__________________________________ GRANTED IN PART: March 31, 1993 __________________________________ GSBCA 11421 DOMGAARD ASSOCIATES, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. John P. Ashton and Ronald F. Sysak of Price, Yeates & Geldzahler, Salt Lake City, UT, counsel for Appellant. Martin A. Hom, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges HYATT, WILLIAMS, and DeGRAFF. Board Judge HYATT. This appeal involves a claim for equitable adjustments under a lease entered into between appellant, Domgaard Associates, and respondent, the General Services Administration (GSA). The disputed issues concern the proper interpretation of several lease clauses. Domgaard contends that it is entitled to monetary equitable adjustments for carpeting, duplex extension outlets, lighting, reduction in the size of the automated data processing (ADP)/communications room and concomitant build out of the extra space into open office space, and installation of exit signs not required under the lease. The amount of Domgaard's claim, as revised, totals $40,612.97, exclusive of interest. For the reasons stated, we grant the appeal in part. Findings of Fact 1. On August 9, 1989, Domgaard Associates and GSA entered into lease number GS-08P-12923 for approximately 57,000 net usable square feet of office space in Ogden, Utah. The lease provided that Domgaard would construct the space to the Government's specifications. Appeal File, Exhibit 1. The lease was for ten years. Id. The lease documents included the solicitation for offers (SFO) and the general and special requirements set forth therein. Id. Lighting 2. With respect to interior lighting, the SFO provided that parabolic-type fluorescent fixtures be installed and further specified that: Such fixtures shall be capable of producing and maintaining a uniform lighting level of 50 foot-candles at working surface height throughout the space. A lighting level of at least 20 foot-candles at foot level shall be maintained in corridors providing ingress and egress to the Government leased space. 1 to 10 foot-candles or minimum levels sufficient to ensure safety should be maintained in other non-working areas. In addition, the SFO provided that the "[o]utdoor parking areas shall have a minimum of one foot-candle of illumination. Indoor parking areas shall have a minimum of ten foot-candles level illumination." Appeal File, Exhibit 1, SFO at 21. 3. The electrical subcontractor's engineer, who designed the lighting for the leased space, testified that he interpreted the term "uniform" to mean "an average lighting level throughout the area that you're designing the lighting for." Transcript at 44. The engineer used a specialized computer program to determine the appropriate number of fixtures needed to achieve an average lighting level of 50 foot-candles in the working areas. Id. This system calculates a recommended number of fixtures based on the total dimensions of the building or area to be lit, in square footage, the types of walls, the level at which the reading will be taken (desk height in this case), the height of the ceiling, and any other pertinent factors. Id. at 44-45. In addition, the engineer verified the program's results manually and applied his own practical experience in determining whether the computerized system's results were accurate. He concluded that they were. Id. 4. After the lights were installed, Domgaard tested the lighting sufficiency. This was done by using a table of the same height as the average desk and placing a light meter on the table. The table was moved around to obtain measurements in various locations. The contracting officer was present and objected that lighting was insufficient in parts of the working areas. In some places the reading was approximately 42 foot- candles, in one or two it was at or slightly below 40 foot- candles. In other areas, the readings considerably exceeded 50 foot-candles. Transcript at 24-26, 30, 146-47. 5. The contracting officer took the position that the specification required a reading of at least 50 foot-candles in every part of the room. Transcript at 26-27, 47. Domgaard thereafter installed fifty-one additional fixtures in order to meet the contracting officer's interpretation that illumination could not be less than 50 foot-candles in any location. Id. at 28-30; Appeal File, Exhibit 12. In addition, Domgaard replaced the existing bulbs with higher wattage bulbs. Transcript at 30; Appeal File, Exhibit 12. Most of the additional fixtures were installed near the walls because that is where the lowest readings were obtained. Transcript at 48.[foot #] 1 6. The engineer who designed the lighting testified that it would not be possible as a practical matter to achieve an absolutely uniform level of lighting using the fixtures specified by the Government. It might be done, perhaps, by installing an immense skylight and arranging for the sun to shine. It would also be possible to achieve a uniform lighting level with a luminescent ceiling, but the Government specified the fixtures to be installed. Transcript at 46. In addition, a luminescent ceiling, although the best possible method of lighting a space, is also prohibitively expensive. Id. at 72. With the lighting fixtures specified by the Government, it was the opinion of the engineer that after evenly distributing the fixtures, at best the foot-candle readings would range from the 30s to the 60s. Id. at 52. 7. Domgaard also called an expert in the lighting industry, an engineer who has been in the business for more than twenty years. Transcript at 57-58. The expert defined the zonal cavity method of calculating luminescence as the prescribed approach for installing luminaries in an interior space. Id. at 61-63. This system takes into account such factors as the efficiency of the fixture being used and its candle-power distribution curve; the reflectance of the ceiling, floors, and walls (known as interflectances); and cavity ratios, or the relationship of wall distance to ceiling height. Id. at 62-63, 70. The zonal cavity method of determining lighting is the one that is generally accepted in the industry. Id. at 46. 8. The expert attested that within the lighting industry, the term "uniform" should only be used in conjunction with clear indications of the minimum and maximum levels of incident light to be achieved. Transcript at 64. He emphasized that "uniformity has to be defined very carefully, and it has to be in ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The lighting engineer acknowledged that lower readings near the walls are typical because walls "absorb" light. Transcript at 49. After installation of the additional fixtures, appellant's president has had occasion to visit the building. He has noted on those visits that the extra banks of lights are frequently turned off by the occupants because of glare. Id. at __ 90-91. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- certain given parameters. Otherwise, it is universally in the lighting industry considered as average." Id. at 65, 69. 9. Domgaard's expert reviewed the initial lighting scheme proposed and installed by Domgaard in the building. He reviewed the drawings in terms of the symmetry of the layout and the quantities of fixtures used relative to the zonal cavity method. Transcript at 65. He determined that the initial scheme as installed was symmetrical and would have yielded as uniform a lighting system as possible given the type of fixture used. Id.[foot #] 2 10. The expert also questioned the validity of the testing approach used by the Government in rejecting the initial installation of light fixtures. He attested that for a symmetrical layout, the Illuminating Engineering Society Handbook specifies a particular procedure. It requires that at least eight measurements be taken at task height (here, 30 inches, or desk height) and that they be averaged. Transcript at 69-70. He understood that this had not been done here. Id. at 71.[foot #] 3 11. In the expert's opinion, the layout of fixtures as initially installed satisfied the Government's stated specifications. Transcript at 71. He did concede on cross examination that if the fixtures closest to the walls had been moved closer to the walls, those areas, which were approximately forty foot-candles, and in a few instances below that reading, would have been better illuminated. He could not speculate on whether moving those fixtures would have lowered the readings in other areas of the room, however, without seeing the walls. Id. at 87-89. 12. Domgaard claims the amount of $23,382.50 as the expense it incurred in meeting the Government's interpretation of the lighting provision of the lease. Appeal File, Exhibit 27. Supporting data, including applicable invoices, are provided in Domgaard's certified claim dated September 28, 1990. The ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 The expert also pointed out that the zonal cavity method of measuring illumination does not yield much information about the quality of lighting in a given area. This depends, in part, on the quality of the fixture used. In this connection, he noted that appellant selected, from among the range of parabolic fixtures meeting the specification, a higher than usual quality fixture for this building. Transcript at 65. [foot #] 3 At one time, the lighting industry followed a standard that specified for an average of, for example, 50 foot- candles, the lighting should not deviate from that standard by more than one-sixth. Transcript at 68-69. That standard is no longer favored under modern application guides. Id. at 69. __ ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- supporting data appear to be in order and have not been challenged as to accuracy by the Government. Id. Carpeting and Resilient Flooring 13. The Government specified the types of floor coverings to be installed in the premises: carpeting, resilient flooring, and ceramic tile. Paragraph 54 of the SFO required that "resilient flooring is to be used in reproduction rooms, storage, file and other specialty rooms" as listed. The only additional room listed was the "food service area." Appeal File, Exhibit 1, SFO at 15. Carpeting was required for all office areas, including interior hallways and conference rooms. Id. 14. The food service area is defined under the special requirements portion of the SFO as consisting of approximately 3,150 square feet. Subparagraph 4(i) of this provision states that "[v]inyl tile flooring is required in serving area." Appeal File, Exhibit 1, SFO, Special Requirements at 18. 15. Domgaard interpreted the specifications to call for vinyl flooring throughout the entire cafeteria area, which was approximated to be 3,150 square feet. This made sense to Domgaard, since it would be difficult to keep carpeting in a dining area clean. Appeal File, Exhibit 27. Subsequent to award of the contract, the contracting officer informed Domgaard that only the actual kitchen "serving area," consisting of some 400 square feet, was to have vinyl flooring. The Government required that carpeting be installed in the rest of the cafeteria. Transcript at 102. 16. Both carpet and vinyl flooring were unit cost items subject to downward or upward adjustment depending on whether the amounts of material actually required exceeded or fell short of amounts specified in the SFO.[foot #] 4 In making calculations for the flooring required under the SFO, Domgaard computed 3,150 square feet for the food service area as calling for resilient flooring and not carpet. Transcript at 102-04; Appeal File, Exhibit 27. Subtracting 400 square feet for the kitchen area, the cafeteria required installation of an additional 2,750 square feet of carpet. 17. As a result of the reduction in the dimensions of the ADP room, from 2,000 square feet to 673 square feet, Domgaard installed an additional 1,327 square feet of carpet in the office areas. Transcript at 92. 18. An additional 4,077 square feet of carpet was thus required in the cafeteria and in the enlarged office area created by the reduction of the size of the ADP room. Overall, Domgaard ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 4 The unit cost adjustment clause is discussed in more detail below. See Finding 19. ___ ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- calculates that the lease actually required installation of 5,642 square yards of carpet, and that it was required to install 5,996 square yards. It contends it is entitled to recover the difference of 354 square yards at $33.15 per square yard.[foot #] 5 After making adjustments for amounts already paid by the Government and for credits due the Government as a result of reductions in vinyl tile required, the net amount claimed for carpet is $5,345.10. Transcript at 102. Duplex Extension Outlets 19. The SFO provided for unit cost adjustments for certain items to be provided by the contractor in connection with the build out of the space: Several paragraphs in this SFO specify means for determining quantities of materials. These are Government projections to assist the offeror in cost estimating. Actual quantities may not be determined until after the lease is awarded and the space layout completed. To enable an equitable settlement if the Government layout departs from the projection, the offeror must list a unit cost for each of these materials. GSA will use each unit cost to make a lump sum payment or rental increase if the amount of material required by the layout is more than specified or take credit from rental if the amount is less than specified. Appeal File, Exhibit 1. Examples of items for which unit costs are established in the lease include partitioning, telephone outlets, wall covering, and tumbler locks, as well as carpeting and vinyl flooring. Id. The unit cost established for floor duplex electrical outlets was $155 per outlet. Unit costs were also included for wall duplex outlets, and for floor and wall fourplex outlets. Id. No unit cost was established for extension outlets. These outlets, however, perform the same function as duplex outlets. Transcript at 108-09. 20. With respect to electrical distribution, the SFO provided that: ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 5 The additional 4,077 square feet translates into 453 square yards of carpet. GSA agreed that 90 additional square yards had been installed and, under the unit cost provision, compensated Domgaard for that amount unilaterally. Appeal File, Exhibit 1. The Board calculates a remaining difference of 363 square yards of carpet. Domgaard seeks payment for only 354 square yards of carpet, however. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- Fourplex (double duplex) floor or wall outlets shall be provided in office areas on the basis of one (1) per 400 square feet. Duplex floor or wall outlets shall be provided on the basis of one (1) per 125 square feet. . . . The ratio of floor to wall outlets should be 80 percent to 20 percent, respectively. Appeal File, Exhibit 1. 21. Paragraph 5(c)(7) of the SFO's special requirements, governing the ADP/Communications Rooms, specified that the lessor shall: Furnish gridded modular power for under raised floor. Locate junction boxes on 16 foot centers. Boxes shall have four (4) twist lock . . . outlet each. Attached to each locking outlet shall be one . . . duplex outlet at the end of a five-foot on [sic] flexible metal conduit cable. Each junction box shall be protected by a 20 amp circuit breaker. Label each box with the breaker number and panelboard designation. All underfloor cabled outlets shall be on flexible metal conduit. Appeal File, Exhibit 1, Special Requirements at 19. 22. The actual quantity of extension duplex outlets that would be required to be installed by the contractor was unknown at the time bids were submitted. Transcript at 162. Bidders were expected to estimate the quantity to be installed. Domgaard testified that these items were rather expensive, because of the type of connections that have to be on both ends and the requirement for flexible, rather than rigid, conduit. Id. at 109. 23. An underfloor gridded modular power system on 16 foot centers calls for a 16-by-16 foot grid underneath the floor. Transcript at 123. Domgaard bid on the computer room by designing such a 16-by-16 foot grid. Id. at 123, 128. 24. In its claim, Domgaard indicated that it provided 24 floor duplex extension outlets which should be reimbursed at the unit cost established for floor duplex outlets, or $155 apiece. The total amount of this claim is $3,720. Appeal File, Exhibit 27. 25. The contracting officer explained that this claim was denied because there was no unit cost adjustment provided for under the lease for this type of outlet. The outlets required in the computer room were unique -- they were different from the floor outlets. The contractor was expected to estimate this requirement based on the requirement for a 16-by-16 foot grid, Finding 23, and include these items in the bid price as "one of his expenses, and no adjustment [was to be] made." Moreover, when the ADP room was reduced in size, from 2,000 square feet to 673 square feet, the Government did not take an adjustment for the fact that fewer extension outlets were required. Transcript at 129, 139-41. 26. Overall, the Government received a credit of $9,920 because 64 fewer floor duplex outlets were installed than had been planned. Similarly, the Government obtained a $17,000 credit for the fact that 108 fewer double duplex floor outlets were installed. Transcript at 164. Reduction in Size of ADP Room 27. In addition to its separate claims for floor extension outlets and extra carpeting, Domgaard claims that it incurred additional uncompensated costs by reason of the reduction in size of the computer room from 2,000 to 673 square feet. Moreover, in connection with the reduction of the size of this area, the Government took a credit in the amount of $21,152.23 based upon the reduced amount of raised flooring required. Appeal File, Exhibit 1, Supplemental Lease Agreement No. 2. 28. At the same time, the Government refused to make an additional payment for the additional sound absorbent ceiling tile and cell duct floor required to be installed in the office areas as a result in the change in the dimensions of the ADP room. The sound absorbent ceiling tile and raised cell duct flooring were more expensive than the materials that would have been required if the size of the ADP room had not been reduced. Transcript at 93-94; Appeal File, Exhibit 27. With the exception of additional carpeting, covered in Domgaard's floor covering claim, Domgaard calculates the total amount due as a result of this change to the specifications to be $7,656.59, based upon square footage affected (1,327 feet). Appeal File, Exhibit 27; Transcript at 97-98. 29. In responding to this claim, the contracting officer's decision stated that the SFO special requirements identified square footage of rooms for informational purposes only and that the Government had simply exercised its right to revise the layout. In addition, the decision stated that should Domgaard provide an accounting of all costs saved in conjunction with downgrading computer space to office space, the Government would reconsider the claim. Appeal File, Exhibit 32. 30. The contracting officer took the position at the hearing that these items, ceiling tile and cell duct, were not "unit cost items" and therefore no adjustment could be made. Transcript at 152. In addition, she pointed out that the contractor had been asked to identify cost savings associated with the reduction in size of the ADP room and had not done so. Id. at 140-41. Domgaard's president testified that no real cost savings occurred, pointing out that the specific items questioned by the Government, such as smoke detectors, emergency lighting, and the like, would be installed in the same quantities in the building regardless of the size of the computer room. In addition, although the temperature in the ADP room must be strictly controlled, the cost of utilities would not be significantly affected, given that the door to the room is rarely opened and the room is well-insulated and has inside walls. Id. at 129-31. 31. Domgaard was compensated for unit cost items affected by the reduction in the dimensions of the computer room, such as electrical and telephone outlets. The cell duct flooring system, however, which was not a unit cost item, cost an additional $4.97 per square foot to install. Transcript at 119-20. The ceiling tile specified for the added office space cost $1.80 per square foot. Appeal File, Exhibit 27. The additional cell duct and ceiling tile expense for which compensation has not been received amounts to $7,656.59. Id. Exit Signs 32. The lease requires that the "space will be finished to comply with GSA fire safety regulations (or local codes whichever is stricter) and the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards." Appeal File, Exhibit 1. The lease also provided that "buildings in which space is offered for lease shall comply with the requirements of the GSA fire protection, occupational health, and environmental safety standards as described in this solicitation and the agency handbook numbered PBS P 5900.2C. Id., SFO at 5, as amended by Special Requirements at 1. 