_______________________________________________ DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART: December 11, 1996 _______________________________________________ GSBCA 13610 MERLYN J. JENKINS, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Merlyn J. Jenkins, pro se, Pottsville, PA. Scarlett D. Grose, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Judges BORWICK and GOODMAN. BORWICK, Board Judge. This is a case of who has control of the thermostat in leased premises. In September of 1989, respondent General Services Administration (GSA) leased from Merlyn J. Jenkins and Jenkins Partnership (appellant or Merlyn Jenkins), portions of a quaint Victorian commercial/residential building in Pottsville, Pennsylvania as chambers for the Honorable William D. Hutchinson, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and his secretaries and law clerks (the court staff). The lease gave Mr. Jenkins control of the thermostat; the lease also provided stringent temperature controls for winter heating, summer cooling and overtime use. Shortly after commencement of the lease, the court staff complained to Mr. Jenkins about the temperature limits of the lease. Without the prior approval of the contracting officer, Merlyn Jenkins gave control of the thermostat to the court staff, which exceeded the specified temperature limits during normal working hours. The court staff also worked overtime, and used the utilities during overtime hours. Merlyn Jenkins had agreed to provide overtime utilities at no extra charge over and above the base rent. According to Mr. Jenkins, the utility consumption spiraled out of control. Appellant submitted a claim to the contracting officer for $43,819.69 and a supplemental claim for $5,678.64 for the increased utility costs, and other extra costs arising from increased cleaning supplies, and damage to the building. The contracting officer denied the claims. Merlyn Jenkins appealed to this Board and elected the accelerated procedure under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C.A.  607(f) (West. Supp. 1996). Mr. Jenkins argues for reformation of the lease. He maintains that during the lease negotiations, the GSA negotiator misrepresented to Merlyn Jenkins that the court staff's overtime use of the premises would be insubstantial, and that misrepresentation resulting in Merlyn Jenkins not charging for the overtime use of space. Appellant maintains that this misrepresentation resulted in agreement to provide overtime utility services as part of the base rent, and accuses the court staff of excessive use of space beyond that contemplated in the lease. Appellant also maintains he is owed extra for use of additional parking spaces, cleaning costs beyond those anticipated in the lease, re-keying of locks, and miscellaneous damages. At the commencement of the hearing on the merits, Merlyn Jenkins filed a motion for default judgment or for sanctions against respondent for alleged late discovery responses. In his post-hearing brief, Mr. Jenkins presented additional claims that were never presented to the contracting officer for decision. We deny the motion for default judgment or sanctions. Merlyn Jenkins has not demonstrated that imposition of any sanctions, much less default judgment, is warranted. We deny the appeal. We find as fact that GSA never represented that overtime would be insubstantial. We see no grounds for reformation of the lease. Merlyn Jenkins mis-focuses the issue as to alleged excess utility usage. The lease provided that temperatures would be kept between sixty-five and seventy degrees Fahrenheit during the heating season and between seventy- six and eighty degrees Fahrenheit during the cooling season. The lease further provided that during nonworking hours, heating temperatures shall be set no higher than fifty-five degrees Fahrenheit and air conditioning would not be provided. Under the lease, Merlyn Jenkins had control of electricity usage. Any prior intention of the court staff do not negate the fact that the lease gave appellant control of the thermostat, and required Mr. Jenkins to secure the thermostats from manual operation "by key or locked cage." He relinquished that control to the court staff, at its request, even though he was not directed to do so by authorized officials of GSA. It was Merlyn Jenkins's duty under the lease to insure (1) that he maintained control of the thermostat and (2) that the temperatures did not exceed the specified minimum and maximum limits either during normal hours or after normal hours. His failure to exercise his responsibilities as a landlord is not grounds for reformation. We dismiss the additional lease claims submitted in Merlyn Jenkins's post-hearing brief for lack of jurisdiction. Those claims were never presented to the contracting officer for decision as required by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C.A.  605(a)(West Supp. 1996). The claim for litigation costs is premature. Findings of Fact Lease negotiations In its letter to GSA, the Third Judicial Circuit advised the agency: We can anticipate a substantial amount of overtime HVAC. If possible, the building design should provide separate units to minimize these extra costs to us. If a single unit services the entire building, we may be paying for substantially more heating/cooling capacity after hours than we need. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 17 at 2. The GSA lease negotiator testified that in response to the Third Judicial Circuit's letter, he put overtime utility services as an award factor in the lease solicitation. Transcript at 153. The solicitation made the award factor "price" the same as or equal to three other award factors listed in descending order of importance: "availability and cost of overtime services," "handicapped accessibility" (when no offer fully or substantially met the solicitation requirement) and "use of renewable energy in the offered building." Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 19. The GSA lease negotiator did not share the contents of the Third Judicial Circuit's letter with any vendor, because "we generally don't share interagency information." Transcript at 153. Merlyn Jenkins, during the lease negotiations, knew that the court staff would use the space he proposed to lease to the Government. Mr. Jenkins knew the court staff had used the county courthouse, but he did not make inquiry of the court staff as to anticipated overtime use of that space. Transcript at 30-31. As part of the process of making an offer, appellant completed GSA form 1217, the Lessor's Annual Cost Statement. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 21 at 3. This form is merely to ensure that an offeror has an understanding of all the costs that should be part of the base rental rate, and that the rental rate is in an acceptable range. Transcript at 134-35. That form does not become part of the lease; the bottom line operating cost number merely serves as the base from which the consumer price index operating cost escalation would be negotiated. Id. GSA conducted negotiations with Merlyn Jenkins on March 3, 1989. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 26 at 3. According to his price negotiation memorandum (PNR), the GSA lease negotiator's objectives were to reduce Merlyn Jenkins's offer to 2400 square feet only, to provide a base floor plan, to reduce overtime and unit costs, to reduce the rental rate, and to reduce operating costs. Id. The PNR reflects that during the negotiation session, appellant submitted an offer for 2,400 square feet of space and submitted an open floor plan. Id. Merlyn Jenkins testified that the GSA lease negotiator told him during the negotiations that overtime utility consumption would be minimal and that "it [a proposal for overtime services] wouldn't be worth the paperwork." Transcript at 28. The GSA lease negotiator testified that during the negotiation session, he never told Mr. Jenkins that overtime consumption would be minimal or insubstantial, or that it would not be worth the paperwork for Merlyn Jenkins to submit a unit-priced offer for overtime utility services. Id. at 152-53. Indeed, during the lease negotiations, Merlyn Jenkins's overtime cost was not a concern to the GSA lease negotiator because appellant's initial overtime rate was very low-- $1.51 per hour for overtime utilities. Id. at 172-73; Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 21 at 11. Merlyn Jenkins's building, a charming Victorian structure on historic Garfield Square in Pottsville, Pennsylvania, had 3,145 square feet of space. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibits 21, 24. During the lease negotiations, GSA explained that it was seeking 2,400 square feet of space, and that any overage would have to be either offered to the Government at no cost, or, for security reasons, be carefully subdivided from the Government space and leased to somebody else. Transcript at 160. The Government considered any space beyond 2,400 square feet to be offered to it at no cost. Id. at 159. In his best and final offer (BAFO) of April 14, Merlyn Jenkins offered price reductions on the lease cost per square foot, service costs and overtime costs. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 23. Mr. Jenkins's BAFO did not reference any representation by a GSA lease negotiator that overtime electricity use would be minimal or insubstantial. Id. The price reduction was about twenty-four percent, on a unit cost per square foot basis for the initial term, and about fourteen percent for the renewal term. Compare id., Exhibit 21, with id., Exhibit 23. In response to the BAFO, GSA noted that appellant had eliminated his costs for overtime services, reduced his unit costs and significantly reduced his rental rate. Id., Exhibit 26 at 3. There is a dispute of fact concerning the representations made by the GSA lease negotiator to Merlyn Jenkins as to whether the tenant would use a significant amount of overtime utilities. The panel chairman has listened to the testimony and observed the demeanor of the witnesses. We find as fact that the GSA lease negotiator never told Merlyn Jenkins during the lease negotiations that overtime utility consumption would be insubstantial or that Mr. Jenkins should not complete a unit price proposal for overtime services, because it would not be worth the paperwork. Our finding is based on (1) the testimony of the witnesses, (2) the fact that overtime was an award factor and thus a matter of stated importance in the procurement of the lease, (3) the fact that Mr. Jenkins's BAFO made no mention of a Government representation as to the expected amount of overtime use of the space or amount of utility consumption connected with overtime use, and (4) the observation that appellant's elimination of an overtime rate was part of an pattern of price reductions in his BAFO. The leased space GSA entered into the lease with Merlyn Jenkins for 2,400 net usable square feet of space on the first floor of the premises for a ten year term beginning on September 11, 1989, cancelable after the fifth full year of occupancy upon sixty days notice by the Government. Appeal File, Exhibits 1, 2. Mr. Jenkins did not subdivide the excess space--formerly a funeral home--from the 2,400 square feet offered; instead, that excess space became offices for the court's law clerks. Transcript at 122. Lease provisions The lease specified allowed temperatures for heating and air conditioning: THERMOSTATS SHALL BE SET TO MAINTAIN TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 65 AND 70 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT DURING THE HEATING SEASON AND 76 TO 80 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT DURING THE COOLING SEASON. THESE TEMPERATURES MUST BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE LEASED PREMISES AND SERVICE AREAS, REGARDLESS OF OUTSIDE TEMPERATURES, DURING THE HOURS OF OPERATION SPECIFIED IN THE LEASE. DURING NONWORKING HOURS, HEATING TEMPERATURES SHALL BE SET NO HIGHER THAN 55 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT AND AIR CONDITIONING WILL NOT BE PROVIDED. THERMOSTATS SHALL BE SECURED FROM MANUAL OPERATION BY KEY OR LOCKED CAGE. A KEY SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE GSA FIELD OFFICE MANAGER. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 19-20 ( 55). As to utilities, the lease provided in pertinent part: 65. NORMAL HOURS: SERVICES UTILITIES AND MAINTENANCE WILL BE PROVIDED DAILY, EXTENDING 7:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M., EXCEPT SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS AND FEDERAL HOLIDAYS. 66. OVERTIME USAGE: (A) THE GOVERNMENT SHALL HAVE ACCESS TO THE LEASED SPACE AT ALL TIMES, INCLUDING THE USE OF ELEVATORS. TOILETS, LIGHTS, AND SMALL BUSINESS MACHINES WITHOUT ADDITIONAL PAYMENT. (B) IF HEATING OR COOLING IS REQUIRED ON AN OVERTIME BASIS, SUCH SERVICES WILL BE ORDERED ORALLY OR IN WRITING BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER OR GSA BUILDINGS MANAGER. WHEN ORDERED, SERVICES WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE HOURLY RATE NEGOTIATED PRIOR TO AWARD. COSTS FOR PERSONAL SERVICES SHALL BE INCLUDED AS AUTHORIZED BY GSA. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 22. Immediately to the right of paragraph 66(B), the following language appears: "THERE WILL BE NO CHARGE FOR OVERTIME USE." Id. The lease gave the Government the right to install a security system: IN ADDITION, THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO INSTALL A SECURITY SYSTEM WHICH MAY INCLUDE A PERIMETER ALARM, SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS IN THE HALLWAYS INSIDE THE BUILDING, SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS WHICH MONITOR THE PARKING AREA AND THE ROUTE TO THE SPACE OCCUPIED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND ANY OTHER SECURITY MEASURES DEEMED NECESSARY TO SECURE THE BUILDING. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 31 (Special requirements). The lease provided the following with respect to janitorial services: THE LESSOR SHALL MAINTAIN THE LEASED PREMISES, INCLUDING OUTSIDE AREAS IN A CLEAN CONDITION AND SHALL PROVIDE SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 24 ( 72). The lease provided, in pertinent part, with respect to changes: 17. 552.270-21 CHANGES . . . . (f) No services or work for which an additional cost or fee will be charged by the Lessor will be furnished without the prior written authorization of the Contracting Officer or a designated representative of the Contracting Officer. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 55. Parking Solicitation As requested in the solicitation, Merlyn Jenkins agreed to provide four parking spaces on a charge basis at $16 per space per month. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 21 at 12; Appeal File, Exhibit 1. The GSA lease negotiator had told Mr. Jenkins during the lease offer stage that the Government would not pay for the extra parking, that the Government had requested that information for the tenants' information and that if Mr. Jenkins wanted to rent the parking spaces to the tenants, he could make his own arrangements with them. Transcript at 175. Resulting lease The lease provided with respect to parking: THE SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO FURNISH AND INSTALL THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN ADDITION TO OTHER REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE SOLICITATION. THE COST FOR THESE ITEMS ARE TO BE INCLUDED AND AMORTIZED IN THE PROPOSED RENTAL RATE. A. ONE PARKING SPACE ADJACENT TO THE ENTRANCE OF THE BUILDING. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 31 (Special requirements). The four extra parking spaces were not made part of the lease. Id. Tenant occupancy The lease commenced on September 11, 1989. Appeal File, Exhibit 2. According to Merlyn Jenkins, the court's law clerks worked beyond normal working hours on weekdays and weekends, resulting in "excessive use of space." Appellant claimed that the court staff used radios, hot plates, cup warmers, extra coffee makers, extra electric heaters, "boogie boxes," compact disc players and stereo units that "were not anticipated from information provided in the RFP." Appeal File, Exhibit 71 at 3. Mr. Jenkins maintained that for those reasons "costs have risen dramatically." Mr. Jenkins also claimed increased costs because the court staff allegedly caused additional utility usage by setting the heat higher than allowed by the lease in winter; by setting the summer air conditioning well below the minimum temperatures allowed by the lease in summer and by forgetting to turn the air conditioning off at the close of the work day, or on weekends or holidays. He complained that a law clerk had spilled an entire pot of scalding hot coffee damaging woodwork, wall covering and carpeting. Id. The costs associated with extra space use concern mainly alleged increased utility costs. Merlyn Jenkins recognized that the lease gave him control of the thermostat, and placed upon him the responsibility to maintain the premises at the temperatures specified in the lease. Transcript at 47-48. According to Mr. Jenkins, when he tried to control the thermostat, the court staff complained. He testified that officials from the GSA Wilkes-Barre field office advised him that "GSA usually gives to the judiciary whatever it is they want, regardless of the rules." Id. at 42. Mr. Jenkins admitted, however, that GSA never ordered him to maintain the temperatures other than as specified in the lease. Id. at 50. Miscellaneous damage Door problems In 1992, the Government decided to replace the front door for security reasons. The Government told appellant it would supply the door if Merlyn Jenkins maintained it. Mr. Jenkins agreed. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibits 39, 42, 54. The new untreated door, installed by the Government, warped because Merlyn Jenkins failed to prime and paint it, as previously agreed. Id., Exhibit 52. The warping caused damage to the locks and the door jam. Id. Damage to garage At an unspecified time, according to Merlyn Jenkins, the court's senior secretary while parking her car, carelessly "damaged door jams, drove into the overhead door, and purposely banged the automatic opener on her desk, breaking it, when she claimed it wouldn't function." Id., Exhibit 75 at 9 (Response to Respondent's Interrogatory Nine). Problems in moving out According to Merlyn Jenkins, after the court's personnel moved out of the building on January 13, 1996 (but before the lease was terminated), three of the ten keys, furnished to the court employees, were not returned. Transcript at 35-36. Mr. Jenkins became alarmed by the supposed lost keys, and re-keyed the locks. Transcript at 34. The Marshall's Service's removal of the security system had left small screw holes in the wall or ceiling tiles, pipes up from the floor, and wires. Respondent's Exhibit 76 at 2. The claim On September 20, 1995, Merlyn Jenkins submitted a claim to the contracting officer totaling $43,819.69. Section I claimed $34,458.02 for additional costs associated with the alleged excessive use of space. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 71. Appellant summed up this portion of the claim by stating that the "increased costs associated with the lease are due to the manner in which the space is being used since this use exceeds the usage information provided and outlined in the RFP for this lease." Id. In arriving at quantum of excess utility costs, appellant merely took the total utility costs and subtracted them from an estimate. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 71 at 4a, 4b. Mr. Jenkins does not know how many hours of overtime utility use there were. Transcript at 62-64. The quantum for section I of his claim also included the costs of bathroom and general cleaning supplies. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 71 at 5. Part I of the claim also contained demands for increased costs related to utility rate services. Appeal File, Exhibit 13. In section II of the claim, Merlyn Jenkins sought $8,654.12 for "parking for additional spaces at the rate shown on the original lease per unit per space." Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 71. This claim also involved the damage to a door and door jamb. Appeal File, Exhibit 13; Transcript at 187-88. In part III of the claim, he claimed $707.55 for "maintenance of premises." On March 1, 1996, the contracting officer issued his decision. He denied Merlyn Jenkins's claim for costs associated with the court staff's excessive use of space, because the lease he negotiated provided there would be no charge for the court staff's overtime use. Appeal File, Exhibit 13. He denied the claim for excessive utilities due to the court staff's raising the heating temperature and lowering the air conditioning temperature because maintaining the temperature was appellant's responsibility. Id. With regard to the court staff's use of coffee pots, the contracting officer concluded that the supporting documentation failed to demonstrate any material impact use of those items had on electricity consumption for the space. Id. The contracting officer denied that portion of the claim dealing with increased cost relating to rate increases, cleaning and operating supplies. The contracting officer denied the claim for damage to the door and jamb, because the damage was Mr. Jenkins's fault. Id. On January 11, 1996, GSA gave notice of lease termination effective March 12 of that year. Appeal File, Exhibit 12. On February 19, Merlyn Jenkins submitted a supplemental claim for $5,678.64. Parts I and II, totaling $4,497.31, sought the same type of additional costs (utility use, cleaning supplies) as in the first claim, but covered a later period of time. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 72 at 2. In part III of his supplemental claim, Merlyn Jenkins also sought reimbursement for damages, totaling $559.40 for a new garage door opener, installation of same and an additional remote control device. Respondent's Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 72. In the supplemental claim part IV, Mr. Jenkins sought $139.23 for the re- keying of the locks. Id. In part V, appellant sought $482.70 for repairing holes in the front door, carpeting, interior and exterior walls, and the ceiling due to the removal of the security system. Id. On April 2, 1996, the contracting officer denied parts I and II of the supplemental claim for the same reasons he denied the first claim. He denied parts III, IV, and V of the supplemental claim, concluding (1) that the alleged damage was normal wear and tear and (2) that the re-keying of the locks was a voluntary act by Merlyn Jenkins when the Government was occupying the space. Respondent's Exhibit 76. After the hearing, in the post-hearing brief, Merlyn Jenkins amended his claim to add the following: (1) the costs of damages to premises caused by the Government's move; (2) costs arising from removal of equipment paid by appellant and removed by the court staff; (3) initial cost due to alleged GSA delay in award of the lease; (4) costs to appellant arising from mail mis-delivery allegedly due to the court staff's using Mr. Jenkins's residential address on its stationery; (5) costs for improvement of additional space; (6) ownership of additional space; (7) costs of plan revisions due to alleged defects in Government build-out plans; and (8) litigation costs. Mr. Jenkins claims $52,474.88 for the additional cost of (1)-(7) and $6,302.52 for (8). Discussion Appellant's motion for default judgment or sanctions Appellant seeks default judgment or sanctions because the appeal file was allegedly incomplete, because respondent's counsel was eight days late in serving interrogatories, which were originally due on September 9, and because respondent was several days late in submitting supplemental exhibits and witness lists. Our rules do not specifically address default judgments. Assuming that appellant seeks sanctions pursuant to Rule 118 amounting to a default judgment, imposition of such a sanction would be appropriate only in the most extreme case. See Praught Construction Corp., ASBCA 46135, 96-1 BCA  28,058. The late filing of the interrogatories was apparently due to Mr. Jenkins's failure to supply a supplemental appeal file by September 5, as ordered. Appellant has not established that the short delay in providing the other items prejudiced Merlyn Jenkins in presentation of his case. In short, Mr. Jenkins has not shown that imposition of any sanctions, much less sanctions amounting to default judgment, is appropriate. The motion will be denied. The merits Utility costs Much of Merlyn Jenkins's claim concerns utility costs, specifically the costs of overtime utilities. The lease is clear