DENIED: July 2, 1996 GSBCA 13583 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 General Services Administration (GSA) entered into a contract with D. L. Woods Construction, Inc. (Woods) for expansion and repair of the Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Indianapolis, Indiana. Woods subcontracted a portion of the job to Don-Lee Inc. Don-Lee's work involved the building's heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems. GSA required the contractor, in performing this work, to install vent piping for the chillers it supplied. Woods, on behalf of Don-Lee, claims that this piping is not required by the contract and that the installation constituted additional work, the cost of which ($7,710) must be borne by GSA. Woods appeals the agency contracting officer's decision denying this claim. The appellant elected to have the case considered under the Board's small claims procedure, which is available in cases in which the monetary amount in dispute is $50,000 or less. Under this procedure, the Board's decision is made by a single judge. The decision is final and conclusive and shall not be set aside except in case of fraud. The decision has no value as precedent. 41 U.S.C. 608 (1994); Rule 13 (48 CFR 6101.13 (1995)). We deny the appeal. Findings of Fact As Woods points out, the contract drawings do not show vent piping for the chillers. Nor do the contract specifications mention such piping by name. Some of the specifications speak indirectly or through references, however, to whether installation of chiller vent piping is required by the contract. Section 15000/16000 cautions, "Drawings are essentially diagram[m]atic and do not necessarily show all system components, accessories, etc. nor exact location of equipment . . . . Specified components and accessories shall be provided and installed, whether indicated or not." "Specifications describe the general design and operation of specific items and they may not mention all the accessories and apparatus necessary for a complete functional item, however, it is intended and shall be understood that all items shall be complete with all necessary associated items required to function as intended." More particularly, section 15650 states that all refrigeration equipment must be "installed complete with all required piping, valves, etc." "Actual work will depend on manufacturer's standards for respective equipment actually furnished. . . . Equipment, rough-in, piping, wiring installation, etc. shall be in accordance with manufacturer's instructions, diagrams, drawings, etc." The section also says that chillers shall "conform to . . . ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15- 1978 code." ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15 is a standard promulgated by the American National Standards Institute and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers. The 1978 version of this Standard, which was in effect when this contract was awarded, applies to the contract. Section 1517 of the Standard prescribes requirements for pressure-relief devices and sizing and locations for piping associated with such devices. The Standard also requires that this piping be configured "in a manner that will prevent . . . foreign material or debris from entering" it. The manufacturer's instructions for installing the chillers supplied by the contractor state, "Important! Vent pipe size must conform to ASHRAE Standard 15-78, which discusses vent pipe sizing." Discussion The question posed by this appeal is whether the contract required Woods to install vent piping along with its chillers. The Government is correct in maintaining that it did. The piping is not shown on the drawings or mentioned by name in the specifications. Nevertheless, the drawings acknowledge that they are not comprehensive and the specifications put Woods on notice that "all items shall be complete with all necessary associated items required to function as intended"; that all refrigeration equipment must be "installed complete with all required piping"; and that the details of the requirements were governed by manufacturer's instructions and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15. As to chiller vent piping, the manufacturer's instructions conveniently reference the Standard, so no possibility for inconsistency between the instructions and the Standard exists. The Standard clearly mandates the installation of vent piping with chillers. The arguments Woods makes in opposition to this conclusion are not persuasive. Our comments on four which are worthy of mention follow. (1) Whether the chillers being replaced were vented, or whether the Government enforced contract requirements for vent piping elsewhere on the project, is immaterial. Neither eventuality, if proved, would affect the Government's right to insist on compliance with the contract requirements for chiller vent piping. (2) The fact that the types of refrigerant specified in the contract (R-123 or R-134a) are not mentioned in the Standard is not important, either. The contract requires that the "[c]hiller configuration shall be the same as current R-11, R-12 or R-500 optimized base selection," and the proper configuration for vent piping of chillers with those refrigerants is called out in the Standard. (3) Woods has not shown why tapping into existing drain pipes for use in venting the chillers was a realistic alternative to installing separate vent piping. Under the Standard, the vent piping must be configured "in a manner that will prevent . . . foreign material or debris from entering" it, and a drain could contain liquid from other sources. Woods has not demonstrated that the way it proposed to use drain pipes would have prevented foreign material from entering the vent piping. (4) The proposition that the use of the term "etc." in contract clauses such as "[e]quipment, rough-in, piping, wiring installation, etc. shall be in accordance with manufacturer's instructions, diagrams, drawings, etc." makes the contract "uninterpretable" and "impossible to bid" is untenable. If the contention is true, the ambiguity inherent in the term "etc." is patently obvious and therefore imposed on Woods a duty to seek clarification before bidding. If any ambiguity exists, however, it has no bearing on this dispute; whatever "etc." may mean, its inclusion in the clauses has no impact on the clear requirement that piping be in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard. Decision Because the contract required Woods to include vent piping as part of its installation of chillers, the provision of that piping cannot be considered additional work. Woods' supply and installation of the piping does not entitle the contractor to an equitable adjustment in the contract amount. The appeal is DENIED. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge