSA is obligated to compensate EDC for any of them, the
costs must be encompassed within one of the categories for which we
have found entitlement.

     Interest on unpaid balance as of April 1995 ($15,891.35). 
Although this item involves interest which had accrued up to April
1995, EDC's claim was not dated until August 29 of that year, and
the claim was not received by GSA until September 6.  Appeal File,
Exhibits 88 at 1, 89 at 1.  Interest does not begin to accrue under
the Contract Disputes Act until the date on which the contracting
officer receives the claim.  41 U.S.C.  611 (1994).  This Act thus
does not authorize payment of interest which accrued on any item
covered by the claim earlier than September 6, 1995.  EDC has cited
no other authority for the payment of accrued interest on any
element of its claim.

                                 Decision

     GSBCA 13244 is GRANTED IN PART.  The contract price is reduced
by $150,604.31, rather than the larger sum claimed by the
Government, as a consequence of the reduction in the size of the
cofferdam and the deletion of certain pavement work.  GSBCA 13331
is DENIED; the contract was justifiably terminated for default. 
This opinion concludes the Board's consideration of these two
appeals.

     GSBCA 13534 is GRANTED IN PART AS TO ENTITLEMENT.  GSA is
obligated to pay EDC for the item which EDC has labeled "unpaid
balance on monitoring wells."   Within thirty days of the date of
this decision, the parties shall jointly submit to the Board a
proposed schedule for further proceedings relating to the amount of
money GSA owes for this item.





                                   _________________________
                                   STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                   Board Judge

We concur:





_________________________          _________________________
DONALD W. DEVINE                   CATHERINE B. HYATT
Board Judge                        Board Judge