_________________________________________ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION GRANTED: AFFIRMED ON RECONSIDERATION: August 15, 1997 _________________________________________ GSBCA 12403-R FIRE SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. John M. Frazier of Peatross, Greer and Frazier, Shreveport, LA; and Terrence M. O'Connor, Alexandria, VA, counsel for Appellant. Robert C. Smith, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges BORWICK, NEILL, and HYATT. NEILL, Board Judge. Appellant, Fire Security Systems, Inc. (Fire Security), has asked that we reconsider or at least clarify our recent decision denying a claim for the cost of providing allegedly additional sprinkler heads as part of the fire protection system installed in the federal building and courthouse in Honolulu, Hawaii. Fire Security Systems, Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 12403, 97-2 BCA  28,994. In its posthearing brief, Fire Security argued that it was entitled to compensation for providing 540 additional sprinkler heads either as "extras" under the contract's Changes clause or under the Differing Site Condition clause. The request now before us addresses not the Board's ruling regarding the claim based on the Differing Site Condition clause, but rather, only appellant's claim for relief under the Changes clause. Appellant believes that the Board misunderstood its argument for relief under the Changes clause and attempts to clarify its position with the following statement: A perhaps more accurate statement of Fire Security's "extras" argument is that as a result of [ ] incorrect information in the bid documents provided by GSA, Fire Security had to ultimately install more sprinkler heads than it based its bid on. This argument uses as its starting point the bid documents and walk-through and not the shop drawings as the Board appears to do. Fire Security never argued that GSA required Fire Security to install more sprinkler heads than required by NFPA 13. Rather, Fire Security attempted to articulate an argument that GSA required Fire Security to install more sprinkler heads than required by the bid drawings and walk-through. Request for Reconsideration at 2-3. Appellant reminds us that its argument, as originally made and as now restated, relies on an earlier decision of the Board, J.S. Alberici Construction Co. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 12386, 94-2 BCA  26,776. In that case the contract was also for the installation of a sprinkler system. It also required compliance with NFPA standards. The bid documents in Alberici included a design engineer's drawings showing the specific number and types of sprinkler heads to be installed. The Board held in that case that the contractor properly relied on the Government's design drawings in formulating its bid and was entitled to compensation for the additional sprinkler heads needed to ensure the system, as installed, met NFPA standards. Upon review of appellant's posthearing briefs and request for reconsideration, we are persuaded that Fire Security's alternative claim for relief under the Changes clause was misunderstood by the Board. Given the clarification offered by appellant in its request for reconsideration, it is now clear that the particular theory of recovery under the Changes clause put forth in appellant's posthearing brief was not addressed by the Board either on page 83 of its decision or in footnote 21 appearing on page 85. Perhaps this was attributable to the contention initially made by Fire Security that its claim was "on all fours" with the Board's decision in Alberici. In fact, as the Government pointed out more than once, the two cases are readily distinguished on the facts. In Alberici, the solicitation drawings specified the number of sprinkler heads required while, in the instant case, no particular number was specified at all in the bid drawings or elsewhere in the contract. We now see, however, that appellant's argument and reliance on Alberici is more subtle. Although recognizing that the cases can be distinguished on their facts, appellant still apparently sees a similarity in that the bid drawings in the instant case, just as those in Alberici, are allegedly incorrect -- albeit for different reasons. If the Board found the contractor entitled to relief in Alberici, then, arguably, relief should be available to Fire Security as well. Whether appellant is entitled to recovery under the Changes clause based on the alleged inaccuracy of the bid drawings is not an issue which we considered in our decision. We, therefore, grant appellant's request for reconsideration and address the question at this time. To prevail on this claim, appellant must prove that the bid drawings supplied by the Government and used by Fire Security to prepare its original estimate were, in fact, incorrect. Appellant's allegation that these drawings were incorrect suffers, however, from the same defect that besets the allegation in the alternative that these drawings differed materially from the conditions actually encountered at the site at the time of award. Both allegations fail for lack of substantial evidence. Following contract award, appellant undertook an extensive and prolonged site survey. The detailed information gathered during this process presumably was used in designing the required sprinkler system and is reflected in the as-built drawings. A careful comparative analysis of the bid drawings and the as-built drawings in the light of the site survey data should, therefore, have served to prove appellant's allegation that the bid drawings were, in fact, defective. Surprisingly, no such analysis was provided for the record. Instead, we are furnished with nothing more than a comparison of the total number of sprinkler heads originally drawn into the bid drawings by Fire Security's estimator and the number of sprinkler heads shown on the as-built drawings as actually installed -- less the number of sprinkler heads added to appellant's design by contract modifications after award. This numerical comparison demonstrates that, apart from additions made by contract modification, Fire Security installed 540 more sprinkler heads than it originally estimated would be necessary. While this may prove that the original estimate was in error, it does nothing to demonstrate the cause of the error. Appellant would have us conclude that the error does not stem from its estimator's method or calculations but from the fact that the drawings he used were defective. Even if we were to absolve the estimator of any blame in the preparation of his estimate, we can hardly conclude in this fashion that the sole remaining explanation for his inaccurate estimate must, therefore, rest in the alleged defects in the bid drawings. To prevail using this indirect approach, appellant must prove that from the time the bid drawings were prepared until completion of the actual sprinkler system, no cause intervened which might account in whole or in part for the inaccurate estimate. It would be arduous indeed, if not impossible, for appellant to prove the absence of all such causes. Neither would we expect it to do so. Rather, we would expect Fire Security to prove the inaccuracy of the bid drawings in a direct fashion using the extensive detailed information concerning the site that it culled during its detailed site survey after contract award. However, it has chosen not to do so. Absent such an affirmative showing and given appellant s failure or inability to eliminate all alternative reasonable causes for the variation between the projected and actual number of sprinkler heads, we conclude that Fire Security has not met its burden of proof. For this reason we find appellant s claim for the cost of installing 540 sprinkler heads based upon the contract Changes clause to be without merit. The contracting officer acted properly in rejecting it. Decision Appellant's request for reconsideration is GRANTED. Our decision concerning this appeal is AFFIRMED. ___________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge We concur: __________________ ___________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge Board Judge