DENIED: January 24, 2014
CBCA 3443
GOTTFRIED CONTRACTING, LLC,
Appellant,
v.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
Gregg E. Hutt of Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O’Neill & Mullins, P.A.,
Tampa, FL, counsel for Appellant.
Duane C. Pitt, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Atlanta,
GA, counsel for Respondent.
McCANN, Board Judge.
Appellant Gottfried Contracting, LLC (Gottfried), appeals the decision of a
contracting officer of respondent, General Services Administration (GSA), denying a claim
for increased costs resulting from GSA’s direction that all cabling performed on the contract
at issue originate in one specific room.  A hearing on the merits was held on November 20,
2013.  Appellant has elected the small claims procedure.  Rule 52 (48 CFR 6101.52 (2012));
41 U.S.C. § 7106 (b) (Supp IV 2011).  Consequently, this decision is being issued by a single
judge; the decision is final and conclusive and may not be set aside except due to fraud, and
it has no precedential value.

CBCA 3443 2
Facts
On September 20, 2011, Gottfried and GSA entered into contract GS-04P-08-EX-D-
0024/GS-P-04-11-EX-5072 (the contract).  The contract was for the interior build-out and
eleventh-floor renovation at the Timberlake Federal Annex in Tampa, Florida.  Part of the
build-out pertained to the installation of data, voice, and radio cabling.   
Drawing ET101, entitled “New 11th Floor Plan - Telecommunications,” shows a
layout of the rooms on the eleventh floor.  The drawing shows the phase one and phase two
plan for construction.  The phase one work covers the western half of the eleventh floor and
the phase two work covers the eastern half of the floor.  The drawing shows no wiring or
cabling, but it does show the cable tray where wiring and cabling is to be housed.  The main
part of the cable tray runs almost the entire length of the eleventh floor, parallel to the north
and south walls, and is located about one-third of the way from the north wall to the south
wall. Sections of cable tray running north-south connect to the main tray.  There is a break
in the middle of the main tray, near where the phase one work ends and the phase two work
begins.  The main tray in phase one terminates about a foot or two from the main tray in
phase two.  The cable tray in phase two does not terminate like the cable tray in phase one,
but curves away from the phase one tray and runs south.  
 Drawing ET101 shows that room 1101 has extensive ladder cable runway.1  Room
1133 also has ladder cable runway, but to a lesser extent (about fifteen to twenty per cent of
the amount shown in 1101).  Room 1133 has a small space or box labeled “ITR” in it. Room
1101 has no such space or box with such a designation.  The specifications do not define
what ITR stands for.  Appellant contends it means “Interim Telecommunications Room.”
The technical specifications for the cabling are located on drawings TR017 and
TR018,2 and are entitled “Scope of Work, Voice / Data / Radio Cable Installation.”  The
relevant technical specifications appearing on Drawing TR017 state (with underlining added
throughout): 
8. Radio wires will be terminated on a separated patch panel in each
Communications Equipment Room . . . .  
1 Ladder cable runway is used to run cable down the wall to equipment. 
2 Drawing TR017 is located in the Appeal File at Exhibit 2, page 52 of 53.
Drawing TR018 is page 53 of 53.  ET101 is page 29 of 53.  Exhibit 2 of the Appeal File is
not numbered consecutively throughout.  The Contract Drawings are found in the final 53
pages of Exhibit 2. 

CBCA 3443 3
. . . .
11. Voice data1/Data 2 and radio wires shall be separated on different patch
panels in separate racks as applicable, in the Communications Equipment
Room. 
. . . . 
13. The contractor shall install . . . in the office space Communications
Equipment Room . . . . 
14. The contractor shall provide . . . between Communications Equipment
Rooms . . . . 
. . . . 
Patch Cables - All patch cables will be fitted . . . .
. . . . 
Communications Closet (CER) The patch cables used in the CER
shall be labeled with . . . .  
. . . .
Patch Cables - The contractor shall be responsible for the installation,
labeling, and testing of all data patch cables associated with this installation. 
Patch cables shall be installed at the client end and in the appropriate
communications closets . . . .  
Special Note: The contractor shall provide patch cables for the rack
Connections in the CER . . . .  
. . . . 
Communications Closet (CER) - The contractor shall install, test and
label patch cables in the CER for every cable installed under the
contract.
On drawing TR018 there is a table that specifies the rooms in which the cabling is to
terminate.  This table, however, does not specify where the cabling is to originate.  The table

CBCA 3443 4
shows that room 1101 has no cable terminating in it other than one phone cable.  It is the only
room on the eleventh floor that has no data or radio cabling terminating in it.
The other relevant portions of the technical specifications on drawing TR018 are: 
Additional Requirements
. . . . 
A cable tray system will be utilized throughout the office for the Security
System Wiring and the Data/Comm Wiring.  The Cable Tray shall extend into
Room 1101.” 
A 4" CONDUIT shall be installed to run from the building Telco riser to
GSA Room 1101
Appropriate colored Patch Cables will be provided for each connection
at the workstation and in Room 1101 to include Fiber Patch Cables 
. . . . 
Install the following: 
1 - 25 Pair Cable from Room 1101 to Roof (Machine Room/TBD . . . .
1 - 200 pair Cable from Room 1101 to the Building DEMARC . . . .
1 - 4 Pair Fiber Cable from Room 1101 to the Building DEMARC . . . .
2 - RED CAT6 Cables from Room 1101 to . . . .
Discussion
Appellant contends that the contract required the cabling to originate in room 1101
(in phase 1) and room 1133 (in phase 2) and to terminate in other rooms.  Appellant therefore
avers that GSA’s direction to originate all cabling in room 1101 was a change to the contract
entitling it to an equitable adjustment.  Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the
contract requires that all cabling originate in room 1101. 
We must first decide whether the contract was ambiguous.  "To show an ambiguity
it is not enough that the parties differ in their respective interpretations of a contract term.
Rather, both interpretations must fall within a 'zone of reasonableness.'" Metric Constructors,
Inc. v. NASA, 169 F.3d 747, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations omitted).   Each party here argues

CBCA 3443 5
that there is no ambiguity because its interpretation is reasonable and the other party’s
interpretation is unreasonable.  
If the determination is made that the contract is ambiguous, we must then decide
whether that ambiguity is latent or patent. 
Because we hold that the solicitation was ambiguous, we turn now to the
question of whether the ambiguity was patent. An ambiguity will only be
construed against the government if it was not obvious on the face of the
solicitation and reliance is shown. See, e.g., Edward R. Marden Corp. v.
United States, 803 F.2d 701, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1986). If the ambiguity is patent,
it triggers a duty to inquire. A patent ambiguity is one that is "obvious, gross,
[or] glaring, so that plaintiff contractor had a duty to inquire about it at the
start." H&M Moving, Inc. v. United States, 204 Ct. Cl. 696, 499 F.2d 660, 671
(Ct. Cl. 1974). If an ambiguity is obvious and a bidder fails to inquire with
regard to the provision, his interpretation will fail. Triax Pac., Inc. v. West, 130
F.3d 1469, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
NVT Technologies, Inc. v. United States, 370 F.3d 1153, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The specifications and drawings do not indicate in which room or rooms the cabling
is to originate, yet they do indicate where all cabling is to terminate. The specifications could
reasonably be interpreted as requiring the cabling to originate in one room, or more than one
room.  Accordingly, the specifications and drawings are ambiguous. For the following
reasons, we find that the ambiguity was glaring and obvious prior to bid, and therefore the
contract was patently ambiguous. 
Room 1101 has extensive ladder cable runway that is used to run cabling entering a
room from the cable trays to the equipment.  There is also ladder cable runway in room 1133,
but to a lesser extent.  This seems to indicate that both rooms could accommodate cable
origination.  However, room 1133 is substantially smaller than room 1101 and has much less
ladder cable runway.  Thus, it does not appear that the drafters intended it to serve a function
equal  to that of room 1101, as appellant contends.   Furthermore, there could well be other
uses for the ladder cable in room 1133 to accommodate other cable now or in the future.   
The specifications state that there would be one communications equipment room
(most likely, the room where the cabling was to originate), but then state that there would be
multiple communication equipment rooms.  It is obvious that the number of communication
equipment rooms cannot be determined from the specifications. 

CBCA 3443 6
The specifications are further ambiguous with regard to whether a communications
closet is the same as a communications equipment room.  The specifications refer to multiple
“communications closets” and a singular “CER.”  The specifications use the abbreviation
“CER” for communications closet, but there is no abbreviation provided for a
“communications equipment room.”  This is confusing, as the abbreviation “CER” would
more appropriately apply to a communication equipment room than to a “communication
closet.”  The contractor should have inquired about this prior to bid.
 The cable tray shown on the drawing is not connected at its mid-point.  There is a
break between the phase one work and the phase two work.  This seems to support the
position that that the designers intended there to be a separate cable system for each phase
of the work.  However, all of the connectivity to the outside world is through room 1101. 
The specifications reference multiple cables running from room 1101 to the roof and to
building DEMARC. This is a clear indication to connectivity to the outside world.  Nothing
similar applies to room 1133.  Connectivity to the outside world from room 1133 would have
to be accomplished in some other way. 
Appellant argues that connectivity is not relevant here, as it can be easily
accommodated subsequent to contract completion in other ways, by running cables between
room 1101 and 1133, or through wireless connections.  However, if cable was intended to
originate in room 1133 as well as room 1101, it would also be logical to assume that the
contract would have provided a means for connectivity to the outside world from room 1133
just as it did from room 1101.  Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. 
 The specifications state, “A cable tray system will be utilized throughout the office
for the Security System Wiring and the Data/Comm Wiring.  The Cable Tray shall extend
into Room 1101.”  There is nothing in the specifications that states that the cable tray system
should extend into room 1133.  However, drawing ER101 shows the cable tray extending
into other rooms, including rooms 1133 and 1101.  The significance of the statement, “The
Cable Tray shall extend into Room 1101,” is therefore unclear.  However, if this statement
regarding room 1101 is to have any meaning, it would tend to support the single
communications equipment room position. 
Appellant argues that the ITR designation appearing on drawing 1133 means Interim
Telecommunications Room, which supports its position that room 1133 was also intended
to be a communications equipment room.  However, the abbreviation “ITR” is not defined
in the specifications.  Accordingly, its meaning is unknown.  If appellant interpreted it to
mean “Interim Telecommunications Room” at bid time, without inquiring as to its meaning,
it did so at its own risk. 

CBCA 3443 7
The specifications state, “Appropriate colored Patch Cables will be provided for
each connection at the workstation and in Room 1101 to include Fiber Patch Cables,”
The specifications contain no such statement with regard to room 1133.  This would seem
to support the position that only room 1101 was intended as the origination point for the
cabling. 
Appellant argues that it was told prior to bidding that work in phases one and two
must be performed in sequence, rather than simultaneously.  It inferred from this direction
that there would be two equipment communications rooms. Even if such a direction was
issued, there is no reason to assume that some limited work could not be performed, as
necessary, in the other phase.  A direction of this type certainly would not preclude room
1101 from being the lone communication equipment room.  
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the contract was patently ambiguous.
Appellant did not inquire regarding the patent ambiguity at bid time, and it is therefore not
entitled to an equitable adjustment. 
Decision
The appeal is DENIED.  
                                                      
R. ANTHONY McCANN
Board Judge