DENIED:  May 11, 1995
                                                      
 
 
                              GSBCA 12893
 
 
                          WESCON CORPORATION,
 
                                           Appellant,
 
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                           Respondent.
 
        Hal Gordon, of Wescon Corporation, Pensacola, FL,  appearing
   for Appellant.
 
        A.R. Dattolo, Office  of Regional Counsel, General  Services
   Administration, Atlanta, GA, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges DEVINE, NEILL, and GOODMAN.
 
   DEVINE, Board Judge.
 
        Appellant seeks  additional compensation  for performing  in
   certain  electrical  and  HVAC  work  which  was  changed  in  an
   amendment  to a  solicitation  for  renovation  work,  where  the
   changes were embodied in the specifications and were not shown on
   the electrical drawings.
 
                            Findings of Fact
 
        On May 4, 1993, appellant Wescon Corporation,  was awarded a
   contract by the General Services Administration, an agency of the
   United States Government, to renovate the interior of the Federal
   Courthouse in Pensacola,  Florida.  Appeal File, Exhibit  2.  The
   contract  amount was  $435,800.   Appeal  File, Exhibit  1.   The
   original solicitation  was amended twice  prior to  award of  the
   contract.  Id.   Wescon acknowledged receipt of  both amendments.
   Id., Exhibit 8.  Amendment No. 2 changed the HVAC grills in three
   of the building's  rooms from ordinary grills  to security grills
   because  of a  ceiling  change  related to  their  location in  a
   holding cell area.  Appeal File, Exhibit  1.  It also changed the
   lighting fixtures in the same  areas to security fixtures for the
   same  reason.    Id.     Both  changes  required  more  expensive
   equipment.  Appeal File, Exhibits 4, 8.
 
 
        The amendment itself reads, in part, as follows:
 
        A-1  [an architectural  drawing], page 6  - Ceilings in
        Rooms  013,  (including   prisoner  side  of  interview
        rooms),  021,   and  022  should  be  plaster  security
        ceilings to match same type plaster ceiling in the rest
        of the cell area.  All of the light fixtures, diffusers
        and returns should  be maximum detention type  to match
        those specified in the rest of the cell areas.
 
   Appeal File, Exhibit 1.
 
        Appellant's subcontractor did not know about amendment No. 2
   until  it was  some seven months  into contract  performance. The
   subcontractor had  relied on the  electrical drawings.  Id.   The
   quoted  amendment modified the language appearing on Drawing A-1,
   but not the drawing itself.  This, however, was not an electrical
   drawing.   No similar amendment was  issued listing these changes
   on  the electrical  drawings dealing  with  these areas.   Appeal
   File, Exhibit 1. 
 
        Appellant's subcontractor completed  the disputed work under
   protest.  On  behalf of its  subcontractor, appellant sought  the
   additional sum  of $2,130 for  the electrical changes  and $2,518
   for the HVAC work.
 
   The Parties' Contentions.
 
        Wescon says that  the quoted amendment acted as  a change in
   the architectural drawing A-1, but  the Government did not make a
   corresponding  change in the  electrical drawings upon  which the
   subcontractor, Arc Electric, had relied in pricing its electrical
   work.   Therefore the amendment introduced a discrepancy, and the
   Government should pay for the extra work.
 
        The Government  says that the  amendment worked a  change in
   the  language of  the  specifications  and not  a  change in  the
   drawings.  It quotes the clause in the contract which reads:  "In
   case  of  difference  between  drawing  and  specifications,  the
   specifications will  govern."  Appeal  File, Exhibit 1.   It also
   quotes  the  contract  language:    "Anything  mentioned  in  the
   specification  and not  shown on  the  drawings or  shown on  the
   drawings and  not mentioned  in the  specifications, shall  be of
   like  effect  as if  shown or  mentioned  in both.   In  cases of
   difference between drawing and specifications, the specifications
   shall govern."  Id.
 
                               Discussion
 
        The amendment in  dispute was issued to  prospective bidders
   three  weeks before bids were due.   In clear language it changed
   the ceiling work in three  specified rooms.  It was  received and
   acknowledged  by  appellant,  the  general  contractor   on  this
   project.   The change itself was  not a drawing change,  as such.
   No new drawing was required to understand the  changes or to make
   the installations.   It was  clear from the quoted  language what
   was required.   Appellant has not denied  receiving the amendment
   in   dispute.    It   may  never  have   reached  the  electrical
   subcontractor, Arc Electric,  who was to do the  actual work, but
   if that was  the case  the blame  is appellant's  as the  general
   contractor.   If Arc  did receive the  amendment, its  failure to
   follow its terms  was its  own fault.   In neither  case may  the
   blame be laid upon the Government.
 
 
                                Decision
 
        For the reasons stated the appeal is DENIED.
 
         
 
                                           ___________________
                                           DONALD W. DEVINE
                                           Board Judge
 
 
 
   We concur:
 
 
 
   ___________________                     ___________________
   EDWIN B. NEILL                          ALLAN H. GOODMAN
   Board Judge                             Board Judge