DENIED: September 30, 1996
                                                 
 
 
                              GSBCA 13637
 
 
                    D. L. WOODS CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
 
                                                Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
        Richard L. Ratliff, President of Don-Lee Inc., Indianapolis,
   IN, appearing for Appellant.
 
        Derwin P. Richardson,  Office of  Regional Counsel,  General
   Services Administration, Chicago, IL, counsel for Respondent.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).
 
        The  General Services  Administration (GSA)  entered into  a
   contract   with  D.  L.  Woods  Construction,  Inc.  (Woods)  for
   expansion and repair of the Federal Building and U.S.  Courthouse
   in Indianapolis, Indiana.   Woods subcontracted a portion of  the
   job to Don-Lee Inc.
 
        Woods,  on  behalf  of  Don-Lee,  claims  that  Don-Lee  was
   "wrongfully  and erroneously required by the Government to submit
   twenty-three individual  sets of  submittals along  with six  (6)
   shop drawings not  called for in the contract  documents."  Woods
   asked GSA to pay it $2,846 as compensation for  the time involved
   in making these  submittals and shop drawings (which  we refer to
   collectively as  submittals).   The contracting  officer believed
   that  the  contract  permitted  him to  require  that  all  these
   submittals be provided, and consequently denied the claim.
 
        Woods appealed the  contracting officer's  decision to  this
   Board and elected  to have the case considered  under the Board's
   small claims procedure.   The case is  consequently being decided
   by a  single judge,  whose decision is  final and  conclusive and
   shall not be set aside except in case of fraud.  The decision has
   no value  as precedent.  41 U.S.C.   608  (1994); Rule 13 (48 CFR
   6101.13 (1995)).
 
 
        After  a complaint and answer were filed, the Board convened
   a telephonic conference to discuss this case.  We asked Don-Lee's
   president, who was  representing Woods pursuant to  a sponsorship
   agreement between the  two firms, to provide us with a listing of
   all  submittals  which  appellant   believes  were  mandated   by
   respondent,  but were  either  not required  by  the contract  or
   otherwise unnecessary.  We also asked to have, for  each of these
   submittals, an explanation of why the appellant believes that the
   submittal was  either not required  by the contract  or otherwise
   unnecessary.
 
        The appellant filed a restatement  of its claim, but not the
   listing or explanation we had requested.  The Board then convened
   a  second telephonic  conference,  in  which  we  explained  that
   without the list and explanation, we would have no basis on which
   to  grant  the  appeal.     We  afforded  the  appellant  another
   opportunity to send us  the necessary information.   In response,
   the  appellant filed portions of the contract specifications, but
   no list of allegedly unnecessary submittals.
 
        The   question   posed   by  this   case   is   whether  GSA
   constructively changed  contract requirements by  causing Don-Lee
   to spend money preparing and sending to the agency, in the course
   of  contract performance, submittals  which were not  required by
   the contract.   This question  can be answered only  by examining
   each of  the submittals considered  by Don-Lee and Woods  to have
   been  in excess of contract requirements,  and then reviewing the
   specifications, to determine whether the specifications authorize
   the  agency to  demand the  submittals.   The  appellant has  the
   burden of proof as to its  claim.  Because Don-Lee has not  shown
   us even a single submittal,  we are unable to make  the necessary
   analysis.    As  we  explained  to  the  appellant  earlier,   we
   consequently have no basis for granting the appeal.
 
        The appeal is therefore DENIED.
 
                                      _________________________
                                      STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                      Board Judge