DENIED: February 12, 1998 GSBCA 13901 TWIGG CORPORATION, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Maurice J. Mountain of Barton, Mountain, & Tolle, McLean, VA, counsel for Appellant. Gerald L. Schrader, Real Property Division, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), VERGILIO, and DeGRAFF. DANIELS, Board Judge. Twigg Corporation (Twigg) claims that it is entitled to compensation in addition to the contract price for costs incurred by its sprinkler subcontractor, General Fire Protection, Inc. (GFPI), during performance of a construction contract with the General Services Administration (GSA). The contractor has not demonstrated that the Government is responsible for the incurrence of these costs. We consequently deny the appeal. Findings of Fact 1. The dispute arose under a contract between GSA and Twigg for the renovation of a portion of the Columbia Plaza office complex in Washington, D.C. The complex consists of a seven-story low-rise building, a fifteen-story high-rise building, and a four-story connector between the two. This contract involved only the low-rise and connector. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 01010-1. 2. Among the contract requirements for renovation of the buildings is one for the provision of "a complete wet-pipe automatic sprinkler system, and associated equipment, ready for operation." The contract explains, "The work includes designing and providing automatic sprinkler and related fire suppression systems . . . . The work includes but is not necessarily limited to the following principal items: . . . 4. Removing existing and providing new fire pump water supply system." Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 15330-1. On November 3, 1994, Twigg accepted an offer from GFPI to perform the sprinkler system work for the sum of $382,500. Stipulation 9. The fire pump and the District of Columbia Fire Marshal 3. The Columbia Plaza complex is leased to the Government by its owners. To minimize potential future conflicts with the landlord, GSA wanted to make sure that the renovation was conducted in accordance with the District of Columbia's building code. Transcript at 137-38; Appeal File, Exhibit 32 at 4. Consequently, the agency included in the contract requirements that Twigg "[m]ake application for, pay all required fees unless otherwise specified and obtain required approvals to obtain all permits required by the District of Columbia," and "[m]ake arrangements for, coordinate, request and administer all inspections and approvals of the work as required by various departments of the District of Columbia." Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 01010-6 to -7. Twigg's subcontract with GFPI made the latter firm responsible for complying with these requirements as to the sprinkler system. Id., Exhibit 57 at 6 (unnumbered). 4. GSA officials began discussions about a general (or "umbrella") permit for the project with the District of Columbia Government several months before advertising for bids on the work. Transcript at 110. Such a permit was approved on November 30, 1994. Stipulation 14; Transcript at 111. The fire department's stamp on the plans states, "Tentatively approved. Final approval subject to field inspection. Submit separate drawings for: . . . sprinkler system." Appeal File, Exhibit 69. This notation was consistent with the general framework that separate permits would have to be obtained by Twigg for systems to be installed by various trades. Transcript at 111, 113. 5. The specifications which were reviewed by the D.C. Government prior to issuing the general permit required a fire pump with a capacity of 750 gallons per minute (gpm). Transcript at 24. The GFPI engineer who was responsible for designing the specifics of the sprinkler system to be installed, Philip Pence, was concerned that this pump was inadequately sized to meet code requirements. Id. at 25; Appeal File, Exhibit 64. On December 6, 1994, Mr. Pence reported to Twigg that D.C. fire inspector Brenda Fenton told him that a 1500 gpm pump was necessary, but that Bryan Turman, a employee of Girard Engineering, Ltd. (GSA's principal engineering firm for design of the project), had assured him that a 750 gpm pump was sufficient. Appeal File, Exhibit 71; Transcript at 134-35. Mr. Pence reiterated his concerns to Twigg in January 1995. Appeal File, Exhibit 90. On January 30, another GFPI employee wrote to Twigg: At the moment, we do not sense a compromise developing from either Turman or Fenton. The project is locked up in a stalemate. . . . [C]onstruction at the site is progressing at an accelerated pace. GFPI bid its contract from the perspective of not being handicapped on startup by being confronted with extensive work- around situations from other trades that had installed their system components. Even if a compromise could be worked out today, GFPI must submit a change order concerning the cost increases that GFPI will now face. Id., Exhibit 93. In March, GFPI sent Twigg another warning of a likely acceleration claim. Id., Exhibit 107. 