______________________________________________ GSBCA 12267, 12890 GRANTED IN PART; GSBCA 12781 DENIED: May 12, 1997 ______________________________________________ GSBCA 12267, 12781, 12890 FIRE SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. John M. Frazier of Peatross, Greer & Frazier, Shreveport, LA; and Terrence M. O'Connor, Alexandria, VA, counsel for Appellant. Robert C. Smith and Martin A. Hom, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges BORWICK, NEILL, and HYATT. NEILL, Board Judge. This series of claims concerns a contract for the installation of a fire sprinkler system and the modification of the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system in the United States courthouse in Los Angeles, California. The contract was awarded to appellant, Fire Security Systems, Inc. (Fire Security) by the General Services Administration (GSA). The Board, after consolidating the claims, held a hearing on them in San Francisco, California. By agreement of the parties, the hearing, briefing, and, therefore, this decision are limited to the issue of entitlement. We consider and decide each claim in turn. Many of our findings of fact are grouped under the heading of the case to which they most specifically pertain, but they may be applicable to the other cases as well. Findings of Fact Solicitation Provisions 1. The solicitation for the contract from which these disputes arise provided for award of a fixed-price contract. Bidders were invited to submit a base bid and bids for three separate options. The work called for was summarized as follows: 1. Base Bid: Installation of sprinklers in all unsprinklered areas above the first floor, including centrifugal fire pumps, jockey pumps, sprinkler heads, laterals, and crossmains, risers, fire department connections, and removal of the existing fire pump and appurtenances. 2. Bid Option No. 1: Installation of an emergency generator set with appurtenances and associated systems required. 3. Bid Option No. 2: Inst[a]llation of a 20,000-gallon fire protection water storage tank. 4. Bid Option No. 3: Modification of the existing HVAC system above the fifth floor to a variable volume system. Appeal File, GSBCA 12358, Exhibit 1 at 01010-2. 2. The bid schedule provided with the solicitation required bidders to submit a price for the lump-sum bid and a separate price for each of the three options. In addition, the bid schedule also contained a unit price schedule for eight categories of materials or services. Bidders were to list a unit price for each of the eight categories. Appeal File, GSBCA 12358, Exhibit 1, Part II. 3. The purpose of the request for unit prices was explained in a specific section of the solicitation entitled "Unit Prices." That section stated: A unit price is an amount proposed by Bidders and stated on the Bid Form as a price per unit of measurement for materials or services that will be added to or deducted from the Contractor [sic] Sum by Change Order if estimated quantities of Work required by Contract Documents are increased or decreased. Appeal File, GSBCA 12358, Exhibit 1 at 01026-1. This same section of the solicitation likewise provided that the unit prices were to be inclusive of "necessary material, overhead, profit, and applicable taxes." Id. 4. The eight categories of materials or services and the estimated quantities to be used in pricing the items on the unit price schedule were listed as follows on the bid schedule: 1. Demolition: Ductwork - $/SF (13,000 FT) Ceiling Tiles - $/SF (162,500 FT) 2. VAV Boxes - $/EA (60 EA) 3. Ductwork - $/LB (17,000 LB) 4. Insulation - $/SF (15,000 FT) 5. Ceiling Diffusers - $/EA (1,200 EA) 6. Conduit, 3", 4# 350 MCM - $/LF (370 LF) 7. Asbestos Removal - $/SF (100 SF) 8. Modification of Control at Existing Boxes with New Thermostat and Air Tubing - $/EA (240 EA) Appeal File, GSBCA 12358, Exhibit 1 at 01026-1. 5. In a separate section of the solicitation entitled "Supplementary Instructions to Bidders" was the following statement regarding a bidder's base bid: Base Bid: One lump sum is required. Lump sum bid shall not include any work for which unit price is required. Appeal File, GSBCA 12358, Exhibit 1 at 00120-3. Appellant's Bid 6. On its bid schedule, Fire Security did list: a lump sum bid, unit prices, and a separate price for each of the three options. For item one of the unit prices, "Demolition," Fire Security listed a rate of $8.75 per square foot for ductwork and a rate of $1.10 per square foot for ceiling tiles. For item seven, Asbestos Removal, Fire Security quoted a rate of $107 per square foot. Appeal File, GSBCA 12358, Exhibit 4. 7. Fire Security's president testified that prior to award, he was asked by the contracting officer to submit a written verification of his bid. Transcript, Vol. 7 at 136. He did so by letter dated September 11, 1990. The letter read, in part, as follows: As requested[,] I have reviewed the plans, specifications, and amendments to verify our bid of August 23, 1990. After completing this review with my staff[,] we have agreed that our proposal covers all work required by your bid package and we are satisfied with our price and we are ready to enter into a contract with the GSA on this project. As to what the work items for the lump sum bid amount includes: (1) The complete fire sprinkler system for all unsprinklered areas of the building above the 1st floor. (2) New standpipe systems as shown. (3) New Fire pumps as shown. (4) Remove existing fire pump. (5) Hook-up of electrical components, pumps, switches, fire alarm extensions, and modifications as shown. (6) General Construction as needed for demolition and repair to walls, floors and ceilings where required by installation of new work. (7) New general construction work as noted in bid documents. I understand the unit prices listed on the bid schedule to be for extra work which is not detailed on the bid drawings. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12781, Exhibit 3. The same letter also notes the following with regard to the price bid for Option 3: This option is complete with all items shown such as VAV boxes, diffusers, ductwork, insulation, and demolition of old systems. This option price does not require additional unit cost to be added to have a finished system. Id. Contract Award 8. On September 26, 1990, Fire Security was awarded a fixed- price contract for the base bid work and for Options 1 and 2. Appeal File, GSBCA 12358, Exhibit 4. Option 3 was not awarded because of limited funds and because, prior to award, GSA concluded that the HVAC system would most likely require later reevaluation. Id., Exhibit 3. Appellant received its notice to proceed on February 20, 1991. Id., Exhibit 5. Appellant's Ceiling Tile Claim (GSBCA 12781) Appellant s Claim 9. On December 23, 1993, appellant submitted a claim for $167,094.60. The claim notes: [T]he contract has a unit price of $1.10 sq. ft. for ceiling tile demolition. During the construction[,] Fire Security Systems has removed and replaced 160,086 sq. ft. of ceiling tiles. The breakdown is 114,286 sq. ft. for construction crews and 45,800 sq. ft. for survey crews. Appeal File, GSBCA 12781, Exhibit 3. Contracting Officer s Decision 10. By letter dated February 10, 1994, the GSA contracting officer rendered a decision which denied the claim. The contracting officer took the position that the unit price which serves as the basis of appellant's claim is not even a part of the contract. He explained that, while the solicitation did not clearly indicate the fact, the unit prices required in the bid schedule were associated only with Option 3. Consequently, since Option 3 was not awarded, the unit prices should not be considered included in the contract. Appeal File, GSBCA 12781, Exhibit 4. Fire Security promptly appealed this decision. Id., Exhibit 5. Relevant Contract Provisions 11. The contract requires appellant to provide: recessed sprinklers in areas with suspended ceilings that are pendant type with pipe and fittings located above the suspended ceiling. Appeal File, GSBCA 12358, Exhibit 1 at 15330-7. 12. The contract also provides: Existing work shall be cut, drilled, altered, removed, or temporarily removed and replaced as necessary for performance of work under the contract. Appeal File, GSBCA 12358, Exhibit 1 at 01010-3 to 4. 13. The contract describes types of selective demolition called for under the contract as follows: Demolition requires the selective removal and subsequent offsite disposal of the following: 1. Portions of building structure as required to accommodate new mechanical duct and sprinkler installation construction. 2. Cushion Tank, Fire pump, and fire pump controller. Appeal File, GSBCA 12358, Exhibit 1 at 02070-1. 14. The contract also requires the contractor to submit for review, prior to commencement of work, "a schedule indicating proposed methods and sequence of operations for selective demolition work." Testimony of Appellant s President 15. Appellant's president agreed on cross-examination that the compensation of $1.10 per square foot, which serves as the basis of Fire Security's claim, relates to ceiling tile that was removed and reinstalled as part of sprinkler work. Transcript, Vol. 7 at 141. It was then pointed out to this witness, by counsel for GSA, that the unit price of $1.10 appears on the unit price schedule under the heading entitled "Demolition." The witness was then asked if the taking down and reinstallation of ceiling tiles during the course of sprinkler work is considered demolition work. He replied: It can be considered demolition work. If you break any of them, it's demolition. Id. at 147-48. Appellant's Claim for Additional Compensation Under Contract Modification P007 (GSBCA 12267) Asbestos on Site 16. The solicitation identified for bidders those areas in the building which were known to have asbestos-containing material (ACM). Bidders were also advised that areas behind undisturbed walls and/or ceilings might also have ACM. Appeal File, GSBCA 12358, Exhibit 1 at 02085A-1 to A-4. An amendment to the solicitation later advised bidders that they should assume that work on the contract would not disturb asbestos-containing materials in the facility. Id., GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 28 (Solicitation Amendment No. 3 at 3.) 17. Following contract award, Fire Security discovered additional areas containing asbestos. This was subsequently verified by certified industrial hygienists. GSA eventually determined that the sprinkler installation would be affected by this ACM. The contractor was required to drill sprinkler head holes or sprinkler line hanger anchor holes through cementitious plaster ceilings binded by asbestos fibers. The drilling action would cause release of microscopic asbestos fibers into the air. These asbestos fibers required containment using proven and acceptable containment techniques. Friable asbestos debris was also encountered in areas where sprinkler lines were to be routed. Asbestos debris was also located where the fitters would be working above the false ceilings. This required that the fitters wear protective clothing and respirators. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 2 at 1-3 (unnumbered). First Suspension of Work Notice 18. By letter dated April 18, 1991, the contracting officer issued a suspension of work notice in accordance with the contract s Suspension of Work clause. The notice advised Fire Security that during the period of suspension, it was not authorized to perform work on its contract. The notice likewise assured the contractor that additional time would be provided for contract performance in view of the suspension and that an equitable adjustment would be negotiated upon resumption of work. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 4. The notice was rescinded by the contracting officer by letter dated June 6, 1991. Id., Exhibit 5. 19. Documentation in the record indicates that during the second half of 1991, the Government continued to check for asbestos and to advise the contractor when samples taken indicated any asbestos content. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibits 6-7. Proposal Request Nos. 7 and 8 20. By letter dated January 21, 1992, the contracting officer issued proposal request no. 8 (PR08). The request called for extensive asbestos abatement on several floors of the courthouse. The abatement requirement included not only asbestos removal, but also a considerable amount of encapsulation of ACM as well. The contractor was requested to provide the proposal within ten days. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 8. Another proposal request, PR07, covering additional areas but more limited in scope, was issued to appellant shortly thereafter on January 27. This too requested the contractor to reply within ten days Id., Exhibit 9. 21. Two months later, on March 31, 1992, Fire Security submitted proposals in response to both PR07 and PR08. Together, both proposals covered an estimated area in excess of 74,000 square feet. Using the unit price of $107 per square foot for "Asbestos Removal," included in its original offer, appellant proposed to do the work for both proposal requests for a total $8,011,411. Each proposal was no more than a page in length and contained no material or labor breakdown and no supporting cost or pricing data. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibits 11-12. Directed Change No. 3 22. By letter dated May 6, 1992, the contracting officer provided Fire Security with a scope of work for asbestos abatement which was somewhat more detailed than the instructions provided with PR07 and PR08. The contracting officer asked that a cost proposal be prepared and submitted. In making this request, he reminded appellant that, under the contract, a detailed material and labor breakdown was required. He also noted that cost or pricing data would be required because the proposal was for work in excess of $100,000. He enclosed for the contractor's use a standard form 1411, i.e., a contract pricing proposal cover sheet, and associated instructions for preparing cost or pricing proposals. Appellant was asked to submit the proposal no later than May 22. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 13. Given the complexity of the scope of work provided, Fire Security asked for additional time, until June 1, to prepare its proposal. Id., Exhibit 14. 23. On May 21, 1992, the contracting officer issued a directed change containing basically the same scope of work as previously provided to appellant in his letter of May 6. The change order directed appellant to submit a proposal with cost or pricing data by June 8. It established June 22 as the date for the start of definitization negotiations and July 2 as the target date for issuing a definitized modification. It further stated: The contractor is hereby authorized and directed to perform the lesser of 40% of the work effort described on the attached scope of work, or $144,800.00. The contractor is not to exceed the lesser of these amounts without further authorization from the Contracting Officer. Appeal File, GSBCA 12358, Exhibit 4 (Modification PC03). 24. By letter dated June 3, 1992, the contracting officer's representative (COR) reminded appellant of the due date for its proposal and also requested that Fire Security provide an asbestos action plan by June 8 as well. He warned appellant that responsibility for any delay resulting from failure to provide these materials would fall on Fire Security itself. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 15. By letter dated June 15, the COR again wrote to appellant pointing out that neither the proposal nor the asbestos action plan had been received. Id., Exhibit 16. 25. By letter dated June 25, 1992, appellant submitted its proposal and asbestos action plan. The price proposal was less than one page. Based again on the unit price of $107 per square foot rate, it totaled $1,216,022. It contained no labor and material breakdown and was supported by no cost or pricing data. Under a section in the proposal entitled "Items not Priced," appellant listed a number of items which could eventually affect the final price. One item was the cost of preparing a proposal in response to PR08. Another read: If not for this RFP, Fire Security Systems would be complete and off this project. The cost of maintaining administration for each day of extended performance will be part of the final price of the modification. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 17. 26. By letter dated June 29, 1992, a GSA contract specialist responded to appellant, pointing out that the proposal submitted was not subdivided to show direct costs, overhead, profit, and commission as required by the Equitable Adjustments clause of the contract. The contract specialist also noted that, because the proposal was in excess of $100,000, appellant should provide certified cost or pricing data. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 18. 27. Fire Security replied by letter dated July 7, 1992. It refused to comply with the Government's request. It stated that changes to the contract for which there is a unit price do not require equitable adjustment price proposals or certified cost or pricing data. In support of its position, appellant cited various court and board decisions and enclosed a copy of one it considered to be particularly on point. Fire Security pointed out that GSA was delaying performance by unreasonably insisting that the unit price for removal of asbestos be certified and supported by cost or pricing data. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 19. 28. With this same letter of July 7, 1992, Fire Security provided updated pricing in response to Modification PC03. Specifically, prices were provided for some of the items mentioned in the submission of June 25 (Finding 25) but not priced at that time. Among the updated prices was a claim for $9,000 for work done to respond to PR08. Another item read "Extended Administrative Cost[:] $27,820." With the price for this item and the other items previously not priced, appellant's proposal now totaled $1,272,649. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 19. Directed Change No. 5 29. Shortly thereafter, on July 10, 1992, representatives of the parties met in Los Angeles to discuss the scope of work issued with Modification PC03. The Government decided to call the meeting after a review of Fire Security's June 25 proposal (Finding 25) revealed a major discrepancy between what the GSA wanted and what the contractor perceived as the Government's requirements. Appeal File, GSBCA 12890, Exhibit 2 at 1. At that meeting, changes were made in the scope of work. The Government then advised appellant that this revised scope would replace the earlier version previously provided with Modification PC03. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 20. By letter dated July 15, the contract specialist provided appellant with a copy of the revised statement of work and requested appellant to submit a new proposal based on the revised statement. Appellant was asked to submit the proposal by July 17 and to furnish cost or pricing data. The letter expressly advised appellant not to start work on any of the proposed changes until Fire Security s proposal was accepted by the Government and the contract modified. Id. 30. By letter dated July 17, appellant's project manager advised the contract specialist that Fire Security could not proceed with this third request for a proposal until paid for work on the first two requests and for work already completed under Contract Modification PC03. The letter also noted that the delays resulting from negotiations had become critical on June 15, 1992. The letter, however, did provide pricing for the work described in the revised scope of work and for certain specific claims. Among these claims was a claim for $9,000 for work done to respond to PR08 and a claim of $27,820 for "extended administrative cost." The pricing for asbestos abatement was based on the contract unit price of $107 per square foot. The price for this work and the various claims came to a total of $884,599. The letter advised that there would be no certified cost or pricing data. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 21. 31. Fire Security supplemented its price proposal of July 17 with a submission dated July 21. This submission, which came to a total of $362,395, was said to represent additional costs resulting from personnel working in an asbestos contaminated space. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 22. 32. In a letter dated July 28, 1992, the GSA contract specialist replied to appellant's letter of July 7 (Findings 27- 28). GSA's position regarding the unit prices was the same as that which it was to take at a later date with regard to appellant's claim for ceiling tile demolition (Finding 10). The contract specialist argued that the unit price schedule upon which appellant was relying was not part of appellant's contract but was intended instead for use only in connection with Option 3. She further noted that, in any event, cost or pricing data was required because of the great difference between appellant's proposed prices and the Government's estimate for the same work. She explained that, without the cost or pricing data, it would be difficult for the Government to determine the cause of this disparity. She also reminded appellant that its contract was primarily for fire sprinkler work and not asbestos abatement, and that GSA did not currently have either the authority or funds to proceed with a full-scale abatement project. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 23. 33. In a lengthy letter, dated August 7, 1992, Fire Security vigorously challenged GSA's assertion that the unit price schedule was not included in its contract. Various arguments were offered in support of the contention that the unit price for asbestos removal should be considered part of appellant's contract and should, therefore, be used as the basis for pricing any asbestos abatement work now required by the GSA. The letter closed with the following warning: We are at a point in the project that we cannot keep personnel working on site without a finalization of this change. If we are unable to resolve this issue immediately, we will be required to demobilize in order to keep our delay cost to a minimum. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 25. 34. In partial response to Fire Security s letter of August 7, the on-site COR, by letter dated August 17, responded to appellant s threat to demobilize its work force. He stated that a great deal of work remained on site for Fire Security s fitters and electrician. The letter contained a floor-by-floor detailed status report which identified work accomplished and work remaining to be done. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 27. 35. A follow-up letter from the contracting officer himself, dated August 31, 1992, observed that appellant had failed to make progress notwithstanding the most recent unilateral change order, PC05, which directed the contractor to prosecute diligently the revised scope of work up to the lesser of $144,800 or 40% of the scope of work. The letter referred to the COR's letter of August 17 and reminded appellant of its obligation under the contract to proceed with the work called for even if agreement on price has not been reached. On the question of certified cost and pricing data, the contracting officer indicated a willingness to reconsider the matter if the price proposed by Fire Security could be determined to be reasonable "through other means." Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 29. 36. Appellant's response to the contracting officer's letter of August 31, was immediate. By letter bearing the same date, Fire Security complained that it had spent numerous man hours, travel costs, design costs, and overhead costs to provide GSA with information to develop the scope of work. It contended that it was the Government and not Fire Security which had failed to act diligently. The letter made no reference, however, to the contracting officer's comments regarding an alternative approach to the requirement for cost or pricing data. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 30. The Meeting of September 2, 1992 37. In preparation for a meeting with the contractor on September 2, 1992, the contract specialist prepared a prenegotiation memorandum for the contracting officer's approval. This memorandum, dated September 1, provides some insight into the change in the contracting officer's position regarding the need for cost or pricing data. The memorandum explains that the Government's program office had converted appellant's price of $107 per square foot to a "price per spot" of $315. This price was found to compare favorably with a recently negotiated "price per spot" of $320 for similar work at another federal building in the area. It was also noted that, although the prices offered for asbestos removal by other bidders in this procurement differed widely, Fire Security's unit price of $107 was submitted "in a competitive environment" and compared favorably with those offered. It was also recognized, however, that there was a significant difference in the square footage between that indicated in the solicitation for this unit price and that indicated in the scope of work the Government intended to negotiate. Nevertheless, given this element of competition and the favorable comparison of Fire Security's converted rate to that negotiated for similar work in anther contract, GSA was now of the opinion that the contractor's $107 rate appeared to be fair and reasonable. This was not a conclusion readily reached by GSA contracting and technical officials. Rather it was reached only after several meetings. It also appears to have been supported, for the most part, by revised Government estimates which GSA obtained from an independent contractor. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12358, Exhibit 13 at 3-4. 38. On September 2, 1992, representatives of Fire Security met in Los Angeles with the contracting officer, his staff, and a GSA consultant. The purpose of the meeting was to negotiate prices on the individual items set out in the scope of work. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 3 at 1-3. Fire Security's prices for the scope of work items were based on the unit price of $107 per square foot for asbestos removal and were those submitted with appellant's letter of July 17, 1992. Compare Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 21 with Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 3 at 3. Appellant's proposed prices for the scope of work items, which totaled $842,667, were reduced during the negotiation session to $94,091. This reduction, however, was effected through the deletion of items rather than by any concessions on the part of appellant with regard to the unit price rate of $107 per square foot. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 3 at 3. 39. Of the items deleted from the scope of work during negotiations, the two most significant ones were for asbestos abatement on the second floor (priced by the contractor at $116,242) and abatement on the fourth floor (priced by appellant at $571,166). Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 3 at 3. The decision to delete the work on the fourth floor was made because GSA did not have sufficient funds for the work. The second floor work was deleted because of a differing site condition (an excessive number of pillars). In addition, the Chief Judge had objected to disruption of his second floor courtroom by the work proposed. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12358, Exhibit 13 at 4. Following the meeting on September 2, the contracting officer concluded that the work on the third floor should be deleted as well. This decision appears to have been based on a disagreement which developed after the meeting on September 2 concerning what the parties had actually agreed upon for the third floor. In addition, after that meeting, conditions similar to those previously found on the second and fourth floor were found to exist on the third floor as well. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 32; Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 3 at 3. Fire Security's Subsequent Submissions 40. At the start of the meeting on September 2, 1992, the contractor was advised that, in the absence of supporting documentation, the Government would not discuss or negotiate appellant's claim for (i) costs to develop PR08, (ii) costs of attending a meeting with GSA representatives on July 10, and (iii) extended administrative expenses. The summary of negotiations set out in the Government's price negotiation memorandum states that Fire Security's representatives said that they would provide the requested certified cost or pricing data to the contracting officer by September 9. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 3 at 2. 41. Under cover of a Standard Form 1411 (Contract Pricing Proposal Cover Sheet) dated September 11, 1992, Fire Security submitted a claim of $229,755 for field fabrication and loss of productivity. This was intended to replace a similar claim in the amount of $362,395 which had been submitted on July 21 (Finding 31). Along with this submission, Fire Security also provided a short typewritten summary of costs associated with the preparation of replies to the Government's various proposal requests. Included in this listing, as a cost associated with appellant's response to the current revised scope of work, was a claim of $4200 for "Consultant Fees." A handwritten note next to this typed entry reads "SSPEC, Inc. (Legal Fees)." This submission of appellant did not contain any documentation in support of its claim for extended administrative costs. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 31; Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 3 at 5. Contract Modification P007 42. By letter dated October 20, 1992, Fire Security complained to the contracting officer concerning his delay in issuing a modification reflecting agreements allegedly reached at the meeting on September 2. At that meeting, according to Fire Security, GSA had agreed to pay the $107 rate for abatement work, the costs of preparing previous price proposals that had not been finalized, and extended performance costs related to delay in reaching agreement on asbestos removal. The letter advised the contracting officer that, if payment was not made, appellant would consider the matter in dispute. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 33. 43. Within the week, GSA provided Fire Security with a draft contract modification. The modification was intended for the contractor's signature. It contained a slightly revised scope of work and identified both the items which were to be done and those which were to be deleted. The prices negotiated for the items to be done were based on the contractor's rate of $107 per square foot, although this is not expressly stated. For this appeal, the following provisions in the draft modification are of particular importance: (3) The parties did not reach an agreement regarding an equitable time adjustment to the contract for the asbestos abatement work added to the contract by Directed Changes PC03 and PC05. (4) The parties did not reach an agreement regarding the following items included in Fire Security Systems' definitization proposal dated 07/17/92: (a) Cost to develop RPF[sic]8---Contractor's proposed price $9,000.00 (b) Trip/Meeting of 07/10/92---Contractor's proposed price $3,000.00 (c) Extended Administrative Costs-- Contractor's proposed price $27,820.00 (5) The Government agreed to consider/evaluate the remaining undefinitized costs proposed by Fire Security Systems in their definitization proposals dated 07/17/92 and 07/21/92 upon receipt of Certified Cost or Pricing Data. (6) If the parties are unable to reach a mutually agreeable complete and equitable adjustment for both time and costs associated with Directed Changes PC03 and PC05 by 11/05/92, the contracting officer shall determine a complete and equitable adjustment unilaterally in accordance with the Equitable Adjustments Clause of the contract (GSAR Clause 552.243-71). Any such unilateral adjustment shall be subject to the Disputes Clause of the contract (FAR Clause 52.233-1, Alt. I). Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 36. 44. Fire Security promptly replied to the contracting officer regarding the proposed modification. By letter dated October 29, 1992, appellant returned the draft unsigned. Appellant expressed dissatisfaction with deletion of the scope of work items and reminded the contracting officer that deletion of them was not by mutual agreement but at the direction of the Government. Appellant also complained that certain provisions had been added to the scope of work which would result in a substantial increase in costs. Finally, appellant insisted that the matters left unresolved in provisions three and four must be resolved in the contract modification. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 38. 45. With its letter of October 29, 1992, Fire Security sent supporting documentation for its claim for costs associated with its response to GSA's various proposal requests. Included in this material was documentation supporting appellant's claim of $1710.55 in travel costs incurred by appellant's project manager to prepare a reply to PR08. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 38. Appellant's president testified that this trip from the home office to Los Angeles was taken by the project manager to meet and confer with potential subcontractors regarding the work called for in PR08. He testified that he knew of no other reason why the trip was undertaken. Transcript, Vol. 7 at 156-58. 46. Appellant also submitted with its letter of October 29, four invoices from its consultant, now identified as SSPEC SO CAL, Inc. The entries on these invoices are summary in nature and involve abbreviations which are not always intelligible. The first invoice, which runs from May 28 to June 4, 1992, seeks payment for twenty-one hours said to be spent for "Meeting Preparation/Review Plans & Specs, Documents" and "Debrief Tapes." The remaining three invoices run from July 7 to August 31, 1992. They seek payment for a total of forty-four hours. Ten of these hours are for phone conversations which appear to relate, in one way or another, to Fire Security's negotiations with GSA regarding asbestos abatement. One hour is said to have been spent reviewing what appears to be appellant's letter of July 7 to GSA refusing to provide cost or pricing data. See Finding 27. Another hour is said to have been spent reviewing what appears to be appellant's letter of July 17, which again stated that Fire Security would not provide cost or pricing data. See Finding 30. One invoice indicates heavy involvement (twenty-one hours) in the preparation of Fire Security's letter of August 8, 1992, which vigorously challenged GSA's contention that the unit price schedule was not part of appellant's contract. See Finding 33. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 38. 47. Appellant's letter and submissions of October 29 provided no documentation whatsoever in support of appellant's outstanding claim for extended administrative costs. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 38. 48. By letter dated November 13, 1992, Fire Security again complained of GSA's delay in issuing a contract modification regarding the asbestos abatement. The letter advised that base contract work would continue to be performed "until such time as it becomes impractical to continue." As to asbestos abatement beyond the $144,000 cap, appellant stated it was prepared to undertake this "[w]hen the G.S.A. issues a modification that equitably adjusts the contract price and time . . . ." Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 40. 49. On November 19, the contracting officer signed a unilateral contract modification P007. In a cover letter providing appellant with a copy of the modification, GSA states: This unilateral modification to the contract is issued because we were unable to reach agreement. You have the right to appeal this under the Disputes Clause. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 41. 50. Modification P007 states that its purpose is to unilaterally definitize both time and costs for the asbestos abatement effort added to the contract by directed changes PC03 and PC05. The definitization of work is that described in the slightly revised scope of work provided earlier to appellant in the draft bilateral modification (Finding 43). The contract performance period is extended by 113 calendar days "as a result of the asbestos abatement added to the contract." The price of the work added to the contract by PC03 and PC05 is increased from not-to- exceed $144,800 to a firm fixed price of $199,709. The modification expressly disallows appellant's claim for consultant fees and for the costs of meeting with subcontractors in connection with work outlined in PR08. No reason is given for these denials. The modification does, however, provide for payment of $15,000 in "[e]xtended administrative costs for 113 days time extension," $56,860 for "[p]roductivity lost cost," and $33,824 for fitters' overtime for abatement of asbestos containing material. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 41. 51. In a lengthy letter dated December 1, 1992, appellant accused GSA of unjustified delay and of putting price concerns before tenant safety. It demanded that the Government add to Modification P007 funds for asbestos abatement on floors two, three, and four. The deletion of work on those floors was, in the opinion of Fire Security, not legal and merely part of a "coercive plan to punish Fire Security Systems for not submitting to the G.S.A.'s demand that Fire Security reduce the unit price of $107.00 per square foot." Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 42. Suspension of Work and Partial Termination 52. By letter dated December 17, 1992, the contracting officer issued to appellant a suspension of work notice for all fire sprinkler work on the second, third, and fourth floors. He explained that the deletion of all unfinished fire sprinkler work on those floors would require modification of the system for the building so that the system above the fourth floor can be fully functional. GSA's Design and Construction Division was said to be preparing a revised scope of work. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 43. 53. On December 21, 1992, the contracting officer terminated for convenience all unfinished fire sprinkler installation and asbestos abatement under appellant's contract for the second, third, and fourth floors. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 44. The contracting officer advised appellant of this partial termination by letter dated December 23. The notice stated that the termination would be effective immediately upon receipt. Id., Exhibit 45. 54. By letter dated December 30, 1992, Fire Security protested the partial termination of its contract and advised the contracting officer that GSA's refusal to permit and pay for asbestos abatement on the second, third and fourth floors constituted a breach of contract and entitled appellant to full breach damages. In support of its contention, appellant cited to several court and board decisions and enclosed copies of some of these decisions for review. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 46. Fire Security's Appeal 55. In early January 1993, by letter dated January 11, Fire Security appealed to the Board the contracting officer's decision said to be represented in the unilateral Modification P007. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 47. Upon docketing the appeal, the Board asked GSA to comment on the adequacy of Modification P007 as the basis for Fire Security's appeal. Board Correspondence File, GSBCA 12267, Board Letter of February 8, 1993. In response, counsel for respondent, by letter dated March 8, advised the Board that the modification was not intended to be a final decision and reference to it as a final decision in the transmittal letter was a "technical error." Counsel, therefore, recommended dismissal of the appeal as prematurely filed. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 61. Fire Security opposed the proposed dismissal as so much "chutzpa" and pointed out that a dismissal would cause it to lose eight months already spent in an effort to secure an equitable adjustment. Appellant assured the Board that the contracting officer did not need any additional numbers. Board Correspondence File, GSBCA 12267, Appellant's Letter to the Board, February 17, 1993. 56. In a conference with the parties on March 29, 1993, the Board rejected respondent's recommendation and advised the parties that it would considered Fire Security's appeal to be from a deemed denial. Nevertheless, in the interest of developing a meaningful record, the Board encouraged respondent to issue a contracting officer's decision on the matter. Appellant was then directed to file a complaint by April 5. Thereafter, respondent was to have the option of either issuing a detailed contracting officer's decision addressing the matters raised in the complaint or filing an answer and appeal file by May 14. Board's Conference Memorandum, March 31, 1993. The Contracting Officer's Decision 57. Fire Security filed its complaint on April 5, 1993. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 67. On May 4, the contracting officer issued his decision. It addressed a number of issues relating to this appeal and another appeal, GSBCA 12358, which has since been dismissed. The decision said very little, however, about the elements of appellant's claim which have survived in this appeal (GSBCA 12267). Id., Exhibit 73. 58. The contracting officer's decision noted that no agreement had been reached at the negotiation session on September 2, 1992, concerning such items as appellant's claim for extended administrative costs or the cost to develop PR08. According to the contracting officer, on items such as these, it was agreed that the Government would evaluate and consider them upon receipt of certified cost and pricing data. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 73. 59. In his decision, the contracting officer acknowledged that some data had eventually been provided in support of the claim for the cost to develop PR08. However, he remained of the opinion that this was a cost of doing business which was included in the contractor's overhead pool. With regard to appellant's claim for consultant fees, the contracting officer explained that these fees were not allowed because they were considered to represent either the costs of prosecuting claims against the Government or legal research which would have been included in the contractor's overhead pool. As to appellant's claim for extended administrative costs, the decision notes that Modification P007 allowed $15,000 for these costs but offers no explanation of why more of these claimed costs were not allowed. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 73. Appellant's Claim as Amended 60. Appellant's initial complaint in this appeal (GSBCA 12267) was a "pro se" filing submitted before Fire Security retained counsel. Subsequent amendments of the complaint by counsel effectively served to narrow the issues in controversy. In a second amended complaint served shortly before trial, counsel identified and described briefly the three remaining claims in this appeal. They are for amounts said to have been underpaid by GSA when it issued modification P007. The first is for consultant fees. The second is for the cost of meeting with subcontractors to discuss work described in PR08. The third claim is for extended administrative costs. The complaint, as amended, explains that the claim for extended administrative costs is an Eichleay calculation based upon an alleged delay of 209 days. The amount of this claim, however, is changed from the original figure of $27,820 to $263,340. The complaint explains that this change reflects a correction made in the original Eichleay cost number. Appellant's Second Amended Complaint  7, 21. During the trial, counsel for the parties advised the Board that they had stipulated that the delay period covered by P007 is 113 days. Transcript, Vol. 7 at 124. Counsel have confirmed this in their posthearing briefs. Appellant's Posthearing Brief at 10; Respondent's Posthearing Brief at 14. Appellant's Appeal of GSA's Rejection of Its Termination for Convenience (T/for/C) Settlement Proposal (GSBCA 12890) Appellant's T/for/C Settlement Proposal 61. By letter dated December 21, 1993, barely less than a year from the effective date of the partial termination of its contract, appellant submitted what it styled as an Interim Proposal for Partial Termination for the Convenience of the Government. Appeal File, GSBCA 12890, Exhibit 4. This submission is less than two pages in length and lists the following termination claims: 1. A claim for $437,531 in lost profits based on the allegation that deletion of asbestos abatement work for the second, third and fourth floors of the building constituted a breach of contract. 2. A claim for $262,646 said to represent amounts which should have been made available under Modification P007. 3. A claim for $130,000 for fifty-one days of delay under the Government's first suspension of work notice. 4. A claim for $63,259 also said to represent amounts which should have been made available under Modification P007. 5. A claim for $6,378 for six days of delay under the Government's second suspension of work notice. 6. A claim for $60,207 for lost profits on deleted sprinkler work, the deletion of which was also said to constitute a breach of contract. 7. An unspecified claim for legal fees (said to be "in process"), and 8. an unspecified claim for consultant fees (also said to be "in process"). Id. 62. By letter dated December 27, 1993, the GSA contract specialist advised Fire Security that, in accordance with Subpart 49.208 of the FAR, the proposal should provide more detail and should be supported with adequate accounting data. By letter dated February 25, 1994, Fire Security provided a revised submission. By letter dated March 14, the contracting officer acknowledged receipt of the revised submission but noted that the submission was still incomplete. Appellant was given until April 1 to supplement its revised submission. Appeal File, GSBCA 12890, Exhibits 5-6, 8. A slightly revised submission was hand-delivered to the contracting officer on March 31, 1994. Id., Exhibit 9. Contracting Officer's Decision 63. By decision dated April 21, 1994, the contracting officer rejected appellant's proposal. His reason for rejecting six of the eight claims presented was that they were already the subject of disputes currently before the Board. Appeal File, GSBCA 12890, Exhibit 11 (contracting officer's decision). 64. The two remaining claims for consultant and legal fees were rejected because the proposed settlement amounts were unspecified and no documentation was provided in support of the claims. In addition, the contracting officer observed that these fees are unallowable either because they represent the cost of prosecuting claims and appeals against the Government which are unallowable under FAR 31.205-47(f)(1) or represent the cost of legal research which would be included in the firm's overhead pool. Appeal File, GSBCA 12890, Exhibit 11 (contracting officer's decision). Fire Security's Appeal 65. By letter dated June 24, 1994, counsel for appellant filed a notice of appeal of the contracting officer's decision rejecting the T/for/C settlement proposal. Appeal File, GSBCA 12890, Exhibit 11. Fire Security's Remaining Claims 66. Appellant's complaint for this appeal lists as "components of the claims" the same claims listed in Fire Security's interim proposal (Finding 61). First Amended and Supplemental Complaint  10, Exhibit B. 67. At the hearing conducted in this and related appeals, the status of the claims which are the subject of this appeal, GSBCA 12890, was discussed. The Board and counsel for the parties recognized that the claims based on an alleged breach were abandoned in view of appellant's decision not to pursue that appeal and the Board's dismissal of the appeal based on that allegation, namely, GSBCA 12358. Transcript, Vol. 7 at 116. As for any claims alleging delay, counsel for appellant explained that all were dropped other than that which is part of GSBCA 12267. Id. at 118. 68. At the hearing, counsel for appellant also advised the Board that they did not intend to present any further evidence on GSBCA 12890 at the time, but asked leave of the Board to supplement the record within the next thirty days with an updating of "account's and attorneys' fees associated with a T/for/C settlement proposal." The Board agreed to the request. Transcript, Vol. 7 at 114-16. Fire Security's Supplement to the Record 69. By letter dated March 3, 1995, counsel for appellant did provide a supplement to the record. The material consisted of seven invoices from appellant's consultant, SSPEC SO CAL, Inc. They describe services rendered to appellant over a period starting on December 22, 1992, and concluding on December 20, 1993. The entries on these invoices, just as those on the invoices described above for GSBCA 12267, are summary in nature and involve the use of unexplained abbreviations that are difficult at times to understand. No documentation whatsoever was submitted in support of the unspecified legal fees. 70. The invoice covering consulting services rendered in late December 1992, after the Government had issued a partial termination for convenience, claims six hours on December 22 for "Response to TFC." The following day has an entry of six hours for "Several letters on SOW/PTFC/BOC." We assume these abbreviations to mean "scope of work," "partial termination for convenience," and "breach of contract." This same invoice contains a bill for an additional seventeen hours for reviewing board and court decisions and four hours claimed under the heading of "Appeal of PTFC." Board Correspondence File, GSBCA 12890, Attachments to Letter from Counsel for Appellant to Board (March 3, 1995). 71. An invoice for the first part of January 1993 shows a considerable amount of time spent on "WHALA." From documentation elsewhere in the record we know this acronym to stand for "What Happened at Los Angeles." This was a documentary submission apparently prepared by the consultant for submission to GSA. It is described in greater detail below. See Findings 74-76. Given the summary nature of the entries on this invoice, it is difficult to say precisely how much time was claimed for this project. WHALA appears in entries which total at least forty hours. The same invoice also claims two hours for "Appeal of P007." Board Correspondence File, GSBCA 12890, Attachments to Letter from Counsel for Appellant to Board (March 3, 1995). 72. Another SSPEC invoice covers services rendered during the months of May, June, and July 1993. It confirms involvement of this consultant in Board litigation. Twenty out of a total of twenty-seven hours claimed bear the notation "Interrogatories/POD 12358." Board Correspondence File, GSBCA 12890, Attachments to Letter from Counsel for Appellant to Board (March 3, 1995). 73. Only the invoice which is the latest in time, covering services rendered in December 1993, mentions any involvement of the consultant with appellant's T/for/C proposal. For December 17, a total of four hours are claimed for "TFC Proposal." For December 20, nine hours are claimed for "TFC Intrerim [sic] Proposal." Board Correspondence File, GSBCA 12890, Attachments to Letter from Counsel for Appellant to Board, March 3, 1995. WHALA 74. By letter of transmittal dated January 21, 1993, Fire Security submitted to the contracting officer what it described as a "Dispute Document entitled 'What Happened at Los Angeles' (WHALA) Certification of Claim signed by [Fire Security's President]." Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 49 at 1 (unnumbered). This is a paperback bound document, prepared by SSPEC SO CAL, Inc. It is approximately two inches thick and consists of three parts. The first is a narrative, eighteen pages in length, which gives the contractor's version of events leading to the partial T/for/C of its contract. The second part of this submission consists of supporting documentation, much of which is now contained in the appeal files for this and related appeals. The third and final part of the WHALA submission consists of board and court decisions which appellant s consultant considered relevant to the contractor's disputes with GSA concerning asbestos abatement. Id., Exhibit 49. 75. An explanation of the purpose of the WHALA submission is offered on the last page of Part I, i.e., the narrative portion. It states: This is not a dispute related to money damages related to any other contract dispute. It is a request for a C.O. interpretation, Recission [sic] of the SOW, PTFC, issued by the C.O. and and [sic] a request for Asbestos Abatement Funds to allow completion of the contract. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 49 at 18. 76. On receipt of the WHALA submission, the contract specialist was perplexed over what precisely the contractor was seeking. She conferred by telephone with appellant s project manager and requested that he provide some clarification. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibits 50-51. By letter dated February 3, 1993, the project manager wrote: The contractor, relying on the various cases cited and the facts, requests that the contracting officer issue a final decision rescinding the Partial Termination for Convenience, thus allowing the completion of the contract. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 52 at 2. The letter further explained that, if the contracting officer should elect to rescind his decision, then he would be expected to address the issues concerning termination of the suspension notice, funding for continued asbestos abatement, and modification of the contract work statement to provide for an alternative abatement method. On the other hand, if the decision should be made not to rescind the partial termination, then Fire Security would want a decision from the contracting officer on its contention that the partial T/for/C constituted a breach of contract. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 52 at 2-3. 77. The project manager s letter of February 3, 1993, acknowledged that the possibility of the contracting officer reversing his decision on the partial termination was admittedly unlikely, but opined that a decision was required in order to gain access to a board of contract appeals to resolve these disputes. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 52 at 2. We find as fact, therefore, that appellant s WHALA submission was a request that the contracting officer reconsider his original decision to terminate for convenience a part of Fire Security s contract. In the alternative, it was a request that the contracting officer render a decision on appellant s claim that this partial termination constituted a breach of contract. 78. By letter dated May 28, 1993, the contracting officer issued a decision regarding Fire Security's request that the partial termination for convenience be rescinded. The contracting officer denied the request on the ground that the action taken was justified under the circumstances and permissible under the contract clause concerning termination for the convenience of the Government. Appeal File, GSBCA 12267, Exhibit 76. Discussion Appellant s Ceiling Tile Claim (GSBCA 12781) We turn first to appellant's claim for payment for the removal and replacement of ceiling tiles using the unit price offered for demolition of ceiling tiles. In his decision denying this claim, the contracting officer contended that the unit prices called for in the solicitation were intended for use only for Option 3 work. Since Option 3 was not awarded, the contracting officer concludes that the unit price schedule is not even part of the contract as awarded. Hence the appellant s claim, relying as it does on a unit price, is without basis and must be rejected. Finding 10. We find the contracting officer's argument less than persuasive. It may well be that the unit prices were intended by the Government for use only in conjunction with Option 3. Nevertheless, as he himself admits, the solicitation did not clearly indicate this. What the solicitation did say, with regard to unit prices, was that these were prices per unit of measurement for materials or services that might be added or deducted if estimated quantities of work required by the contract were increased or decreased. Finding 3. The solicitation made clear that the base bid, as it stood, did not include any work for which the unit prices would be required. Finding 5. The same would of course be true of the option work. As appellant s president recognized, when he responded to the contracting officer s request for verification, an option price does not require an additional unit cost to be added to have a finished system. Finding 7. Appellant offered a unit price schedule for the purpose indicated. Finding 6. The Government accepted all of appellant s offer other than the offer to perform the work called for under Option 3. Finding 8. We see no reason, therefore, why the unit price schedule should not be part of the contract even if it was not explicitly mentioned in the Government s award document. It is a contract provision not directly relating to the prices bid for base or option work. Its use is limited to contract modifications. An offeror s bid contains many provisions which do not relate directly to award price. Failure to mention them explicitly in the award document does not result in their not being included in the contract. A convincing argument now raised by the Government in this de novo review of appellant's claim is that the removal and reinstallation of ceiling tile is a routine task in the installation of fire sprinklers and not demolition as described in the unit price schedule. Respondent's Posthearing Brief at 6, 8- 10. This contention is fully supported by the terms of the contract, Findings 11-13, which require removal and reinstallation of ceiling tile as distinguished from demolition. Appellant's president readily admits that the claim which is the subject of this appeal is for the cost of removing and reinstalling ceiling tile as part of the sprinkler work. Finding 15. We can find no justification under the contract, as written, which would justify paying Fire Security for this ceiling work based on its unit price schedule. Our primary difficulty with appellant's reliance upon the unit price schedule is that it conflicts with the plain wording of the schedule language itself. The $1.10 per square foot rate which Fire Security seeks to apply is listed under the unit heading of "Demolition." Findings 4, 6. When asked if the removal and reinstallation of ceiling tile for sprinkler work was "demolition," appellant's president replied that it can be considered demolition work -- adding that if one breaks a tile, it's demolition. Finding 15. This answer does nothing for appellant's case. The contract expressly requires the temporary removal and replacement of existing materials to perform the base bid work. Finding 12. Furthermore, the contract is specific concerning the meaning of demolition. It essentially involves the selective removal and off-site disposal of an item. Finding 13. If the unit price schedule sets out a price for ceiling tile demolition, then we would expect ceiling tile to be removed and disposed of off-site. We find nothing in the record suggesting that the ceiling tiles which figure in Fire Security's claim were removed and disposed of off-site. Indeed, as already noted, appellant's president agreed that they were reinstalled. Finding 15. In briefing this claim, counsel for appellant would have us focus on the fact that the contract definition of demolition is more narrowly focused in that it refers to selective demolition. Appellant s Comments on the Government s Posthearing Brief at 2-3. We consider the distinction to be of little import here. Even if we were to assume that demolition as used in the unit price schedule is not to be equated with selective demolition as that term is used in the contract, our conclusion would be the same. The removal and replacement of ceiling tiles is simply not demolition, as that term is popularly understood. Neither can it be construed as "demolition" if, as appellant s president observed, you break any of them. Finding 15. In any event, we find nothing in the record to suggest that the tiles which figure in Fire Security s claim were broken during removal or replacement. Rather, as we have already noted, the testimony of appellant s president is that they were reinstalled. Id. Another serious and fundamental problem with appellant's reliance on the unit price schedule to support its claim is that this runs contrary to the express purpose of the unit prices. The solicitation provision regarding unit pricing, which is part of appellant's contract (Appeal File, GSBCA 12358, Exhibit 4 at 2 (unnumbered)), states that the unit prices are for materials or services to be added or deducted from the contract by change order. Finding 3. Fire Security's contract is not a cost contract but a fixed-price contract calling for the installation of a sprinkler system. Findings 1, 8. Appellant s president, in responding to the request for verification, expressly acknowledged that the lump-sum bid included a complete fire sprinkler system for all unsprinklered areas of the building above the first floor. Finding 7. The contract states that recessed sprinklers are to be installed in areas with suspended ceilings with pipe and fittings located above the ceiling. Finding 11. Removal of ceiling tiles is, therefore, essential for the installation of the sprinkler system. A specific contract provision confirms the contractor's duty to remove temporarily and then replace existing work "as necessary for performance of work under the contract." Finding 12. From the above, we conclude that the removal and replacement of ceiling tiles, which is the substance of appellant s claim, is not added work or deleted work to which the contract unit pricing provisions might apply. Rather, it is part and parcel of the work which Fire Security was obliged to perform under its base contract. Appellant now argues that because it thought that the unit price item for demolition of ceiling tile covered removal and replacement of tile, it did not include the cost of removal and replacement in its base bid. It says that it avoided doing this owing to the instruction in the solicitation stating that work to which unit prices applied should not be included in the base bid. This understanding on the part of appellant is said to have been made clear to GSA in appellant s response to the request for verification when appellant s president stated: [U]nit prices listed on the bid schedule are to be for extra work which is not detailed on the bid drawings. Appellant Posthearing Brief at 3-4, 5-6. Whatever the intent of Fire Security may have been, it surely is not based upon the plain wording of the unit price schedule which refers simply to demolition of ceiling tiles. Appellant has shown us nothing which convinces us that the contracting officer knew or should have known of appellant s peculiar understanding of the term. Assuming that Fire Security understood the plain meaning of the terms in the unit price schedule, the contracting officer had no reason to be troubled by appellant s statement. Indeed, appellant s statement that unit prices were for extra work correctly reflected their purpose as explained elsewhere in the solicitation. As we have already concluded, because tile removal and replacement was an intrinsic part of the base work of the contract, its cost should definitely have been included in appellant s base bid. If Fire Security did, in fact, omit this cost rather than include it as a factor in the typical per-sprinkler cost it normally uses to prepare bids, then this was a unilateral mistake based on a flawed reading of solicitation terms and related provisions. For a mistake of this type, relief cannot be granted. Liebherr Crane Corp. v. United States, 810 F.2d 1153 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (contract will not be reformed because of unilateral mistake unless contractor establishes error resulted from a clear-cut clerical or arithmetical error, or a misreading of the specification, but careless reading of specification is not a "misreading"). For the reasons set out above, we conclude that appellant s claim for the cost of removing and replacing ceiling tile based on the contract unit price for demolition of tile is totally unsupported by contract provisions. We conclude, therefore, that its denial by the contracting officer was appropriate. Appellant s Claim for Additional Compensation under Contract Modification P007 (GSBCA 12267) The surviving elements of appellant s original claim, as described in appellant s amended complaint, are three. First, appellant continues to seek reimbursement for consultant costs incurred during the course of negotiations which took place prior to the issuance of Modification P007. Second, appellant seeks reimbursement for certain costs incurred in meeting with prospective subcontractors in Los Angeles to discuss work described in proposal request no. 8 (PR08). Finally, appellant contends that the $15,000 awarded in P007 for extended administrative costs was insufficient and that it is entitled to considerably more than this amount. Finding 61. As we will see in the discussion of each of these surviving claims, they are Contract Disputes Act claims, seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of a sum certain. They were submitted in writing to the contracting officer during the course of the negotiations which preceded his unilateral issuance of Modification P007, which denied these claims either in whole or in part. Although not all of these claims were in dispute at the time they were submitted, we nonetheless have jurisdiction to decide the disputes which now envelop them. Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(en banc). We consider each claim in turn. Appellant's Claim for Costs of Meeting with Prospective Subcontractors This particular claim relates to travel costs incurred by appellant in conjunction with PR08. This proposal request was issued on January 21, 1992, and was among the first issued by GSA regarding asbestos abatement. Finding 20. Appellant's president testified that the company's project manager undertook a trip from the home office in Shreveport, Louisiana, to Los Angeles, California, for no reason other than to confer with potential subcontractors regarding the work called for in PR08. Finding 45. The scope of work associated with PR08 underwent numerous revisions over the months that followed. Findings 22-23, 29, 43. For some time prior to the issuance of contract modification P007, appellant had been seeking reimbursement for the costs of preparing a proposal in response to PR08. Findings 25, 28, 30. At the meeting on September 2, 1992, called to negotiate prices for the asbestos abatement work and related claims, the contracting officer refused to discuss this claim. His reason was that no supporting documentation had been submitted in support of the claim. Finding 40. Following the meeting on September 2, appellant did provide a typed summary of costs associated with the preparation of replies to the Government proposal requests. These summaries, however, were without supporting documentation. Finding 41. Documentation supporting the claim for the cost of traveling to Los Angeles to meet with potential subcontractors to discuss PR08 was eventually submitted by appellant in late October 1992. Finding 45. Notwithstanding this submission, however, the contracting officer, in issuing Modification P007 on November 19, denied appellant's claim for costs associated with the preparation of a reply to PR08. Finding 50. The reason given was that these costs were part of the normal cost of doing business which should be included in appellant's overhead. Finding 51. In challenging the contracting officer's decision to disallow all costs associated with the preparation of a reply to PR08, appellant now claims reimbursement only for that portion of its claim for which it submitted supporting documentation, namely, the travel of the project manager to Los Angeles to discuss PR08 with potential subcontractors. Finding 60. Under the Equitable Adjustments clause in appellant's contract, the Government, when contemplating a contract change, has the right to request the contractor to submit proposals for the work being considered. Appeal File, GSBCA 12358, Exhibit 1 (GSA Form 3506 at 27). Given this and similar provisions in Government contracts, the general rule with regard to the recovery of proposal preparation costs, when the proposal is rejected, is that a response to a request for an estimate is not considered to be extra work. Rather, the costs of preparing such estimates are usually considered part of the contractor's overhead included in the total contract price. There are, however, exceptions to the general rule. They apply to situations in which elements of strong Government compulsion are found which alter the voluntary nature of the contractor's efforts or where the contractor has expended significant efforts or incurred substantial costs beyond that which would normally be contemplated for a change order. See B.G. Carvin Construction Co. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 12770, et al., 95-1 BCA  27,445 (and cases cited therein). We consider appellant's costs of sending its project manager to Los Angeles for the sole purpose of discussing the work of PR08 with potential subcontractors to qualify as an exception to the general rule. The asbestos abatement requirement outlined in the proposal request was an extensive one, and, as discussed in greater detail in the following section, concerned new work. This new work called for a level of specialized expertise which presumably went beyond that of a contractor experienced primarily in the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems. The travel costs in question are relatively substantial and beyond that which normally would be contemplated for a change order. Appellant is, therefore, entitled to recover these travel expenses. We defer ruling at this time, however, on the quantum of that claim. Appellant's Claim for Extended Administrative Expenses We turn next to appellant's claim for extended administrative costs. This claim was first identified in Fire Security's proposal of June 25, 1992. Along with the priced work in the proposal, Fire Security included various unpriced items. Among these was a claim for extended administrative costs. The explanation provided for this item stated: If not for this RFP, Fire Security Systems would be complete and off this project. The costs of maintaining administration for each day of extended performance will be part of the final price of the modification. Finding 25. In its proposal of July 17, Fire Security assigned a figure of $27,820 to this claim for extended administrative costs but said nothing more about the nature of this claim. Finding 30. At the negotiating session on September 2, 1992, the contracting officer declined to discuss this claim for extended administrative costs owing to the lack of any supporting documentation. Finding 40. Although the Government's negotiation memorandum for that meeting indicates that appellant agreed to provide documentation for this item, none was provided. Findings 41, 47. In the absence of documentary support for this and some other claims contained in appellant's pending proposal, the Government, in late October 1992, proposed a bilateral modification definitizing the price for the asbestos abatement work but leaving a few undocumented claims for other costs, including the claim for extended administrative costs, for resolution at a later date. Finding 43. Appellant objected to this approach and insisted on the prompt resolution of all matters. Finding 44. Nevertheless, although appellant later submitted some documentation in support of other claims in its proposal, it still failed to provide anything in support of the claim of $27,820 for extended administrative costs. Finding 47. On November 19, the contracting officer issued Modification P007 and allowed $15,000 of the $27,820 claimed by appellant for extended administrative costs. Finding 50. Fire Security now contends that it is entitled to more than the $15,000 allowed by the contracting officer in Modification P007. Indeed, in its complaint, as amended, appellant expressly states that its claim is based on an Eichleay calculation and, after correction, has now been found to amount to considerably more than the original claim for $27,820. Finding 60. Just what appellant meant in identifying this claim as one for "extended administrative costs" is difficult to say. Appellant's failure to provide documentation in support of the claim has done nothing to help the situation. The only indication of what appellant intended in asserting this claim is the brief explanation offered in the submission of June 25, 1992. As already noted, at that time appellant advised GSA that the costs of maintaining administration for each day of extended performance would be part of the final price of any contract modification covering the work in question. On its face, the statement is clear enough. If the work which will be the subject of the contract modification results in an extension of the performance period, then the contractor expects to recover administrative expenses associated with that extension. In the case of Modification P007, the contract performance period was extended by 113 days "as a result of the asbestos abatement added to the contract." Finding 50. We conclude, therefore, that appellant's claim for extended administrative costs is a claim for the on-site and home office overhead associated with this period of extended performance. The modification did award $15,000 for this claim -- although neither party explains how the contracting officer arrived at this figure. Appellant, however, continues to maintain that it is entitled to considerably more than this amount based upon an Eichleay calculation. Finding 61. Use of the Eichleay formula for purposes of calculating home office overhead for contract extensions has been held to be inappropriate since adequate compensation for overhead expenses may usually be calculated more precisely using a fixed percentage formula. C.B.C. Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 978 F.2d 669, 675 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Appellant's claim for more costs, therefore, based as it is on an Eichleay calculation, must fail. Neither are we convinced that appellant would be entitled to Eichleay damages based on some alternative theory of recovery. It is well established that, for a contractor to be entitled to compensation under the Eichleay formula, three conditions must be met. These conditions or elements are: (1) a Government-imposed delay occurred; (2) the Government required the contractor to "stand by" during the delay; and (3) while "standing by," the contractor was unable to take on additional work. Satellite Electric Co. v. Dalton, 105 F.3d 1418, 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellant has failed to establish any of these elements. We turn first to the requirement that a Government delay occurred. Clearly there was considerable delay in the issuance of Modification P007. On balance, however, we consider that considerably more of this delay is attributable to appellant than to the Government. The first proposal requests for abatement work were PR07 and PR08, both of which were issued in late January 1992. Both requests called for replies within ten days. Finding 20. Appellant's proposals, however, were not submitted until March 31. Finding 21. In early May, the Government provided appellant with a revised scope of work on asbestos abatement. A reply was requested for no later than May 22. Appellant requested additional time. Finding 22. On May 21, GSA issued a directed change in the form of a contract modification (Modification PC03). The modification established a relatively tight schedule for definitization negotiations. A proposal supported by cost and pricing data was to be submitted by June 8. Negotiations were to start on June 22, and July 2 was established as the target date for issuing a definitization modification. Finding 23. Not until late June, however, did appellant submit a proposal. Notwithstanding the amount of time taken to prepare the proposal, it was extremely brief, devoid of any cost or pricing data, and non-compliant in several respects with the requirements of the contract's Equitable Adjustments clause regarding the preparation of price proposals. Findings 25-26. At this point the parties embarked on a time- consuming dispute over the need for cost or pricing data regarding appellant's quoted rate of $107 per square foot for asbestos abatement. Findings 27, 30, 32-33. The Government clearly had the high ground on this issue. Under Section 15 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation which was in effect at the time and which implemented the requirements of the Truth in Negotiations Act, cost or pricing data were required for any contract modification involving a price adjustment expected to exceed $100,000. 48 CFR 15.804-2(a)(1)(ii) (revised as of October 1, 1991). An exemption from this requirement existed where the contracting officer determined that prices were based on adequate price competition. Id. 15.804-3(a)(1). Certainly the cost of the asbestos abatement work being discussed by the parties at that time was expected to exceed $100,000. Furthermore, appellant's offered price of $107 per square foot for asbestos removal was not based on adequate price competition. From what we have already said regarding appellant's claim for removal and replacement of ceiling tile, it is clear that we disagree with the contracting officer's conclusion that the unit prices offered by appellant were not in the contract. Nevertheless, for other reasons, we agree with him that, in this case, the contract unit price originally offered by Fire Security for asbestos removal was inapplicable. Under the solicitation, the unit prices offered were to be based on estimates stated in the solicitation. In preparing their bids, therefore, bidders were expected to spread their estimated costs -- including fixed costs - - over these stated estimates. The unit prices offered by the bidders for asbestos removal were to be based on an estimate of 100 square feet set out in the solicitation for that item. Finding 4. In pricing changes involving approximately this quantity of work, the unit price for asbestos removal would undoubtedly have been applicable. During the negotiations which preceded the unilateral issuance of modification P007, appellant relied on a decision of the United States Court of Claims, Perini Corp. v. United States, 381 F.2d 403 (Ct. Cl. 1967), as justification for refusing to provide support for the $107 square foot rate used in pricing its proposal for asbestos abatement. In that case, the contractor insisted on being paid the contract unit price for pumping water out of a coffer dam. The Government sought relief under the Changed Conditions clause based on the fact that the estimate it had provided in the solicitation for this work was grossly understated. The Court refused to grant relief to the Government and directed it to pay the unit price. It noted that the contractor was well aware that the estimate was inaccurate and had not relied on it in preparing the bid. The Court also noted that the Government itself should have realized that its estimate was inaccurate. The Government, concluded the court, can rely no more than a contractor can on the Changed Conditions clause to rectify a faulty error in judgment. Id. at 415. The Perini case is readily distinguished from the situation here. Appellant has not demonstrated that, at the time it prepared its bid, it was well aware that the asbestos removal requirement was understated. Furthermore, there has been no showing that the Government s estimate of 100 square feet was necessarily a faulty one. The Government has maintained from the start, and it has not been rebutted, that the work to which it intended the unit prices to apply related only to Option 3. Findings 10, 32. There has obviously been no showing that these estimates and, in particular, that for asbestos removal, were inaccurate. It also is clear that the asbestos abatement contemplated in the proposal requests leading to modification P007 was considerably more complex than than the asbestos removal plainly called for in the unit price schedule. Findings 4, 20. We are convinced, therefore, that the work added to appellant s contract by modification P007, unlike the situation in Perini, involved far more than carelessly underestimated work intended for inclusion in the original contract. Rather, this was genuinely new work. Appellant was asked to quote a figure for asbestos abatement and not merely asbestos removal. The estimate was not for 100 square feet but for tens of thousands of square feet. Findings 20-21. The task at hand was sufficiently different in both quantity and kind as not to obligate the Government to accept the offered rate of $107 per square foot for asbestos abatement without further question. This was work for which there clearly was no competitively-arrived-at, pre-existing contract unit price. Appellant's refusal to provide cost or pricing data in support of its offered rate of $107 per square foot was, therefore, contrary to statute, regulation, and express contract provisions calling for such data. This refusal to cooperate with the contracting officer contributed substantially to delay in the issuance of Modification P007. Similarly, appellant's failure to respond promptly to the Government's proposal requests and to document related claims which it insisted on including in the negotiation process, also contributed significantly to the ensuing delay. In view of this, we are not prepared to acknowledge that delay in the definitization of the time and cost of asbestos abatement work was a Government-caused delay. Given the absence of a delay attributable to the Government, the second element of a successful Eichleay claim, namely, stand-by resulting from the Government-caused delay, is missing from this case as well. Indeed, we find no convincing evidence in the record of stand-by even from other than Government-caused delay. Notwithstanding the various proposal requests, appellant's replies, the need to amend the proposed scope of work, appellant's refusal to provide cost or pricing data, and the time required by appellant to justify prices on an alternative basis, work on installation of the sprinkler system and on asbestos abatement did not stop during 1992. Directed change PC03, issued on May 21, authorized the contractor to begin work even before the price was definitized. Finding 23. Some of this work obviously had already been accomplished by July, when appellant complained that it had not yet been paid for it. Finding 30. In August, when appellant threatened to stop work and demobilize, the COR objected and provided a detailed analysis of work already accomplished and work remaining to be done. Finding 34. A letter to appellant from the contracting officer in response to the same threat reminded appellant that there was no reason not to continue performance and urged Fire Security to prosecute diligently the revised scope of work. Finding 35. The third element for a successful Eichleay claim is that the contractor demonstrate that, while standing-by, it was unable to take on additional work. Appellant has not established this third element, but contends that it need not do so since it has already established a prima facie case of entitlement to Eichleay damages simply by demonstrating that the Government imposed a delay of uncertain duration and that this required appellant to remain on stand-by. Fire Security's Comments on the Government's Posthearing Brief at 5-6. Appellant is correct in this regard. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has stated: [W]hen a contractor can show that the government required a contractor to remain on "standby" and the government imposed delay was "uncertain," the contractor has established a prima facie case of entitlement to Eichleay formula damages. Mech-Con Corp. v. West, 61 F.3d 883, 886 (Fed. Cir. 1995). As already noted, however, appellant has failed to prove either of these two basic facts and, consequently, has not established a prima facie case of entitlement to damages under Eichleay. For the reasons set out above, therefore, we conclude that appellant's claim for extended administrative costs in excess of the $15,000 allowed by the contracting officer in Modification P007 is without merit and was, therefore, properly denied by the contracting officer. Appellant s Claim for Consultant Fees Although appellant listed this claim in its complaint, the claim is not discussed in its posthearing brief for this appeal. Instead, argument in support of a claim for consultant fees appears to be reserved for GSBCA 12890, which contains a similar claim for consultant fees. Appellant s Posthearing Brief at 12-15. Nevertheless, since the claim for consultant fees as raised in GSBCA 12267 has not been expressly abandoned, we consider it here. The consultant fees which form part of the dispute in this appeal are those claimed by appellant in its submission of September 11, 1992, and denied in full by the contracting officer in Modification P007. Findings 41, 50. Shortly before the contracting officer issued P007, appellant did provide some documentation in support of the claim. The submission consisted of four invoices covering a total of 65 hours. Although summary in nature, the invoices do indicate involvement of the consultant in the discussions and correspondence relating to the efforts of the parties to negotiate an agreement on the asbestos abatement issues. Finding 46. The contracting officer apparently did not find the documentation provided by appellant in support of the claim for consultant s fees satisfactory. The claim was denied in Modification P007 but without any explanation. Finding 50. Nevertheless, in the decision provided at the Board's request after the docketing of this appeal, the contracting officer explains that the claim was denied because the fees were considered to represent either the cost of prosecuting claims against the Government or legal research which would have been included in the contractor's overhead pool. Finding 59. As noted, in its posthearing briefing, Fire Security has not come forward with any argument or information to challenge this conclusion of the contracting officer. We, therefore, will not disturb his decision to disallow the claim. In reviewing the record for this case, we conclude that denial of the claim was appropriate but for reasons different from those cited by the contracting officer. We are not convinced, as the contracting officer was, that the work described in the invoices submitted by the consultant for this appeal (GSBCA 12267) reflects costs relating to the prosecution of claims against the Government. At this point in time, the consultant appears to have been heavily involved in the negotiation efforts which preceded the unilateral issuance of P007. Usually consultant services relating to negotiations of contract modifications are considered allowable. As the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has explained: This negotiation process often involves requests for information by the CO or Government auditors or both, and inevitably this exchange of information involves costs for the contractor. These costs are administration costs, which should be allowable since this negotiation process benefits the Government, regardless of whether a settlement is finally reached or whether litigation eventually occurs because the availability of the process increases the likelihood of settlement without litigation. Bill Strong Enterprises, Inc. v. Shannon, 49 F.3d 1541, 1549 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In the instant case, appellant s consultant played a role quite different from that normally expected of consultants during the negotiation process. Rather than assist in the exchange of information, he appears to have aided and abetted appellant in refusing to provide any cost or pricing data which might have assisted the Government in determining that the rate of $107 per square foot, which appellant persisted in demanding, was a reasonable one. As we have already pointed out, this was in violation of statutory and regulatory requirements as well as provisions of the contract itself. Benefit to the contract purpose, whether in its work performance or administration, is a basic prerequisite for allowability. Bill Strong, 49 F.3d 1549; Singer Co. v. United States, 568 F.2d 695, 721 (Ct. Cl. 1977). We do not consider the services provided by SSPEC SO CAL, Inc. in this case to meet this fundamental requisite for allowability. For this reason, we consider that the denial of appellant s claim for the consultant s fee was clearly appropriate. Fire Security's Appeal of GSA's Rejection of Its T/for/C Settlement Proposal (GSBCA 12890) With the exception of appellant's claims for consultant and legal fees, all of the claims presented by appellant in its interim T/for/C settlement proposal and confirmed in Fire Security's complaint for this case have been either dismissed, abandoned, or subsumed into another related appeal. Findings 61, 63, 66-68. We consider here, therefore, only the two remaining claims for fees. The T/for/C clause in appellant's contract expressly provides that the contracting officer shall pay "[t]he reasonable costs of settlement of the work terminated, including . . . [a]ccounting, legal, clerical, and other expenses reasonably necessary for the preparation of termination settlement proposals and supporting data . . . ." Appeal File, GSBCA 12358, Exhibit 1 (GSA Form 3506 at 36-37). This provision echoes the cost principle regarding terminations in FAR 31.205-42. Without a doubt, therefore, if appellant can demonstrate that the consultant and legal fees in question here were for services associated with the settlement of T/for/C claims, it should be entitled to recover them to the extent the costs are reasonable. On examination of the invoices submitted by appellant in support of its claim for consultant fees, we conclude that the services described were not, with one exception, associated with the settlement of T/for/C claims. Appellant contends that one the purposes of the WHALA submission (Finding 74), prepared by its consultant, was to "begin negotiation with GSA over the termination settlement." The intent of the effort is said to have been to "demonstrate the seriousness of Fire Security to get the matters resolved." Appellant's Posthearing Brief at 12. We think not. In settlement negotiations after a T/for/C, the T/for/C itself is an accepted fact. The parties move beyond that point and attempt to reach agreement on the consequences of the termination. The contemporaneous documentary evidence in this case reveals that, in January 1993, appellant was by no means prepared even to accept the fact of termination. Finding 54. The WHALA submission was definitely not the start of negotiation of T/for/C claims. Rather, it was a demand that the contracting officer either rescind his termination or render a decision on appellant's claim that the termination constituted a breach of contract. Findings 75-77. We are convinced that none of the work done for appellant by its consultant in December 1992 and January 1993 was settlement related. From an examination of the invoices for this period and the work product associated with them, it is clear to us that the consultant was assisting Fire Security in attempting to make a convincing case in support of rescission of the termination. Findings 54, 70-71, 74-77. Similarly, the services described in the SSPEC invoice covering the months of May, June, and July 1993 (Finding 72) are not settlement related. Rather, they show that the consultant was assisting appellant in the active prosecution of claims against the Government. These are not the type of services for which appellant would be entitled to reimbursement under the contract T/for/C clause or applicable regulation. Only with the last invoice submitted by appellant do we have any indication of services rendered in support of a T/for/C settlement. A total of thirteen hours are claimed for work on the T/for/C proposal. Nine of these hours are specifically said to relate to appellant's interim proposal. Finding 73. Under the contract clause, appellant is entitled to reimbursement for these costs to the extent they are reasonable. They certainly appear to be settlement related. There is, however, a serious question as to the reasonableness of this particular claim. Nine, and perhaps even thirteen hours are said to have been spent working on appellant's interim proposal. Presumably, this is appellant's interim proposal of December 21. This proposal was less than two pages in length and did nothing more than list six claims already in litigation, an unspecified claim for consultant fees, and a similar unspecified claim for legal fees. Finding 61. It is difficult to understand how a consultant could spend nine to thirteen hours on such a limited effort. Nevertheless, we will await the presentation of appellant's quantum case in support of this claim before deciding whether any of the time allegedly expended for this purpose was reasonable under the circumstances. This bring us to appellant's claim for legal fees. Initially, appellant's claims for consultant fees and legal fees were both unspecified when presented in appellant's interim settlement proposal in December 1993. Finding 61. As of the date of the contracting officer's decision on appellant's settlement proposal in April 1994, they were still unspecified and unsupported. Indeed, it was for this reason, among others, that the contracting officer properly denied these claims. Findings 63-64. The claims remained unspecified and unsupported up to the time of trial. Findings 66-67. At trial, however, counsel sought leave of the Board to supplement the record with documentation in support of both claims. Finding 68. Although permission was given, appellant provided documentary support only for the claim for consultant fees. Finding 69. In the absence of any support for appellant's claim for legal fees relating to the T/for/C settlement, we affirm the contracting officer's decision denying this claim. Decision Appellant's appeal of the contracting officer's decision denying Fire Security's claim for the cost of removing and replacing ceiling tile based on the contract unit price for tile demolition is DENIED. (GSBCA 12781). Appellant's appeal of the contracting officer's denial of various claims addressed in Contract Modification P007 is likewise DENIED, except for its claim for the cost of traveling to Los Angeles to meet with subcontractors to discuss work called for in proposal request no. 8. This claim is granted as to entitlement but no determination is made as to the quantum at this time. GSBCA 12267). Appellant's appeal of the contracting officer's decision denying Fire Security's T/for/C settlement proposal is DENIED except for appellant's claim for consultant's fees incurred in December 1993 in conjunction with the submission of its interim settlement proposal. We make no determination at this time as to the appropriate quantum for this claim. (GSBCA 12890). Within forty-five days from the date of this decision, counsel for the parties are directed to submit to the Board a jointly proposed schedule for further proceedings to resolve issues concerning quantum in GSBCA 12267 and 12890. _____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge We concur: _____________________ _____________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge Board Judge Notanda CO's letter of March 15, 1993 says P007 was never intended to be a final decision an complains that there has yet to be a certified claim submitted to CO for decision. NOTANDA 1. Check appeal file and appeal file supplements for remaining three cases and determine specifically what documentation from 12358 is incorporated by reference. 3. Read Perini Decision 3. Underline Eichleay every where that it appears and drop a note on the citation to the case Eichleay Corp., ASBCA 5183, 60-2 BCA P 2688, affiremed on reconsideration, 61-1 BCA P2894. Note Put in the finding regarding Aug. 8 leter that FSS claimed that the unit price for asbestos was in the contract and should be used for pricing the abatement work. BAD advice from consultant. 4. Make sure that we have in the findings the exact amount of the surviging claims in 12267.