_______________________________________________ GSBCA 13088 GRANTED IN PART; GSBCA 13254 GRANTED: August 7, 1997 _______________________________________________ GSBCA 13088, 13254 PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. William M. Rosen and Kendrick D. Fong of Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin, L.L.P., Washington, DC, counsel for Appellant. Robert W. Schlattman, Sharon J. Chen, and Amy J. Brown, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges BORWICK, WILLIAMS, and VERGILIO. BORWICK, Board Judge. Respondent, General Services Administration (GSA), leases from appellant, Principal Mutual Life Insurance Co.(Principal Mutual or lessor), a building in Bethesda, Maryland, which serves as the headquarters for the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The lease required that the lessor furnish a turnkey build-out of the interior space, including partitions. The appeal docketed as GSBCA 13088 involves four of Principal Mutual's claims denied by the contracting officer: a claim that the Government has erroneously taken a double-deduction for the deletion of co-polymer paint as the standard finish for partitions, a claim for payment of costs of enhanced floor loading, a claim for adjustment of the rent start date of the lease, and a claim for costs of re-design of construction drawings resulting from changes to systems furniture plans provided by a different contractor under a separate contract. We grant this appeal in part. We conclude the Government erroneously took a double credit for deletion of co-polymer paint. We conclude that lessor is not entitled to its requested payment for enhanced floor loading, because the lessor did not perform work to enhance the floor load on each floor, as required by the lease's definition of tenant build-out. We conclude that lessor is entitled to a rent start date of August 18, 1993. The Government established a rent start date of December 20, 1993, because of alleged dimensional deficiencies in lessor's construction drawings. The Government maintains that the actual dimensions of the building were different from the dimensions shown on the construction drawings. The Government maintains that the systems furniture installer relied on the construction drawing dimensions in drafting the furniture installation plans. The Government maintains that when discovered, the alleged discrepancy in dimensions caused extensive re-design of systems furniture plans, delaying its installation on the fifth, sixth and seventh floors of the building. The systems furniture was installed on those floors by another contractor under a separate contract. We conclude that lessor's construction drawings were suitable for their intended purpose, i.e., the construction of the build-out of the fifth, sixth and seventh floors. The lessor had no contractual responsibilities for installation of systems furniture; the delay in installation of systems furniture was not caused by alleged deficiencies in lessor's construction drawings, but by unrealistic scheduling of the systems furniture installation and extensive aesthetic and design changes to systems furniture layouts made by CPSC. These changes were not related to the alleged dimensional discrepancy in the lessor's construction drawings. Finally, we conclude, for the same reason, that lessor is entitled to its cost of re-design of construction drawings to conform to the re-designed systems furniture plan. We grant the appeal docketed as GSBCA 13254. In that docket, lessor appealed from the contracting officer's decision assessing lessor $91,423.13 for re-design of systems furniture plan and purchase of a filing system to be used in the systems furniture installation. We conclude that lessor is not responsible for those costs, because nothing in the lessor's performance of the build-out of the interior space caused the extra costs the Government incurred. There is no clause in the lease that would allow the Government to recover such costs from the lessor. Findings of Fact Credit for deletion of co-polymer paint for partitions and enhanced floor loading General provisions of lease 1. On October 10, 1992, GSA as a lessee entered into a ten year lease with East West Towers Section II Limited Partnership, the lessor, and the predecessor in interest to the present lessor, appellant, Principal Mutual. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 1. The lease required the lessor to provide in phases a build-out of the interior space. Id. at 16 ( 3.1). The scheduling of each phase was specified elsewhere in the solicitation. Id. at 81,  9.1. Unit price adjustment provisions of lease 2. The design of the build-out was not established at the time of offering on the lease; offerors therefore bid on projected quantities stated in the solicitation for offers. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 45. Actual quantities of materials were to be based on approved construction drawings. Id. To enable an equitable adjustment for the Government or the lessor if actual quantities used in the build-out differed from the projections, offerors were to provide a unit price for components of the build-out. Id. at 13 ( 3.1). 3. With regard to adjustment for quantities of materials in case of variance from projected quantities, the lease provided: GSA WILL USE EACH UNIT COST TO MAKE A LUMP SUM PAYMENT OR RENTAL INCREASE IF THE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL REQUIRED BY THE LAYOUT IS MORE THAN SPECIFIED OR TAKE CREDIT FROM RENTAL IF THE AMOUNT IS LESS THAN SPECIFIED. OFFERORS ARE REQUIRED TO STATE IN THE OFFER OR IN AN ATTACHMENT: THE COST PER LINEAR FOOT OF OFFICE SUBDIVIDING CEILING- HIGH PARTITIONING. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 13 ( 3.1). 4. Under the solicitation as originally issued, the minimum specification covering for walls (including partitions) was vinyl. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 24 ( 5.3). The solicitation was revised to specify co-polymer paint as the specified partition covering: Prior to occupancy, all partitions are to be covered with one primer coat, one high pressure spray coat and one low pressure spray coat of acrylate co-polymer paint adjusted to produce a uniform pattern in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Id. at 47 (Revised  5.3). The contracting officer testified that co-polymer paint was made the minimum covering for partitions so as to deprive vendors of the opportunity of not providing co-polymer paint. The partition specifications, nevertheless, were included in the section of the solicitation entitled "special requirements." Id. at 45. 5. In this regard, the GSA lease negotiator, Mr. Donald Silverstein, testified that under the Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR), the standard partition covering was vinyl, and that co-polymer paint, whether or not it was "standard" for the CPSC building, would be considered above-standard for regular office space and would be paid for separately. Transcript at 55. He testified that "everybody understood that [co-polymer paint] is a special above[-]standard item and there's a specific cost associated with it." Id. at 57. Square foot and lump sum pricing provisions of lease 6. The solicitation required offerors to submit alternate proposals for the building and special requirements. Offerors were to state the base rental rate, a rental rate which included the cost of the special requirements and an itemized cost for lump sum payment of special requirements not to be included in the rental rate. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 47 (Revised  3.3). GSA had the option of paying for the special requirements through an amortized rental rate or by lump sum payment. Id. at 2 ( C). Lessor's unit cost pricing 7. On July 16, 1992, lessor submitted a proposed unit cost for adjustment and detailed pricing proposal for the special requirements set forth in the solicitation. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 1. Lessor priced the unit cost for standard partitions at $16.50 per linear foot. This price included the cost of flat wall based paint, but did not include the price of co-polymer paint. Transcript at 494. At a negotiation meeting of July 17, 1992, GSA's chief lease negotiator, Mr. Donald Silverstein, recognized that the $16.50 price did not include co-polymer paint; he advised the lessor that its price for partitions must include the price for co- polymer paint. Id. at 50; Appeal File, Exhibit 14. 8. In response to that advice, lessor raised its unit cost for standard partitions to $24 per linear foot, but did not expressly confirm that the price included the cost of co-polymer paint. Transcript at 495; Appeal File, Exhibit 97. On July 28, the lessor quoted $25 per linear foot for "typical ceiling high partitions (with [three] color co-polymer paint and vinyl base.)" Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 4. This was the rate the parties agreed would apply to any adjustments for variation in material quantities from the amount specified. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 13 ( 3.1). 9. After the negotiations, Mr. Silverstein determined that lessor's $25 unit cost included the cost of co-polymer paint. He determined that the $25 unit cost was responsive to the requirements of the solicitation, complete, mathematically correct, fair and reasonable. Transcript at 45. Lessor's amortized and lump sum pricing for build-out 10. On August 5, 1992, lessor submitted its best and final offer (BAFO) for the lease. It proposed to lease 100,679 usable square feet of space to GSA. Lessor's net rent inclusive of real estate taxes, but "exclusive of base operating expenses and the minimum specifications and other special requirements (as set forth on [certain specified pages of the solicitation])" was $12.40 per square foot. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 5 at B. Lessor proposed $12.40 per square foot for net rent, and $6.95 per square foot for base operating expenses. Lessor proposed $3.65 per square foot as the "amortized cost of special requirements." Id. Included in those amortized costs were $1.81 per square foot for minimum performance specifications. The amortized costs of "other special requirements" was $1.84 per square foot. Included in that $1.84 per square foot figure was $.20 for security system, $.38 for fiber optic system, $.04 for sound masking system, $.19 for co- polymer paint upgrade, $.02 for acoustic ceiling tile, $.10 for carpet tile upgrade, $.78 for HVAC system upgrade and $.13 for electrical upgrades. Id. 11. GSA agreed to pay the lessor $2,039,756.54 per year for 100,679 usable square feet of space. This equals an annual square foot rate of $20.26. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 1. On a square foot basis, the sum of the lessor's BAFO prices of the net rent ($12.40), base operating expense ($6.95), HVAC upgrade ($.78) and electrical upgrade ($.13) is $20.26. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 5 at B. This rate includes no amount for co-polymer paint. 12. In accordance with revised paragraph 3.3 of the solicitation, lessor priced the itemized cost for lump sum payment of the special requirements not to be included in the rental rate, as follows: (1) minimum performance specifications/special requirements-- $1,133,521; (2) security system--$125,500; (3) fiber optic system--$237,711.38; (4) sound masking system--$28,050; (5) co-polymer paint upgrade--$119,800; (6) acoustic ceiling tile--$12,081; and (7) carpet tile upgrade-- $66,325. Appeal File, Exhibit 8 at 3. The sum of those prices is $1,722,988.38. GSA agreed to pay that total as a lump sum. In this regard, the lease provided: The Government will reimburse the Lessor by a lump sum payment of $1,722,988.38 for all above standard costs associated with the build-out, as identified in the special requirements section of this [solicitation] and made a part of this lease. Id. Exhibit 9 at 2 ( 6C). 13. Under the lease, lessor was required to provide one linear foot of partition for every ten square feet of space; GSA was therefore entitled to 10,068 linear feet of partition. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 25 ( 5.10). In agreeing to a lump sum payment of $119,800 for the co-polymer paint, GSA agreed to pay for the co-polymer paint at a rate of $11.90 (rounded) per linear foot. This rate is derived by dividing $119,800 by 10,068. The difference between lessor's lump sum build-out pricing for partitions with co-polymer paint and its itemized unit pricing for partitions without co-polymer paint is $3.40 per linear foot. Lessor priced the co-polymer paint element lower in its unit cost pricing than in its lump sum pricing because lessor guessed--correctly as it turned out--that respondent would eliminate partitions. Transcript at 500. The lessor knew that CPSC would use systems furniture for its interior offices and lessor calculated that the partition ratio of one linear foot of partition for every ten square feet of space exceeded CPSC's needs. Id. at 706. 14. By declaration in support of respondent's motion for summary relief, the GSA contracting officer who was in charge of the build- out for this lease stated: The cost of the co-polymer paint is already included in the $25 per [linear foot] unit cost for subdividing ceiling-high partitions which is part of the base rent of $12.40 per net usable square foot. Respondent's Brief in Support of Respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Relief, Exhibit C (Declaration of GSA Contracting Officer Douglas G. Benton (Oct. 12, 1995) (Benton Declaration)) at 5 ( 8). At the hearing on the merits of this appeal, the contracting officer who denied the claim testified that at the time of lease execution, he understood that lessor's BAFO of August 5, 1992, did not include two charges for co-polymer paint. Transcript at 1213-15. 15. There is a dispute of fact as to whether the lessor's BAFO of August 5, 1992, included a charge--$119,800--for co- polymer paint twice. We conclude, based upon the lessor's pricing of the lease package above, the testimony of the GSA lease negotiator and the GSA contracting officer, that lessor charged the Government for co-polymer paint once, in the itemized cost for lump sum payment of the special requirements not to be included in the rental rate. GSA deletion of partitions 16. At some point during interior construction, GSA removed 8,468 linear feet of partition from the space design, which left 1,600 linear feet of partition. GSA deducted $211,700 (8,468 linear feet x $25 per linear foot) from the lump sum payment due for the build-out. Joint Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 3 at 7. At the same time it deleted the partitions from the design, respondent, in its first set of design intent drawings (DIDs), eliminated co-polymer paint as the required finish. Transcript at 482-83. Partitions actually provided 17. Instead of the co-polymer paint on the 1,600 linear feet of partitions actually provided, the CPSC chose to use a combination of regular latex and vinyl wall-covering as the wall finish for those partitions. Transcript at 63-64. This combination cost the same as co-polymer paint; GSA and lessor agreed to substitute one partition finish for the other, with no credit or debit for the partition covering actually provided. Id. at 64, 486. Post-lease price negotiations 18. Between December 14, 1993, and March 15, 1994, the lessor and GSA held cost and price negotiation meetings at which the issue of a proper credit for the co-polymer paint finish was discussed. Appeal File, Exhibits 15-19, 67. The parties held a final meeting on May 6, after which GSA took the following position regarding that credit: The lessor's [BAFO] . . . clearly shows the slab-to- ceiling partition at $25.00 per linear foot. This does not include the co-polymer paint. An add of $119,800 is included to cover the cost of this work. . . . Therefore a credit on partitions will be taken by the Government at $25.00 per linear foot and no disbursement made on the lump sum total of $119,800-- the co-polymer paint was not executed on the job. Id., Exhibit 68. 19. After failure of settlement negotiations, Appeal File, Exhibit 69, lessor submitted a claim to the contracting officer maintaining that GSA erroneously determined that the charge of $25 per linear foot did not include the co-polymer paint finish for the partitions. Id., Exhibit 70 at 4. Lessor maintained that by (1) taking a credit of $25 per linear foot for the deleted partitions against the rent and (2) refusing to disburse $119,800 of the lump sum payment for the build-out, GSA took a double credit for the supposed deletion from the lease of co- polymer paint as standard partition finish. Id. 20. The GSA contracting officer testified that he rejected lessor's claim for co-polymer paint based solely on speculation that the lessor's BAFO of August 5, 1992, included the cost of co-polymer paint twice. Transcript at 1214. He conceded that at the time the lease was signed, there was no reason for the GSA to conclude that the cost of co-polymer paint was included both in the base rent and in lessor's lump sum cost proposal for above- standard improvements. Id. at 1215. Enhanced floor loading 21. For office areas, the lease required a minimum live load capacity of fifty pounds per square foot plus twenty pounds per square foot for movable partitions. Storage areas were required to have a minimum live load capacity of one hundred pounds per square foot. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 17. The lease contained enhanced floor loading specifications as part of the special requirements of the lease. Id. at 242. The lease provided that "the intent of the specials section is to list the above standard alterations in the form of minimum performance specifications that will result in a 'turnkey' build-out." Id. at 45. 22. Room design and floor loading was specified in the lease on a room-by-room basis. For example, the lease specified 148 square feet for the CPSC Chairman's file room, but did not state where in the building the file room was to be placed. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 241. The accompanying preliminary drawing (dated August 23, 1991) for that room showed dimensions of 11'-8" x 12'-8", with three lateral files adjoining one long wall and bookcases abutting the short wall. Id. at 343. The floor loading for the file room was stated in terms of ability to support specified equipment: "[For the Chairman's Suite File/Storage Room] provide floor loading for three (3) fully loaded 3'-0" wide x 2'-6" deep x 6' x-0 high times two files weighing 1220 pound each, nine (9) linear feet of 6'-0" high bookshelves." Id. at 242. The specification also provided that "Written certification of floor load capacity at no cost to the government, by a registered professional engineer, may be required." Id. 23. Other enhanced floor loading was stated in terms of enhanced pounds per square foot plus a load. For example, the specified floor loading for the ADMS central shipping and receiving area was "150 [pounds per square foot] plus concentrated load." Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 321. 24. The special requirements section of the lease provided in pertinent part: Actual quantities will be based on the approved construction drawings that are based on Government provided design intent drawings and the Solicitation for Offers including the above standard alteration performance requirements. Although offerors must include all tenant alterations, both standard and above standard as turnkey, there is a provision in the lease to make unit price adjustments for additional or fewer quantities if the design intent drawings change the actual quantities from the allowances. If there is a difference in an item that is not covered in the unit price table, then the actual difference in cost, either as a debit or credit to the Government, will be negotiated in accordance with the changes and proposal for adjustment clauses of the general conditions part of the Solicitation for Offers. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 44-45. The lessor understood the term actual quantity to mean that actual quantities of enhanced floor loading would be calculated by counting the square footage of the rooms to be enhanced, rather than counting the number of steel beams or the amount of high-strength concrete placed in the floors. Transcript at 121-22. 25. The lease defined tenant build-out as "all work and initial space alterations required by the SFO, as amended, to prepare the space for occupancy by the Government." Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 87 ( 9.1 IX.A). 26. Lessor's initial offer informed the Government that the live floor load capacity of the building was 100 pounds per square foot. Appeal File, Exhibit 87 at 9. The drawings of the building show that the design live loads on a typical floor to be 100 pounds per square foot. Appellant's Hearing Exhibit 1 (Drawing S-23); Transcript at 87. In its BAFO unit price tables, lessor priced enhanced floor loading at $31.51 for the material cost per square foot, and $15.17 as labor/installation cost per square foot. E.g., Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 167 (Lessor's Pricing Proposal for the General Counsel's Central Mobile File Room). Lessor developed the prices in conjunction with its consulting structural engineers. Transcript at 533. The GSA lease negotiator understood this pricing to be a unit price agreement which put the performance risk on the lessor. No matter what the cost to the lessor, it was to provide the enhanced floor loading at the agreed-upon square foot unit price. Id. at 75-76. 27. The solicitation and the resulting lease identified the names of rooms in which CPSC desired the strengthened loads. Offerors could not have known where CPSC would actually choose to place the rooms before the lease award, since the Government had the discretion to configure the space as it desired. Transcript at 536-39. 28. The GSA contracting officer for the non-build-out requirements, Mr. Brown, testified at the hearing on this case. He testified that during a market survey, he and others on the GSA team, including Mr. Silverstein, walked through the building eventually leased for CPSC. Transcript at 1189-91. Mr. Brown testified that during the walk through members of the GSA team asked the owners whether the building could meet floor load requirements of about 150 pounds per square foot. Id. at 1192, 1224. 29. Mr. Brown testified that the owners stated that the building could not meet floor load requirements of 150 pounds per square foot, but that if the owners were awarded the lease, they could meet that requirement after the space was built-out as a condition of award. Transcript at 1224. He testified that the Government negotiated a unit price agreement for floor loading because the Government believed that the owner's building could not meet an existing requirement of 150 pounds per square foot. Id. at 1196. Mr. Brown stated that Mr. Silverstein, the GSA negotiator, drafted the floor loading specifications. Id. at 1215-16. 