_______________________________ GRANTED IN PART: June 9, 1997 _______________________________ GSBCA 13992 GAINESVILLE OFFICE ASSOCIATES, LTD., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Stanley A. Tarkow and Charles B. Abbott, II of Foley & Lardner, Tampa, FL, counsel for Appellant. John C. Ringhausen, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Atlanta, GA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges PARKER and VERGILIO. PARKER, Board Judge. In response to Gainesville Office Associates, Ltd.'s claims totaling $38,224 for various reimbursable expenses due under its lease with the General Services Administration (GSA), GSA paid Gainesville $18,776 and refused to pay the rest, asserting that it was entitled to certain credits totaling $19,594. Gainesville claims that GSA is not entitled to those credits and demands payment of the balance, $19,448. In addition, Gainesville claims that GSA owes it $4,745 per year for heating and cooling a computer data room twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week. For the reasons discussed below, we hold that GSA is entitled to the claimed credits, and that Gainesville is entitled to the additional utility costs for the computer data room. Thus, we grant in part Gainesville's appeal of GSA's decisions on these claims. Findings of Fact On January 17, 1996, appellant leased certain office space located in Gainesville, Florida, to GSA. Appellant was to build out the leased space in accordance with layouts to be furnished by the Government within 120 days after award. Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 2 of 4. The solicitation provided offerors with a projected layout of the space, and with various formulae for determining the number of partitions, electrical outlets and telephone outlets which were to be installed by the landlord. Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 34 of 40 ( 10, space layout), 23 of 40 ( 5.10, partitions), 27 of 40 ( 6.10, electrical outlets), 27-28 of 40 ( 6.11, telephone outlets). Appellant based its offer for the rental amount on the projected space layout and the various formulae. Section 3.1 of the solicitation provided for adjustments of payment if the actual layout of the space deviated from the projected space layout: UNIT COSTS FOR ADJUSTMENTS Several paragraphs of the SFO [Solicitation for Offers] specify means for determining quantities of materials. These are government projections to assist the Offeror in cost estimating. Actual quantities may not be determined until after the lease is awarded and the space layout completed. To enable an equitable settlement if the Government layout departs from the projection, the Offeror must list a unit cost for each of these materials. GSA will use each unit cost to make a lump sum payment or rental increase if the amount of material required by the layout is more than specified or take credit from rental if the amount is less than specified. Offerors are required to state in the offer . . . [cost per linear foot for ceiling high partitioning, cost per wall mounted electrical outlet, and cost per wall mounted telephone outlet]. Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 10 of 40. As required by this section, appellant specified unit costs for these items -- $22 per linear foot for ceiling high partitioning, $60 per wall mounted electrical outlet, and $15 per wall mounted telephone outlet. Id. at 3 of 4. The actual layout of the space differed from the projected layout and appellant ended up installing 607 linear feet less of ceiling high partitioning, 93 fewer wall mounted electrical outlets, and 44 fewer wall mounted telephone outlets than were required for the projected layout. Multiplying the unit costs for each item by the number of units not used yielded a total credit of $19,594, which GSA subtracted from the amount it owed appellant for various reimbursable cost items. Appeal File, Exhibit 12. As to heating and air conditioning costs for the computer data room, the lease provided as follows: [I]f the Government chooses to operate the HVAC [heating, ventilation and air conditioning] in the listed room(s) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, the following costs will apply: Additional annual cost to run Data Room HVAC $4,745.00 Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 4 of 4. Respondent refuses to pay the above amount because it claims to have subsequently discovered that appellant's actual expenses for cooling the room will be only $744 per year. Appellant maintains that the charge specified in the contract is reasonable because the data room does not have its own electric meter and cannot be heated or cooled without heating or cooling the entire leased space. Discussion Claimed Credits Appellant maintains that GSA is not entitled to the claimed credits for unused partitioning, electrical outlets and telephone outlets because the projected layout set forth in Section 10 of the solicitation, upon which appellant relied in formulating its offer, preempts Section 3.1 and other sections which relate to the amount of materials to be used in the construction. We agree with GSA that appellant misreads the contract. The contract provided that the build-out would be in accordance with space layouts to be furnished by the Government within 120 days after award. Section 10 of the solicitation, which set forth a projected layout of the space, provided prospective offerors with a common basis upon which to make their offers. Section 3.1 of the solicitation required the offeror to provide for various items unit prices which GSA would use to adjust the contract price if the actual layout differed from the projected layout. As GSA correctly points out, Section 3.1 works in harmony with the other sections; there is no inconsistency among the sections as appellant alleges. Here, the actual layout required appellant to use less partitioning, and fewer electrical and telephone outlets, than projected. The credit for these items as provided in Section 3.1 prevents the contractor from receiving a windfall for items that it was not required to provide. By the same token, if the actual space layout had required the contractor to provide more of these items than projected, Section 3.1 would have required GSA to pay extra for the additional items. The Board has interpreted the pertinent clauses. In Plaza Maya Limited Partnership, we said: The meaning of the pertinent contract language, read as a whole, is plain and unambiguous. Appellant was required to price the rental amount according to the specifications, with adjustments to be made subsequently when the actual layouts were developed to accommodate the specific space leased by GSA. Plaza Maya Limited Partnership, GSBCA 9086, 91-1 BCA  23,425, at 117,499. Appellant's interpretation of the contract -- that the projected layout set forth in Section 10 preempts Section 3.1 and other sections of the contract -- is unreasonable. Utility Costs for the Computer Data Room The amount which appellant seeks for heating and cooling the computer data room is set forth in the contract: $4,745 per year. GSA's argument that it should not have to pay the agreed-upon amount because it greatly exceeds appellant's costs is not, without more, a sufficient basis for refusing to pay in accordance with an express term of the lease. GSA has not advanced a theory of mutual or unilateral mistake or any other legal theory upon which to base a request for relief. Negotiating a bad deal is not a basis for recovery. GSA has not even shown that it could have negotiated a better deal. After a competition, appellant's offer, including the charge for heating and cooling the computer data room, was deemed to be the most beneficial to the Government. GSA has no idea how appellant's pricing for the computer data room affected the other aspects of appellant's offer, including the rental price. Finally, GSA has not refuted appellant's explanation for the charge -- that the computer data room does not have its own electric meter and cannot be heated or cooled without heating or cooling the entire leased space. There is no basis for refusing to pay appellant the agreed-upon amount. Decision The appeal is GRANTED IN PART. GSA is to pay appellant for heating and cooling the computer data room in accordance with the lease. ____________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge I concur: ______________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge