Board of Contract Appeals
                 General Services Administration
                      Washington, D.C. 20405


            __________________________________________

               GRANTED IN PART:  December 24, 1996
            __________________________________________


                           GSBCA 13618


                          FLINTCO, INC.,
                                 
                                         Appellant,

                                v.

                 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

                                         Respondent.

    Donald O. Pratt of Canterbury, Stuber, Pratt, Elder & Gooch,
Dallas, TX, counsel for Appellant.

    Nora A. Huey, Office of General Counsel, General Services
Administration, Washington, DC; and Kevin M. Myles, Office of
Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX,
counsel for Respondent.

Before Board Judges NEILL, HYATT, and DeGRAFF.

HYATT, Board Judge.

    On June 11, 1996, Flintco, Inc. appealed the contracting
officer's deemed denial of two certified claims arising in
connection with performance disputes under contract number GS-07P-
93-HUC-0018.  The first claim set forth a request for equitable
adjustment in the amount of $282,143 and was based upon the alleged
defective design of VAV boxes and resultant delay.  The second
claim sought an equitable adjustment in the amount of $612,902.50
for additional work alleged to have been directed by the Government
in connection with redesign of air handling units, and resultant
delay.  

    The parties agreed to proceed initially pursuant to
alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which was conducted in
September 1996.  The matter was successfully settled in principle
during the ADR proceeding.  The parties completed negotiations and
entered into a settlement agreement thereafter.  On December 16,
1996, they submitted a joint motion for entry of decision and
judgment, "recognizing respondent's liability to Flintco in the
amount of $428,000 (inclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys'
fees)." 

    Pursuant to Rule 136(e), the Board adopts the parties'
stipulation for entry of judgment and enters judgment as requested. 
Rule 136(e) provides that the Board may so adopt the parties'
stipulation, by decision, and that such decision is an adjudication
of the appeal on its merits.  E.g., Barber Construction Co. v.
National Gallery of Art, GSBCA 12946-NGA, 95-1 BCA   27,405.

                             Decision

    The appeal is GRANTED IN PART.  Respondent shall make payment to
Flintco in accordance with the terms stated in the "Joint Motion
for Entry of Decision and Judgment," as described above.  Rule
136(e).




                                ____________________________
                                CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                Board Judge

We concur:




__________________________      ____________________________
EDWIN B. NEILL                  MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
Board Judge                     Board Judge