6. Although the record does not indicate that Twigg passed along GFPI's concerns to GSA or Girard Engineering with the sense of anxiety expressed by the subcontractor, the agency and its engineer did know something about the disagreement between Ms. Fenton and Mr. Turman. On November 25, 1994, Twigg sent to GSA a request for information asking whether the fire pump as designed was sufficiently large; the request states that the fire marshal's office requires strict compliance with a code provision that Twigg interprets as mandating a larger pump. The response to this request was, "The automatic water supply and fire pump sizing is adequate to provide required sprinkler demand plus additional hose stream allowance." Appeal File, Exhibit 66. At a February 15, 1995, partnering meeting at the job site, concern was expressed that approval of sprinkler drawings had not occurred; the minutes reflect that GSA was considering Girard's response to the D.C. Government's comments. Id., Exhibit 101 at 2. Ms. Fenton and Mr. Turman spoke on February 23 regarding the appropriate size of the pump. Id., Exhibit 102. 7. At a meeting on March 15, GFPI and Twigg raised the matter of pump size directly with GSA officials, and the latter decided to arrange a meeting with the D.C. Fire Marshal's office to resolve it. Appeal File, Exhibits 23, 110; Transcript at 115- 17. The Acting Fire Chief met with concerned parties, and on March 28, he approved a 750 gpm fire pump -- the same size indicated in the original, previously-approved plans. Appeal File, Exhibit 111; Transcript at 119-20. GFPI understood that this action resolved the problem the company had raised. Transcript at 51. GFPI resubmitted its plans the following day. Appeal File, Exhibit 115. The D.C. Government approved the plans (with further revisions) on April 10, and GFPI's sprinkler fitters were on the site the next day. Id., Exhibits 25, 119. Other difficulties with impact on progression of work 8. Joseph P. Hirl, the president of GFPI, testified to the following conditions at the complex. Columbia Plaza was a group of residential buildings being configured for office purposes. Transcript at 27. It had low ceilings which limited the space available for installing building systems. Id. at 62, 255-56. The ceilings were of irregular height, further complicating installation of systems. Id. at 256-57. One end of the complex had curved walls; the curvature was not identical on all floors. Id. at 62-63. This also interfered with efforts to put systems together. Id. at 28. 9. Work on the project was delayed significantly by the following three events. Contract performance was halted almost immediately after it began, in August 1994; the contracting officer suspended work in response to the filing of a bid protest. This delay lasted nearly two months, until the protest was withdrawn. GSA extended the contract completion date commensurate with the length of the delay. Stipulations 6, 7. Then on November 22, asbestos was found in the buildings. Removal of the asbestos was not completed until March 1995. Stipulation 10; Transcript at 123. Work on portions of the first and third floors was precluded by a stop work order issued by the contracting officer in December 1994. The space on these floors was redesigned by May 1995, but Twigg and GSA did not agree on contract modifications covering revised work until October and November of that year. Stipulation 11; Appeal File, Exhibits 76, 168-70; Transcript at 165. 10. Other problems were clearly caused by Twigg and/or its subcontractors. One, from GFPIþs perspective, was the direct result of a Twigg decision: the sprinkler subcontractor had planned to work from the bottom of the buildings up, but Twigg chose to have work begin at the top and move down. Transcript at 42; Exhibit 97 at 4. 11. On May 8, 1995, actions by Twigg's electrical subcontractor caused an electrical explosion and fire at the site. As a result, employees of GFPI and other subcontractors could not perform work there for a week. Stipulation 17; Transcript at 406. 12. The contract required installation of sprinkler heads in the centers of ceiling tiles. Transcript at 64. Control points had to be established for the ceilings, so as to minimize cutting and readjusting sprinkler piping to ensure that heads were centered within the tiles. Id. at 65. Setting the control points is a contractor responsibility. Id. at 167-68. GFPI complained to Twigg that "[t]he plumber, electrician, and other trades [subcontractors to Twigg] all have their own interpretation of where the ceiling points are." Appeal File, Exhibit 129. The task of laying out the points was apparently assigned to the drywall/ceiling subcontractor, but that firm was unable to perform it, so GFPI engineer Pence performed the task himself. Stipulation 16 (as modified by appellant). Mr. Hirl believed that the ceiling subcontractor "didnþt quite know . . . what he was doing." Transcript at 263-64. 13. Disagreements between GFPI and the drywall/ceiling subcontractor also occurred as to the location of sprinkler pipe sleeves within areas enclosed by drywall, creating problems as to packing and sealing the sleeves. Appeal File, Exhibits 181, 183. 14. In addition, nine false fire alarms occurred during construction. Transcript at 407. GSAþs construction manager believed that GFPI employees were responsible for four or five of the false alarms. Id. Mr. Hirl thought that his employees were not at fault, and that the system itself (which was installed by Twigg's electrical subcontractor) was highly susceptible to the false alarms. Id. at 464-66. In any event, on each occasion, all workers had to leave the job; sometimes they were gone for as much as half a day. Id. at 409. 15. Another problem affecting work on the sprinkler system was that in some regards, the contract drawings did not accurately reflect the dimensions of the building. Appeal File, Exhibit 129. For example, the curvature of the building's exterior was different from the curvature shown on the drawings. Transcript at 261-62. GFPIþs claim 16. On June 8, 1995, GFPI sent Twigg a claim "for a production schedule delay of 32.35%." GFPI said that it had planned to complete the job in 103 days, but that the schedule then in effect extended the subcontractorþs participation in the project by at least thirty-three working days. GFPI requested an equitable adjustment in the amount of $49,035 to its subcontract price. The claim had three elements -- $24,812 in direct costs for the lengthening of the schedule; $4,168 (16.8% of direct costs) for field overhead; and $20,055 in lost opportunity cost. As to the last element, GFPI explained, "During the period of the delay, $412,500 in revenue would have been collected and of that amount, approximately $114,600 would have been proportionally related to the effort engaged by the CP [Columbia Plaza] project team but now redirected to new business. Of that amount, a gross profit of $20,055 has been foregone." Appeal File, Exhibit 132. 17. On August 11, GFPI sent Twigg an "update" of its earlier claim. Transcript at 89. This claim was for "a production schedule delay of 80.6%" -- seventy-seven days beyond the planned 103 days of performance. GFPI explained, "Whether we are talking about asbestos removal, extensive disagreement between the fire marshall and the owners [sic] staff, or delays in decision making, the end result to GFPI is delay." The claim was in the amount of $97,223 -- $51,049 due to lengthening of the schedule; $8,576 (16.8% of that amount) for field overhead; and $37,598 in lost opportunity costs due to having forego $773,333 in revenue. Appeal File, Exhibit 29. Mr. Hirl acknowledged that during the time between his initial claim and this "update," GFPIþs production experience was in line with its expectations. The increased amount was based on projected costs which had not yet occurred. Transcript at 329-30. 18. On September 6, Twigg and GSA representatives met to discuss costs resulting from delays associated with removal of asbestos from the project site. Transcript at 376. The representatives decided to set aside the GFPI claim because it was not related to asbestos problems. Id. at 95; see also id. at 122 (Hirlþs acknowledgment that GFPIþs claim has nothing to do with asbestos). It was understood that GFPI would resubmit a claim for production schedule delay based on the alleged delay by GSA and the D.C. Fire Marshal to approve and issue the sprinkler permit. Stipulation 19. By letter dated October 27, 1995, Mr. Hirl confirmed to Thomas Twigg that as per the meeting of September 6, GFPI would submit a production schedule delay claim when the sum was certain and that claim would be kept separate from the asbestos removal claim. Stipulation 27; Appeal File, Exhibits 159, 178. 19. On March 28, 1996, GFPI submitted to Twigg the third and final iteration of its claim for a production schedule delay. GFPI stated, "The basis for the claim has both primary and secondary reasons. Concerning the primary reason, GFPI was delayed by at least twelve weeks in starting the Columbia Plaza (CP) job because of differences of opinion between the District of Columbia Fire Marshal's Office and representatives for the user of the building. . . . The secondary reasons involve indirect effects on GFPI which are initiated by other trades responding to their own direct delay effects." Appeal File, Exhibit 35 at 1. Mr. Hirl testified that like the August 11, 1995, version of its claim, this one was "closer to actual numbers" than its predecessor. Transcript at 104. 20. GFPI explained this version of its claim as follows: During the planning analysis, GFPI determined that the implementation of the sprinkler system should take about 103 working days or about 5 months. Further, since the project requires about 1,880 heads, the rate of installation would be about 94 heads per week . . . . An average crew of about two or slightly more should be capable of handling this production load if the crew is allowed to begin implementation early in the project cycle and not be encumbered with the obstacles presented later in the construction process. However, because of the pump and permit problem GFPI was delayed the opportunity to begin early construction by twelve weeks. This late arrival and schedule stretch has caused inefficiency and the lowering of the production rate to 30+ heads per week. . . . The planned approach is linear over a twenty week period. The base estimate for total field man-hours was 2,720 hours. . . . Well, as we all know, the above linear model never materialized and instead, there was an initial acceleration followed by adjustments to the construction work completed and that which was underway. . . . [T]he delay process has pushed GFPI substantially passed [sic] the initial labor hour estimate. Appeal File, Exhibit 35 at 2-3. GFPI claimed delay costs (increased labor costs) of $44,682; overhead (16.8% of this amount) of $7,507; and lost opportunity costs of $33,393 -- a total of $85,582. Id. at 5. 21. Twigg submitted this claim, as supplemented by its own markups, to the contracting officer. With markups, the total amount of the claim was $106,579. Appeal File, Exhibit 36. The contracting officer denied the claim, on the ground that GSA was not responsible for delays or coordination problems regarding the size of the fire pump, or for coordination problems among subcontractors. Id., Exhibit 37. GFPI president's explanation of his firm's claim 22. At hearing, as explained by Mr. Hirl, GFPI's claim changed once again. The claim now amounts to $78,914, all in additional labor costs -- $51,658 for sprinkler installation in the field, $4,997 for testing, $14,963 for other field hours, $2,105 for engineering, and $5,191 for shop work. With Twigg's markups, the claim totals $98,275. Appellant's Exhibit 18; Transcript at 205, 245; Appellant's Brief at 40. The hourly rates used to calculate these amounts include overhead and profit. Appellant's Exhibit 6. When asked whether the lost opportunity cost element of the claim has been eliminated, Mr. Hirl responded, "I'm not going to tell you that it's been eliminated. I am going to tell you that there is a number of ways that you can present things." Transcript at 339. The claim has to do with a break-even analysis, he explained. GFPI is currently presenting a different approach "which come[s] up to essentially the same kind of cost impact." Id. at 340-41. Appellant's counsel characterized this position as follows: "[T]hese costs were now superseded by the revised pricing approach, but could be considered as included in the indirect cost allocated to the direct labor base." Appellant's Brief at 36-37. 23. Mr. Hirl used terms like "planned hours" and "original bid hours" in calculating GFPI's claim. Transcript at 186; Appellant's Exhibit 2. He testified that "the original bid was . . . 2,772 hours." Transcript at 216. GFPI asserted in its first two claims, "In the estimating process, GFPI refined its bid using two learning curves to develop the final estimated cost for the fire protection system for CP." Appeal File, Exhibits 29, 132. The third claim as well makes reference to learning curves. Id., Exhibit 35. A learning curve, Mr. Hirl explained, is a graphic representation which illustrates the phenomenon that the amount of labor required to produce a product declines as the number of units produced increases; the individual performing the work increases his efficiency as he repeats similar work. Transcript at 212-13. 24. Mr. Hirl acknowledged in hearing testimony, however, that he has no details as to how GFPI's bid was actually developed, and he has provided no company records which might convey those details. Transcript at 284-86. (Mr. Hirl did not purchase GFPI until January 4, 1995, more than two months after the company entered into the subcontract with Twigg. Id. at 12, 14.) He testified that he does not think the previous owners of GFPI based their bid on a learning curve -- or that they even understand the theory of learning curves. Id. at 273, 275, 280. He admitted that he did not know how many labor hours were anticipated by the former owners in making their bid. Id. at 279, 325. Similarly, the record contains no information as to the length of time GFPI actually projected would be necessary to complete its work. When questioned as to specifics of the bid, Mr. Hirl responded, "[One of the previous owners] probably came up with a certain number in playing around with that . . . particular number [the subcontract price], he felt that that was a good area to end up with and he ended up essentially in his bid to Twigg at that particular level." Id. at 279. Further, "Now, the final dollar figure[], . . . comes to the owner as to what he and Mr. Twigg were willing to essentially agree to . . . . But that then becomes somewhat independent of essentially the overall estimate as to what the labor hours are," especially because, Mr. Hirl speculated, the owner may have trimmed overhead and profit margins to secure the subcontract. Id. at 328. The application of learning curves to the subcontract price was something Mr. Hirl did himself, after purchasing the company, to see, based on the price and his understanding of the company and the job, how many hours should have been worked on the project. Id. at 266, 268, 279, 326-27. 25. Twigg offered into evidence, to explain GFPI's claim, a graph which shows the number of sprinkler heads installed each week while GFPI was working on the project, along with curves representing, in two regards, the number of hours of labor per head installation. One curve is the learning curve which Mr. Hirl expected to obtain; the other shows the actual number of hours spent per head installation. Appellant's Exhibit 16; Transcript at 222. The graph indicates that relative to the "expected" curve, the "actual" curve is slightly higher (reflecting more hours per head) during weeks 1-4, 9-12, and 18; somewhat higher in weeks 19-25; considerably higher in weeks 26- 32; and slightly lower in weeks 6, 15, 16, and 33-36. The number of labor hours per head installed is essentially identical on the two curves in the other weeks (5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17, and 37-43). The graph also shows that almost no heads were installed in weeks 1, 26-30, and 39-43, and that only modest numbers were installed in weeks 17-25. Appellant's Exhibit 16. Work on the first and third floors occurred during weeks 26-51. Appellant's Exhibit 22; Transcript at 228-32. Mr. Hirl admitted that the numbers on which the graph is based are in some regards averages, rather than actual numbers. Transcript at 311-15. 26. Mr. Hirl blamed instances of the number of heads installed per hour being above expected points on his learning curve on "complications you were running into at that particular point in time that you had to overcome as you eventually get down to that particular number." Transcript at 324. When he was asked, however, "Do you know what those complications are that you ran into at that time?" he responded, "No, I have no idea." Id. at 324-25. He also acknowledged that he does not have a daily diary which might document what was actually occurring on the job. Id. at 333. Mr. Hirl, as the president of GFPI, visited the job site "at least approximately once every month, once every six weeks." Id. at 257. Twigg presented no witnesses who were familiar with the details of GFPI's work on this job. 27. GFPI's claim includes the contention that manpower requirements increased because the sprinkler subcontractor could not start work until the size of the fire pump had been resolved, and prior to that time, "other subcontractors have had the run of the site without concern for the interface with the sprinkler contractor." Appeal File, Exhibit 35 at 2. Mr. Hirl admitted at hearing, however, that generally, ductwork is installed before sprinkler piping, and other systems, such as electrical cabling, are often installed before sprinkler piping as well. He was unable to describe anything other than ductwork that was installed on this job before his employees began work. Transcript at 257-59. 28. Mr. Hirl testified, and GSA's project manager agreed, that the most efficient way of performing sprinkler installation work is to assign a small crew of trained workers to a project, let them become familiar with the job, and have them perform similar tasks through constant repetition. Transcript at 104-05, 129-30, 225. On this project, however, GFPI used nineteen different sprinkler fitters. Only one of these men worked at Columbia Plaza throughout the life of the project. A second was on the job much of the time, but the others came and went for reasons which were not explained. During virtually every week that it worked on this project, GFPI used more fitters than would have been necessary if assigned personnel had each spent a full forty-hour workweek on the job. Respondent's Exhibit 1; see Respondent's Brief at 13-14. 29. Although the GFPI claim, as constituted at hearing, included hours for testing, other field hours, engineering, and shop work, Twigg did not present any detailed explanation of how it calculated the parts of the claim relating to these hours. Mr. Hirl simply explained that the numbers for those portions of the claim were developed "[i]n a similar fashion" to the installation hours portion. Transcript at 242. First and third floor contract modifications 30. One of the reasons for the need for additional labor on the job, as advanced in GFPIþs March 1996 claim, is "Confusion and uncertainty related to Ownerþs intentions concerning work on the first and third floor[s] resulting in disruption of work plans." Appeal File, Exhibit 35 at 4. As related in Finding 9, most work on these floors was precluded for the better part of a year by a stop work order issued by the contracting officer. During this period, GSA had the layout of the floors totally redesigned. Transcript at 124. After the agency released new plans to the contractor, Twigg gathered prices from its subcontractors for their portions of the changed work. GFPI responded that complying with the new plans would increase its labor and material costs by $4,864. Twigg included this figure in its proposal to GSA for performing the changed work. Appeal File, Exhibit 140 at 2. GFPIþs quotation did not include any amount for the impact of delay on the work. Transcript at 83-84, 92-93. 31. Twigg submitted its proposal to GSA in June 1995. Appeal File, Exhibit 140. Discussions on this matter dragged through July, August, and September. Transcript at 372, 380-84; Appeal File, Exhibits 162, 163. Finally, in October, negotiations came to a head. Twigg made a proposal which included only direct and indirect costs. Id., Exhibit 166. GSA responded with a counter-proposal which included impact costs as well. Id., Exhibit 167. GSA's project manager explained the reason for including impact costs: "[W]e did not want to leave this issue as an open end item. We wanted to make sure that we agreed and that the Government understood what the full cost and impacts were going to be of the change order. . . . [W]e recognized that there, in fact, had been a delay . . . and we wanted to make sure that the price that we agreed for this change order included all costs associated with that, all delays, impacts, direct cost and indirect cost[s]." Transcript at 124- 25. 32. Ultimately, Twigg and GSA entered into contract modifications covering the changed work, each of which provided that Twigg would be paid a specified additional amount, and that the amount would include all costs -- direct, indirect, impact, and delay charges -- associated with that work. (The modifications also extended by several months the deadline for completion of all contract work.) Appeal File, Exhibits 168-70; Transcript at 165. GSA's project manager testified, "[T]here was certainly a meeting of the minds between Glenn Twigg [Twigg's president] and the GSA side of the house that these numbers were all inclusive and that we were putting all of these issues to bed at that time." Transcript at 163. Twigg did not present Glenn Twigg as a rebuttal witness to counter this statement. On October 13, Twigg directed GFPI to proceed with the work covered by the contract modifications. Appeal File, Exhibit 173. Discussion Delays occurred on this construction project for which the contractor, Twigg Corporation, was not responsible. Twigg believes that its sprinkler subcontractor, General Fire Protection, Inc., should be paid more for the sprinkler work than the price at which GFPI agreed to perform that work. Twigg and GFPI have attempted to create a link between these facts which will justify a holding that the General Services Administration, the Government agency that contracted for the work, must pay the additional sum the contractor and subcontractor seek. GFPI and Twigg's efforts in this regard are not convincing. There were three significant events which interfered with planned performance and for which Twigg was clearly not responsible: a bid protest, the discovery of asbestos on the site, and the redesign of the first and third floor areas. None of these events may serve as the predicate for recovery of any delay costs by Twigg for GFPI, however. The bid protest and all the delay it occasioned occurred before GFPI signed its subcontract with Twigg, and Twigg does not contend that this event had any impact on GFPI's costs. Twigg and GFPI have similarly acknowledged that GFPI's claim is entirely separate from claims associated with asbestos removal. The contract modifications under which Twigg renovated the redesigned first and third floors expressly included in their prices all delay and impact costs; they thereby precluded Twigg from recovering any such costs for that work from GSA. In GFPI's three written iterations of its claim (the last of which was forwarded by Twigg, with markups, to the GSA contracting officer for decision), the sprinkler subcontractor based its case for more money on a different cause of delay: the long time taken to obtain a permit from the District of Columbia Government for the sprinkler system. We have serious doubts that this delay could reasonably be attributed to GSA. The contract between GSA and Twigg made Twigg the party responsible for securing D.C. permits, and the subcontract between Twigg and GFPI assigned this responsibility to GFPI as to the sprinkler system. While GSA and its engineer may have known for a few months that the D.C. Government was not issuing a permit for a fire pump sized in accordance with contract specifications, and done nothing about the problem, this does not mean that GSA was under any legal obligation to act, and Twigg was not demanding that it do so. Even if we could find some legal obligation on GSA's part for not assisting Twigg in its responsibility to secure the permit, and fault GSA for not having fulfilled that obligation, this would still not be sufficient ground for allowing recovery on the GFPI claim. The contractor has not demonstrated that GFPI's later-than-planned start on the job had any material impact on GFPI's costs. Although the claim asserts that because of the late start, GFPI had to work around installations already made by other subcontractors, Twigg's only witness on this matter, GFPI president Hirl, was not able to identify any such complications. Mr. Hirl admitted that ductwork is generally installed before sprinkler piping and was unable to identify any systems other than ductwork that were in place when his employees began work on this project. At hearing, Mr. Hirl recast the GFPI claim in terms of a learning curve analysis and contended that GFPI was harmed in that its performance on the job was less efficient than should have been expected. Several pitfalls are inherent in this approach. First, the learning curve is not a baseline for the costs GFPI projected when it took on this subcontract. We have no evidence whatsoever as to those costs; we do not know how GFPI constructed its bid, and we do not even know whether GFPI expected to break even, make money, or suffer a loss on the work. The learning curve was constructed after the fact by Mr. Hirl, on the basis of the unsupported assumption that the subcontract price was reasonable. The "planned" labor hours for sprinkler installation, as referenced in the claim, are derived from Mr. Hirl's curve; there is no evidence as to how many hours GFPI really anticipated devoting to the job. (The numbers in the claim are also inconsistent with each other; the number of "planned" hours divided by the number of "planned" work-weeks requires an average crew of 3.3 fitters each day, not "about two or slightly more," as the claim asserts.) Even if the learning curve analysis could be given any credence, it does not make much of a case for recovery. An examination of the points on the "actual" and "expected" curves, as described in Finding 25, shows that during most weeks of GFPI's performance on this project, installation hours per sprinkler head were either the same as anticipated or slightly more or slightly less than anticipated. In only one-third of the weeks were installation hours per head somewhat or considerably higher than expected. All of the weeks in which hours were considerably higher than expected occurred while work was progressing on the first and third floors, and since Twigg has not excluded from the claim work devoted to those floors (which due to contract modifications cannot be the subject of a delay or impact claim against GSA), we cannot allow recovery for those weeks. This leaves just seven weeks during which installation hours were somewhat higher than expected. We have been given no specifics as to what happened on the job during those weeks. Second, many problems arose on this project which were within the cognizance of Twigg, GFPI, or another Twigg subcontractor. The appellant has not excluded the impact of any of these problems from the amounts it claims for GFPI's performance. The facts that Columbia Plaza had been designed for residential use, and consequently had limited ceiling space for the installation of building systems, and that the structure had curved exterior walls, were clearly ascertainable before bidding and construction began; in accordance with a contract provision, their impacts should have been included in bids. (To the extent that learning curves might have been relevant to pricing, these facts should also have had an impact on the curve for this project, causing it to be based on a slower learning rate than is usual on new office construction.) Twigg insisted on a construction pattern that was not to GFPI's liking. Serious questions exist as to whether GFPI manned the job as efficiently as possible. A fire started by a Twigg subcontractor forced all workers off the job, and false fire alarms, which may have been caused by one Twigg subcontractor or another, did the same. Twigg did not coordinate the establishment of ceiling control points and then left that work to a subcontractor who, according to Mr. Hirl, did not understand how to perform it. While inaccurate contract drawings may have contributed to the last problem, this does not negate our conclusion that Twigg and GFPI were responsible for at least some of the inefficiencies in GFPI's performance. Third, Twigg and GFPI have presented no evidence whatsoever in support of several elements of GFPI's claim. The claim as submitted to the contracting officer included a portion for lost opportunity costs. Twigg has been equivocal as to whether this element of the claim survives, but even if it does, no evidence has been introduced regarding it. The claim as presented at hearing includes elements relating to labor hours involved in testing, other field hours, engineering, and shop work, but Twigg has given us no basis for awarding any of these costs, either. Decision The appeal is DENIED. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge We concur: _________________________ _________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge Board Judge