33. In turn, the referenced GSA handbook provides that "[e]xit lighting and exit signs must be in accordance with the Life Safety Code (National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) No. 101)." Respondent's Hearing Exhibit 1. The Life Safety Code provides that: There are many types of situations where the actual need for signs may be debatable. In cases of doubt, however, it is desirable to be on the safe side by providing signs, particularly as the placing of signs does not involve any material expense or inconvenience. Respondent's Hearing Exhibit 2; Transcript at 144. In addition, the Life Safety Code states that: "[a] sign shall be placed in every location where the direction of travel to reach the nearest exit is not immediately apparent." Respondent's Hearing Exhibit 2. 34. The GSA fire protection specialist who toured the building prior to occupancy determined that because of the size of the building, additional signs should be placed in the center of the building to satisfy GSA safety regulations. Transcript at 142. Domgaard complied with this directive. 35. Domgaard was required to install four additional signs. The Ogden fire marshall indicated that two of the signs required were appropriate, but that the two in the middle of the building were not necessary and might actually be confusing in the event of a fire. Transcript at 112-13. Domgaard seeks $508.78, representing one-half of the cost of installing four additional exit signs in the center of the building. Appeal File, Exhibit 27. The Certification of Claims 36. Domgaard submitted a claim, dated September 28, 1990, to the contracting officer. This initial claim was in the amount of $107,535.48 and contained the following certification language: 1. The claim is made in good faith. 3. The attached supporting information is accurate and complete to the best of our knowledge. 3. The amounts requested are accurate and represent what we believe the government is liable for. 4. The signature at the end of this claim is the signature of an officer of Domgaard Associates. Appeal File, Exhibit 27. 37. The contracting officer denied Domgaard's claim in a decision dated November 21, 1990, and further informed Domgaard of her opinion that the claim had not been properly certified. Appeal File, Exhibit 28. 38. By letter dated June 14, 1991, Domgaard submitted a recertified claim. Appeal File, Exhibit 29. As a result of settlements reached with respect to previously disputed claims, this claim was in the amount of $69,788.56. Id. 39. The contracting officer granted the claim in part, but denied a total of $58,387.75 in a decision dated August 12, 1991. Appeal File, Exhibit 32. Domgaard dropped a claim for excess carpet tile and appealed the remaining claims in the amount of $49,393.25 on August 29, 1991. Id., Exhibit 34. Ultimately, in its pre-hearing brief, Domgaard modified the amount of its claim to a total of $40,612.97. Discussion This appeal contains five distinct elements with respect to entitlement. Domgaard asserts (1) that the Government's requirement that lighting achieve a minimum, rather than an average, level of 50 foot-candles at working height constituted a change to the specifications; (2) that the Government's requirement for carpeting, rather than vinyl flooring, in the non-serving areas of the cafeteria constituted a change in the specifications; (3) that the refusal to compensate Domgaard for the cost of the extension duplex outlets in the computer room was contrary to the terms of the lease; (4) that it is entitled to be compensated for additional costs incurred in the build out of office space as a result of the reduction in the dimensions of the computer room; and (5) that it is entitled to be compensated for the extra exit signs ordered by the GSA fire safety inspector. Respondent disagrees, maintaining that the lease does not permit recovery of any of the items raised by Domgaard. In addition, respondent contends that to the extent Domgaard recovers any monies, interest should not be paid for the period from September 30, 1990, until June 14, 1991, because the initial certification of Domgaard's claim was defective. We address each contention in turn. Lighting Domgaard is of the view that respondent changed the terms of the lease by ordering Domgaard to install sufficient lighting fixtures to ensure a minimum lighting level of 50 foot-candles at desk height in the office areas of the leased space. The issue is one of contract interpretation -- was the requirement for "a uniform lighting level of 50 foot-candles at working surface height" properly to be construed as calling for a minimum level of 50 foot-candles throughout the relevant areas or for an average level of 50 foot-candles throughout the leased office space? One of the cardinal principles of contract construction is that the provisions of a contract should be interpreted in light of the meanings and expectations that would be attributed to the terms by reasonably intelligent individuals familiar with the surrounding facts and circumstances of the transaction, as well as with the customs and trade usages of the relevant industry. See, e.g., Alvin Ltd. v. United States Postal Service, 816 F.2d 1562, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States, 195 Ct. Cl. 21, 30, 444 F.2d 547, 551 (1971); Hol- Gar Mfg. Corp. v. United States, 169 Ct. Cl. 384, 388, 351 F.2d 992, 975 (1965). Evidence of trade usage should be considered for the purpose of explaining or defining a term even when the disputed contract language appears superficially unambiguous. E.g., Gholson, Byars & Holmes Construction Co. v. United States, 173 Ct. Cl. 374, 351 F.2d 987 (1965). In this regard, it is commonly recognized that "evidence of trade custom or usage is the means by which the connotation that would be accorded a contract term 'by a reasonably intelligent person acquainted with the contemporaneous circumstances' may be ascertained." Equitable Life Assurance Society, GSBCA 8909(7699)-REIN, 90-3 BCA 23,130, quoting W.G. Cornell Co. v. United States, 179 Ct. Cl. 651, 376 F.2d 299 (1967). In the circumstances, respondent's interpretation is unrealistic and contrary to the general understanding of this term in the relevant industry. The evidence shows that the interpretation stated by the contracting officer in inspecting the premises was for a minimum level of 50 foot-candles throughout the area. This is totally at odds with the reasonable interpretation adopted by the engineer who designed the lighting in reliance upon trade custom. Under that custom, use of the term "uniform" absent qualifying parameters, means "average." Findings 3, 8. Moreover, a literal application of the term "uniform" in this context would be both impractical and prohibitively expensive.[foot #] 6 Finding 6. It is settled law that "[w]here the Government draws specifications which are fairly susceptible of a certain construction and the contractor actually and reasonably so construes them, justice and equity require that that construction be adopted." Peter Kiewit Sons Co. v. United States, 109 Ct. Cl. 390, 418 (1947). In addition to the evidence of trade usage, we note that this lease provision actually specifies that a minimum number of foot-candles must be achieved in certain non-working areas. Finding 2. Thus, the contractor could reasonably infer that had the Government intended such a result in the interior space it would have worded that requirement in terms of a minimum lighting level as well. Respondent's reference, in its post-hearing brief, to a temporary Federal Property Management Regulation which provides for lighting in office areas at a minimum of 50 foot-candles at working surface height does not persuade us to reach a different result. It appears that this regulation reflects a memorandum of understanding between GSA and client agencies concerning the assignment and utilization of office space acquired by GSA on behalf of those agencies. See 56 Fed. Reg. 42,166 (1991); 54 Fed. Reg. 46,206 (1989). In addition, the temporary regulation was published in November 1989, some three months after the execution of the subject lease in August. Prior regulations do not address lighting. Respondent has cited no authority, nor do we know of any, that would charge Domgaard with knowledge of the regulation for purposes of interpreting this specification. Moreover, this is not the type of building code or ordinance with which contractors are customarily required to comply. Domgaard has adduced credible testimony to support its position that the lighting as initially installed met the requirement of the specifications. The engineer who designed the ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 6 Ironically, as appellant's representative observed, many of the additional lights were turned off by the tenants, who found the lighting to be too bright. Finding 5 at n.1. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- lighting and the lighting industry expert both confirmed that the lights had been configured by computer in a manner that would satisfy the requirement for an average of 50 foot-candles. We are unpersuaded that it would be appropriate to apply the historic, and no longer applicable formula that lighting readings not deviate by more than one-sixth of 50, which would preclude any readings below 42 foot-candles. Even if we were inclined to apply a formula that is no longer used by knowledgeable engineers in designing lighting for interior space, Finding 10 at n.3, this is not the standard to which the contracting officer held Domgaard. Domgaard was told that the lighting had to achieve a minimum of 50 foot-candles at desk height throughout the area. This is what it did, and it is entitled to recover the additional costs incurred in meeting this standard. Carpeting and Resilient Flooring Domgaard also seeks to recover the net cost of installing more carpeting than was estimated in its bid as a result of the changed size of the ADP room and the Government's direction to install carpeting in all but the kitchen service area of the cafeteria. The major point of contention between the parties with respect to this claim concerns whether Domgaard properly interpreted the flooring specifications for the food service area in preparing its bid. The general provisions of the SFO specify that the "food service area" will require resilient flooring. The special conditions specify that the "food service area" will consist of approximately 3,150 square feet, and add that the serving area will require vinyl flooring. Domgaard urges that the specifications, as such, are ambiguous and that its interpretation is the more reasonable reading of the relevant portions of the lease. Respondent claims that the special requirement that vinyl