30. The GSA lease negotiator testified that he attended all the negotiations on enhanced floor loading with lessor and handled all other negotiations on price and construction activities until August 1991, when he transferred to the Public Health Service. Transcript at 91-92. During the Government's negotiation, the GSA lease negotiator asked lessor's representatives how the lessor would enhance the floor loads. The representatives replied that they would not know until the layout was done, but that they had offered unit prices based on the lessor's historical experience on the cost of enhancing loads in other buildings. Id. at 88-89. The GSA lease negotiator testified that lessor never told him that it would have to enhance the floor loads in the building to meet loading requirements. Id. at 88. 31. There is a dispute of fact as to whether lessor's negotiators represented to the Government that extra work would have to be done to the building to meet the enhanced loading requirements. The presiding judge has listened to the testimony and observed the demeanor of the witnesses. Based on the testimony of GSA's lease negotiator, which is consistent with the testimony of lessor's officials, we find as fact that lessor's lease negotiators did not represent to the Government's negotiators that the building would need extra work to achieve the enhanced floor load requirements. 32. The leased building supports floor loads of at least one hundred pounds per square foot, as indicated both by the structural drawings for the building and the calculations of a structural engineer retained by the lessor as a consultant. Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 7. This floor load was stated in lessor's BAFO. Appeal File, Exhibit 8 at 7. According to lessor's structural engineer, the typical design load in buildings in the metropolitan Washington D.C. area is eighty pounds per square foot live load and twenty pounds per square foot dead load. Transcript at 1407. 33. After lessor received the final construction drawings, and the space could be physically located in the structure, lessor engaged the services of a consulting structural engineer, Tadjer-Cohen- Edelson Associates (Tadjer-Cohen), to analyze the drawings. Appeal File, Exhibit 301; Transcript at 1410. The purpose of the analysis was to determine the loads the existing structure could handle. Transcript at 1410. A building with a base load of one hundred pounds per square feet may well be able to hold greater concentrated loads at specific locations, if the floors are properly designed. Id. at 201. 34. Tadjer-Cohen analyzed the load-bearing capacities of the floors by using standard structural engineering techniques to determine whether the enhanced loads specified in the lease could be met. Transcript at 201, 205-06. In making a structural analysis, the engineer compares interior design drawings and computes the stress to be put on the floor. The engineer then finds, through standard formulas, the reinforcing necessary to resist the stress. Id. at 206. In order to determine whether the floor can handle the concentrated load, the engineer, referring to the building's structural drawings which depict the reinforcing on the floor slab, analyzes whether the reinforcing shown is equal to or greater than the reinforcing the engineer has determined is necessary to resist the stress of the load. Id. 35. Tadjer-Cohen provided the following certification, applicable to floor areas requiring concentrated loads in excess of 150 pounds per square foot plus concentrated loads and other performance loads, dated October 19, to the General Services Administration: With respect to the design and construction of the following rooms identified in the Minimum Performance Specifications attached to and included in U.S. Government Lease GS-11B-20679: (i) the COJJ- File/Storage room (page 3-40); (ii) the CO-File/Storage Room (page 3-48); (iii) the ADDP-Storage Room (page 3- 99); (iv) the Agency Library (page 3-107); (v) the ADMS-Copy Center (page 3-111); (vi) the ADMS-Central Shipping/Receiving Room (page 3-119); (vii) the ADMS(CB)-Contracts File Power Area (page 3-123); (viii) the EXCE-Sample Storage/Quick (page 3-127); (ix) the GC-Central Mobile File Room (page 3-131); (x) the OS- Central Mobile File Room (page 3-135); (xi) the ADPM- File/ID Room (page 3-139); and (xii) the Times Two File areas (page 3-147), as currently shown on the approved construction documents prepared by Settles dated 5.13.93 for the 5th, 6th and 7th floors of the North and South Towers, drawings A26 thru A30, the floor slabs are structurally sound to support the proposed loads. Appeal File, Exhibit 301. Lessor also supplied a certification that the building would support loads in excess of 100 pounds per square foot. Id., Exhibit 343. 36. After cost and price negotiation meetings, by letter of May 6, 1994, GSA took the position that "verification of actual quantities" showed no structural work required to meet the floor loading requirements. GSA maintained that the base building slab was originally built to accommodate loads in excess of one hundred and fifty pounds per square foot, that the lessor had reason to know that fact at the time of their initial offer and at the time of BAFO. Based on verification of actual quantities "enhanced floor loading was not executed." Appeal File, Exhibit 67. GSA stated that it would not pay lessor that portion of the lump sum attributable to the cost of enhanced floor loading. Id. By letter of May 27, GSA advised the lessor that since it had performed no actual work to enhance the floor load, lessor would not be paid for enhanced floor loading. Id., Exhibit 68. Delayed rent start Lease provisions 37. The lease included a design and construction rider, which set forth the Government's and lessor's responsibilities in connection with the tenant improvements to be made to the space over and above the base building requirements. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 81 ( 9.1). Tenant improvements were defined as improvements that will result from the performance of the work and installation of materials specified in both the basic and additional requirements of the SFO. Id. Design and installation of the tenant improvements was to be done in three phases. Phase one was the installation of the computer facility; phases two and three were the build-out of the office space totaling 55,200 square feet of space and 44,350 square feet of space, respectively. Id. 38. The lease set forth a schedule of activities with maximum time frames in working days for both the lessor and the Government. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 81 ( 9.1). Lessor was to provide Mylar reproducible copies of the base building drawings with the return of the signed lease. Id. at 82 ( 9.1). Within forty-six days and fifty-six days after lease award, the Government was to deliver to lessor design intent drawings (DIDs) for phases two and three, respectively. Id. 39. Upon receipt of the DIDs for subsequent phases, the lessor was to submit working drawings for each phase within twenty days. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 83 ( 9.1). Working drawings were defined as "final and complete architectural, structural, mechanical, and electrical drawings and specifications for the Tenant improvements [which] must be in compliance with the intent of the [DIDs]." Id. The Government had twenty days to accept the drawings and to issue a notice to proceed with construction or to detail defects and omissions and request further drawings. Id. Within seventy days from receipt of the notice to proceed, lessor had seventy days to complete the construction. Id. at 85. 40. The Government reserved the right to access any space within the building for the purpose of installing government- furnished equipment. In this regard, the lease provided: [I]t is understood that the Government will be performing work in the space under separate contract prior to substantial completion of Lessor's improvements. The detailed construction schedule will be used to coordinate the tasks of these other contractors and to monitor lessor's progress. The Government shall coordinate, with the Lessor, the activity of Government contractors in order to minimize conflicts with, and disruption to, other contractors on site. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 85 ( 9.1). 41. The lease required the Government to accept the space on a phased basis, with the Government paying pro-rata rent for space as soon as it was accepted. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 86 ( 9.1). The lessor was required to complete the entire space in order for the Government to accept it, except for minor punch list items. The punch list items were to be completed within thirty days following acceptance of the space. Id. The definition of "substantially complete" in the lease is as follows: the tenant improvements, the common and other areas of the building, and all other things necessary for the Government's access to the Leased premises and occupancy, possession, use and enjoyment thereof, as provided in the lease, have been completed or obtained. . . . Id. 42. Following acceptance of all phases by the Government, the Government was to issue a supplemental lease agreement to establish a composite lease commencement date and fix the ten- year lease term. The composite lease commencement date would be the weighted median of the acceptance dates of the various phases. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 86 (9.1).  43. The GSA lease negotiator explained that under the design and construction rider, lessor's responsibility did not extend to the design, manufacture, or installation of the systems furniture. Transcript at 124-27. Drawings and their use leading to claim Base building drawings 44. As noted above, Finding 38, the lease required lessor to provide Mylar reproducible copies of the base building drawings with the return of the signed lease: II. BASE BUILDING DRAWINGS A. With the return of the signed lease the offeror shall deliver to the Government a Mylar reproducible copy of the master base building drawings. These drawings must be fully dimensioned and scaled at 1/8 inch equals 1.0 foot. They must depict all fixed architectural and structural elements of the existing or proposed building as follows: B. Vertical penetrations including elevator shafts, stairwells, wet stacks, and aid shafts; columns and convectors; interior partitions, permanent fire corridor partitions, permanent corridors door locations; core areas including toilets, mechanical areas, wire closets, custodial and maintenance areas, closets, lobbies and vestibules; inside parking; roofs, ramps, balconies or other exterior building elements. The drawings will include numerical identification of all columns, stairwells, elevator toilets, doors and similar structural elements. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 82 ( 9.1). 45. Obtaining base building drawings was the first step to implement the build-out of tenant improvements specified in the design and construction rider. See Finding 44. The base building drawings show the building's dimensions, e.g. 180 feet in length for both the south and north towers. Appellant's Exhibit 1 at A-2, S-22, S-23. 46. GSA's project manager for build-out of the CPSC space was Settles Associates (Settles). Transcript at 248. The project architect for Settles testified that the base building drawings were accurate to (1) build the building and (2) produce DIDs for GSA. Id. at 262. 47. The contracting officer for GSA testified that the base building drawings were defective. Transcript at 1243. He first testified that the drawings he received were not on Mylar, Id. at 1243, but later acknowledged that the Government did receive Mylar drawings in addition to the paper construction drawings introduced at the hearing on the merits. Id. at 1246. He also testified that despite the presence of some dimensions, the drawings were not fully dimensioned as required by the lease. Id. at 1243. He did not explain which of the missing dimensions would adversely affect the Government's use and possession of the fifth, sixth, and seventh floors of the building. 48. There is a dispute of fact as to whether the base building drawings lessor supplied to GSA were defective. We find as fact that the base building drawings were suitable for their intended purpose under the lease--to produce the DIDs--and there were no deficiencies in the base building drawings that lessor had supplied to GSA that affected the start of the rent for the fifth, six and seventh floors. Findings 46, 47. Design intent drawings 49. As noted above, the Government was to deliver DIDs to the lessor to enable the lessor to build-out the space. Finding 38. To fulfill that responsibility, GSA contracted with Settles for the layout of the space and space planning for the building. Appeal File, Exhibit 76. Under its contract Settles was to: (1) develop a set of Mylar master base drawings, scaled at 1/8" to 1', indicating the building shell and location of fixed partitions, id. at  3.2; (2) develop record drawings, adding to the base drawings dimensioned partition and telephone locations, id. at  3.3.2; (3) produce preliminary space plans soft lined and properly scaled and dimensioned, for review prior to developing interim DIDs, id. at  8.4.1; (4) produce interim space plans incorporating the comments from the client and agency, id. at  8.4.1a; and (5) from those, deliver final design intent drawings. Id. at  8.4.2. As explained by Settles' project architect, DIDs graphically depict the space requirements of the agency. DIDs reflect the layouts, departments, and functionality of the departments, and may also include finish lists. DIDs are concept drawings which do not necessarily include dimensions. Transcript at 251. 50. From December 1992 through January 1993, Settles produced generic DIDs for GSA. In order to prepare the DIDs, Settles copied the base master plan. The copying process introduced a dimensional discrepancy on the base master plan, which, according to Settles, stretched the scaled dimensions of the building by forty-two inches. The east-west dimension was allegedly forty-two inches longer than as shown on the base building drawing lessor had submitted to GSA. Appeal File, Exhibit 324; Transcript at 281. This discrepancy was transmitted to all subsequent drawings based on the master base plan. Transcript at 282. Nevertheless, the DIDs Settles submitted to GSA did contain dimensions, since Settles had spent six months discussing layouts with CPSC and Settles thought dimensions were important in light of those discussions. Id. at 291. The GSA project manager directed Settles to remove the dimensions from the DIDs, because he believed dimensions on DIDs would do more than convey the general intent of the Government as to how it wanted the space to be laid out. Id. at 1316. The DIDs were generic because GSA had not selected a systems furniture vendor to provide the furniture in the space. Id. at 279. GSA's project manager also wanted to provide the lessor latitude in building out the space. Id. at 1317. Construction drawings 51. The lease provided in pertinent part for working (also known as construction) drawings: WORKING DRAWINGS A. Upon completion of the design intent drawings . . . by the Government, the lessor will . . . prepare at its own expense, and submit to the Government, for the Government's review and approval, final and complete working drawings and specifications. . . . The working drawings shall consist of final and complete architectural, structural, mechanical, and electrical drawings and specifications for the tenant improvements, and must be in compliance with the requirements of the [DIDs]. . . . . D. Should revisions requested by the Government include modifications to the working drawings that are outside the scope of work shown on the approved design intent drawings, the Government shall be responsible for any delay or additional time required to prepare revised working drawings. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 82 ( 9.1). 52. In January 1993, the lessor hired Settles to produce construction drawings for the build-out of the leased space. Appeal File, Exhibit 146; Appellant's Exhibit 4; Transcript at 1412-14. Construction drawings are reinterpretations of DIDs, and include details such as dimensions that are lacking on DIDs. Transcript at 252. Construction drawings tell the builder how to build out the space. Id. at 269. For this project, those drawings were provided after submission and approval of the DIDs, and were based on the DIDs. Id. at 268-69. The construction drawings contained the following note: DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED FOR DIMENSIONS AND/OR SIZES. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD MEASURING EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF WORK AND DURING PROGRESS TO VERIFY ALL CRITICAL DIMENSIONS Respondent's Exhibit 3, Sheet A1, Note E. 53. The construction drawings (focusing on the fifth, sixth and seventh floors) showed plans for base partitions, and the location of electrical closets, telephone rooms and restrooms. Respondent's Exhibit 3, Sheets A-5 to A-9. A reflected ceiling plan for those floors was also provided. Id., Sheets A-10 to A- 17. The electrical plans for those floors showed the electrical rooms, plus base electrical feeds and telephone lines for systems furniture workstations. Id., Sheets A-20 to A-25. The finish plans showed finishes for base partitions and corridors on the fifth, sixth and seventh floors. Id., Sheets A-33 to A-37. 54. Appellant's expert, an architect who is on the Board of the Northern Virginia chapter of the American Institute of Architects, Transcript at 751, testified that the construction drawings were satisfactory for their intended purpose, i.e. to enable the lessor's contractor to build out the space. Id. at 753. The architect testified that reproduction discrepancies in drawings are common. Id. at 760. To locate critical dimensions, therefore, as a matter of sound construction or architecture practice, the builder relies on dimension notations on drawings or upon measurement from a fixed position such as a column. Id. at 756-57. According to the expert, use of the scale on drawings to determine measurements of critical dimensions is not sound practice. Id. at 757. 55. The project architect for Settles testified that it is poor design and architectural practice to scale a drawing to determine critical dimensions; a builder or architect should rely on dimension lines in drawings or take field measurements. Transcript at 323-24. In her view, scaling is appropriate only to do rough cost estimates. Id. at 321. 56. The lessor's director of construction for the build- out testified that the alleged discrepancy in construction drawings did not hinder the lessor's build-out of the space: [The Government] claim[s] that the [construction documents] had a discrepancy in dimensioning or scaling between itself and the base building documents. The fact is that [it] didn't matter, because it was a physical space. And, the way you view documents for existing space is you set critical dimensions off existing columns or window moldings or whatever physically is there as a benchmark. And then from that you lay out the space. What the Government is contending is that the [construction documents] should have identically matched the base building documents. That really wasn't necessary because what we were building was an existing space. It had no relationship [to] the base building documents. The physical space does relate to the base building drawings. Transcript at 1414. 57. The construction drawings also contained three DIDs, Sheets A-26 to A-31. Settles included those sheets to allow permitting authorities to see entrance/egress routes. Transcript at 306-07. The Settles project architect explained that: One of the problems with obtaining a permit, of course, is that they have to be reviewed again for life and safety issues meaning egress issues and even though a set of construction documents, certainly in this case, do not have to have the furniture layout for the general contractor because he's not going to be utilizing those to build out his space, they are required--requested by the permit office so they can see if aisle spaces and clearances are adequate enough for egress issues. And so just as a standard, we include them in the package. Id. Systems furniture and installation 58. After lease execution, demolition of the existing space occurred between December 1992 and February 1993. Appellant's Exhibit 6. 59. Systems furniture consists of base panels, usually finished in a consistent fabric throughout the installation, and workstations. Transcript at 358-59. The base panels--from thirty inches to seventy inches in height--form the walls. To serve the workstations, electrical outlets and telecommunication lines run from a base feed, usually placed on building columns, through the base panels to outlets on the interior surface of the base panels. Id. Workstations can be configured for specific tasks, for example a computing workstation. Respondent's Exhibit 3, Sheet A-29 (typical C-station); Transcript at 360. 60. For installation of systems furniture on the fifth, sixth and seventh floors of the building, GSA contracted with Knoll (a systems furniture manufacturer) through a solicitation issued February 24, 1993. The contract was awarded April 23. Appeal File, Exhibits 159, 188; Appellant's Exhibit 4; Transcript at 303. The solicitation/contract required the successful offeror to verify site measurements provided by the design firm and to have final responsibility for adapting the design layout to fit the vendor's specific product. Appeal File, Exhibit 148 at 4 ( B1). The contract required the successful offeror to review the systems furniture layout plans, and to verify site measurements to ascertain potential layout/product conflict. Id. at 4 ( B2c). The contract advised that the prototypicals shown in the solicitation/contract were not intended to represent the actual and specific workstations which might be ordered, but only as a generic representation of the Government's requirements. Id. at 11 (General Provisions,  4). Finally, the solicitation/contract warned on the first page in capital letters that: APPROXIMATELY 1/3 OF THE TOTAL WORKSTATIONS MAY REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL DESIGN CHANGES FROM THE PROTOTYPICALS SHOWN IN ORDER TO FIT THE SPACE AVAILABLE. OFFERORS SHOULD ACCOUNT FOR THIS IN THEIR DESIGN HOURS IN THEIR PROP[OS]ALS. Id. at 1. The contract established the tentative installation schedule from June 1 to July 9, 1993. Id. at 8. 61. Interior Elements, the furniture installer, was a subcontractor to Knoll. Creative Expressions was a third-tier subcontractor as a space planner and a subcontractor to Interior Elements. Employees of Creative Expressions produced the furniture drawings and measured the space. Transcript at 303-04. 62. Although the GSA project manager was nominally in charge of reviewing drawings preparatory to installation of the systems furniture, the CPSC's Director of Relocation, Douglas Noble, assumed day-to-day responsibility for commenting on the drawings and drove the decisions regarding installation of systems furniture. Transcript at 891-92, 922-23. 