________________________________________________ GRANTED IN PART AS TO ENTITLEMENT: May 23, 1994 _________________________________________________ GSBCA 11713, 12460 AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CONTRACTORS, INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Daniel M. Jennings of Shapiro, Fussell, Wedge, Smotherman & Martin, Atlanta, GA, counsel for Appellant. Sharon A. Roach, Real Property Division, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges NEILL, HYATT, and DeGRAFF. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. These cases arise out of a construction contract entered into between the General Services Administration (GSA) and American Commercial Contractors, Inc. (ACC). ACC claims that it is entitled to twelve equitable adjustments to the contract price. The parties submitted seven of the twelve claims to the Board for a decision upon the record concerning only entitlement. As explained below, we grant one of the claims and deny the remaining six. Background Facts On April 19, 1991, GSA issued solicitation GS-04P-91-CXC- 0009, requesting bids for furnishing the labor and materials and performing all of the work required to renovate lobbies, bathrooms and paving at the federal building in Jackson, Mississippi. The solicitation explains that the contractor will be required to paint and to install marble bathroom vanities, drywall, ceramic tile, acoustical ceilings, carpet tile, wallcoverings, faucets and other plumbing supplies, and electrical fittings and fixtures. The federal building consists of a fifteen-story main tower with a smaller two-story section attached. The two-story section is referred to as the North wing. Each floor in the main building consists of two corridors connected by an elevator lobby. Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 4; Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22. ACC submitted a bid on May 21, 1991, without having visited the federal building. Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 4; Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 13, 9. When bids were opened on May 21, 1991, ACC learned that it had submitted the lowest bid. The next day, ACC's Vice President, who prepared ACC's bid, visited the site and inspected the building. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 25 at 30-31; Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 13, 13. On May 25, 1991, ACC received a letter from GSA notifying ACC that its bid was "significantly out of line with the Government estimate" and asking ACC to verify whether its bid was correct and, if not, whether it wished to withdraw or correct its bid. Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 2. ACC verified that its bid was correct without conducting another inspection of the building and, on May 30, 1991, the contract was awarded to ACC in the amount of $411,398. Appeal File 11713, Exhibits 3, 4; Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 13, 15. The renovation of the federal building was the largest project ever undertaken by ACC. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 25 at 20. The record does not establish how ACC arrived at its bid of $411,398. The bid work sheets that are included in the record contain erasures and additions made by ACC after it submitted its bid. Although ACC identified some differences between the bid work sheets as they read when ACC constructed its bid and the revised bid work sheets included in the record, ACC's Vice President stated, "I can't tell everything I've done to this document." Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 25 at 57-62. On October 10, 1991, ACC submitted to the contracting officer several claims for equitable adjustments to the contract price. Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 10. ACC certified these claims on November 15, 1991, and the contracting officer denied the claims on December 2, 1991. Appeal File 11713, Exhibits 20, 21. General Legal Principles Six of the seven claims addressed in this decision present questions of contract interpretation. Using well-established principles for resolving contract interpretation issues, we begin by determining whether there is any ambiguity in the contract's provisions. In order to make this determination, we read the contract as a whole, giving meaning to all of its terms and giving its language the plain and ordinary meaning that it would be given by a reasonable reader. The subjective views of the parties do not influence the interpretation of a contract. If there is only one reasonable reading of a contract, there is no ambiguity. But, if the provisions of a contract are susceptible to different interpretations which are each reasonable and consistent with the remaining language of the contract, the contract is ambiguous. Community Heating and Plumbing v. United States, 987 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Newsom v. United States, 676 F.2d 647 (Ct. Cl. 1982); Hol-Gar Manufacturing Corp. v. United States, 351 F.2d 972 (Ct. Cl. 1965). If the language of a contract is ambiguous, we must determine whether the ambiguity is patent. In order to make this determination, we will examine the contract's language as would a reasonable contractor. A patent ambiguity is one which is not subtle, hidden or minor. Major omissions, obvious discrepancies, and manifest conflicts in contract provisions constitute patent ambiguities. A reasonably prudent contractor who is preparing to submit a bid in response to a solicitation should recognize a patent ambiguity immediately as creating a serious problem and must ask the Government for a clarification before bidding in order to permit the Government to issue any needed amendments to the solicitation, so that the ambiguity is not included in the contract. If a bidder does not ask the Government to clarify any of a solicitation's provisions before submitting its bid, the bidder will bear the risk of its interpretation of any patently ambiguous provisions, regardless of the reasonableness of the bidder's interpretation. Community Heating and Plumbing v. United States, 987 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Fortec Constructors v. United States, 760 F.2d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Newsom v. United States, 676 F.2d 647 (Ct. Cl. 1982); S.O.G. of Arkansas v. United States, 546 F.2d 367 (Ct. Cl. 1976). If an ambiguity is not patent, the Government will bear the burden of compensating a contractor for the cost of its interpretation of the contract's provisions, so long as the interpretation is reasonable and so long as the contractor can establish that it actually and reasonably relied upon its interpretation at the time it submitted its bid. The contractor has the burden of establishing its reliance by a preponderance of the evidence. Fruin-Colnon Corp. v. United States, 912 F.2d 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The best evidence of reliance is a bid work sheet or other document generated at the time the bid was prepared. Courts and boards have decided that statements made in support of a contractor's case, years after a dispute arises, are not particularly persuasive evidence. Fry Communications v. United States, 22 Cl. Ct. 497 (1991); Maintenance Engineers v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 553 (1990); American Transport Line, ASBCA 44510, 93-3 BCA 26,156; Malloy Construction, ASBCA 25055, 82-2 BCA 16,104. Whether a contractor can establish that its interpretation of a contract is reasonable and whether a contractor can establish that it relied upon its interpretation at the time it submitted its bid depends, in part, upon whether the contractor conducts a site investigation before bidding. A contractor who conducts a site investigation before bidding is obligated to conduct a reasonable investigation and cannot ignore the knowledge that it gains or that it should have gained from the investigation. Hunt and Willett, Inc. v. United States, 351 F.2d 980 (Ct. Cl. 1964); Flippin Materials Co. v. United States, 312 F.2d 408 (Ct. Cl. 1963); Santa Fe Engineers, Inc., ASBCA 21450, 77-1 BCA 12,403; Butler Enterprises, AGBCA 74-106, 76-2 BCA 12,094. Similarly, if a contractor conducts a site investigation after the Government asks the contractor to verify its bid, the contractor cannot ignore the knowledge that it gains or that it should have gained from the investigation. Maintenance Engineers v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 553 (1990); Wickham Contracting Co. v. United States, 546 F.2d 395 (Ct. Cl. 1976). Claim A Findings of Fact ACC claims that the contract price should be equitably adjusted in order to compensate ACC for the costs it incurred in renovating restrooms on the first floor of the main building (Floor 1) and on the second floor of the North wing (Floor 2N). Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 10. ACC asserts that it expected to find restrooms only on the second through the fifteenth floors of the main building. ACC explains, "ACC does not contend that no work was required of ACC on the First Floor and Second Floor North Wing, but rather that the Drawings and Specification did not put it on notice that these areas included restrooms." Appellant's Memorandum in Support of Entitlement, page 31. In a November 24, 1993 affidavit prepared in support of these appeals, ACC's Vice President states that, when he prepared ACC's bid, he relied upon the fact that the contract documents "failed to reveal the existence" of restrooms either on Floor 1 or Floor 2N. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 13, 43. There are several contract provisions that bear upon Claim A. The contract explains that the building would be occupied during construction and states, "There are restrooms (both mens and womens) on every floor and some will have to be operational at all times." Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 4, General Requirements, Division 2, 15. In addition, one of the contract's four drawings, Drawing A-1, titled "Lobbies and Corridors 2nd Thru 15th Fl.," contains references to work required on the first floor restrooms. The contract does not contain a drawing of the first floor and the drawings of Floor 2N do not show either how or whether the floor is divided into rooms. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22. Drawing A-1 includes a section titled "Scope of Work," which states: The work contained herein as outlined in the specifications and on these drawings includes work on the 1st through and including the 15th floor of the McCoy Federal Building. The work includes (but is not limited to) replacing wallcovering, replacing carpet tiles and rubber base, reworking the sheetrock walls, replacing ceramic tiles, replacing lavatories and associated plumbing, and replacing acoustical ceiling tiles and fluorescent lights. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22. Drawing A-1 states that the contractor is required to remove "all carpets from corridors and lobbies from the 1st through the 15th floors." The contractor is also required to "provide and install carpet tiles on lobbies and corridors on the 1st through the 15th floors (include North wings). Refer to interior schedule. Include all restroom entries thruout [sic] building." The drawing also states that, although the first floor lobby of the main building will not require any carpet tiles, "[t]he small lobbies, corridors, and restrooms are to be included in this scope of work." Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22. Drawing A-1 states that the contractor is required to remove "all wall coverings from walls of lobbies and corridors on the 1st thru 15th floors including baths." The contractor is also required to "provide and install vinyl wallcoverings on walls in lobbies and corridors on the 1st through 15th floors. Refer to interior schedule. Include all restrooms." The drawing also states that, although the first floor lobby of the main building will not require any wall coverings, "[t]he small lobbies, corridors, and restrooms are to be included in this scope of work." Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22. Drawing A-1 states that the contractor is required to "remove all ceiling systems on the 1st thru 15th floor lobbies and corridors and all baths." The contractor is also required to "provide and install suspended lay-in 2' x 2' acoustical tiles on 1st through 15th floors. Refer to interior schedule. Include all restrooms." The drawing also states that although the first floor lobby of the main building will not require any acoustical tiles, "[t]he small lobbies, corridors, and restrooms are to be included in this scope of work." Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22. In addition to the contract provisions, ACC contends that a GSA cost estimate also has a bearing upon Claim A. Appellant's Memorandum in Support of Entitlement at 21. The cost estimate, which was prepared for this project in July 1990, lists fifty-six lavatories, which amounts to lavatories for only fourteen floors -- not fifteen floors of the main building plus the second floor of the North building. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 10, Vol. I, Deposition Exhibit 12. During his deposition, the contracting officer's representative testified that some floors were left out of the estimate. Id. at 115. ACC did not have access to this cost estimate at the time it prepared its bid. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 25 at 30. Discussion The foundation for Claim A is ACC's assertion that it did not know that there were restrooms on either Floor 1 or Floor 2N. The parties disagree as to whether the provisions of the contract are ambiguous concerning the existence of these restrooms and, if there is an ambiguity, whether ACC is entitled to recover. The contract states, "There are restrooms (both mens and womens) on every floor . . . ." There is only one reasonable reading of this simple and straight-forward language: Every floor contains restrooms. Nothing in the remainder of the contract conflicts with this clear announcement. In addition, the contract contains other statements that suggest the existence of restrooms on Floor 1. The scope of work section contained in Drawing A-1 makes it clear that work such as replacing ceramic tiles, lavatories, and associated plumbing was required on the first through the fifteenth floors. This type of work was to be performed only in restrooms, not in lobbies and corridors, and so requiring this work on Floor 1 strongly suggests that there are restrooms on Floor 1. Similarly, Drawing A-1 states that the contractor was required to replace all carpet tiles, wall coverings, and ceiling systems on the first through the fifteenth floors, including all restrooms and all restroom entries throughout the building. Requiring the contractor to perform work in all restrooms on the first through the fifteenth floors does not make sense unless there are restrooms on these floors. Drawing A-1 provides one other suggestion that Floor 1 contained restrooms. The drawing states that, although the first floor lobby of the main building would not require any carpet tiles, wall coverings, or acoustical tiles, restrooms were to be included within the scope of work. The reference to restrooms is meaningless unless there are restrooms on the first floor of the main building. Thus, we conclude that one reasonable reading of the contract, arrived at by reading the contract as a whole and giving a consistent meaning to all of its terms, is that there were restrooms on all floors, including Floors 1 and 2N. We next examine ACC's reading of the contract's terms in order to determine whether it is also reasonable. ACC asserts that GSA's cost estimate establishes that GSA intended for ACC to renovate only the restrooms on the second through the fifteenth floors of the main building. The cost estimate is irrelevant to the resolution of Claim A. The basis for Claim A is ACC's assertion that the contract does not notify ACC that Floors 1 and 2N contained restrooms. ACC's interpretation of the terms of the contract could not have been influenced by the cost estimate, because ACC did not have access to the cost estimate when it prepared its bid. Because the contract does not contain drawings of restrooms either on the first floor of the main building or on the second floor of the North building and because Drawing A-2 is titled "Typical Bathroom Renovation Plan 2nd Through 15th Floors," ACC interprets the contract as representing that there are restrooms only on the second through the fifteenth floors. ACC interprets the contract's references to "all restrooms" as meaning all restrooms on the second through the fifteenth floors. Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 10. The fact that Drawing A-2 depicts the work required in restrooms on the second through the fifteenth floors does not mean that the other floors in the building lacked restrooms. The contract does not depict restrooms on the first floor because the contract does not contain a drawing of the first floor. Similarly, the contract does not depict a restroom on Floor 2N because it does not contain a drawing showing any individual rooms on Floor 2N. ACC's reading of the contract conflicts with the contract's unequivocal statement that there are restrooms on every floor. In addition, ACC's interpretation is inconsistent with the references, contained in Drawing A-1, to the work required in restrooms on the first through the fifteenth floors. Because GSA's interpretation of the contract's language is reasonable and ACC's interpretation is not reasonable, ACC has not established that an ambiguity exists. ACC is not entitled to recover for Claim A. Even if we were to decide that the language of the contract is ambiguous, ACC could not recover. If the language is patently ambiguous, ACC cannot recover because it made no pre-bid inquiry concerning the terms of the solicitation. If the contract's language is latently ambiguous, ACC cannot recover because it presents no persuasive evidence that it actually relied upon its interpretation of the solicitation, pre-bid. ACC's evidence of pre-bid reliance consists of a statement made in support of these appeals, as well as bid work sheets that differ from the work sheets prepared by ACC when it constructed its bid. Such evidence falls short of that required to establish ACC's interpretation of the solicitation's terms at the time that it bid. Claim B Findings of Fact ACC claims that the contract price should be equitably adjusted in order to compensate for certain costs that it incurred when it renovated the two corridors in the main building. According to ACC, Drawing A-1 represents that the corridors are only six feet wide when, in fact, the corridors are nine feet wide. ACC asserts that this difference in width increased the cost of carpet tile, acoustical ceiling tile, rubber base molding, and wall covering. Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 10. Drawing A-1 states that it is drawn to scale and that one- quarter inch represents one foot. The width of both corridors is two and one-quarter inches, which represents a scaled dimension of nine feet. The drawing also contains a line, two and one- quarter inches long, drawn across the width of the south corridor from one wall to the opposite wall. The length of the line represents a scaled dimension of nine feet. The drawing, however, states that the line represents a dimension of six feet. This stated dimension of six feet is incorrect. The drawing does not contain a stated dimension of the width of the north corridor. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22. Drawing A-1 also depicts a pillar that protrudes into the south corridor, reducing the width of the corridor. The width of the corridor at the pillar measures one and one-half inches, which is a scaled dimension of six feet. The pillar is adjacent to the line with the stated dimension of six feet discussed in the previous paragraph. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22. Drawing A-3, titled "Ceiling of Lobbies and Bathrooms 2nd Thru 15th Fl.," also states that it is drawn to scale and that one-quarter inch represents one foot. This drawing depicts the renovated ceilings of the south and north corridors, including the acoustical ceiling tile pattern that ACC was required to install. The pattern consists of squares which measure two feet by two feet. There are four and one-half squares spanning the width of each corridor, which represents a scaled dimension of nine feet. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 22. In a November 24, 1993 affidavit prepared in support of these appeals, ACC's Vice President states that he relied upon Drawing A-1's stated dimension that the corridors were six feet wide when he calculated ACC's bid for materials, including carpet and ceiling tiles and corresponding labor. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 13, 54. In his affidavit, ACC's Vice President also states that it is standard industry practice to rely upon a specifically stated dimension instead of a scaled dimension. Id., 57. ACC's Vice President states that it is his practice to use a ruler to measure drawings where no specific dimensions are shown. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 25 at 37-38. Discussion Drawing A-1 contains a stated dimension which provides that the south corridor is six feet wide. This is inconsistent with the scaled dimension of Drawings A-1 and A-3, which provides that both the north and south corridors are nine feet wide. Our examination of the contract's drawings leads us to conclude that this ambiguity is patent. It is obvious from a cursory examination of Drawing A-1 that the scaled dimension and the stated dimension of the width of the south corridor are inconsistent. A scaled dimension of six feet would have been represented by one and one-half inches. Yet, the stated dimension of six feet is represented by a line that is two and one-quarter inches long. Even without using a ruler, this difference in length is obvious. ACC did not have to refer to any drawing other than Drawing A-1 and it did not have to refer to any part of the written specifications in order to detect this discrepancy. Looking only at Drawing A-1, ACC was faced with an obvious error in the drawing. Bromley Contracting Co., GSBCA 4049, 75-1 BCA 11,132, aff'd, Bromley Contracting Co. v. United States, 652 F.2d 70 (Ct. Cl. 1981) (text reported at 28 CCF 81192) (difference between scale and measurements was obvious and raised a duty to inquire). The ambiguity should have also been clear to ACC's Vice President if he followed his usual practice and used a ruler to measure the drawings where there are no stated dimensions. When he measured the width of the north corridor, which does not contain a stated dimension, he would have discovered that the scaled dimension of the width of the north corridor is nine feet. This scaled dimension of the width of the north corridor is inconsistent with the stated dimension of six feet for the width of the south corridor, even though the two corridors are each drawn as two and one-quarter inches wide. Because the two corridors are drawn to the same scale and are drawn as being the same width, a stated dimension of six feet for the width of one corridor is clearly inconsistent with a scaled dimension of nine feet for the width of the other corridor. Similarly, when ACC's Vice President measured the width of the south corridor where it narrows due to the protruding pillar, he would have discovered that the width is one and one-half inches, which represents a scaled dimension of six feet. The width of the corridor at the pillar is immediately adjacent to the stated dimension of six feet, which is represented by a line two and one-quarter inches long that is drawn across the width of the south corridor where there is no pillar. It is obvious that corridor is considerably wider where there is no pillar than where there is a pillar, and the width of the corridor cannot be six feet in both places. Finally, to the extent that ACC relied upon Drawing A-1 when it estimated the dimensions of the ceilings, ACC should have realized that the contract was ambiguous. Drawing A-3, which was specifically prepared in order to direct the installation of the new ceilings, does not contain any stated dimensions. Drawing A- 3 is drawn to the same scale as Drawing A-1. The scaled dimension of the width of each corridor is nine feet, according to Drawing A-3. In addition, Drawing A-3 shows that four and one-half ceiling tiles extend across the width of each corridor and each tile measures two feet square, for a corridor width of nine feet. Assuming that ACC was entitled to rely upon Drawing A-1 to prepare its estimate for the ceiling work and assuming that ACC interpreted Drawing A-1 as showing a corridor width of six feet, ACC should have realized that there was a serious discrepancy between the corridor width shown on Drawing A-1 and the corridor width shown on Drawing A-3. ACC argues that the more specific contract provision (the stated dimension of six feet) should control over the more general contract provision (the scale stating that one-quarter inch equals one foot); that ACC had no duty to verify the stated dimension of six feet by determining the scaled dimension of the corridors; and that ACC was entitled to rely upon the stated dimension of six feet, according to industry practice. Appellant's Memorandum in Support of Entitlement at 34-35; Appellant's Reply Memorandum at 34. None of these arguments is persuasive, given the well-settled law concerning ambiguity. In the face of a patent ambiguity between two contract provisions, the contractor has a duty to notify the contracting agency of the ambiguity, pre-bid. If the contractor fails to provide such notice, it is not entitled to rely upon its interpretation of the contract. The contract contains only four drawings and ACC had to review just one drawing, Drawing A-1, in order to detect the discrepancy between the scaled dimension of nine feet and the stated dimension of six feet. ACC was not required either to sift through a voluminous number of drawings or to compare one drawing with another in order to find a well-hidden ambiguity. Because the ambiguity that is at issue in Claim B is patent and because ACC failed to call this ambiguity to the attention of GSA before bidding, ACC is not entitled to recover for Claim B. Claim C Findings of Fact ACC claims that the contract price should be equitably adjusted because GSA refused to accept a brand of carpet other than the brand specified in the contract. According to ACC, GSA's position was contrary to the terms of the contract, which permitted ACC to substitute a brand of carpet for the brand specified, so long as the carpet which ACC provided was the equivalent of the specified carpet. Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 10. Section 09690, part 2.1.D of the contract requires the contractor to provide carpet tile manufactured by Milliken and specifies the particular colors and patterns to be used. The colors and patterns listed are Corporate Square-Nova 300 charcoal, 452 dark blue, 453 dark wine; Tower Square P2572 152 black pearl; and Tower Crest P2592 (patterned). Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 4 at 76. Section 09690, part 3.5.A of the contract requires the contractor to "[p]rovide carpet tile as scheduled on the drawings." Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 4 at 78. Drawing A-1 shows that, on the first floor, the carpet was to be 300 charcoal. On the second through fifteenth floors, most of the carpet was to be Tower Square 152 black pearl. In front of the elevators, a border of carpet tile was to be either 300 charcoal, 452 dark blue, or 453 dark wine. Inside this border, the carpet was to be P2592 Tower Crest pattern colorations on Tower Square 152 black pearl. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22. Section 09690, part 1.3 explains the submittals required for carpet tile. This section required ACC to submit written data concerning the carpet's physical characteristics, durability, resistance to fading, and flame resistance. This section also required ACC to submit samples showing the full range of colors, texture, and pattern variations. The samples were supposed to be taken from the same material that ACC intended to use for this project. Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 4 at 75. ACC stated during the June 25, 1991 preconstruction conference that it wished to provide a carpet manufactured by someone other than Milliken. Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 5. In response, on July 31, 1991, GSA stated, "Furnish and install the carpet as stated in the specifications. See Section 09690, Part 2.1.D., Carpet Tiles." Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 6. During her deposition, the contracting officer stated that GSA would not have permitted ACC to provide a substitute for the Milliken carpet tile because ACC did not notify GSA, pre-award, that it wished to propose a substitute. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 9 at 86-92. No such pre-award notice is required by the contract. Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 4. On August 7, 1991, ACC provided a submittal for the Milliken carpet tile. Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 7. ACC never provided GSA with a submittal for any substitute carpet tile. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 25 at 112. Clause 34 of the contract, titled "Material and Workmanship," provides, "The Contractor may, at its option, use any . . . material . . . that, in the judgment of the Contracting Officer, is equal to that named in the specifications, unless otherwise specifically provided in this contract." The contract contains no specific provision which prohibits substituting an equivalent brand of carpet tile in place of the Milliken carpet tile. Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 4. According to a salesman employed by a company that is a distributor for many carpet manufacturers, carpet tile made by several other manufacturers would have met the specification's style, performance, and color requirements. In addition, according to the salesman, Shaw and Milliken products are equal and carpet produced by Shaw could have been substituted for the specified Milliken carpet. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 26. Discussion When the Material and Workmanship clause is part of a contract which specifies a brand name product, the brand name establishes a standard of quality. If the agency determines that the product must fulfill certain essential requirements, it must state those requirements in the specifications. Unless the contract specifically provides otherwise, the contractor is permitted to supply an alternative to the brand name product if the alternative meets all of the essential requirements set forth in the specifications, functions the same as the brand name product, and provides the same standard of quality. The alternative product does not have to be identical to the specified brand name product. If the Government wrongfully rejects an acceptable alternative product, the rejection constitutes a change to the terms of the contract's Material and Workmanship clause. Jack Stone Co. v. United States, 344 F.2d 370 (Ct. Cl. 1965); North Landing Line Constr. Co., GSBCA 5079, 80-2 BCA 14,482; Blount Brothers Corp., ASBCA 31202, 88-3 BCA 20,878, motion for clarification denied, 89-2 BCA 21,729. GSA's actions constitute a change to the contract's Material and Workmanship clause. During contract performance and during the course of these appeals, GSA consistently took the position that ACC was permitted to provide only Milliken carpet tile. GSA bases this position upon the Material and Workmanship clause, which provides that ACC could supply a product other than the brand name carpet tile, "unless otherwise specifically provided in this contract." In GSA's view, because the contract specifically provides that ACC was required to provide Milliken carpet tile, ACC was not entitled to offer any other brand. Respondent's Memorandum of Law at 26-33. We do not accept GSA's argument because the manner in which GSA interprets the Material and Workmanship clause is contrary to precedent and renders the clause meaningless. Usually, in order to prevail upon a claim concerning the Material and Workmanship clause, a contractor must establish that it supplied the contracting agency with sufficient information to establish that its proposed substitute product meets the standard of quality set by the brand name product. Blount Brothers Corp., ASBCA 31202, 88-3 BCA 20,878; Central Mechanical, Inc., ASBCA 29360, 84-3 BCA 17,674. Here, ACC never provided GSA with any information concerning its proposed substitute for the brand name carpet tile. ACC's inaction is excusable because, when ACC stated that it would like to provide a substitute carpet tile, GSA responded by directing ACC to provide the brand name carpet tile. ACC was not required to submit information to GSA concerning a substitute for the specified brand name, given GSA's expressed determination that no substitute was permitted. GSA's direction constituted a change to the terms of the contract and ACC is entitled to recover for the cost of this change. Claim D Findings of Fact ACC asserts that it did not expect to have to replace any wall board except the wall board behind the vanities, which it intended to replace with water resistant gypsum wall board. Appellant's Memorandum in Support of Entitlement at 48-49. GSA required ACC to install water resistant gypsum wall board on all of the restroom walls where ceramic tile was removed and replaced, in addition to installing water resistant gypsum wallboard on the walls behind the vanities. ACC claims that the contract price should be equitably adjusted to compensate for the cost of the water resistant gypsum wall board that it installed in locations other than behind the vanities.[foot #] 1 Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 10. Contract section 09250 is titled "Gypsum Drywall." Part 1.2.A explains that there are two types of gypsum board construction: In one type, gypsum board is attached to steel framing members. In the second type of construction, gypsum board is attached by screws to steel framing and furring members. Part 1.2.A explains that the extent of each type of gypsum wall board construction required by the contract is shown on the drawings. None of the drawings shows either of the two types of construction. Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 4; Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22. Part 2.2 of section 09250 contains specifications for three types of gypsum board, including water resistant gypsum backing board. Part 3.5 of section 09250 is titled "Methods Of Gypsum Board Application," and part 3.5.B provides, "Where drywall is base for thin-set ceramic tile . . . install gypsum backing board." According to section 09300, the extent of the required ceramic tile work is shown on the contract's drawings. Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 4. Drawing A-2 states that the "contractor shall remove all carpets and ceramic tiles on the walls in all ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Pursuant to modification 01, ACC installed concrete board instead of water resistant gypsum wall board. Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 1. This does not affect our analysis of ACC's claim. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- bathrooms. Remove tiles up 4 feet from floor." Drawing A-2 also states that the "contractor shall furnish and install ceramic tiles up 4 feet on all walls from floor." Drawing A-2 depicts the faces of renovated restroom walls, all of which contain "new" ceramic tile supplied by the contractor from the floor up to a height of four feet and some of which contain "existing" ceramic tile above a height of four feet. The views of the faces of the walls do not show what kind of material is behind the ceramic tile. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22. Part 3.5.B of section 09250 explains, "In 'dry' areas install gypsum backing board or wallboard with tapered edges taped and finished to produce a flat surface. . . . At showers, tubs and similar 'wet' areas, install water resistant gypsum backing board to comply with ASTM C 840 and recommendations of gypsum board manufacturer." The contract does not explain further what constitutes a "dry" or a "wet" area. Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 4. The restrooms contain vanities, toilets, and urinals, and Drawing A-2 requires the use of water resistant acoustical tile for the restroom ceilings. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 22. ACC's Vice President asserts that the area behind the vanities would "typically represent a moisture problem" and would be considered a "wet" area. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 13, 67. GSA's architect states that "wet" areas are generally thought to be spaces where ceramic tile is necessary. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 22, 58. Drawing A-2 contains a side view of one restroom wall -- the wall behind the vanities. This view shows that water resistant gypsum wall board was to be installed under the ceramic tile behind the vanities. Drawing A-2 does not contain a side view of any wall other than the wall behind the vanities. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22. The contract requires that ACC perform "all work" in a "skillful and workmanlike manner" and that ACC not leave any "unbonded or otherwise defective tile work." Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 4 at 15, 66. The contract also requires that ACC provide a one year warranty that its materials and workmanship were free from defects. Id. at 19. The ceramic tile in many of the restrooms was coming loose from the walls, which revealed that the existing gypsum board under the tile was water soaked and crumbling in places. These conditions would have been readily apparent during a site inspection. In the opinion of GSA's architect, ACC could not have installed ceramic tile on the existing gypsum board, because the tile would not have adhered to wet, damaged, rotting gypsum board. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22, 56, 60. ACC does not offer any evidence to suggest either that it would have been able to install ceramic tile over the existing gypsum board or that such an installation would have been performed in the manner required by the contract. Discussion ACC claims that GSA should not have required ACC to install any wall board except behind vanities in the restrooms. The parties disagree as to whether the provisions of the contract are ambiguous concerning the requirement for wall board and, if there is an ambiguity, whether ACC is entitled to recover. The existing wall board under the existing ceramic tile was water soaked and crumbling in places and ACC could not have removed the existing ceramic tile and installed new ceramic tile on top of the existing wall board in a satisfactory manner. Yet, the contract required the installation of new ceramic tile on restroom walls to a height of four feet and required that the installation be completed in a skillful and workmanlike manner and without defects. Reading the contract's provisions consistently, the means for achieving an acceptable ceramic tile installation are set forth in Section 09250, part 3.5.B, which provides that gypsum wall board will be installed under ceramic tile. As for whether the gypsum board had to be water resistant, part 3.5.B provides that the gypsum board was to be water resistant if it was to be installed in "wet" areas. Although the contract does not define "wet" areas, the restrooms contain vanities, toilets, and urinals, which are all apt to be "wet." In addition, the requirement that the restroom ceilings be constructed of waterproof material and the fact that some of the existing wall board was water soaked suggests that many areas within the restrooms could be considered "wet." A reasonable interpretation of the contract is that water resistant wall board was required to be installed under the new ceramic tile. ACC interprets the contract to require that wall board be replaced only behind the vanities. ACC contends that section 09250, part 3.5, which directs that wall board be installed under ceramic tile, is irrelevant because the title of part 3.5 suggests that part 3.5 concerns only the application of wall board and not the location where wall board was required. ACC contends that the specifications do not define "wet" areas, so it was not on notice that any area other than the vanity area could be considered a "wet" area. ACC asserts that there is no authority for the proposition that a contractor has to correct whatever inadequacies exist in a building that is being renovated. Appellant's Memorandum in Support of Entitlement at 51-52. ACC's interpretation of the contract relies primarily upon the fact that Drawing A-2 shows water resistant wall board in only one place -- the wall behind the vanities. Appellant's Memorandum in Support of Entitlement at 46. Of course, Drawing A-2 does not show a side view of any wall except the wall behind the vanities, and so does not show what is behind the tile on the other walls. For this reason, Drawing A-2 is not particularly helpful in deciding how to interpret the contract's requirements for wall board. ACC's interpretation of the contract also relies upon part 1.2.A, which provides that the extent of each type of wall board construction is shown on the drawings. But, the drawings do not show either type of wall board construction and so part 1.2.A does not assist us in interpreting the contract's terms. In evaluating ACC's interpretation of the terms of the contract, we cannot ignore the significance of the site inspection that ACC conducted before it verified its bid. Clearly, the contract required ACC to apply new ceramic tile to the restroom walls in an acceptable manner. Just as clearly, ACC could not have applied new ceramic tile in an acceptable manner to the existing wall board, which was water soaked, damaged, and crumbling. When the site inspection revealed the condition of the existing wall board, ACC should have immediately realized that there was a serious problem with the contract's terms, as ACC interpreted them. If, as ACC believed, it was not required to replace the wall board under the ceramic tile, then it could not apply the new ceramic tile as required by the contract. ACC could not have reasonably interpreted the contract as requiring new wall board only behind the vanities, because this interpretation renders meaningless the requirements that all of the ceramic tile installation be performed in a skillful and workmanlike manner and that the tile be properly bonded to the walls, free from defects and warranted for one year. GSA's insistence that ACC install wall board under the new ceramic tile was in keeping with a reasonable reading of the contract and was not a requirement that ACC correct whatever "inadequacies" existed in the building. Because GSA's interpretation of the contract's terms is reasonable and ACC's interpretation is unreasonable, no ambiguity exists and ACC is not entitled to recover for Claim D. Claim E Findings of Fact Before the building was renovated, it contained acoustical tile ceilings. The ceiling tiles were suspended in place by a metal support system consisting of members that formed a grid measuring two feet by four feet. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22, 66. ACC installed new acoustical ceiling tiles that are two feet square and a new metal support system consisting of members that form a grid measuring two feet square. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 13, 80. The parties agree that ACC was required to install new acoustical ceiling tiles that are two feet square. ACC contends that, according to the terms of the contract, it was not required to replace the entire existing suspended metal support system when it installed the new ceiling tiles. ACC claims that it is entitled to an equitable adjustment to the contract price to compensate for the costs that it incurred when it replaced the existing suspended metal support system. Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 10; Appellant's Reply Memorandum at 64. Section 09510 of the contract addresses acoustical ceilings. Part 1.2 of this section states that the extent of the acoustical ceiling is shown and scheduled on the drawings. Part 1.2 also provides that the types of acoustical ceilings specified include "acoustical panel ceilings, exposed suspension." Part 1.3, which explains the submittals that were required, directs ACC to submit product data for each type of acoustical ceiling unit and suspension system required, to submit drawings showing ceiling suspension members and the method that would be used to secure them to the building, to submit samples of exposed ceiling suspension members, and to submit certain certificates from manufacturers of suspension systems. Parts 1.4 and 3.4 require ACC to coordinate the installation of suspension system components with other ceiling work. Parts 1.6 and 3.6 require ACC to supply extra exposed suspension system components. Part 2.2 requires that ACC provide certain colors, textures, and patterns for exposed metal suspension system members. Part 3.2 explains how ACC should install suspension systems and explains that the acoustical tiles were required to be installed in coordination with the suspension system. Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 4 at 69-74. Drawing A-1 states in its scope of work section that the contractor was required to perform certain work, including but not limited to replacing "acoustical ceiling tiles." The drawing states in demolition note 3 that the contractor "shall remove all ceiling systems on the 1st thru 15th floor." Demolition note 5 states, "Contractor shall remove all removed items from project site." The drawing states in construction note 2 that the contractor "shall provide and install suspended lay-in 2' x 2' acoustical tiles on 1st through 15th floors." The "Interior Finishes" box on Drawing A-1 identifies the color, finish, and pattern required for the acoustical tiles. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22. Drawing A-2 states in demolition note 7 that the contractor "shall remove all suspended ceiling tiles in all bathrooms, lobbies, and corridors." The drawing states in construction note 12 that the contractor "shall furnish and install all suspended ceiling systems (2' x 2') in all bathrooms, corridors, and in the lobbies." Construction note 14 states that the contractor "shall remove and replace all suspended ceiling systems (lights, fans, diffusers, etc.) in all restrooms and replace with ceiling and lights specified." The drawing depicts a renovated restroom as having suspended ceiling tiles installed by the contractor. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22. Drawing A-3 shows the locations of light fixtures, public address system speakers, sprinkler heads, and diffusers. It also divides the ceiling into squares which are two feet on each side. The drawing describes these squares as "suspended layed-in 2' x 2' acoustical ceiling tiles." Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22. Clause 34 of the contract's general provisions states, "All equipment, material, and articles incorporated into the work covered by this contract shall be new and of the most suitable grade for the purpose intended, unless otherwise specifically provided in this contract." Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 4. In a February 24, 1992 amendment to its October 10, 1991 claim, ACC states that it prepared its "original estimate" based upon the assumption that it would refurbish the existing suspended metal support system and install additional metal members to create a grid which measured two feet square. Supplemental Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 10 at 49. The existing suspension members had yellowed and some were scratched and bent. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22, 66. During performance, ACC did not provide submittals for any material that it would have needed to use in order to refurbish the existing suspended metal support system. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22, 74. ACC's claim does not include any credit either for the cost of the work that it says it intended to perform in order to refurbish the existing suspended metal support system or for the cost of the metal support members that it says it intended to supply. Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 10. In neither its initial brief nor its reply brief does ACC argue that it had any particular intent or interpretation of the contract at the time that it prepared its bid. In a November 24, 1993 affidavit submitted in support of these appeals, ACC's Vice President does not state that, at the time he prepared the bid, ACC intended to refurbish the existing suspended metal support system. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 13. ACC's bid contains a lump sum amount for "Acoustical Ceil" and does not show whether this includes only tiles or both tiles and a suspended metal support system. ACC prepared its original bid before it visited the site and did not alter its bid for the acoustical ceiling work when it verified its bid after visiting the site. Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 3; Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 25 (Deposition Exhibit A). Discussion ACC claims that GSA should not have required ACC to install a new and complete suspended metal support system for the acoustical tile ceilings. ACC states that it was prepared to refurbish the existing metal support system and to install some new metal support system members in order to convert the existing grid, which measured two feet by four feet, into a grid that would hold the new tiles, which are two feet square. ACC argues that the contract did not require ACC to remove and replace the entire existing suspended metal support system. The parties disagree as to whether the provisions of the contract are ambiguous concerning the requirement for a metal support system and, if there is an ambiguity, whether ACC is entitled to recover. Several of the contract's provisions have a bearing upon our reading of the contract. Section 09510 specifies several requirements concerning the suspended metal support system. Drawing A-1 states that ACC was required to remove ceiling systems from the project site. Drawing A-2 requires ACC to install all ceiling systems and to remove and replace all ceiling systems. Clause 34 requires all material incorporated into the work to be new, unless specified otherwise, and there is no specification that permits using existing metal support suspension members. Clearly, the contract requires ACC to remove the existing ceiling system and install a new system, using new material. Although the contract does not define ceiling "system," it is reasonable to interpret the term as including something more than just acoustical tiles. Further, it is reasonable to interpret ceiling "system" as including both tiles and suspended metal support members, given that the specifications and the drawings contain references to both of these ceiling components. ACC contends that it is industry practice to furnish new ceiling tiles without furnishing an entirely new suspension system, unless the contract provides otherwise. Appellant's Reply Memorandum, page 67. ACC does not read the requirement for removing and replacing the ceiling "system" as containing a requirement that it remove and replace the entire suspended metal support system. Instead, ACC reads the contract as requiring that it replace ceiling tiles, refurbish the existing metal support system, and provide whatever new metal support system members were required to support the new, smaller ceiling tiles. ACC relies upon the fact that the drawings contain specific references to ceiling tiles and do not contain specific references to a suspended metal support system for the tiles. ACC recognizes that the contract refers to a "ceiling system" and that this is not a "self defining term." Appellant's Memorandum in Support of Entitlement at 52-54; Appellant's Reply Memorandum at 61. We are not persuaded that ACC's interpretation of the contract's terms is reasonable. True, the contract does not define the term "ceiling system." But, if a ceiling system does not include metal support members, then the contract does not require ACC to provide any metal support members, and yet ACC states that it intended to provide as many new metal support members as were needed in order to accommodate the new ceiling tiles. Similarly, if a ceiling system does not include metal support members, then ACC was not required to perform any work related to the existing metal support members, and yet ACC states that it intended to refurbish the existing metal support members. Also, the specifications require the use of new materials, do not mention refurbishing the existing metal support members, and do not contain any requirements for the materials which could have been used or the standards which would have been applied if the existing suspension system had been refurbished. ACC's interpretation of the contract, which required it to supply some, but not all, new metal support members and which permitted it to refurbish the existing metal support system, is not reasonable. Because GSA advances the only reasonable interpretation, ACC has not demonstrated that there is an ambiguity and ACC is not entitled to recover for Claim E. Even if ACC were to put forward a reasonable interpretation of the contract's terms, ACC would not prevail. If we were to decide that the language of the contract is patently ambiguous, ACC would not be entitled to recover because ACC made no pre-bid inquiry concerning the terms of the solicitation, even though it recognizes that "ceiling system" is not a "self defining term." If we were to decide that the language of the contract is latently ambiguous, ACC could not recover because it has not established that its pre-bid interpretation of the contract's terms is consistent with the interpretation that it advances in these appeals. The sole evidence offered by ACC of its pre-bid interpretation is a statement, contained in the February 24, 1992 amendment to its claim, that it prepared its "original estimate" assuming that it would be permitted to refurbish the existing metal support system and install additional metal members. This statement is not persuasive because, when ACC prepared its original bid, it had not visited the site and so it could not have known the condition or configuration of the existing metal support system. Thus, when ACC prepared its original bid, it could not have known how much time and material would have been required either to refurbish the existing system or to install additional metal members. ACC's bid documents do not provide any evidence of ACC's pre-bid interpretation. ACC's briefs and the affidavit signed by its Vice-President in support of these appeals do not contend that ACC had any pre-bid interpretation of the contract's terms. If ACC actually intended to refurbish the existing metal support system, ACC should have provided submittals for the material it intended to use in its work, and ACC's claim should contain a credit for the cost of the refurbishing work that it did not perform and the cost of the additional new metal members that it did not supply. However, ACC never provided any submittals for any material that it intended to use to refurbish the existing metal support system, and ACC's claim does not offer any credit for the cost of the work that it intended to perform. The evidence offered by ACC is not sufficient to establish that, pre- bid, it interpreted the contract as permitting it to refurbish the existing metal support system and add new metal members as necessary. For this reason, ACC could not recover even if we were to hold that the contract's terms are latently ambiguous. Claim F Findings of Fact ACC requests an equitable adjustment to the contract price because GSA required ACC to replace the existing air diffusers. ACC asserts that the contract did not require it to perform this work and also asserts that it intended to reuse the existing diffusers. ACC asks that the contract price be adjusted to compensate for the cost of the new diffusers. Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 10. Two of the contract's general provisions are relevant to this claim. Clause 28 states, "Anything mentioned in the specifications and not shown on the drawings, or shown on the drawings and not mentioned in the specifications, shall be of like effect as if shown or mentioned in both." Clause 34 states, "All equipment, material, and articles incorporated into the work covered by this contract shall be new and of the most suitable grade for the purpose intended, unless otherwise specifically provided in the contract." Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 4. The contract's specifications do not contain a section concerning diffusers. The drawings, however, refer to diffusers. Drawing A-1, demolition note 3 requires ACC to remove all ceiling "systems" and demolition note 5 requires the contractor to "remove all removed items from project site." Drawing A-2, construction note 14 requires the contractor to "remove and replace all suspended ceiling systems (lights, fans, diffusers, etc.) in restrooms and replace with ceiling and lights specified." Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22. Drawing A-3 shows acoustical ceiling tiles which are two feet square and diffusers which are two feet square. The drawing also shows how the ceiling tiles are to be arranged and where the diffusers are to be located. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22. Section 09510, part 3.2.B of the contract requires ACC to "[a]rrange acoustical units . . . in manner shown by reflected ceiling plans." Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 4. The contract does not mention the dimensions of the existing diffusers. Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 4. The existing diffusers were rectangular and measured approximately four feet long and three inches wide. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 22, 78. ACC prepared its original bid before it visited the site and did not alter its bid for the diffusers when it verified its bid after visiting the site. Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 3; Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 25 (Deposition Exhibit A). Discussion ACC asserts that the contract does not require that ACC supply new air diffusers. The parties disagree as to whether the contract is ambiguous concerning this requirement and, if so, whether ACC is entitled to recover. The specifications do not contain a requirement for diffusers. But, pursuant to clause 28 of the contract's general provisions, the contract will be read to contain a requirement for diffusers if the requirement is contained in either the specifications or in the drawings. Konoike Constr. Co., ASBCA 36342, 91-1 BCA 23,440. Therefore, the absence of a specification requirement does not convince us that no new diffusers were required. Drawing A-1 requires ACC to remove all ceiling "systems" from the project site. Drawing A-2, which contains requirements for restrooms, requires ACC to remove and replace the "ceiling systems (lights, fans, diffusers, etc.)." Although Drawing A-3 shows that the diffusers in the renovated ceiling were to be two feet square, the existing diffusers measured four feet by three inches. The contract required the acoustical tiles to be arranged as shown on the ceiling plan and this would not have been possible if the existing diffusers had been used, due to their dimensions. Clause 34 of the general provisions requires that only new material be incorporated into the work, unless otherwise provided, and there is no provision for using the existing diffusers. Based upon these provisions, it is reasonable to read the contract as requiring the existing diffusers to be removed and to be replaced with new diffusers. ACC does not find any requirement in the drawings for diffusers except in restrooms and, even there, ACC does not find a requirement that it provide new diffusers. Appellant's Memorandum in Support of Entitlement at 57. ACC's reading of the contract is not reasonable because it fails to give meaning to Drawing A-1, Drawing A-2, and clause 34, which show diffusers measuring two feet square in the corridors and in the restrooms, and which require ACC to remove the existing ceiling system from the site and to install new materials. ACC's reading is also unreasonable because it does not give meaning to the requirement that ACC arrange the acoustical tiles as shown on the ceiling plan. If ACC had reinstalled the existing diffusers, it could not have arranged the acoustical tiles in the manner shown on the ceiling plan as required by the contract, due to the difference in dimensions between the existing diffusers and the diffusers shown on Drawing A-3. ACC complains because the contract does not provide the dimensions of the existing diffusers. ACC argues that, if a site inspection had been required by GSA, ACC might "have been on notice that the Drawings suggested diffuser dimensions different from the existing conditions" and that ACC might have concluded that it would have to "accommodate the existing diffusers in the ceiling plan." Appellant's Reply Memorandum at 73. There are two flaws in ACC's argument. First, the argument assumes that ACC did not conduct a site inspection. In fact, ACC conducted a site investigation before verifying its bid. Second, the argument assumes that ACC could have arranged the ceiling tiles to accommodate the existing diffusers. But, ACC was required to arrange the tiles as shown on the ceiling plan and this would not have been possible if the existing diffusers had been used. If ACC erroneously assumed that the existing diffusers were two feet square and could be reinstalled, this assumption was not prompted by the contract. Read reasonably, the contract requires ACC to replace the existing air diffusers. Because GSA advances a reasonable interpretation of the contract's terms and ACC does not, there is no ambiguity and ACC is not entitled to recover for Claim F. Claim G Findings of Fact ACC requests that the contract price be equitably adjusted to compensate for the costs it incurred in replacing the ceramic tiles on the east and southeast walls of the restrooms. According to ACC's interpretation of the contract's terms, it should not have been required to replace the tiles on these walls.[foot #] 2 Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 10. Contract section 09300, Part 1.2.A explains that the extent of the tile work is indicated on the drawings. Appeal File 11713, Exhibit 4. Drawing A-2 states that the "contractor shall remove all carpets and ceramic tiles on the walls in all bathrooms. Remove tiles up 4 feet from floor." Drawing A-2 states that the "contractor shall furnish and install ceramic tiles up 4 feet on all walls from floor." Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22. Drawing A-2 also depicts the faces of renovated restroom walls, all of which contain new ceramic tile supplied by the contractor from the floor up to a height of four feet and some of which contain "existing" ceramic tile above a height of four feet. The drawing does not contain views of the faces of the east and southeast walls. GSA explains that the drawing does not contain views of the faces of these two walls because, unlike the other walls, the east and southeast walls do not contain any unique features which needed to be called to the attention of the contractor. Respondent's Memorandum of Law at 50; Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22. ACC finds this explanation plausible. Appellant's Reply Memorandum at 76. Drawing A-2 also contains a floor plan of the existing and the renovated restrooms. The floor plan of the existing restrooms contains the word "Tile" printed inside the restroom area and the word "Carpet" printed inside the entrance area to the restrooms. The floor plan of the renovated restrooms contains the words "Existing Ceramic Tiles" printed inside the restroom area and the words "Carpet Tiles, Vinyl Wall Coverings and Suspended Ceiling Tiles By Contractor" printed inside the entrance area to the restrooms. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 22. In his November 24, 1993 affidavit, ACC's Vice President states that, when he prepared ACC's bid, he interpreted the contract to exclude work on the east and southeast restroom ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 In Claim G, ACC claim also requests compensation for the costs it incurred in providing water resistant gypsum board on the east and southeast walls of the restrooms. Claim D includes a request for these same costs. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- walls. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File 12460, Exhibit 13, 86. Discussion Drawing A-2 requires ACC to remove "all carpets and ceramic tiles on the walls in all bathrooms. Remove tiles up 4 feet from floor." Drawing A-2 also requires ACC to furnish and install ceramic tiles on "all walls." The fact that Drawing A-2 does not depict a face view of the east and southeast restroom walls is not significant, given that, unlike the other walls, the east and southeast walls do not include any unique features. One reasonable reading of the contract is that ACC was required to replace the tile on all walls, including the east and southeast walls, of the restrooms. ACC interprets Drawing A-2 as requiring tile work only where the drawing depicts a view of the face of a wall. Because Drawing A-2 does not contain a view of the face of either the east or southeast wall of the restrooms, ACC interprets the drawing as not requiring any tile work on these walls. ACC asserts that it also interprets the words "Existing Ceramic Tiles" that are printed on the floor plan of the renovated restrooms as meaning that it was not required to replace the existing ceramic tiles on the east and southeast restroom walls. Appellant's Memorandum in Support of Entitlement, pages 60-61. ACC's reading of the contract is not reasonable. ACC reads the contract as if the requirement for tile work is limited by the fact that Drawing A-2 depicts face views of some walls and does not depict face views of the east and southeast walls. But, this is not what the contract provides. The contract states that tile work is required on all walls, not on some walls. In order to interpret the contract as ACC does, we would have to read into its words a limitation that does not appear in the contract, and this is not an acceptable method for interpreting a contract. ACC's interpretation of the words "Existing Ceramic Tiles" is also unreasonable. Read in context, it is clear that these words refer to the tiles on the floors and not the tiles on the walls. Because GSA's interpretation of the contract's terms is reasonable and ACC's interpretation is not reasonable, no ambiguity exists. ACC is not entitled to recover for Claim G. Even if we were to decide that the language of the contract is ambiguous, ACC could not recover. If the language is patently ambiguous, ACC cannot recover because it made no pre-bid inquiry concerning the terms of the solicitation. If the solicitation's language is latently ambiguous, ACC cannot recover because it presents no persuasive evidence that it actually relied upon its interpretation of the solicitation, pre-bid. ACC's evidence consists of an affidavit submitted in support of these appeals and such evidence falls short of that required to establish ACC's interpretation of the solicitation's terms at the time that it bid. Decision The appeals are granted in part and denied in part. ACC is entitled to recover for Claim C and is not entitled to recover for Claims A, B, D, E, F, or G. ________________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge We concur: _____________________________ ______________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge Board Judge