_______________________________________________ DENIED: May 8, 1996 _______________________________________________ GSBCA 13490 GIBBS CONSTRUCTION, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Lloyd H. Crocket II, Vice President Operations of Gibbs Construction, New Orleans, LA, appearing for Appellant. Lee W. Crook, III, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX, counsel for Respondent. BORWICK, Board Judge. This is an appeal for an alleged constructive change in the amount of $1344 brought by Gibbs Construction against the respon- dent, General Services Administration (GSA). Gibbs Construction, on behalf of its mechanical subcontractor, Blanchard Mechanical Contractors Inc. (Blanchard Mechanical Contractors), maintains that GSA, through its management and inspection contractor, Waggonner & Ball, supplied an inaccurate sketch for relocation of a waste line. Gibbs Construction maintains that when it followed the sketch, a conflict was created between the location of the relocated drain and installed electrical pull-boxes. The result, says Gibbs Construction, was that it had to locate the drain a second time, at an added total cost of $1344. Gibbs Construction elected the small claims procedure under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 601-613 (1994), and Board Rule 13. The parties submitted their dispute on the record pursuant to Board Rule 11. Since this is an appeal under the small claims procedure, the opinion is issued by a single judge, the panel chairman. It is final and conclusive and shall not be set aside except in case of fraud. It shall have no value as precedent. Rule 13. We deny the appeal. The sketch did not specify any particu- lar depth for the placement of the relocated waste line, but left the depth to the discretion of the contractor. Gibbs Construc- tion had a contractual duty to coordinate trades. The conflict was caused not by the drawing, but by Gibbs Construction's failure to coordinate the mechanical and electrical trades in relocating the waste line. Findings of Fact On June 25, 1993, Gibbs Construction received a contract for the modernization and vacant space recapture of the United States Custom House, at 423 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA. Appeal File, Exhibit 2. The government agency and respondent here is the GSA. The contract work included selective demolition and instal- lation of new interior finishes, heating, ventilation and air- conditioning systems, plumbing systems, fire protection and electrical systems for the first through fourth floors of the Custom House. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 01010-2 ( 1.2E.1.), 01040-12 to 01040-15 (Diagrams). Among other things, the contract required Gibbs Construction to: Coordinate work of different trades so that interfer- ence between mechanical, electrical, architectural, and structural work, including existing structure and services, will be avoided. . . . Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 01040-3 ( 1.2C). With respect to the electrical trade, the contract required Gibbs Construction to: A. Coordinate electrical work with that of other trades so that: 1. Interference between general construction, mechan- ical, electrical, structural and other specialty trades is avoided. 2. Maintain clearances and advise other trades of clearance requirements for operation, repair, removal and testing of electrical equipment. Id. at 16010-5 ( 1.10). Gibbs Construction's mechanical subcontractor for the project was Blanchard Mechanical Contractors. Appeal File, Exhibit 8. GSA's management and inspection contractor was Waggonner & Ball. Id., Exhibit 13. On April 27, 1994, Blanchard Mechanical Contractors submit- ted a preliminary labor and material quotation for extension of pre-insulated pipes in room 148 by four feet and two inches and for the re-routing of a four-inch waste line from room 148 to room 196. Appeal File, Exhibit 4. On April 28, 1994, Gibbs Construction forwarded the information for Waggonner & Ball's review and comment. Id., Exhibits 4, 5. At a progress meeting of June 18, Gibbs Construction dis- cussed a potential conflict between electrical work and the location of an underground foundation arch: CC informed PC and COR that Blanchard's prices are no longer accurate because the work that they will do is more involved than that which ME specified. CC noted that the conduit associated with the traffic rated cast iron junction boxes in the carriageway will be in- stalled 2' underground. However, at this depth, the conduit will conflict with the foundation arch at the adjacent window/chase, which is about 1'-6" below the surface of the finished concrete. PC noted that the conduit must be 2' underground according to code and that SE will not allow the arch to be cut, therefore the boxes will have to be moved. CC added that the boxes can be installed anywhere. PC will consult with EE. Appellant's Record Submission, Exhibit 8. Acting on Gibbs Construction's request of April 28, Waggo- nner & Ball prepared a sketch for the use of Gibbs Construction in re-routing the waste line. The sketch, in a bird's eye view, shows the south-east quadrant of the first floor with the waste line relocated from room 148 to room 196. The sketch's note five states: "NEW 4 [inch] WASTE BELOW GRADE," but does not specify how far below grade the waste line was to be installed. Nothing in the sketch shows the below-grade depth of the re-routed waste line. Appeal File, Exhibit 6 at 5 (Sketch). On August 29, Waggonner & Ball sent the sketch to Gibbs Construction and requested a detailed cost proposal no later than September 12. Id., Exhibit 6. In the course of developing its cost estimate, Gibbs Con- struction forwarded both the sketch and Waggonner & Ball's request for a cost proposal to the electrical subcontractor, Fisk Electric Company (Fisk Electric). On September 8, Fisk Electric told Gibbs Construction that it had found no electrical work that would warrant any cost change. Nevertheless, it warned Gibbs Construction that the mechanical chase involved in the proposed change was congested, and that the problem was compounded by the presence of an underground masonry archway that could "hinder the installation of our components." Fisk Electric "strongly sug- gest[ed]" that the "situation be carefully reviewed." Appeal File, Exhibit 9. On November 29, Blanchard Mechanical Contractors advised Gibbs Construction that Blanchard Mechanical Contractors incurred an additional $1212 in installing the waste line because the line had to be moved to accommodate the new electrical junction box being installed. Appeal File, Exhibit 11. Gibbs Construction, in turn, reported the problem to Waggonner & Ball: Blanchard Mechanical installed the 4" sanitary sewer line according to this sketch, when we started to form up the electrical pull boxes as per Sheet 9-E-0009 we found the location of the 4" sewer line in conflict with the electrical pull boxes; as a result of this conflict Blanchard Mechanical had replaced and lowered the 4" sewer line. Id., Exhibit 12. Gibbs Construction sought an additional $1344, which was Blanchard Mechanical Contractors's quotation of $1212 plus mark-ups. Id. On December 8, Waggonner & Ball advised Gibbs Construction that the charge was not justified: "It is the responsibility of the General Contractor to coordinate the work of all trades. You had full knowledge of the electrical work in the area and should have located the plumbing so as not to be in conflict." Appeal File, Exhibit 13. After several exchanges of letters between Waggonner & Ball and Gibbs Construction, GSA's contracting officer finally advised Gibbs Construction that: the installation of the sewer line should have been closely coordinated with the installation of the under- ground electrical. The location of the underground electrical should have been taken into consideration during the installation of the sewer line. It appears Blanchard did not install the sewer line at a proper height to avoid a conflict. The Government is not in a position to pay for errors caused by the contractor and/or his subcontractors' failure to coordinate the work. Id., Exhibit 17. After further exchange of correspondence with the Government, on September 14, Gibbs Construction filed a claim with the contracting officer. Id., Exhibit 23. On September 20, the contracting officer denied the claim. Id., Exhibit 24. This appeal followed. Discussion In its record submission memorandum, Gibbs Construction, on behalf of its subcontractor Blanchard Mechanical Contractors, maintains that: [T]he necessity to move the drain lines a second time was created by the failure of the Architect and Engi- neer to provide accurate sketches for the original work taking into account the work of other subcontractors in the same area. At all times, Blanchard cooperated with Gibbs, the Architect and Engineer to provide work in accordance with the plans and specifications in a timely manner even to the point of jeopardizing its position by proceeding with work without the benefit of a change order. This was done to avoid any delays in the continued progress of the project. It is evident that Blanchard performed the work and should be compen- sated for the same in the sum of $1212. Appellant's Record Submission at 2-3. Generally, it is true that the Government will be liable to a contractor when the contractor incurs extra costs as a result of following the Government's specifications or drawings which are defective. Skipper & Co., ASBCA 30327, et al., 89-1 BCA 21,490, at 108,279; cf. United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132, 135 (1918); Blount Brothers Corp. v. United States, 872 F.2d 1003, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The issue of liability in this appeal, however, turns on whether the sketch left the precise depth for the relocated waste line to the contractor's discretion. Blake Construction Co. v. United States, 987 F.2d 743, 746 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, while GSA, through Waggonner & Ball, directed that the drain be moved from room 148 to room 196 and be placed "below grade," GSA did not direct that the drain be placed at any particular depth below the grade. Contrary to appellant's argument, Waggonner & Ball's sketch was not inaccurate; it was vague--deliberately so--as to the depth of the relocated waste line. Waggonner & Ball, and GSA, expected Gibbs Construction to coordinate the placement of the depth of the waste line with other trades. The coordination clauses of the contract placed that duty on Gibbs Construction. Fisk Electric, upon reviewing the sketch, had warned Gibbs Construction that the area where the waste line was to be relo- cated was congested. Apparently, Gibbs Construction did not heed that warning and coordinate trades to avoid what later became a conflict between the depth of the waste line and the location of electrical pull boxes. The conflict was caused not by the sketch, but by Gibbs Construction's failure to coordinate trades. Gibbs Construction has not established its entitlement to recov- ery under the contract for this problem. Decision The appeal is DENIED. _________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge