________________________________________ MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED: April 2, 1996 ________________________________________ GSBCA 12974 OLD DOMINION SECURITY, INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Ronald W. Maust, President, and Judy Mashburn, Contract Specialist, of Old Dominion Security, Inc., Hampton, VA, appearing for Appellant. Kenneth E. Kendell, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Philadelphia, PA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges HYATT, DeGRAFF, and GOODMAN. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. On March 19, 1996, Old Dominion Security, Inc. (Old Dominion) filed what it calls a "revised" claim with the Board. On March 28, 1996, the General Services Administration (GSA) filed an objection to the revised claim and asked us to dismiss this appeal. GSA's motion to dismiss is denied. Background The parties entered into a contract for guard services. Old Dominion submitted a claim to the contracting officer on April 7, 1994, asking to recover costs related to guard services it provided at three locations. Old Dominion asserted that GSA changed the contract by adding guard services, and asked for an equitable adjustment to the contract price of $38,879.28 pursuant to the contract's Changes clause. A portion of this amount was for services provided at St. Helena's Annex. The contracting officer denied the claim on June 9, 1994, and Old Dominion filed this appeal. On November 16, 1994, Old Dominion filed its complaint in this appeal. According to the complaint, GSA's solicitation explained that the contractor would be required to fulfill GSA's requirements for guard services, and did not explain that GSA might take over security requirements for other federal agencies and add those requirements to the contract. Old Dominion alleged that, after it was awarded the contract, GSA added security services at other federal buildings and that these added services increased Old Dominion's costs. Old Dominion alleged that the estimates contained in GSA's solicitation were understated and were not based upon all of the information available to GSA. Old Dominion's complaint states that, if GSA intended to take over guard services for other federal agencies, it should have told bidders this because such information was available only to GSA. The March 19, 1996 revised claim asserts that GSA changed the contract by adding guard services, and asks for an equitable adjustment to the contract price pursuant to the contract's Changes clause. The March 19, 1996 revised claim differs from the April 7, 1994 claim in three respects. First, the revised claim requests costs related to guard services that Old Dominion provided at just one location, St. Helena's Annex. Second, the revised claim is for a lesser amount, $19,119.99. Third, the revised claim states in several places that Old Dominion is entitled to recover because, when GSA issued the solicitation, GSA had "superior knowledge" that it would need guard services at St. Helena's Annex. Old Dominion asserts that it obtained evidence of this "superior knowledge" during discovery. Discussion There is no reason to dismiss this appeal. The appeal was timely filed, states a claim upon which relief can be granted, and falls within our jurisdiction. In its March 28, 1996 filing, GSA assumes that Old Dominion's March 19 revised claim is actually a new claim, and seems to think that this requires us to dismiss this appeal. We are not sure whether the March 19 claim is a new claim or whether Old Dominion simply intends to offer evidence of what it calls "superior knowledge" in support of its claim for an equitable adjustment pursuant to the Changes clause. Even if the March 19 claim is new, this is no reason to dismiss this appeal, which is based upon the April 7, 1994 claim. Decision The motion to dismiss is DENIED. _____________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge We concur: ______________________________ ______________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge Board Judge