______________________________________ DENIED: June 20, 1996 ______________________________________ GSBCA 13270 OMNI CONTRACTORS, INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Jack Rephan of Hofheimer, Nusbaum, McPhaul and Samuels, Norfolk, VA, counsel for Appellant. Martin A. Hom, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (CHAIRMAN), DEVINE, and DeGRAFF. DEVINE, Board Judge. Omni Contractors, Inc. (Omni) contracted to build a training center for the General Services Administration (GSA), an agency of the United States Government. A part of the work involved the installation of a heating and cooling system. A dispute arose between the parties with respect to what connection method should be used in those areas where a single round air duct joined a rectangular variable air volume box (VAV). Omni proposed a form of butt joint which involved attaching the round duct directly to the rectangular VAV. The Government contends that such a joint is forbidden by the contract terms and required Omni to install a transitional appliance in such areas. Omni seeks the cost of fabricating and installing these appliances in this appeal. Findings of Fact The parties entered into a contract dated May 24, 1991, whereby Omni was to construct a group of buildings for GSA to be known as the National Foreign Affairs Training Center, located in Arlington, Virginia. Appeal File, Exhibit 6. The contract price was $28,511,000. Id. The Gilbane Building Company (Gilbane) ran the project on behalf of GSA. Appeal File, Exhibit 21. Work began in June 1991. Appeal File, Exhibit 7. The contract required Omni to provide a heating, ventilating, and air- conditioning system (HVAC) in accordance with the contract drawings and specifications, and under the standards set out in a publication of the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association (SMACNA) which was incorporated into the contract. Appeal File, Exhibit 1. A dispute arose as to what the contract required with respect to those transition areas where a VAV box containing remote heating and cooling coils connected to a single run of round flexible duct. Complaint at 3, 4. According to Omni there are 270 such locations. Id. Omni wanted to attach the round duct directly to the downstream end of the VAV box with no intervening transitional equipment to funnel the air flow from the rectangular conformation of the VAV to the circular conformation of the downstream duct. Id. This is known in the trade, and referred to by Omni in its complaint, as a "butt tap." Complaint at 3. At hearing, however, Omni disputed that its proposed method of attachment, which involved clinching the duct directly to a circular protrusion on the VAV, was a "butt tap" but called it instead a "clinch lock" or "clinch tap." Appellant's Exhibits 7, 8; Transcript at 260-63. Omni makes the distinction because the contract specifications flatly prohibit the use of a "butt tap." The language reads: "Butt taps . . . will not be permitted." Appeal File, Exhibit 1; Government's Exhibit 1. The specification on this point reads in full as follows: "Fittings: Provide fittings shown on approved shop drawings. 1. offsets, transitions, remote coils, equipment, and field changes shall conform to SMACNA. 2. Butt taps and safing will not be permitted." Id. There are similar prohibitions against butt taps at two other places in the specifications. Appeal File, Exhibit 1. The Government did not agree with Omni's view and suggested that Omni install a ductwork reducer or a distribution box or some other appliance to make the transition, requiring only that it conform to SMACNA. Appeal File, Exhibit 10; Government's Exhibit 1. Omni complied by installing distribution boxes. These were acceptable to the Government because they complied with the requirement of the SMACNA manual which called for a maximum transition angle no greater than 45 degrees. Government's Exhibit 1. The boxes in question had transition angles of 15 degrees. Appeal File, Exhibit 12. Thus, as the air flow left the VAV box and flowed through the distribution box its cross sectional shape was changed from rectangular to circular and reduced in area by the boxes' walls which angled at only 15 degrees to the direction of flow. Id. By contrast, a butt tap such as the one originally proposed by Omni required that transitioning air flow over and against surfaces angled at ninety degrees to the direction of flow and provided no funneling effect. Appellant's Exhibit 8. Appellant alleges that the distribution boxes cost $24,057 to acquire and install. Appeal File, Exhibit 13. The testimony at hearing showed that this figure was derived from estimates and not from Omni's actual costs, which were available. Transcript at 280-81. The work was actually done by a second tier subcontractor. Omni submitted no claim for any direct costs or markups either for itself or the first tier subcontractor. Appeal File, Exhibits 13, 14. Discussion The contract language simply does not support Omni's position with respect to duct transitions. Its best argument is that since the drawings do not show the connecting appliance where only a single round duct attaches downstream of a VAV, therefore Omni could install whatever it chose. This argument, however, overlooks the fact that the specifications, in the same paragraph, also forbid butt taps and require that all HVAC installations must meet the SMACNA requirements, one of which describes the conformation of the intersection where a rectangular VAV box connects to a single round duct downstream. This intersection must have a maximum transition angle no greater than 45 degrees to the axis of air flow. The intersection initially proposed by Omni and rejected by the Government contained 90 degree transition angles, which simply did not meet SMACNA, whatever they are called. Under familiar principles we must give effect to all of the contract's provisions to the extent possible. Interwest Construction v. Brown, 760 F.2d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In addition to the fact that the contract language does not allow Omni to recover, there is also the fact that Omni has failed to prove the cost of the disputed work. Its total figure is based on estimates which were unsupported by proof, although Omni acknowledges that the actual figures exist, with no further explanation as to why they were not used. Under such circumstances estimates may not be used. Delco Electronics Corp. v. United States, 17 Cl. Ct. 302 (1989), aff'd 909 F.2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Decision For the reasons stated the appeal is DENIED. ________________ DONALD W. DEVINE Board Judge We concur: __________________ _________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS MARTHA H.DeGRAFF Board Judge Board Judge