flooring be installed in the "serving area" qualified the provision of the SFO defining the food service area as an area of some 3,150 square feet, in which resilient flooring would be installed. This, according to respondent, should have alerted Domgaard that only the kitchen serving area would have resilient flooring. We find that the specifications are ambiguous and that Domgaard's interpretation is the more reasonable. As Domgaard points out, if the provision in the special requirement was intended to clarify this issue, it should have stipulated that vinyl flooring be provided "only" in the serving area. This special condition does not override the clearer and more specific instructions in the lease that the 3,150 square foot food service area would require resilient flooring. When the specifications are read as a whole, Domgaard's is the more reasonable construction. Peter Kiewit Sons. Accordingly, Domgaard is entitled to recover the net additional cost of installing carpeting over and above what it had estimated in its bid.[foot #] 7 Duplex Extension Outlets Domgaard contends that it should have been compensated for the installation of duplex extension outlets under the unit cost adjustment formula applicable to floor extension outlets. We disagree. These outlets are not mentioned in this section of the contract that provides for unit cost adjustments. Domgaard recognizes that these outlets are unique, notwithstanding its assertion that they operate in the same functional manner as wall duplex outlets. Finding 22. The Government points out, persuasively, that using the grid requirements for the computer room, it was possible for Domgaard to estimate the number of outlets that would be required and include the cost in the bid. Since there was no specific unit cost for these outlets, Domgaard was on notice that no adjustments were contemplated. Domgaard has not shown that it installed extra extension duplex outlets that would not have been required but for the changes to the layout. Accordingly, this portion of Domgaard's claim is denied. Reduction in Size of Computer Room The additional expense incurred in installing sound absorbent ceiling tile and cell duct system flooring required by the reduction in the size of the computer room and increase in office space area is compensable notwithstanding the fact that there are no unit costs in the lease for these materials. Respondent maintains that because there was no unit cost quoted for these items Domgaard was required to estimate and account for additional costs in its bid. That is, Domgaard should have included a "fudge factor" for these items, knowing that no adjustment would be made for these additional materials. Rock Creek Associates K Limited Partnership v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 11333, 93-1 BCA 25,351 (1992), citing Plaza Maya Limited Partnership, GSBCA 9086, 91-1 BCA 23,425 (1990). Respondent also suggests that the unit costs bid for materials for which adjustments were expressly available, such as electrical and telephone outlets, should have incorporated the additional cost of the cell duct system and the ceiling tiles. See Finding 31. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 7 Although the Board's computation of the number of square yards of carpet for which Domgaard has not yet been paid differs slightly from Domgaard's calculation, Finding 18 at n.5, we assume, since the discrepancy favors the Government, that Domgaard has included some offset owed to the Government in reducing its claim. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- We are not persuaded by GSA's argument that these items are not compensable because not provided for as unit cost items. The Board expressly rejected this argument in Rock Creek, holding that the unit cost clause did not limit the type of work for which Domgaard is entitled to be paid. Under the lease's changes clause the Government must pay for additional costs incurred in performing changed work. The unit cost adjustment clause simply defines the payment for certain items and avoids the need to negotiate a price. 93-1 BCA at 126,270. Here, Domgaard produced evidence that installation of additional cell duct system flooring and the ceiling tiles caused it to incur costs over and above those compensated under the unit cost clause. In addition, Domgaard provided convincing evidence that it did not incur any particular cost savings by reason of the reduction in the size of the computer room. Findings 30-31.[foot #] 8 Exit Signs We disagree with Domgaard's contention that the additional exit signs required by the GSA fire safety inspector were not required by the lease. The lease provides that the contractor must comply with GSA regulations or local codes, whichever is stricter. Here, the GSA regulation provides that where the need for a sign is debatable, discretion should be exercised in favor of adding the sign -- particularly where it does not involve a material expense. Although Domgaard has introduced evidence showing that the need for the signs may have been debatable, there has been no showing that the inspector's judgment was unreasonable. This claim is denied. Certification Finally, respondent challenges the validity of Domgaard's initial certification of the claim submitted on September 28, 1990. Respondent points out that the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 requires that for claims exceeding $50,000, the contractor must certify that the claim "is made in good faith, that the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief, and that the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the government is liable." 41 U.S.C. 605(c)(1) ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 8 Domgaard's president, who has been in the construction business for more than twenty years, Transcript at 11, testified under oath that Domgaard did not achieve significant construction cost savings beyond those already identified by the Government, and that the effect on utility costs would be minimal. Finding 30. This satisfied Domgaard's burden to produce evidence on this issue. The Government did not offer any direct rebuttal to these statements, although the contracting officer speculated that some savings would be realized. Id. __ ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- (1988).[foot #] 9 Interest does not begin to run until a properly certified claim is presented to the contracting officer. ReCon Paving, Inc. v. United States, 745 F.2d 34 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Respondent thus challenges Domgaard's entitlement to interest on the claim prior to June 14, 1991, when Domgaard's second claim was presented to the contracting officer. Respondent's challenge is premised on the absence of the words "and belief" in the initial certification of the accuracy of the underlying data. In support of its position, respondent cites us to precedent of the Armed Services and Veterans Affairs Boards of Contract Appeals.[foot #] 10 Respondent recognizes that the United States Claims Court (now the United States Court of Federal Claims) has taken the opposite position. Alcan Electrical & Engineering Co. v. United States, 24 Cl. Ct. 704 (1992); accord Young Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 858 (1992). In Alcan, the court reasoned that the standard by which the sufficiency of the language of a certification is measured is "substantial compliance" with the requirements of the CDA. See United States v. General Electric Corp., 727 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Verbatim recitation of the statutory language is not required. Finding that omission of the words "and belief" in no way undermined the purpose and rationale of the CDA, the court found the certification to be valid. Alcan, 24 Cl. Ct. at 708. After respondent submitted its post-hearing brief in this appeal, this Board issued a decision adopting the position taken in Alcan, holding that a certification omitting the entire phrase "to the best of my knowledge and belief" substantially complied with the requirement for certification of the claim and provided a broader, not a narrower, certification than that required by statute. P.J. Dick, Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 11847, et al. (Sept. 15, 1992). The holdings in Alcan and P.J. Dick comport with the rationale espoused in a recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressing the substantial compliance standard. In that case, the Court noted ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 9 We note that the CDA certification provision has been recently modified by statute, although the amendments do not affect the outcome of the issue before us here. See Federal ___ Courts Administration Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-572, 106 Stat. 4516 (1992). [foot #] 10 These cases include Aiken Advanced Systems, ________________________ Inc., ASBCA 39225, 90-1 BCA 22,590 and Liberty Environmental ___ _____________________ Specialties, Inc., VABCA 2948, 89-3 BCA 21,982. The rationale _________________ for rejecting the certifications in these cases is that the terms "knowledge" and "belief" are not synonymous and both are required in the certification. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- that omission of qualifying words in a certification merely gave the Government a broader certification which was in no way prejudicial to the Government. Heyl & Patterson v. O'Keefe, Nos. 91-1446, et al. (Feb. 12, 1993) ("There is no indication in the legislative history that Congress intended a hyper-technical construction of this section that wars with common sense."). Accordingly, we find that the certification that accompanied Domgaard's initial submission of its claim was valid and that Domgaard is entitled to interest from that date, September 28, 1990. Conclusion Domgaard's claims for increased lighting costs, additional carpeting costs, and increased costs associated with the reduction of the ADP room and increase in the office area are granted. Respondent has not challenged the accuracy of the amounts sought by Domgaard; those amounts have been documented in Domgaard's certified claims and supported by testimony. Domgaard's other claims are denied. Decision The appeal is GRANTED IN PART. Domgaard is entitled to recover $36,384.19, plus applicable interest as provided under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. 41 U.S.C. 611 (1988). _______________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge We concur: ________________________________ _______________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS MARTHA HAGER DeGRAFF Board Judge Board Judge