GRANTED IN PART: December 17, 1996
                                                      


                                GSBCA 13534


                   ENVIRONMENTAL DATA CONSULTANTS, INC.,

                                             Appellant,

                                    v.

                     GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

                                             Respondent.

     James H. Chance of Environmental Data Consultants, Inc., Mount
Vernon, NY, appearing for Appellant.

     Kevin S. Anderson and Sharon J. Chen, Real Property Division,
Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration,
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.

Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), DEVINE, and HYATT.

DANIELS, Board Judge.

     By opinion dated October 24, 1996, we addressed three appeals
by Environmental Data Consultants, Inc. (EDC), of decisions
rendered by a General Services Administration (GSA) contracting
officer with respect to a contract between the two parties for the
replacement of underground fuel oil storage tanks.  That opinion
resolved completely two of the cases, GSBCA 13244 (involving a
monetary claim by GSA) and GSBCA 13331 (involving the agency's
termination for default of the contract).  In the third case, GSBCA
13534, our opinion dealt only with EDC's entitlement to recovery
for the various items as to which it sought monetary relief. 
Today's opinion resolves the matter which remained outstanding in
GSBCA 13534 -- the amount of money owed by GSA to EDC for the
single item as to which we granted entitlement.

     We recognize that EDC has already appealed the October 24
decision.  Appeal docketed sub nom. Environmental Data Consultants,
Inc. v. Johnson, No. 97-1124 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 4, 1996).  We consider
that deciding the remaining issue is nonetheless appropriate, since
it does not affect anything we said earlier and it completes our
consideration of the last of the three cases (and consequently, the
entire trio).

     EDC captioned that item "unpaid balance on monitoring wells." 
At hearing, and in its posthearing brief, GSA conceded that the
contractor was entitled to recover but contested the amount claimed
by EDC, $4,189.  In response to the Board's order for proposals for
further proceedings on this matter, however, GSA agreed that the
Board should award the amount sought.  Letter from GSA Counsel to
Board (Nov. 15, 1996).  The amount is consequently no longer in
dispute.  We award it to EDC.

     EDC's surety on this project, International Fidelity Insurance
Company (IFIC), has informed us that it believes that pursuant to
the theory of equitable subrogation, all amounts awarded by us to
EDC should be paid by GSA to IFIC instead.  We do not address this
matter.  To the extent that it may involve a determination by GSA
as to which company should receive the funds, no such determination
has yet been made.  No claim or contracting officer decision
exists, so we have no jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act,
41 U.S.C.  601-613 (1994), to consider IFIC's contention.  To the
extent that this matter may involve a dispute between EDC and IFIC,
resolution is beyond our authority; we have no license to resolve
disputes between private parties.

                                 Decision

     The appeal is GRANTED IN PART.  EDC is awarded $4,189 on its
claim for $918,341.41.





                                   _________________________
                                   STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                   Board Judge

We concur:





_________________________          _________________________
DONALD W. DEVINE                   CATHERINE B. HYATT
Board Judge                        Board Judge