63. To enable Knoll to prepare the systems furniture plan, CPSC's Director of Relocation sent Sheets A-26 through A-31, the DIDs bundled with the construction drawings, to Knoll. Transcript at 924. CPSC, however, did not provide to Knoll Sheet A-1 of the drawings, which contained the cautionary note not to scale the drawings. Id. at 1022-23. 64. The contract did not require Knoll to design or account for freestanding files or equipment. Transcript at 1157. The Government procured free-standing files from a different vendor. Appeal File, GSBCA 13254, Exhibit 1. 65. In March, CPSC sent a staffer to randomly measure columns on the fifth and sixth floor of the building. Transcript at 894. The staffer found that her measurements of the column dimensions did not agree with the scale of the drawings that CPSC had to comment upon. Id. at 897. By letter of March 23, therefore, CPSC advised Settles that the measurements exceeded "the dimensions shown on the construction drawings," by which CPSC meant dimensions derived from scaling the drawings. Appeal File, GSBCA 13254, Exhibit 1 at 5; Transcript at 897. 66. In response, Settles field verified column sizes and incorporated them into construction drawings. Appeal File, Exhibit 174 at 2. Settles reported to CPSC that field verification had found four columns on each floor in each tower to be larger than the nominal 2' x 2'. The columns, containing wet stacks, are nominally 2' x 5'. Settles stated that revisions would be necessary to only two systems furniture workstations, and the revisions could be accomplished during drawing production. Id., Exhibit 177. 67. On May 5, Knoll furniture advised CPSC that furniture of the correct dimensions would not be available for ordering until July 15, and that the furniture would not be delivered until September 13, due to a manufacturing lead time of eight weeks. Appeal File, Exhibit 196. 68. Although the Government knew that delivery of systems furniture would not occur until September 13, GSA continued to schedule occupancy on the basis that phases two and three would be complete on August 25, with move-in and occupancy on September 1. Appeal File, Exhibit 197. 69. In May, Knoll wrote CPSC with a change order proposal to re-draw the building shell and for space planning and placement of free-standing files. Appeal File, Exhibit 202. As a result of CPSC's failure to respond to this letter, Knoll did not include free-standing file systems in the systems furniture layouts. Transcript at 1054-55, 1153-54. 70. Ms. Lara Frick is the Creative Expressions employee who prepared the furniture plans for installation of the Knoll furniture. Appeal File, Exhibit 216; Transcript at 1145. She received the DIDs, but did not rely on them to establish the building dimensions because she understood that the DIDs were for reference only and did not have dimensions. Transcript at 1147- 49. Ms. Frick asked another employee to conduct field measurements of the space, who reported that "of course there were variances [from the DIDs] as with all paper drawings." Appeal File, Exhibit 200. 71. Ms. Frick described the process of developing a working drawing for installation of systems furniture, the process which she used on this project: JUDGE BORWICK: Did you go out into the field and then do the [computer aided design] or do you do the [computer aided design] and then verify afterwards? THE WITNESS: Initially you go out into the field and you try to get an overall picture of the building, the column, width, sizes, core, where the elevator shaft is, stairways, that type of thing. JUDGE BORWICK: Prior to doing anything? THE WITNESS: Prior to doing anything. That is the first thing you have to do. JUDGE BORWICK: You do field verification of basic dimensions? THE WITNESS: Right. JUDGE BORWICK: And you did that in this case? THE WITNESS: We did that, basic dimensions, right. Transcript at 1182-83. Ms. Frick further explained that as the furniture installation project progressed, since there were no dimensions on the drawing, she scaled off the DIDS, and then continued to field verify dimensions. She recognized that if she did not field verify dimensions on the DIDs, given the small clearances, her measurements "could have very well been off." Id. at 1184. 72. The first set of systems furniture layout drawings was provided to CPSC for their review and approval on June 7. Appellant's Exhibit 5. 73. In June and July, component organizations of the CPSC were demanding changes in the systems furniture layouts. On June 30, CPSC's Office of Inspector General (OIG) stated that the plan was incorrect in all but one office space. OIG's room one is a file room and work area, not a professional work station. Room two showed a type F3 workstation, when room two should have been a type F workstation. Room three was shown as empty, when it should have been a professional workstation with type C furniture. Room four should have been shown as a professional workstation. Appeal File, Exhibit 236. 74. On July 2, another CPSC office claimed that the seventh floor layout would "not support normal day-to- day . . . operations due to the very limited space combined with the rectangular layout." This organization requested that the deputy's office be moved four feet into the existing alcove area. The organization also complained about inadequate person-to- person separation from the adjacent workstations, poor orientation of the workstations, and unsatisfactory orientation of workstation desks so that employees would be working with their backs towards the doors. Appeal File, Exhibit 238. 75. The CPSC Executive Secretariat (ES) claimed that two units designated as type C workstations should have been type D stations, that furniture arrangement for one employee was unsatisfactory, and that the offices along the south wall were too narrow. The ES suggested a re-design. Appeal File, Exhibit 239. CPSC's Director of Relocation made numerous changes to the furniture layout plans, unrelated to alleged building discrepancies. Appellant's Hearing Exhibit 5; Transcript at 1166. 76. Ms. Frick testified that CPSC would make changes to panel heights, workstation orientation, overhang, and in her words, "about anything you can possibly change . . . in a particular workstation." Transcript at 1154-55. 77. CPSC's Director of Relocation described the changes that CPSC demanded in the systems furniture layout drawings. Due to the existence of window convectors on the north window wall of the building, CPSC reconfigured the workstations along that wall to remove fixed-in-place partitions. Removal of those partitions allowed an increase in the number of workstations. Appellant's Exhibit 5, Sheet 5; Transcript at 1064. CPSC also changed the table to a "C-Leg" table. Transcript at 1064. The same changes were made to the workstations along the south wall. Id. In one case, CPSC demanded reversal of an "F-Station" and an "E-Station" from the order shown on the original plans. Appellant's Exhibit 5, Sheet 7. CPSC also demanded that systems furniture file cabinets be included in the plans. This change required redesign of workstations to show the location of the files, including changes in the workstations' corridor width. Transcript at 1066. All such changes required reconfiguration of the furniture drawings; CPSC's Director of Relocation admitted that these changes would require time to re-design the systems furniture plans, at least as much time as any of the alleged discrepancies in the construction drawings. Id. at 1065. 78. On July 22, Knoll advised CPSC that based on the design changes, it could anticipate a systems furniture installation date of October 29. Appeal File, Exhibit 248. The systems furniture drawings were not completed until September. Transcript at 1155. 79. Thirty-five workstations were designed with wood veneer finish. Appeal File, Exhibit 264. Knoll systems furniture using wood veneer takes twelve weeks to manufacture. Id., Exhibit 278. Mr. Noble admitted that wood veneer finishes were on the critical path of the systems furniture installation. Transcript at 1035- 37. CPSC submitted its complete list of wood veneer stations and components on August 6. Appeal File, Exhibit 264. The wood veneer finish was scheduled to arrive at the building site on November 26. Id., Exhibit 303. 80. The parties anticipated installation of fifty workstations per week. Appeal File, Exhibit 163 at 5. The workstations arrived at site on October 11. Id., Exhibit 68 at 3; Transcript at 1457. Four hundred workstations were installed in eight weeks. Appeal File Exhibits 68, 299; Transcript at 1035. Complaints of discrepancies delaying systems furniture 81. By letter of May 24, Interior Elements wrote CPSC and noted "several serious discrepancies between your floor plans and the . . . building dimensions." Appeal File, GSBCA 13254, Exhibit 1 at 15. Interior Element's reference to "your floor plans" is to Sheets A-26 to A-31 of the construction drawings which CPSC had provided to Knoll. Transcript at 340-41, 924, 1032-34. 82. On June 14, GSA wrote lessor and complained that the alleged discrepancy in the construction drawings would cause re- design work on system furniture layout plans costing about $18,000. GSA stated they would hold the lessor responsible for the cost of the re-design work. Appeal File, Exhibit 225. On June 16, CPSC, GSA, Settles, Knoll, Interior Elements, and Leaply Company (the lease build-out construction contractor) met to discuss the problem. CPSC staff had taken field measurements and had compared the results of these measurements to scaled measurements taken from the construction drawings and Interior Elements drawings. CPSC thought the discrepancy significant. Id., Exhibit 228. 83. On June 18, lessor responded to GSA's letter of June 14. It stated that information was not available to substantiate the alleged discrepancy and that the earlier meeting had not resolved the mystery. It maintained the construction drawings were suitable for their intended purpose. Appeal File, Exhibit 232. It placed the blame for systems furniture delay on the Government's systems furniture designer. Lessor denied responsibility for alleged discrepancies resulting in deficiencies in the systems furniture drawing: there have been no problems in this context caused by the Lessor since [Settles], acting in its capacity as the [lessor's architect/engineer] for the preparation of the construction drawings, did not commit any acts or omissions which would have resulted in this discrepancy. Id. 84. On June 24, GSA for the first time requested that lessor revise and correct the construction drawings to show accurate dimensions of the building shell. GSA requested the revised submittals no later than June 30. GSA stated that any inaccurate dimensions would be the responsibility of the lessor. Appeal File, Exhibit 234. 85. In a letter of July 2, lessor responded to GSA. Appeal File, Exhibit 237. Lessor noted that the construction of the build-out was sixty to seventy-five percent complete, with an anticipated completion date of August 13. Id. Lessor noted that the construction documents and the furniture plans had been for reference only, and contained explicit instructions not to scale for dimensions. Id. Lessor placed the blame for discrepancies on the systems furniture vendor, who had, in lessor's opinion, prepared systems furniture installation plans without field verifying dimensions. Id. According to lessor, subsequent review and field verification had brought errors in the systems furniture plan to light. Id. Lessor noted that plans had been revised based on field verification, and that Settles had reviewed the revised plans and provided coordination comments to GSA. Id. 86. On August 6, lessor notified GSA that the tenant build- out of the fifth floor was substantially complete, and that the tenant build-out of the sixth and seventh floors would be substantially complete on August 18 and August 20, respectively. Appeal File, Exhibit 41. GSA responded that inspection of the space would be for the sole purpose of establishing a substantial completion date based on compliance with construction documents, which GSA maintained were defective. The inspections would not constitute acceptance of the areas by the Government. An acceptance date would be set based on remedial measures due to the alleged defects in the construction documents. Id. 87. On August 22, lessor proposed the previous August 18 as the single completion date required to be established under the lease for the start of the rent terms. Appeal File, Exhibit 44. On September 2, GSA accepted that date as the single completion date, but conditioned acceptance on completion of remedial measures to be provided by the lessor arising from the alleged defective construction drawings. Id., Exhibit 46. In December, lessor's construction manager noted that the CPSC space was substantially complete on September 1. Id., Exhibits 320, 401. We consider the earlier correspondence between GSA and the lessor as the best evidence of substantial completion date of the build- out, since the later correspondence is just one company's view of the date of substantial completion. Save for the alleged discrepancy caused by construction documents, lessor and GSA agreed that the date of substantial completion was August 18, 1993. 88. Under the lease, in case of lessor-caused delay the Government could postpone the commencement of rent by the period of delay. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 87 ( 9.1). In the case of Government-caused delay, the lessor's remedy is the commencement of rent as if the Government had met its obligations in a timely manner. Id. 89. GSA commenced lease rental payments for floors five, six and seven on December 20. Appeal File, Exhibit 12. GSA delayed the rent start because it believed that alleged discrepancies in the construction drawings made the building too small to install the systems furniture as GSA had designed and purchased it. Transcript at 1262, 1340-42. 90. After the build-out of the fifth, sixth and seventh floors, joint measurement of the space established 98,127 net usable square feet (97,827 office space and 300 mechanical space). Appeal File, Exhibit 59. The 2,852 square feet of office space shortfall from the expected 100,679 square feet arose because the original measurement was made from the interior of the window wall surfaces. The final measurement was made from the surfaces of the convector faces. Transcript at 606-10. To compensate for the shortfall, lessor supplied 2,852 square feet of space on the fourth floor. Appeal File, Exhibit 57. Redesign of plans 91. The lease provided in pertinent part: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION . . . . The Government shall not be liable for any costs due to changes or revisions in the requirements of this project which would change the scope of this contract as originally negotiated and agreed to unless such changes or revisions are authorized and approved by the contracting officer in writing. Any request for changes or revisions received by the Government shall, therefore, be referred to the Contracting Officer for his approval. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 86 ( 9.1). 92. GSA directed lessor to change or relocate lighting and cable, as well as various electrical outlets to accommodate the new systems furniture layout. Appellant's Complaint, Exhibits R- U. For this extra work, lessor submitted pricing proposals showing that lessor had incurred $31,988.88 (including mark-up) to furnish and install wiremold for the systems furniture; $2,857.68 (including mark-up) to install additional cabling, and $4,291.56 to install, and relocate light fixtures and sprinkler pipe, and to rework ceiling tile to accommodate revisions to the light fixture layout changed as a result of changes to the systems furniture. Appeal File, Exhibits 62-65. The total is $39,138.12. Each pricing proposal was accompanied by an invoice from the subcontractor. Id. The Government does not challenge the reasonableness or accuracy of the amounts in the pricing proposals. The claims 93. On July 18, 1994, lessor submitted a claim to the contracting officer seeking, among other things, a payment of $119,800 for the co-polymer paint and $175,854.17 for enhanced floor loading, and a decision from the contracting officer that the acceptance date for the fifth, sixth, and seventh floors of the building was August 18, 1993. Appeal File, Exhibit 70. On July 20, the contracting officer denied the claim. Id., Exhibit 71. As to co-polymer paint, the contracting officer maintained that: The Lessor's [BAFO] clearly shows the slab-to-ceiling partition at $25 per linear foot. This does not include the co-polymer paint. An add of $119,800 is included to cover the cost of this work. Therefore, a credit on partitions will be taken by the Government at $25 per linear foot and no disbursement made on the lump sum total of $119,800--the co-polymer paint was not executed on the job. Id., Exhibit 68 (emphasis supplied). As to enhanced floor loading, the contracting officer maintained that the estimated cost for enhanced floor loading was "predicated on actual work executed." Since no actual work was executed, no disbursement would be made. Id. Lessor appealed the contracting officer's decision to this Board. 94. On April 20, 1995, GSA issued a contracting officer's decision stating a government claim. Appeal File, Exhibit 340. GSA sought from lessor $91,423.13, comprised of the following: $15,450 for Interior Element's charge for 309 hours spent in redesigning workstations; $1,946.60 for costs of CPSC overtime in working with Interior Elements; $67,276.53 for costs of purchasing additional filing equipment to make up for lost space in two high-density filing rooms in floors five through seven; and $6,750 for overtime cost charged to CPSC by Interior Elements resulting from denial of access by lessor. Id. On April 27, 1995, lessor filed an appeal from that decision with this Board. The Board consolidated the appeals. Discussion Co-polymer paint Lessor argues that the Government breached the lease by taking a double credit for the deletion of co-polymer paint in the lease-- when it deducted $211,700 for the deletion of the partitions, Finding 16--and by refusing to pay $119,800 as a portion of the lump sum total. Finding 18. The contracting officer denied the claim due to his belief that the $25 per linear foot unit price for adjustment did not include the cost of co-polymer paint. Finding 93. In this appeal, GSA's grounds for sustaining the contracting officer's denial of lessor's claim differ from the reasons given in the contracting officer's decision. GSA acknowledges that it took a double credit for the deletion of co-polymer paint, but argues that lessor double-billed the Government for the cost of co-polymer paint by including the cost of the paint in both the base rent and in the lump-sum build-out. GSA argues that because co-polymer paint was not executed on the job it is entitled to two deductions: one for the partitions that were deleted and one for the co-polymer paint that was deleted. Finally, GSA argues that co-polymer paint was the standard finish in the lease. Therefore, the cost of co-polymer paint should have been included only in the base rent, and not in the lump sum build-out, since the base rent was to cover standard items. With all due respect to the Government's position, we determine that the lessor has the better argument. The contracting officer is simply wrong in his belief that the $25 unit price for adjustment did not include the cost of co- polymer paint. The lease required lessor to build out the space and to be paid a lump sum for the build-out. Finding 2. The lease included a unit pricing schedule for adjustments. The schedule was to be used to make an equitable adjustment either through credit or deduction if the amount of material actually used was more or less than the material contemplated before the build-out. Finding 3. As a component of its unit cost for adjustment, lessor submitted a price of $16.50 per linear foot for partitions without co-polymer paint. Finding 7. Having been advised by GSA that the cost of partitions must include co- polymer paint, lessor raised its price to $25 per linear foot. Finding 8. The price for co-polymer paint was thus included in the unit cost for adjustment. To the extent that the GSA refused to disburse the $119,800 portion of the lump sum payment for the build-out because it believed that the $25 unit cost for adjustments did not include the cost of co-polymer paint, it is mistaken. Considering GSA's other arguments, we conclude that lessor did not double-bill the Government--once in the base rent and once in the cost of the lump sum build-out--for the cost of co- polymer paint. As described below, the record is convincing that lessor included the cost of co-polymer paint only once in its price for the lump sum build-out. Following the instruction of the solicitation, the lessor submitted proposals for amortized and lump sum pricing of the build-out. Lessor's BAFO stated that the $12.40 square foot rental rate was "exclusive of base operating expenses and the minimum specifications and other special requirements (as set forth on [certain specified pages of the solicitation])." Its amortized pricing consisted of $12.40 per square foot for net rent, $6.95 per square foot for operating expenses, and $3.65 per square foot (including $.19 per square foot for co-polymer paint) for the special requirements. Finding 10. In its lump sum pricing, lessor included $119,800 for co-polymer paint. Finding 12. GSA agreed to an amortized square-foot rental rate that did not include the cost of co-polymer paint, Finding 11, and a lump sum price for the build-out that did include the cost of co-polymer paint. Finding 12. The GSA contracting officer admitted at the hearing on the merits of this appeal that lessor had not double-charged for the co-polymer paint. Finding 14. If the Government's refusal to disburse the $119,800 of the lump sum payment rests on the premise that lessor double-charged for co- polymer paint, that premise is erroneous. Next, the Government argues that it performed two separate acts, i.e., deleting partitions and deleting co-polymer paint as a finish for the partitions. The Government states that it is entitled to deductions for each of those acts--$25 per linear foot for its deletion of the partitions and $119,800 for removal from the lease of co-polymer paint as a wall covering. The Government cannot neatly separate the two acts. The deletion of co-polymer paint as a wall covering accompanied the deletion of the partitions, and merely reflects the deletion of those partitions. Finding 16. We note that when the Government kept partitions, it substituted a fancy wall covering for co-polymer paint with no adjustment. Finding 17. The Government agreed to pay a lump sum of $1,722,988.38 for the build-out, Finding 12, and further agreed to take a credit of $25 per linear foot, including co-polymer paint, if partitions were deleted. Findings 7-9. The $25 per linear foot credit for deletion of partitions includes the cost of the co-polymer paint for those deleted partitions. GSA had taken a credit of $211,700 for the deletion of the partitions, which included the cost of the co-polymer paint. Finding 16. The Government is not entitled to a second credit for deletion of the co-polymer paint. Finally, GSA argues that co-polymer paint was the standard wall covering covered by the base rent, and that lessor was not entitled to charge for the co-polymer paint in the lump-sum build-out. "Standard" is at best ambiguous as it is used in two different senses here. The parties' actions before the advent of the controversy is of controlling weight in construing an ambiguous contract. Alvin Ltd. v. United States, 816 F.2d 1562, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Julius Goldman's Egg City v. United States, 697 F.2d 1051, 1058 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 814 (1983); Blinderman Construction Co. v. United States, 695 F.2d 552, 558 (Fed. Cir. 1982); Franklin Co. v. United States, 381 F.2d 416, 419 (Ct. Cl. 1967). GSA made co- polymer paint the standard wall covering under the lease, so that during the procurement process every vendor would offer it. Finding 3. Both parties, nevertheless, understood that the co- polymer paint would be priced as an above standard or "special" requirement because the FPMRs treated co-polymer paint as a special or above standard wall covering. Finding 4. In agreeing to the lump sum pricing of $119,800 for co-polymer paint, GSA acknowledged that the lump sum was for "above standard costs associated with the build-out." Finding 12. Thus the Government may not refuse to disburse the $119,800 because co-polymer paint was a standard wall-covering included in the base rent. Enhanced floor loading Principal Mutual argues that because the floor loads were performance specifications, it could "enhance the loads in any way it desired," and that "the amount of work incurred by [Principal Mutual] is irrelevant." GSA maintains that lessor is not entitled to enhanced floor loading because no work to enhance the load had been performed. Lessor is correct with respect to the general nature of performance specifications. Performance specifications "set forth an objective or standard to be achieved, and the successful bidder is expected to exercise his ingenuity in achieving that objective or standard of performance, selecting the means and assuming a corresponding responsibility for that selection." Blake Construction Co. v. United States, 987 F.2d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This lease emphasized the lessor's requirement to provide a turnkey build-out. Findings 21, 24. A turnkey design build concept is succinctly defined as the engagement of a single organization to perform all necessary design and construction for a project on a lump sum basis, based upon outline performance specifications. Turner Construction Co., ASBCA 25,447, 90-2 BCA  22,649, at 113,784. In this lease, save for the minimum live load capacity, Finding 21, loading was specified in terms of the ability of the floors to support furniture and equipment to be placed in the office space. Findings 22, 23. Lessor points out the following: (1) during lease negotiations, lessor's negotiators told GSA that they did not know how they would provide the floor loads, Finding 30, (2) that the lessor's negotiators did not tell GSA representatives that it would have to perform extra work to meet enhanced floor loading requirements, Finding 31, (3) in entering into the unit price agreement for the floor loading with the Government, lessor took both the performance and price risk for complying with the floor loading specifications, a risk it assumed for all of the build- out materials and labor, Finding 26 and note 5, and (4) before the lease award, however, lessor could not have known which floor areas would require strengthened loads, because CPSC had not located rooms on the floors. Finding 27. The record supports each point, but GSA has the better position on this issue, because the lease's definition of tenant build-out contemplates that lessor perform "work" and "alterations" to prepare the space for occupancy. Finding 25. In enhancing the floors, lessor did not perform work or engage in alterations. It merely supplied an existing building which met the requirements for enhanced floor loading. Findings 32-35. Contract provisions must, whenever possible, be given effect and an interpretation which renders some provisions meaningless is not favored. Julius Goldman's Egg City 697 F.2d at 1057. No provision of the contract should be construed as being in conflict with another unless no other reasonable interpretation is possible. United States v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 713 F.2d 1541, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1983). We cannot read the lease as permitting payment for enhanced floor loading simply because the building lessor supplied met the performance specifications for enhanced floor loading. To do so would render the lease's definition of tenant build-out meaningless and superfluous. To be entitled to payment for enhanced floor loading, lessor was required by the lease to perform work or alterations. Lessor did neither and is not entitled to the $175,854.17 for the cost of enhanced floor loading. Delayed rent start and Government claim GSA argues that lessor is not entitled to a rent start date of August 18, because alleged deficiencies in construction drawings lessor supplied under the lease delayed the installation of systems furniture from August 18 through December 20, 1993. Through a decision of the contracting officer, GSA also sought $91,423.13 from lessor for the alleged cost of revising the systems furniture plans and the cost of additional filing systems. GSA maintains that the systems furniture planners relied on allegedly defective construction drawings which showed more space than actually existed on the fifth, sixth, and seventh floors of the space. The systems furniture plans, therefore, had a shortage of space, causing extensive redesign of the systems furniture layout, and loss of filing space. Lessor argues that its construction drawings were suitable for their intended purpose--to provide the build-out of the space--and that it is entitled to a rent start date of August 18. Lessor notes that installation of systems furniture was not within its build-out responsibilities under the lease. Lessor disputes the Government's theory of causation. Lessor claims that the re-design of the systems furniture plan resulted from aesthetic and design changes to the systems furniture plans demanded by the CPSC. On this issue, we conclude that the lessor is correct in every respect. The lease did not make lessor responsible for installation of systems furniture. It was lessor's responsibility to provide the construction of tenant improvements which were to be shown on the construction drawings. Findings 37, 39. The construction drawings for the fifth, sixth and seventh floors showed base partition plans, electrical plans, finish plans, and reflected ceiling plans. Finding 53. The DIDs which were attached to the construction drawings, and which only showed a conceptual generic systems furniture layout, were for permitting purposes only, and were not part of lessor's contractual responsibility. Findings 49, 57. Indeed, the lease made a clear distinction between the lessor's build-out work and "work in the space under separate contract," Finding 40--a clear reference to installation of systems furniture. The Government maintains that the lease required lessor to coordinate its work with the systems furniture contractor so that the systems furniture could be installed without significant changes. The lease, in fact, requires the opposite--it requires the Government to coordinate its contractors to minimize disruption to the lessor's construction contractor: "The Government shall coordinate, with the lessor, the activity of Government contractors in order to minimize conflicts with and disruption to other contractors on site." Finding 41. Further, it was the systems furniture provider's contractual responsibility to adjust the systems furniture plans to the site; the systems furniture contract required the systems furniture provider to verify its measurements to ascertain layout/product conflict. Finding 60. Lessor and its build-out team did not introduce dimensional discrepancies into the construction drawings which delayed the installation of systems furniture in the manner claimed by the Government. For the sequence of drawings, base building drawings (provided by lessor) came first; DIDs were second, produced by Settles as the GSA contractor, Finding 50; construction drawings were third, produced by Settles as lessor's subcontractor, Finding 52, and systems furniture drawings were last, produced by GSA through its furniture vendor, Knoll, and its subcontractors Interior Elements and Creative Expressions. Findings 60, 61. In preparation for the build-out, lessor provided base building plans to the Government which contained accurate dimensions of the building shell. Findings 44, 45, 48. In copying the base building drawings for use in DIDs, Settles (in its capacity as a GSA contractor) copied the base plans, thereby introducing dimensional discrepancies on the copies of the base building drawings. Finding 50. However, Settles put dimensions on the DIDs in case the successor contractors desired to use them for dimensions. Id. The GSA project manager ordered them removed. Finding 50. The person who prepared the systems furniture plans from the DIDs prepared those plans principally by field verification of dimensions; she understood that there would be variances in scaling the DIDs, as there would be with all paper drawings. Finding 71. While the process of installation and revision continued, she relied primarily on field verification of dimensions, although she did perform some scaling of drawings. Id. Consequently, any discrepancies in the Government's construction drawings were not the cause of re-design of the systems furniture plans, since the systems furniture designer relied on field verification of dimensions and did not rely on scaling the DIDs. The Government's target date for installation of the systems furniture was June and July 1993. Finding 61. The installation was late for a variety of reasons, which did not involve the lessor. GSA was late in awarding a contract; it issued the furniture solicitation in February 1993, but did not make award until April 23 of that year. Finding 60. Because of the late award, the earliest expected delivery of systems furniture to the site was September 13. Finding 66. Even after being so advised by Knoll, GSA continued to schedule occupancy for September 1, 1993. Findings 67-68. Compounding the problem of the late award of the systems furniture contract was CPSC's failure to allow Knoll to integrate freestanding files in the initial systems furniture plan. Finding 69. CPSC later requested redesign of the systems furniture to accommodate systems files. Finding 77. We reject as unproven the Government's theory that re-design to accommodate freestanding files was due to discrepancies in the construction drawings that caused one course along the partition walls to be lost. In addition, upon receiving the systems furniture plans, component organizations of CPSC complained for a variety of reasons about the initial set of layout drawings. Findings 73- 75. Consequently, the CPSC relocation director made aesthetic changes to the systems furniture design: reorientation of workstations, changes in workstation type, changes in workstation furniture, and changes in design arising from the failure of CPSC to integrate free-standing files into the initial workstation design. Finding 77. These changes were aesthetic and design changes having nothing to do with alleged dimensional discrepancies in lessor's construction drawings. Furthermore, Settles' field verification of column widths established that at the most two workstations would need revision based on discrepancies in column widths. Finding 66. As for the late rent start, the lessor has been unfairly targeted by the Government for mistakes and delays which were the Government's own making. The lessor's build-out was substantially complete on August 18, 1993, and the building was ready for occupancy on that date. Finding 87. If the Government had not made a late award of the systems furniture contract, had planned for the integration of freestanding files in the systems furniture design, and had not made aesthetic changes to the original furniture design, the systems furniture could have been installed on or before August 18. The Government caused the delay in the installation of systems furniture, and it was the Government delay that resulted in the late rent start of December 20. Finding 89. In case of such delay, the lessor may request an adjustment of the rent start date to that date which would have been the start of rent had the Government met its obligations. Finding 88. With regard to GSBCA 13254, for the reasons stated above on the delayed rent start issue, the Government has not established that lessor caused the Government to incur those extra costs. As the Government's expenses for re-design of systems furniture was not caused by the lessor's performance of its lease responsibilities, the Government must bear the costs of the re- design. 7 World Trade Co. v. Securities & Exchange Commission, GSBCA 13284-SEC, 96-1 BCA  28,240, at 141,008-09. Decision The appeal in GSBCA 13088 is GRANTED IN PART. Lessor is awarded $119,800 for the co-polymer paint, and $39,138.12 for the cost of rework of the build-out space due to revision of the systems furniture plans, plus interest as allowed under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C.  601-613 (1994). Lessor is entitled to a rent start date of August 18, 1993. The appeal of the contracting officer's decision in GSBCA 13254 is GRANTED. GSA is not entitled to the $91,423.13 the Government seeks from lessor. ________________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge I concur: ____________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge VERGILIO, Board Judge, concurring. I concur with the decision of the majority regarding the granting and denying of individual claims. I write separately to express my varying views--factual and legal--in reaching the results on some of the claims. Co-polymer paint I concur with the conclusion of the majority that the Government has taken an improper deduction for the deleted partitions and co-polymer paint. The Government attempts to impose an interpretation on the lease which renders provisions meaningless or to reform the lease so as to undo the agreed-to contract. Through the lump sum payment provision of the lease, the Government compensates Principal Mutual for co-polymer paint--an above-standard finish for partitions. The charge is contained in two areas: as part of $1,133,521 for "minimum performance specifications/special requirements" and as $119,800 for the up- grade to co-polymer paint. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 127 (of $.90 per square foot of cost, $.20 is treated as standard finish or minimum performance specification, and $.70 as up-grade; it is this $.70 figure which results in the $119,800 amount). There is no direct charge for co-polymer paint in the base rental amount reflected in the square footage charge. Contract paragraph 3.1 contains, for various items of work, unit costs to enable an equitable settlement if the actual build- out departs from the projected build-out. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 13 ( 3.1). It is under this paragraph that the parties agreed to a unit cost of $25 per linear foot of office subdividing ceiling-high partitioning with the co-polymer paint finish required under the lease. Id. at 135; Appellant's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 4. Thus, under the agreed-to pricing mechanism, this $25 unit price is predicated on the Government having paid the agreed-upon lump sum price for the co- polymer paint finish. Under this paragraph, there is no agreed- to unit price for co-polymer paint or for partitions without co- polymer paint. The actual build-out included no partitions with co-polymer paint; some partitions with a different finish (but of an equal price of the co-polymer paint) were utilized. Having contracted to pay for the co-polymer paint, and having established the unit cost for partition adjustments in conjunction with that pricing, the lease requires the Government to pay the entire lump-sum for the co-polymer paint finish then take a deduction based upon the unit cost for the fewer-than-projected partitions. To the extent that the Government alleges that the elimination of the co-polymer paint finish constitutes a change entitling it to retain the $119,800 portion of the lump-sum amount and that the elimination of partitions entitles it to the unit price adjustment of $25 per linear foot of partition, the agency ignores the specified, agreed-to unit pricing of the lease. The $25 unit price for adjustment is predicated upon payment for the co-polymer paint. There is no unit price for elimination of co-polymer paint or of partitions without co- polymer paint. The Government's interpretation does not give effect to the unit pricing of $25 specifically established for variations between the projected and actual build-out. The $119,800 is a lump-sum price, not a unit price for variations; the $25 unit price is not a separate charge, but a price for variations. The payment of the lump-sum makes the unit price operative for adjustments. To the extent the Government attempts to reform the lease, it has not demonstrated a basis for such action. The contract includes Principal Mutual's pricing methodology for its lump-sum pricing for the co-polymer paint finish; the Government was aware of the variations in the unit pricing for partitions with and without the co-polymer paint finish. The Government has not demonstrated that it was reasonably mistaken in its understandings throughout the negotiation process. The record fails to establish a basis for not giving effect to the negotiated unit cost established for the very purpose that arose- -to make adjustments based upon variations between the projected and actual build-out. The Government contracted for partitions with the co-polymer paint finish. The Government received some partitions with what the parties deemed was a cost-equivalent finish, such that the Government obtained the benefits of those portions of the lump- sum payment attributable to the co-polymer paint finish. As to the partitions deleted in the actual build-out, the parties had agreed to a unit price adjustment of $25 per linear foot, a price premised on the payment by the Government for the co-polymer paint finish. The Government has appropriately taken the adjustment based upon $25 per linear foot of partitioning eliminated in the actual build-out from the projected build-out. The Government has inappropriately withheld payment relating to the lump-sum of $119,800. Enhanced floor loading The solicitation specifies: The Tenant Improvements shall consist of the improvements to the Leased Premises that will result from the performance of the work and the installation of the materials (1) specified in the basic requirements of the SFO and (2) specified as additional requirements in those sections of the SFO titled "Minimum Performance Specifications". The portion of the Tenant Improvements described in (1) above are hereinafter referred to as the "SFO-Standard Improvements" and the portion of the Tenant Improvements described in (2) above are hereinafter referred to as the "Above Standard Improvements". Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 81 ( 9.1). At the time the Government leased the space, the existing building satisfied the ultimate enhanced floor loading capacities required by the Government. Principal Mutual did not alter the floor loading capacity of the floors in question. The rental price obligated Principal Mutual to provide the structure, with its inherent capacities. Because no tenant improvements were undertaken with respect to floor loading--no work was performed and no material costs were incurred after lease signing-- Principal Mutual is not entitled to recover under the referenced paragraph. The Government properly denied the claim; the lease entitled the Government to receive the floor loading it obtained at no additional cost. Rent start date Although I concur with the majority that the composite rent start date should be August 18, I arrive at the conclusion based on different factual conclusions. Contrary to the majority, I conclude that Principal Mutual supplied defective drawings. The findings of the majority reveal that the drawings contained inaccurate dimensions or failed to include dimensions of structural elements. Under the contract, the Government was entitled to receive correct and complete drawings. Substantial completion of the space did not satisfy fully the obligations of Principal Mutual and require the Government to accept space. The contract requires Principal Mutual to provide accurate construction (or working) drawings. Finding 51 (references to findings are of the majority opinion). Such drawings are to include accurate dimensions, even if the drawings are not to be scaled for determining unspecified dimensions. Findings 52, 54. The construction drawings included incorrect dimensions of columns. Finding 66. Upon learning of the inaccuracies, the Government notified Principal Mutual that the construction drawings were defective. Findings 39 (Government to accept construction drawings or detail defects and omissions), 84. A notation on the construction drawings provided by Principal Mutual does not alter its obligations under the contract. Findings 51, 52. When the Government deemed August 18 as the completion date for purposes of the lease period, that determination was conditioned upon Principal Mutual taking remedial measures relating to what the Government viewed to be defective construction drawings. Finding 87. Thus, the agreement of the August 18 date is not dispositive of the rent start date issue. Although the findings do not reveal the remedial actions taken to correct the defective drawings, or the dates the actions were accomplished, they do reveal that there was no substantial reliance or delay attributable to the inaccuracies in the drawings. Field measurements taken by the systems furniture designer minimized or eliminated any adverse impact on the Government or its contractors. The Government uses the wrong measure for acceptance. Completion of the systems furniture and occupancy of the space is not determinative under the lease. The record supports utilizing August 18 as the composite rent start date. Government claim The Government has not established that actions by or on behalf of Principal Mutual breached the contract or caused the Government to incur additional costs in occupying the space. Hence, in the absence of this factual showing, the Government has not met its burden to recover on its claim under the contract. ____________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge