______________________________ DENIED: October 30, 1997 ______________________________ GSBCA 13191 MARKS MOVERS AND STORAGE, INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Lonnie Marks of Marks Movers & Storage, Inc., Posen, IL, appearing for Appellant. Marcy A. Sherrill, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Chicago, IL, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges NEILL, HYATT, and GOODMAN. HYATT, Board Judge. Marks Movers and Storage, Inc., appellant, seeks to recover certain expenses incurred under its contract to provide relocation services for federal agencies in the Gary-Hammond, Indiana service area. In an earlier decision in this appeal the Board granted in part respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted, dismissing two of the three counts alleged by appellant. The remaining count seeks recovery of extra expenses incurred by appellant in providing security services for a particular office move. For the reasons set forth below, this count is now denied. Findings of Fact 1. On September 30, 1993, appellant was awarded a firm, fixed-price requirements contract, number GS05F0048B, for the period from October 1, 1993 to September 30, 1994. Pursuant to the contract, Marks was to provide certain relocation services for federal agencies in the Chicago, Illinois and Gary-Hammond, Indiana metropolitan areas. Specifically, Marks was obligated to furnish services necessary for the moving and relocating of office furniture, equipment, materials, and supplies. Appeal File, Exhibit 1. 2. Orders for moving services could be placed either by GSA or directly by the agencies requiring the services. An order was to identify the type of space involved in the move, the number of square feet involved, the date and time the move was to begin and end, and any special requirements. Once an order was placed against the contract, appellant was responsible for furnishing all supervision, labor, materials, and equipment necessary to perform all of the services contemplated in the contract in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 58. 3. The contract provided two pricing structures: one for moves of property located in less than 3,000 square feet of space and another for moves of property located in 3,000 or more square feet of space. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 8. The contract provided with respect to moves under 3,000 square feet that charges for elevator and other special services were required to be approved in advance by GSA and paid by appellant. Appellant would be reimbursed by respondent upon presentation of a paid invoice. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 60. In contrast, moves of property located in 3,000 or more square feet of space were to be priced at a cost per square foot, said price being the bid price offered by appellant. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 8. 4. The contract incorporated the following clause applicable to moves of 3,000 square feet or more: SERVICES TO BE FURNISHED: A. BY THE CONTRACTOR: (1) GENERAL. The Contractor shall perform all services required to remove the office equipment, furniture, files, and supplies, herein called property, from the present location, and place them pursuant to the instructions of the agency coordinators at the new location. These services shall include . . . picking up and loading the property at its present location(s), transporting the property to destination(s), delivering the property to its new location, . . . placing the property in the locations specified by the agency coordinator, . . . and any other services which would normally be included in a complete moving service here after [sic] called "relocation". It is the contractor's responsibility to acquaint himself with the work to be performed and the conditions existing at the old and new locations, so that he may furnish such equipment and labor necessary to provide for the orderly, timely and efficient movement of the property. (2) ELEVATOR AND OTHER SERVICES OF LEASED LOCATIONS. In locations involving leased space (tenancy by the Government), the contractor shall make arrangements with respective building owners or managers for any and all services and facilities necessary to accomplish the relocation, which shall include but not be limited to, elevator service, access to the building, and parking and loading facilities, and will include the use, maintenance, and operation associated of [sic] same at no cost to the Government. The Government shall not be liable for delays or any cost associated therewith or occasioned by the Contractor's failure to make adequate arrangements for any and all services and facilities necessary to accomplish the relocation. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 63. 5. On May 25, 1994, purchase order number POS94SD0055 was issued to Marks. This purchase order, in the amount of $44,381.65, covered the relocation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Appeal File, Exhibit 9. 6. The move was divided into two segments: the first component involved a move of property located in less than 3,000 square feet of space. The second part involved a move of property located in 39,405 square feet of space. For the second component, the move was priced at a cost per square foot and did not include additional amounts for other services. Appeal File, Exhibit 9. It is from this aspect of the move that appellant's claim arises, and, hereinafter, references to the EPA move refer only to this portion of the move. 7. In performing the move, the landlord of the new EPA building required Marks to pay for two security guards to be posted at the entries used by the movers. Appeal File, Exhibit 23. Marks paid for the guards, but did not agree that it was required to provide such a service to accomplish the move. Appeal File, Exhibit 28. 8. In a letter dated September 1, 1994, appellant set forth its claims arising as a result of the relocation of EPA and requested reimbursement from respondent. The claim now in issue was for the provision of security personnel during the move into the new building in the amount of $2837.50. Appeal File, Exhibit 28. 9. In a letter to appellant dated December 1, 1994, the contracting officer issued a decision denying each of appellant's claims and informing appellant of its appeal rights. Appeal File, Exhibit 31. Appellant thereafter filed its notice of appeal at the Board. 10. After the filing of the appeal, respondent filed a motion seeking dismissal of all counts for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. The Board issued a decision granting the motion as to two of the counts, but denying it with respect to the requirement to provide the services of security guards for the duration of the move. Marks Movers & Storage, Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 13191, 96-2 BCA  28,597. 11. Following issuance of the decision, appellant was granted the opportunity to file evidence, such as an affidavit, in support of its contention. The deadline for the filing of further evidence was extended several times. On September 22, 1997, an order was issued informing appellant that if no further submissions were received by October 7, 1997, the record would be closed. No submissions were proffered. Discussion The remaining claim in this appeal is for the recovery of the $2837.50 in security charges imposed by EPA's new landlord in connection with the move. The building management of the leased facility required security personnel to be stationed at the building entrance and elevator during the move. Appellant argues it should not have to pay for the additional security guards because appellant is insured. Appellant alternatively argues that even if the building policy requires guards to be posted in certain areas during moves, it should be an issue between GSA and building management, thus GSA's responsibility. Finally, appellant contends that this type of increased security is not a requirement to accomplish the move and thus is not a cost that the contractor should be required to bear. The Government responds that the contract requires the contractor to assume all costs of accomplishing moves of property located in space exceeding 3,000 square feet, including the challenged cost. The principal issue to be resolved, thus, is whether the contract allocates the risk of incurring such costs to the contractor or to the Government. Griffin Services, Inc., GSBCA 11171, 91-3 BCA  24,156. Under the contract, finding 4, appellant was to "make arrangements with respective building owners or managers for any and all services and facilities necessary to accomplish the relocation." The contract clause thus states that the costs of accomplishing the move are to be assumed by the contractor. The Government's interpretation of this clause's inclusiveness is arguably supported by the fact that the contract contains two pricing structures -- the pricing of smaller moves, in which various costs were not automatically assumed by the contractor and would be reimbursed by the Government, and the pricing of larger moves, for which no reimbursement of individual items seems to be contemplated. As the Board stated in its earlier decision denying respondent's motion to dismiss this count, however, it was not fully clear from the contract clause itself, or on the record before us, whether "security" costs are the type of services that reasonably fall within this requirement. Accordingly, the Board noted that appellant could introduce extrinsic evidence of intent, such as prior dealings of the parties and the customs prevailing in the industry, relevant to the proper interpretation of contract language. Marks Movers & Storage, Inc., 96-2 BCA at 142,778 (citing PGP Industries, GSBCA 9415, 91-1 BCA  23,359, at 117,154). To demonstrate that it is entitled to additional payments despite the language of this clause, appellant was given the opportunity to submit evidence showing that the costs claimed were not of a nature customarily required in office moves in this area. Although appellant was given ample opportunity to provide such evidence, it has not done so. Thus, this count fails for lack of proof. Decision The remaining count in this appeal is DENIED. ___________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge We concur: _________________________ ___________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge Board Judge