MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: November 19, 1996
                                                               


                               GSBCA 13637-R


                      D. L. WOODS CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

                                             Appellant,

                                    v.

                     GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

                                             Respondent.

     Richard L. Ratliff, President of Don-Lee Inc., Indianapolis,
IN, appearing for Appellant.

     Derwin P. Richardson, Office of Regional Counsel, General
Services Administration, Chicago, IL, counsel for Respondent.

DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).

     The contractor appealed the contracting officer's denial of a
claim.  The claim was for an increase to the price of a
construction contract, to compensate for the contractor's having to
make twenty-nine submittals the contractor believed were not
mandated by the contract.  To assess the merits of this claim, we
needed to know what submittals were involved.  By telephone and in
writing, we asked the contractor for a listing of the submittals;
and when the contractor failed to produce one, we asked again --
once more, both by telephone and in writing.  The contractor never
provided the listing, which was the minimal evidence on the basis
of which we might have ruled for the contractor.  We consequently
had no choice but to deny the appeal.

     The contractor has asked us to reconsider this decision, on
the grounds that we should have performed the necessary analysis on
the basis of argument alone, without reference to evidence; and
that the contractor had misunderstood our request.  We decline the
invitation.  Argument without supporting evidence is not
persuasive.  The appeal could have been denied after the contractor
failed to respond to our first order for the production of
submittal information.  Because we prefer to reach the merits of
cases wherever possible, rather than denying appeals because of
procedural irregularities, we gave the contractor a second chance
-- and did so by telephone, to explain what was missing and permit
the contractor's representative to ask questions about the request. 
There should have been no doubt about what we wanted or why we
wanted it at the end of that conversation.

     In this case, the equitable rule is: Two strikes and you're
out.  The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

     This case was considered under the Board's small claims
procedure and was therefore decided by a single judge.  The motion
for reconsideration is consequently decided by the same judge
alone.





                                   _________________________
                                   STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                   Board Judge