______________________________________________ GRANTED IN PART: June 6, 1995 _____________________________________________ GSBCA 12033 P. J. DICK INCORPORATED, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. John T. Flynn and Thomas J. Kelleher, Jr., of Smith, Currie & Hancock, Atlanta, GA, counsel for Appellant. Sharon A. Roach, Gerald L. Schrader, Martin A. Hom, Robert C. Smith, and M. Leah Wright, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), BORWICK, and NEILL. BORWICK, Board Judge. Background This appeal involves a contract for the renovation of certain floors of the United States Courthouse and Post Office, Pittsburgh, PA, a thirteen-story building. The contractor and appellant is P. J. Dick Incorporated (P. J. Dick). The respon- dent is the General Services Administration (GSA). On behalf of its fire protection subcontractor, Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Company (Grinnell), P. J. Dick appeals from a decision of the GSA contracting officer denying compensation for alleged constructive changes which increased the costs of Grinnell's (and P. J. Dick's) performance of the contract. We follow the conven- tion used by the parties and refer to these alleged constructive changes as "Grinnell extras." Acting upon P. J. Dick's claim of $28,893 for the extras, the contracting officer in his decision denied an equitable adjustment for Grinnell extras 72R, 69R, 75, 71, 68, 61, 78, 65, 67, 31, 19, 13, 9, and 79. The contracting officer granted an equitable adjustment of $2,057.26 for Grinnell extra 32, but did not pay it. P. J. Dick appealed from that decision, which was docketed as GSBCA 12033. The parties submitted this appeal on the record, pursuant to Rule 11. Each party presented record submissions, as well as post-hearing briefs (submitted after hearings on other appeals by P. J. Dick relating to this contract). Grinnell withdrew its extras 9, 19, 67, and 71. Neither P. J. Dick nor Grinnell addressed Grinnell extra 13 in its record submissions; we consid- er that P. J. Dick has abandoned its claim for that extra. Grinnell extra 31 is a delay claim; we shall consider the alleged delay associated with that extra in conjunction with P. J. Dick's claim for delay docketed as GSBCA 12058. We deny the appeal as it relates to Grinnell extras 72R and 69R. The resident engineer directed P. J. Dick to perform the work involved in those extras; the direction was beyond the delegated authority of the resident engineer. We deny the appeal as it relates to Grinnell extra 78; that extra was settled. We grant the appeal as it relates to Grinnell extras 75, 68, 61, 65, and 79. We also grant the appeal as it relates to Grinnell extra 32. While the contracting officer processed a contract modification for that extra; respondent has not rebutted P. J. Dick's position that the extra has not been paid. P. J. Dick, therefore, is entitled to an award of the agreed-upon amount plus the applicable interest. We award appellant $14,294.58, plus interest as provided by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. Findings of Fact Contract authorities 1. The contract contained the standard clause found at General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) 552.236-71, which provided in pertinent part as follows: (a) All work shall be performed under the general direction of the Contracting Officer, who alone shall have the power to bind the Government and to exercise the rights, responsibilities, authorities and functions vested in him by the contract documents, except that he shall have the right to designate authorized represen- tative[s] to act for him. Wherever any provision in this contract specifies an individual . . . to perform any act on behalf of or in the interests of the Govern- ment, that individual . . . shall be deemed to be the Contracting Officer's authorized representative under this contract but only to the extent so specified. . . . (b) The contractor shall perform the contract in accor- dance with any order (including but not limited to instruction, direction, interpretation or determina- tion) issued by an authorized representative in accor- dance with his authority to act for the Contracting Officer; but the Contractor assumes all the risk and consequences of performing the contract in accordance with any order . . . of anyone not authorized to issue such an order. Appeal File, GSBCA 11676, Exhibit 1, 1, Construction Contract Clauses (Fixed-Price), 3 at 7. 2. Under an early amendment to this contract, the contracting officer's technical representative (COTR) and resident engineer were delegated the authority to monitor P. J. Dick's performance to ensure compliance with contract specifications, to reject work not in compliance with contract specifications, to interpret drawings and specifications and issue interpretations to the general contractor, orally and in writing, and to initiate action to correct plans and specifications due to unforeseen or changed conditions. Appeal File, GSBCA 11676 Exhibit 6 at 2-3. The construction manager was delegated the specific authority to negotiate change orders and issue contract modifications. Id. at 4. Later, the contracting officer gave the resident engineer additional authority as follows: [t]o resolve any plumbing issues [P. J. Dick] might raise. [The resident engineer] has been instructed to resolve any plumbing issues in the most expeditious and cost efficient manner possible. To that end, the routing of piping should follow the present requirement that it be kept as close as possible to existing slabs, columns, beam encasements, etc., so as to minimize interference with future trade installations and to minimize overall effect on future architectural fitout. . . . If [the resident engineer's] solutions result in addi- tional costs, a request for proposal (RFP) will be prepared immediately. In such cases [the resident] engineer will forward a RFP package to GSA and contact the contracting officer who will issue authorization to proceed. Affidavit of James F. Altzner, (Grinnell's Pittsburgh District General Manager, (Altzner Affidavit) (Sept. 23, 1993), Exhibit 1. Contract specifications 3. The contract contained separate specifications for plumbing fixtures and trim and for the fire protection sprinkler system; the former was designated as section 15450 and the latter as section 15510. Appeal File, GSBCA 11676, Exhibit 1. Section 15510 contained the specifications for sprinkler piping. All sprinkler piping was to be installed so that it could be thor- oughly drained, and all drain piping for the sprinkler system was to be connected to outlets specified in the plumbing section of the contract. Id. at 15510-7, 16.4. Fire protection system specifications 4. For the fire alarm system, the contract provided in pertinent part: 1.2.1 This section of the specification includes the furnishing and installation of a complete fire alarm system as described herein and on the drawings. The fire alarm system includes a voice communication sys- tem, emergency telephone system, sprinkler supervision, smoke control panel, and fire pump supervision. 1.2.2 The system shall include all wiring, raceways, pull boxes, terminal cabinets, outlet and mounting boxes, alarm initiating devices, alarm indicating devices, and control equipment, and all other accesso- ries and miscellaneous items required for an operating system even though each item is not specifically men- tioned or described. 1.2.3 Existing fire alarm equipment is to remain fully operational until the new equipment has been tested and accepted by the Government. 1.2.4 Existing fire alarm equipment shall remain in operation and shall provide coverage for the Post Office s first floor, the fifth floor and all floors above. Existing system shall report to [the] new system for the purpose of initiating alarm to the City of Pittsburgh. Appeal File, GSBCA 11676, Exhibit 1 at 16723-2, 16723. Grinnell extra 72R 5. Grinnell extra 72R is a claim of $442 for premium time caused by a drain-down of fire protection system section 2-8 on the third floor. Altzner Affidavit, 8a, and Exhibit 2, Work Order No. 04748. The purpose of the work was to fix a leak in the code vault room. Id. The work could have been performed during normal working hours; if it had been, Grinnell's work would not have disrupted the building's occupants, as only one of eleven standpipe systems would have been shut down for a short period of time. Id. 8c. GSA building management, however, refused to shut down the alarm system and insisted that work be performed in the evening when tenants were not in the building. Id. 8b. The work was performed from 6:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. on June 13, 1991, and was signed for by the resident engineer. Id. 8a. 6. The contracting officer denied the claim because P. J. Dick failed to specify the basis of the claim and to provide support- ing documentation. Respondent s Record Submission, Attachment A. Grinnell extra 69R 7. Grinnell extra 69R involved a variety of activities. On May 22, 1991, Grinnell drained the entire fire alarm system to fix a leak in the mechanical room. Altzner Affidavit, Exhibit 3, Work Order No. 04734. On June 3, 1991, Grinnell drained system B-2 and the G-2 riser to fix a leak and to move an OSY valve at G-2 on the fourth floor. Altzner Affidavit 9a. The resident engineer ordered that the work be performed on an overtime basis. Id. On June 6, 1991, the resident engineer ordered Grinnell to stop work on the fire alarm system because alarm work was in progress on the tenth floor. Grinnell lost four hours due to the stop work order. Id. 9c. The work covered by Grinnell extra 69R was approved by the resident engineer. Id. 9a. The work in the occupied area of the building would not have disrupted the building occupants or jeopardized their safety during normal working hours, as only one of eleven standpipe systems would have been shut down for a short period of time. Id. 9d. Grinnell seeks $1,863 for the premium time labor. Id. 21. 8. The contracting officer denied the claim, maintaining the work was for (1) maintenance of an existing service which was work owed under the contract, (2) repair of work which the contractor damaged during construction, (3) testing which was owed under the contract, and (4) work which was paid for under other RFPs. Respondent s Record Submission, Attachment A. Grinnell extra 75 Contract specifications as to work hours and occupancy 9. For working hours, the contract provided: (a) It is contemplated that all work will be performed during the customary working hours of the trades in- volved unless otherwise specified in this contract. . . . (b) Any requests received by the Contractor from occu- pants of existing buildings to change the hours of work shall be referred to the Contracting Officer for deter- mination. Appeal File, GSBCA 11676, Exhibit 1, 1, Construction Contract Clauses (Fixed Price), 37 at 14. The government occupancy clause provided in pertinent part: A. Full Government Occupancy: The Government will occupy the site and the existing building during the entire period of construction. Cooperate fully with the Owner or his representative during construction operation to minimize conflicts and to facilitate Government usage. Perform the work so as not to inter- fere with the Government operations. . . . 10. Grinnell extra 75 was for premium time work in (1) draining and relocating refill risers H-7 and O-7; (2) refilling the system and adjusting a flow switch on the third floor and (3) two other tasks. Altzner Affidavit, Exhibit 4, Work Order Nos. 04758 and 04764. Grinnell seeks $729 for this work. Id. 21. This work could have been performed during normal working hours, taking a small area or zone out of operation at a time. Supple- mental Affidavit of James F. Altzner (Supplemental Altzner Affidavit) (Nov. 23, 1993) 4. Nonetheless, GSA directed that the work be performed outside of normal working hours. Altzner Affidavit 10. 11. The contracting officer denied the claim, as he thought the work was correction of defects and omissions. Respondent s Record Submission, Attachment A. Grinnell extra 68 12. Grinnell extra 68, for $7,233, was for premium time expended by Grinnell between April 25 and June 11, 1991, to set alarm devices for sprinkler systems, repair leaks, change locations of control valves, install two 2-1/2 inch control valves and tamper switches on the fourth floor, install two fire hose valve cabi- nets, and connect the new standpipe system to the existing standpipe system. Altzner Affidavit 12d, 21. As with Grin- nell extra 75, this work could have been performed during normal working hours, taking a small area or zone out of operation at a time. Supplemental Altzner Affidavit 5. The work was per- formed after normal hours at GSA's request. Altzner Affidavit 12. 13. The contracting officer denied the claim because he main- tained that the work performed was for (1) work not coordinated properly between trades; (2) repair of work which was damaged or defective; (3) testing, which was owed under the contract; and (4) work required by the contract specifications. Respondent s Record Submission, Attachment A. Grinnell extra 61 14. Grinnell extra 61, for $288, was for addition of two sprin- klers beneath installation of a new air handling unit. Appel- lant's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 7; Altzner Affidavit 13. The new air handling unit was installed pursuant to RFP 82, which provided in pertinent part: "Relocate make-up air handling unit #M.U.A.U.-1 and outside air intake duct as per the attached revision #6 of drawing 9-M-17." Altzner Affidavit, Exhibit 6. Sprinkler heads were not mentioned in the work to be performed under RFP 82. Id. On June 12, 1991, RFP 82 was definitized for $24,660 by modification ACS2. Appeal File, GSBCA 11676, Exhibit 248. The contracting officer denied the claim; he maintained that the RFP was settled in the definitization of RFP 82. Respondent's Record Submission, Attachment A. Grinnell Extra 78 15. Grinnell seeks $843 for costs incurred for the draining of the fire alarm system on the third floor FBI area, and adjustment of the height of sprinkler heads resulting from changes in ceiling height in adjoining bathrooms, 300 A-B, room 300 and refilling of the fire alarm system to put into service. Altzner Affidavit, Exhibit 7. 16. RFP 91 required P. J. Dick to modify the sprinkler system to accommodate third floor ceiling height adjustments. Appeal File, GSBCA 11676, Exhibit 113. Grinnell s description of the work performed for Grinnell extra 78 comes within the scope of RFP 91. The work covered by Grinnell extra 78 was for the drain- down of the system on the third floor, the "cut back" of nine sprinkler heads "due to ceiling changes" in adjoining bathrooms 300 A-B, 303 and Room 300, and the refilling of the system to put the system in service. Altzner Affidavit, Exhibit 7, Work Order No. 04753. The subsequent appeal of the contracting officer s definitization of RFP 91 was docketed as GSBCA 11732. Respon- dent s Record Submission, Attachment B. The parties settled the dispute; the settlement contains the following pertinent lan- guage: Whereas, during the terms of the contract a dispute arose between the parties concerning P. J. Dick s entitlement under RFP #91 for third floor sprinkler modifications and the installation of seven fire hose valves and cabinets; . . . . That the parties agree to settle GSBCA No. 11732 for the sum of $22,422.40 . . . including interest; . . . . That P. J. Dick and Grinnell forever discharge, remise and release the Government from any and all claims . . . of any kind whatsoever, which P. J. Dick and/or Grinnell may have now or in the future against the Government arising out of or related to the dispute which is the subject of GSBCA No. 11732 Respondent s Record Submission, Attachment B at 2. 17. The contracting officer denied the claim as RFP 91 was already under dispute (Docket #11732). Respondent s Record Submission, Attachment A at 2. Grinnell extra 65 18. Grinnell claims $372 for performing Grinnell extra 65, which involved the addition of two sprinkler heads for code compliance resulting from relocation of a wall in room 320H. Altzner Affidavit 15, 21. The resident engineer directed Grinnell to install the additional sprinklers. Id. 15. Grinnell errone- ously referenced RFP 176 in its request for compensation. Id. Grinnell's work order 04504, however, establishes that on April 17, 1991, Grinnell spent 6-1/2 hours (6 hours of labor, one-half hour of foreman's supervision) adding two sprinkler heads, and relocating water and drain lines to connect to the sprinkler heads. Altzner Affidavit, Exhibit 8. The contracting officer denied the claim because Grinnell had erroneously referenced RFP 176, which was for removal of asbestos at four historic drink- ing fountains. Respondent s Record Submission, Attachment A at 2. Grinnell extra 79 19. Grinnell seeks $2,071 for two separate instances of emergen- cy service work. Altzner Affidavit 20. There is a dispute of fact as to the cause for the emergency service work. P. J. Dick maintains that the emergency work was caused primarily by GSA personnel turning off fire alarm system components. During the week of October 11, 1991, Grinnell employees investigated the reason for tripping of the dry fire alarm system and found that the breakers and power compressors had been shut off. Id., Exhibit 10, Work Order No. 06726600601. The system was reset on October 14. Id. 20b. Mr. Altzner states that GSA employees shut off the air compressors, tripping the dry fire protection systems. Id. 20a-b. Later, GSA employees disabled a jockey pump, causing the booster fire pump to operate. The operation of the fire pump caused the dry pipe valves to trip due to an excessive pressure surge. Id. 20c. This sequence of events required resetting of the dry fire protection systems, on or about November 2. Id. Exhibit 10 Work Order No. 26600601. 20. Mr. Altzner's statements are supported by contemporaneous work orders of Grinnell, to the extent that the work orders establish that the breakers, power compressors, and jockey pump were disabled. The work orders do not mention who disabled these devices. Altzner Affidavit, Exhibit 10. 21. The contracting officer denied the claim for Grinnell extra 79, maintaining that "the work was required due to a number of false alarms that were set off by the fire protection system. These false alarms were the result of differential pressure in the system, and not the fault of the Government." Respondent's Record Submission, Attachment A at 3. That statement assumes that the differential pressure within the system was due to a system defect. We find as fact that the differential pressure, which led to false alarms, was due to the disabling of the devices. Findings 19, 20. Mr. Altzner's statements that the devices were disabled by GSA personnel is unrebutted by respon- dent. We find as fact that GSA personnel disabled these devices, and that the fault for the false alarms lies with the Government. Finding 19. Grinnell extra 32 22. In his decision the contracting officer accepted P. J. Dick's claim of $2,057.26 for Grinnell extra 32. Respondent's Record Submission, Attachment A (Decision of Contracting Officer (March 2, 1993.)) The contracting officer processed a unilateral contract modification increasing the amount of the contract by $2,057.26. Id., Contract Modification AOAW (March 2, 1993). Discussion Grinnell extras 72R and 69R As to these claims, respondent maintains that "the contract provides that the appellant bears the risk of performing the work under the order of someone who is not authorized to bind the Government. Accordingly, since the [resident engineer] did not have authority to authorize any changes associated with the fire protection work, appellant must bear the cost of performing the work. . . ." Respondent's Record Submission at 5. Generally, a constructive change must be authorized by competent Governmental authority. In a recent case involving construction of a dam, the contractor alleged that the Govern- ment's project geologist caused a constructive change in the contract when the geologist implemented an allegedly inefficient drilling and grouting plan. The Court of Federal Claims held that, even accepting the contractor's argument that, there was a change, the project geologist lacked authority to implement it: [I]t is well established in law and in practice that parties entering into contracts with the United States Government understand that only an authorized govern- ment representative, and generally only the contracting officer, has the requisite authority to authorize changes to the contract which obligate the government to pay additional money for performance. In such cases the contractor must show that its interpretation of the contract was correct, that there was a constructive change order issued and that the person ordering the alleged change had the authority to act for the con- tracting officer, or the contractor must show that the orders issued were ratified by a contracting officer. J.F.Allen Co.v. UnitedStates, 25Cl.Ct. 312,323 (1992).[foot #] 1- In an asbestos removal project, a board refused to accept as a constructive change the Government's resident engineer's tacit acceptance of a contractor's use of more than one industrial hygienist specified under the contract: But even if the engineer knowingly had permitted appellant to deploy on the site more than one industrial hygienist, it would be difficult to find the government liable on a theory of estoppel, since the contracting officer was without knowledge of their presence and the engineer was without authority to modify the terms of the contract. It is well settled that the government is not bound by the unauthorized acts of its employees, even though a contractor mistakenly believes an employee is equipped with the authority being exercised. Hub Testing Laboratories, DOT BCA 1780, 88-3 BCA 20,887, at 105,608. Some cases have recognized, however, that a constructive change may result from directions by other Government agents whose actions can be imputed to the contracting officer. See Carl J. Bonidie, Inc., ASBCA 25769, 82-2 BCA 15,817, at 78,339 (base civil engineer's directions to make hot water connections imputed to contracting officer when appellant reasonably believed that directions came from higher authority). P. J. Dick argues that the resident engineer had authority to execute a change order. Under the express terms of the contract, however, the contracting officer alone possessed the power to bind the Government, except as the contracting officer delegated that power to authorized representatives. The autho- rized representatives had the authority to act for the contract- ing officer, but only to the extent specified. Finding 1. P. J. Dick took the risk of complying with directions beyond the authority of the representative. Id. The contract delegated to the resident engineer the express authority to (1) monitor P. J. Dick's performance to ensure compliance with contract specifications, (2) reject work not in compliance with contract specifications, (3) interpret plans and specifications, and (4) initiate action to correct plans and specifications due to unforeseen or changed conditions. Finding ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The Court of Federal Claims also held that there was no change because of the discretion given in the contract to Government officials to control the placing of the grout. J.F. ____ Allen Co. v. United States, 25 Cl. Ct. at 323. __________________________ ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- 2. A later amendment to the contract gave the resident engineer supplemental authority to resolve plumbing issues that P. J. Dick might raise and to suggest solutions to plumbing issues poten- tially resulting in changes. Id. Did the resident engineer have the imputed authority to approve work beyond normal contract working hours for draining the fire alarm systems in Grinnell extras 72R and 69R? We dealt with that issue, as it related to the authority of the Govern- ment's construction manager, in Stephenson Associates, Inc., GSBCA 6573, 6815, 86-3 BCA 19,071. There, the construction manager had authority to direct the contractor to "take such mea- sures . . . necessary for maintaining the current schedule, and to "take such corrective measures as necessary to bring [the contractor's] performance into conformity with contract require- ments." Id. at 96,326. GSA had given the construction manager authority to review all requests or recommendations for changes and to review a contractor's change proposals and negotiate such change proposals. Id. Therefore, we concluded that: The Government starts out with a bold declaration that its construction manager cannot bind or obligate it, then gives it authority to perform an number of actions that almost inevitably will have precisely that effect. Id. The resident engineer's authority for this contract was not as broad as the construction manager's authority for the contract in Stephenson. The resident engineer's direction over P. J. Dick's operations in this contract was limited to (1) rejection of work not in accord with contract specifications, (2) interpre- tation of contract documents and (3) possible changes relating to the plumbing trade. Finding 2. The resident engineer did not possess such broad authority for contract administration that P. J. Dick could reasonably assume that the resident engineer spoke for the contracting officer in any area of contract performance save for those expressly delegated. Neither can we construe the resident engineer's specific authority to direct the contractor in the plumbing trade as carrying over to the fire protection section of the contract. The contract itself distinguished the two trades, Finding 3, and the additional authority conferred on the resident engineer was carefully limited to plumbing. Finding 2. We conclude, there- fore, that the resident engineer lacked the authority to autho- rize P. J. Dick and its subcontractor Grinnell to work overtime in draining the sprinkler system. P. J. Dick's appeal as to Grinnell extras 79R and 69R must be denied. Grinnell extras 75 and 68 Respondent, relying on the occupancy clause of the contract, argues: Appellant admits that the work was performed after hours because the area was occupied. Appellant was on notice that certain portions of the building would remain occupied and appellant must perform the work in a manner which would not interfere with the govern- ment's operations. Accordingly, appellant is not entitled to compensation when it was required to per- form work after hours in an effort to minimize con- flicts with the government occupancy and operations. Respondent's Reply Brief at 3.[foot #] 2 Respondent main- tains that the occupancy clause prohibited P. J. Dick's perform- ing work if the work interfered in any way with Government operations. We disagree. The contract sensibly recognized there would be some interference with Government operations, since P. J. Dick was expected to undertake an extensive renova- tion project during normal hours in an occupied building. Finding 9. Thus, by its terms, the purpose of the clause was not to eliminate conflicts, but to "minimize conflicts and to facili- tate Government usage." Id. There is nothing in the record to demonstrate that the work performed in Grinnell extra 75--drain- ing two standpipes and adjusting a flow switch--would have interfered with Government operations. On the contrary, for this extra, as with other extras 72R and 69R, Grinnell could have worked normal hours, minimizing any conflict (and satisfying safety requirements) by shutting down a small portion of the standpipe system without jeopardizing the safety of the occu- pants. Findings 5, 7, 10. Our analysis applicable to Grinnell extra 75 is applicable to Grinnell extra 68. The work covered by that extra could have been performed without undue disruption to Government operations. Finding 12. This portion of the appeal is granted. Grinnell extras 61 and 78 GSA argues that Grinnell extra 61 was settled in modifica- tion ACS2. It was not. RFP 82 was settled through modification ACS2, but RFP 82 referenced only the airhandling unit and outside air intake duct; it did not reference the two additional sprin- kler heads beneath the installation of the air handling units. Finding 14. This portion of the appeal is granted. GSA maintains that Grinnell extra 78 was settled by the definitization of RFP 91. We agree. RFP 91 covered the very subject which was the subject of Grinnell extra 78--modification of the sprinkler system to accommodate third floor ceiling height adjustments. Finding 15. P. J. Dick and Grinnell did not, either in their quotation for RFP 91 or in the settlement of ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 GSA does not argue that the constructive changes were unauthorized. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- GSBCA 11732, preserve claims for the work covered by Grinnell extra 78. Recovery is therefore barred. Jordan & Nobles Con- struction Co., GSBCA 8349, et. al., 91-1 BCA 23,659, at 118,- 514. This portion of the appeal is denied. Grinnell extra 65 P. J. Dick seeks $372 for Grinnell extra 65 for Grinnell's work in adding two sprinkler heads to ensure code compliance resulting from relocation of a wall in room 320H. Finding 18.[foot #] 3 The Government maintains that the RFP refer- enced for this extra--RFP 176--had nothing to do with rooms on the third floor, but was for work on the second and fourth floors. Respondent's Record Submission at 13. Grinnell acknowl- edges the erroneously referenced number, Finding 18, but has submitted work orders establishing that it performed the work. Id. This appeal is granted. Grinnell extra 79 The Government does not address in its record submission Grinnell extra 79, a claim for $2,071 for emergency service work to reset the fire alarm system. The basis for the contracting officer's denial of this extra is that the emergency was caused by either P. J. Dick or its subcontractor Grinnell. Finding 21. We have found as fact, however, that the fault lies with GSA. Id. P. J. Dick is thus entitled to the entire cost of performing the work to reset the fire alarm system. This appeal is granted. Grinnell extra 32 P. J. Dick maintains that "Grinnell [and P. J. Dick presumably] accepts [$2,057.26] as its full entitlement" for its extra 32. Appellant's Post-Hearing Brief at 2. P. J. Dick says that "however, the amount has not yet been paid." Id. GSA is correct that the contracting officer processed modification AOAW and thereby obligated contract funds to pay that extra. Finding 22. GSA, therefore, argues that there was no dispute. GSA is incor- rect; the dispute is about payment. P. J. Dick was entitled to payment when the Government decided it was liable for the extra. Since payment has not been made, P. J. Dick is entitled to appropriate interest. We therefore grant the extra for the amount accepted by the contracting officer and P.J. Dick, i.e., $2,057.26. Quantum ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 3 While this work was ordered by the resident engineer, GSA does not claim that he lacked authority to order the addition of the sprinkler heads. Perhaps this is because the order stemmed from the resident engineer's authority to reject work that does not conform to contract requirements. Finding 1. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- Quantum is not in dispute. The quantum calculations are as follows: Grinnell Extra Amount 75 $ 729.00 68 7,233.00 61 288.00 65 372.00 79 2,071.00 32 2,057.26 Total $12,750.26 P.J. Dick Commission @10% 1,275.03 Subtotal 14,025.29 P.J. Dick Business & Occupation Tax @1.92% 269.29 Grand total $14,294.58 Decision The appeal is GRANTED. Respondent owes appellant $14,- 294.58, plus interest as provided by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. _________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge We concur: ____________________ ____________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge Board Judge