that the lessor was to pay for overtime utilities; paragraph sixty- six of the lease states that there will be no charge for overtime use. The contract is as clear as words can make it, and must be enforced according to its terms. Jay P. Altmayer v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 12720, 94-3 BCA  27,070. Contrary to appellant's argument, in his post-hearing brief, the Government, by accepting his proposal, never "verified" Mr. Jenkins's lease operating costs or guaranteed that those costs would stay within his estimate on the GSA form 1217. Merlyn Jenkins seeks reformation of the lease on several grounds. He maintains that the Government misrepresented that overtime on this lease would be insubstantial. We have found as fact, however, that the Government made no such representation. Second, part of the problem leading to the increased cost was not the court staff's "excessive use of space," as stated in appellant's claim--it was use of electricity after hours. Any excessive use of electricity which occurred could have been prevented by appellant exercising his contractual right to maintain the required temperatures by securing the thermostats from manual operation. Merlyn Jenkins maintains that GSA withheld the information that the Third Judicial Circuit anticipated substantial overtime use of the premises, and that the lease should be reformed for the Government's failure to disclose its superior knowledge. The duty to disclose superior knowledge applies in situations where (1) a contractor undertakes to perform without vital knowledge of a fact that affects performance costs or duration; (2) the respondent was aware the contractor had no knowledge of and had no reason to obtain such information; (3) any contract specification supplied misled the contractor, or did not put it on notice to inquire; and (4) the respondent failed to provide the relevant information. Petrochem Services Inc. v. United States, 837 F.2d 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Beckman Construction Co. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 11796, 93-3 BCA  26,205, at 130,436. The elements of superior knowledge are not present in this instance. The GSA lease negotiator testified that as a result of being informed that the court staff anticipated substantial overtime, overtime utility services were included as an award factor in the lease. Also, a provision in the solicitation was included which described a procedure by which such services would be ordered from the lessor. Accordingly, the very terms of the solicitation placed prospective offerors on notice that the tenant would work beyond normal working hours and would have the right to request and receive overtime utility services. Knowing that overtime utility services would be required, Mr. Jenkins eliminated a charge for overtime utility services from his BAFO and executed the lease. Another factor in overtime use is Merlyn Jenkins's complaint that the court staff raised the temperature in the winter and lowered the temperature in the summer, higher and lower than the maximum and minimum temperatures specified by the lease. Again, the lease put the responsibility of maintaining the specified lease temperature with appellant. Merlyn Jenkins maintains that he was acting in accordance with GSA policy--as related to him by the Wilkes-Barre field office--to give the judiciary whatever it wanted. This rather off-hand and flippant advice did not relieve Mr. Jenkins of his lease responsibilities. It is settled that the Government is bound only by the instructions of its authorized representatives. Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 384 (1947). Thus, "anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority." Id. An employee's unauthorized statement to citizens, for example, cannot obligate the Treasury for payment of funds. Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 428 (1990). This doctrine applies to changes in Government contracts as well, and was implemented in this lease by paragraph 17(f) of the Changes clause, which provided that the furnishing of any service involving additional costs required the prior written approval of either the contracting officer or a designated representative of the contracting officer. Cf. MKB Construction Co., ASBCA 47741, 95-1 BCA  27,497, at 137,036 (contract specialist's approval of contract payments under a particular contract line item not binding on Government when contract specialist lacked authority for contracting officer). Merlyn Jenkins admitted at the hearing that GSA did not order him to maintain the temperature of the premises at other than the lease-specified temperatures. Paragraph 66(B) of the lease required just such an order, either from the contracting officer or the buildings manager. Appellant has not established that anonymous persons from the GSA Wilkes-Barre field office (1) acted as the designated representative of the contracting officer in the administration of this lease, (2) were authorized to give appellant instructions regarding overtime services in the administration of the lease or, (3) even intended to give appellant instructions as to provision of overtime services under the lease. The off-hand recitation by un-named officials of general GSA policy towards the judiciary is insufficient to bind the Government to change the lease to authorize payment of alleged excess utility costs resulting from Mr. Jenkins failing to maintain control of the thermostat. Parking, cleaning and miscellaneous damage Merlyn Jenkins maintains that the Government owes him rent (at $16 per month) for each of the parking spaces used by the court staff other than the one space mentioned in the lease. These spaces were not under lease; they were listed in the solicitation as available to tenants under "separate charge." GSA made it clear during lease negotiations that the extra parking spaces would not be part of the lease and that Mr. Jenkins would have to rent the spaces directly to the tenants. Appellant has not established rights under the lease to compensation for the extra parking spaces. The garage was not part of the leased premises and Mr. Jenkins has established no right to recovery from the Government under the lease for the court staff's alleged damage to the garage. Merlyn Jenkins seeks extra cleaning costs; the lease, however, made the landlord responsible for cleaning supplies and services, including the cleaning costs associated with the spilled coffee pot. The lease did not guarantee tenants who were fastidiously neat. Regarding damage to the door and walls from removal of the security system: (1) Damage to the door and jam was Mr. Jenkins's fault in not maintaining the Government-installed door in such a way as to prevent its warping, thereby damaging the door jam. (2) Even if we assume that such damage to the walls from removal of the security system was beyond normal wear and tear, Mr. Jenkins has not pointed to a restoration clause under the lease that would provide for the Government's payment of such damages. The re- keying of the locks was Mr. Jenkins's choice, and not a result of Government action under the lease. Additional costs raised after hearing After the hearing, Merlyn Jenkins raised eight additional issues: (1) the costs of damages (other than removal of the security system) to premises caused by the Government's move; (2) costs arising from removal of equipment paid for by appellant and removed by the court staff; (3) additional costs for supplies and sub-contractors due to alleged GSA delay in award of the lease; (4) costs to appellant arising from mail mis-delivery allegedly due to the court staff's alleged use of Mr. Jenkins's private address on its stationery; (5) costs for improvement of additional space; (6) ownership of additional space; (7) costs of plan revisions due to alleged defects in Government build-out plans; and (8) litigation costs. Merlyn Jenkins claims $52,474.88 for the additional cost of (1)-(7) and $6,302.52 for (8). The items (1)-(7) are claims which have not been presented to the contracting officer. The Contract Disputes Act of 1978 provides in pertinent part that "all claims by a contractor against the government relating to a decision shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the contracting officer for a decision." 41 U.S.C.A.  605(a) (West Supp. 1996). As our appellate authority has observed: "It is now elementary that for claims . . . brought under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, the claim must be in writing and submitted to a contracting officer for decision." Santa Fe Engineers Inc. v. United States, 818 F.2d 856, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We have jurisdiction to "decide any appeal from a decision of a contracting officer relative to a contract made by its agency." 41 U.S.C.A.  607(d). Mr. Jenkins has not presented these claims to the contracting officer, so they must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Merlyn Jenkins's claim for litigation costs is premature. Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a prevailing party, within thirty days of the final disposition of the agency adjudication, must file an application demonstrating its eligibility for award of such costs. 5 U.S.C.A.  504 (West Supp. 1996). This adjudication had not been completed at the time Mr. Jenkins made this claim and Mr. Jenkins has not filed an application for award of costs. Decision Appellant's motion for default judgment or sanction is DENIED. Appellant's appeal of the contracting officer's decisions of March 1 and April 2, 1996 is DENIED. The lease claim issues presented in appellant's post-hearing brief are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The claim for litigation costs is DISMISSED as premature. _________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge I concur: __________________________ ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge