Appeal of

J. LEONARD SPODEK
NATIONWIDE POSTAL MANAGEMENT

LEASE AGREEMENT
(Mt. Airy Station-Philadelphia, PA
PSBCA Nos. 4206, 4217 and 4310

APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANT:
J. Leonard Spodek

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Samuel J. Schmidt, Esq.

OPINION OF THE BOARD

            Appellant, J. Leonard Spodek d/b/a/ Nationwide Postal Management, has appealed three decisions of the contracting officer assessing Appellant for the costs of repairs to the Mount Airy Post Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  The appeals were consolidated for further proceedings and decision.  A hearing was held in Philadelphia.  Only entitlement is at issue.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  In August 1962, Respondent, United States Postal Service, entered into a lease for the Mount Airy Station with Appellant’s predecessor-in-interest.  The lease was for an initial twenty-year term, with four 5-year options at specified annual rental rates.  (Appeal File (AF 4206/4217), tab 1).

            2.  In January 1997, the fourth 5-year option was exercised, extending the lease through May 10, 2002.  The terms and conditions of the original lease remained unchanged during the term of the lease and the option periods.  (AF 4206/4217, tab 6).

            3.  Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the lease provide, in pertinent part, as follows:

      “6.  Lessor shall furnish all lighting fixtures, and agrees to provide and replace during the continuance of the lease all ballasts as needed.  Lessor shall furnish all plumbing fixtures, toilet facilities and utility meters, all as now installed . . ..”

* * *

        7.  The Lessor shall, unless herein specified to the contrary, maintain the demised premises, including the building and any and all equipment, fixtures, and appurtenances, whether severable or non-severable, furnished by the Lessor under this lease in good repair and tenantable condition, except in the case of damage arising from the act or negligence of the Government’s agents or employees . . .. “  (AF 4206/4217, tab 1).

            4.  In November 1993, Appellant purchased the Mount Airy Station property and assumed the lessor’s responsibilities under the lease (AF 4206/4217, tab 3).

PSBCA Nos. 4206 & 4217

            5.  As of the summer of 1997, the roof on the Mount Airy Station had numerous leaks and was in need of repair or replacement.  Mortar on the capstone on the parapet walls was deteriorated and, at some points, missing.  This condition allowed water to penetrate the exterior walls.  Numerous windows on the building were damaged because of this condition and because of missing and damaged caulking on the windows.  (Transcript pages (Tr.) 14, 25-27, 90, 152-154, 260, 261; Respondent’s Exhibits (RX) 43, 45, 54, 55).

            6.  The asphalt in the parking and maneuvering areas of the Mount Airy Station was severely deteriorated.  In at least 30% to 40% of the parking lot, the asphalt had crumbled down to the subsoil.  Other areas of the parking lot contained severe asphalt cracking.  The uneven surface caused by the cracking and deterioration created a tripping hazard.  Two vent covers were missing in the parking area, creating a safety hazard.  Recompaction of the subgrade and replacement of the asphalt, including replacing the missing vent covers, was necessary because of the extent of deterioration to both the surface and subgrade, and to provide a safe, even surface.  (Tr. 15, 16, 29-31, 148-152, 157; RX 44, 49-52).

            7.  The concrete sidewalk in front of the post office was cracked and uneven and also posed a tripping hazard.  Customers entered and exited the post office on this sidewalk and complained to the postmaster about tripping on the uneven surface.  Several ceramic wall tiles were missing from the post office lobby, leaving rough, sharp edges within reach of customers, as well as being aesthetically unattractive.  (Tr. 16, 21-23, 150, 156, 157; RX 53, 62, 63).

            8.  Paint on the exterior of the loading dock area and the underside of the loading dock roof was deteriorated and flaking.^[1]  Exterior windows required recaulking.  The interior of the facility had not been painted in at least fifteen years, and previously painted interior surfaces had dark stains from water damage and were mildewed, leaving a mildew odor.  Certain areas of the interior walls that suffered water damage required patching before painting.  In addition, the paint was faded from the passage of time.  The ceiling tiles were water stained.  Approximately 400 ceiling tiles had become brittle and damaged from roof leaks.  The brittle and damaged ceiling tiles were in danger of falling from the ceiling. (Tr. 16, 17, 56, 101-104, 132-135, 159-162; RX 45-48, 64-70).

            9.  By letter dated July 3, 1997, the contracting officer notified Appellant of the need to make certain repairs to the Mount Airy Station.  Appellant was informed that he had thirty days to commence work on the repairs or the Postal Service would award a third party contract to have the work performed and its costs charged to Appellant.  The repair items included the following:

1.   Repair damaged ceramic tile in customer entry vestibule and lobby;

2.   Replace cracked and deteriorated concrete at customer entrance;

3.   Repair window head on interior of front window damaged by roof leaks;

4.   Repoint the concrete cap on the perimeter (parapet) of the building;

5.   Re-caulk the exterior of the front windows;

6.   Paint all previously painted interior and exterior surfaces;

7.   Replace approximately 400 stained ceiling tiles damaged by roof leaks;

8.   Repair interior wall damage from roof leaks;

9.   Replace approximately 1900 square feet of deteriorated asphalt in parking and maneuvering areas.  (AF 4206/4217, tab 7).

            10.  By letter dated September 12, 1997, the contracting officer reminded Appellant of the July 3, 1997 request to undertake repairs at the facility and reminded him that if he failed to do so, the Postal Service would have the work performed by third party contract and have its costs charged to Appellant.  Appellant was also requested in this letter to attend an on-site meeting prior to September 26, 1997.  Appellant, however, did not agree to an on-site meeting.  (Tr. 290, 291; AF 4206/4217, tab 8).

            11.  In October 1997, Appellant’s roofing contractor completed certain repairs to the Mount Airy Station roof.  However, Appellant did not accomplish any of the repairs requested by the contracting officer in his letter of July 3, 1997, nor did Appellant request an extension of time to accomplish the repairs.  (Tr. 32, 291, 292; Schultz deposition, page 18).

            12.  On October 24, 1997, Respondent awarded Holbrook Construction Company work order No. 3.00, in the amount of $20,174.09, under a competitively awarded Indefinite Quantity Construction (IQC) contract, for the repairs to the Mount Airy Station listed in the July 3, 1997 letter.  However, since Appellant had recently begun performing roof repairs, interior repairs caused by roof leaks were omitted from the work order to avoid having to redo the repairs once the roof leaks were corrected.   The contracting officer informed Appellant of this work order on October 27, 1997.  The work was performed by the IQC contractor and paid for by Respondent.  (Tr. 144-148, 292-295; AF 4206/4217, tabs 14, 30, 33, 34, 38).

            13.  By letter dated November 5, 1997, the contracting officer reminded Appellant that repairing and painting the interior of the Mount Airy Station was not included in the work order and that Appellant was responsible for completing these items once roof repairs were completed by Appellant’s roofing contractor.  The contracting officer gave Appellant until December 5, 1997, to complete the items.  (Tr. 295, 296; AF 4206/4217, tab 16).

            14.  Appellant did not respond to the contracting officer’s letter of November 5, 1997, and did not make any arrangements to accomplish the interior repairs and painting (Tr. 296, 386, 387).

            15.  On December 24, 1997, the contracting officer awarded work order No. 3.01, in the amount of $12,657.38, to Holbrook Construction Company to paint the interior of the Mount Airy Station, patch walls, and replace 400 damaged ceiling tiles.  Appellant was advised of the award of this work order on the same day.  The work was performed by the IQC contractor and paid for by Respondent.  In performing the work the contractor applied both a primer and second coat of paint on interior areas.  This application was necessary to completely cover the dark water stains and because of the condition of the previously painted interior areas.  (Tr. 104, 160-162; AF 4206/4217, tabs 17, 33, 34, 39).

            16.  During this same time period (December 1997), Respondent tested the light fixtures in the interior of the facility and discovered that sixteen light fixture ballasts were defective and in need of replacement.  In addition, the S-trap under the utility sink was cracked and in need of replacement.  (Tr. 16, 38, 163, 164).

            17.  By letter dated December 29, 1997, the contracting officer notified Appellant that sixteen light fixture ballasts in the facility needed replacement and that the S-trap on the utility sink needed to be replaced.  The contracting officer gave Appellant thirty days to complete these repairs before a third party contractor would be engaged to accomplish the repairs.  (AF 4206/4217, tab 18).

            18.  Appellant did not respond to this letter or take any action to carry out the repairs (Tr. 37).

            19.  On February 23, 1998, the contracting officer issued work order No. 3.02, in the amount of $1,378.85, to Holbrook Construction Company to replace sixteen ballasts and lamps in the facility and to replace the S-trap on the utility sink.  On the same date, Appellant was notified that this work had been awarded.  The contractor performed the work and was paid by Respondent.  (AF 4206/4217, tabs 24, 34, 35).

            20.  On February 20, 1998, the postmaster notified Appellant that one of the toilets was inoperable and requested Appellant to repair the toilet.  Appellant never responded to the request, and the postmaster arranged to have the work completed by a local contractor at a cost of $80.00.  (Tr. 39; AF 4206/4217, tab 26; RX 26).

            21.  The contracting officer determined that Appellant was responsible for the repairs carried out by Holbrook Construction Company under work order Nos. 3.00, 3.01 and 3.02, and, by final decision dated March 23, 1998, charged Appellant $34,210.32, representing the total cost of the three work orders.  In addition, the contracting officer assessed $500.00 in administrative costs against Appellant.  The contracting officer further advised Appellant that if he did not make payment of $34,710.32 by April 6, 1998, interest on the unpaid balance would be assessed, as well as the assessment of a further $200.00 in administrative costs to defray the cost of collecting the money by offsetting rental payments otherwise due Appellant.  (AF 4206/4217, tab 25).

            22.  The contracting officer calculated the administrative costs assessed against Appellant by determining the salary cost of the time he spent on the issue, as well the time spent by the postmaster and various other Postal Service employees involved in correcting the problems at the Mount Airy Station and collecting the money Appellant refused to pay (Tr. 300-303).

            23.  Appellant never repaid any of the costs assessed by this final decision (Tr. 299).

            24.  On April 20, 1998, the contracting officer issued a second final decision in which he assessed Appellant $80.00 for the costs of completing the toilet repair.  The contracting officer gave Appellant until May 4, 1998, to make payment before an additional $100.00 in administrative costs, plus interest, would be assessed to defray the costs of collecting the unpaid amount by rental offset.  (AF 4206/4217, tab 26).

            25.  On May 15, 1998, Appellant sent Respondent a check for $80.00.  Respondent received the check on May 19, 1998, but not before Respondent had already initiated action to recover the money by rental offset.  The contracting officer returned the check to Appellant and informed him that it was not timely sent and that $100.00 in administrative costs had been assessed.  (AF 4206/4217, tab 28).

            26.  On May 14, 1998, Appellant filed a timely appeal of the decision of the contracting officer to assess Appellant $34,910.32 for the costs of carrying out the repairs by Holbrook Construction Company under work order Nos. 3.00, 3.01 and 3.02 (AF 4206/4217, tab 27).  This appeal was docketed as PSBCA No. 4217 on June 4, 1998.

            27.  On May 22, 1998, Appellant filed a timely appeal of the decision of the contracting officer to assess Appellant $180.00 for the costs of repairing the toilet at the Mount Airy Station and collecting the cost of repairing the toilet from Appellant (AF 4206/4217, tab 29).  This appeal was docketed as PSBCA No. 4206 on June 2, 1998.

PSBCA No. 4310

            28.  By letter dated February 23, 1998, the contracting officer notified Appellant that the loading dock roof was leaking.  This notice was repeated by facsimile on March 12, 1998.  (Tr. 305; AF 4310, tabs 9, 10).

            29.  On March 18, 1998, Respondent’s representatives inspected the roof of the facility.  Although Appellant had repaired the roof on October 27, 1997, it was again leaking.  Later that same month, Appellant’s roofing contractor inspected the roof and determined that the roof could not be repaired but needed to be replaced.  Appellant’s contractor gave Appellant an estimate of $8,000 to $10,000 as the cost to replace the roof.  (Tr. 41-43, 166-169, 307, 310, 311; Schultz deposition, pages 23, 24, 29-36).

            30.  By letter dated March 24, 1998, sent to the contracting officer, Appellant stated that he would complete the roof repairs.  However, Appellant did not indicate when he would accomplish the repairs.  (AF 11).

            31.  By letter dated March 30, 1998, the contracting officer again requested Appellant to correct the leaking roof condition.  Appellant did not respond to this letter and took no action thereafter to repair or replace the roof.  (Tr. 43, 310; RX 32).

            32.  As of August 3, 1998, Appellant had not accomplished the roof repairs.  On this date the contracting officer awarded Holbrook Construction Company work order No. 1.0, at a price of $9,231.40, to replace the roof of the loading dock.  The work was accomplished by the IQC contractor and paid for by Respondent.  (Tr. 311; AF 4310, tabs 19, 20).

            33.  By final decision dated October 22, 1998, the contracting officer assessed Appellant for the costs of the roof replacement ($9,231.40), plus administrative costs of $250.00.  The contracting officer further informed Appellant that if he failed to remit $9,481.40 by October 30, 1998, interest on the unpaid balance would be assessed, as well as an assessment of an additional $200.00 in administrative costs to cover the costs of recovering the money through rental offset.  (Tr. 312-314; AF 4310, tab 16).

            34.  By letter dated December 9, 1998, Appellant filed a timely appeal of this final decision (AF 4310, tab 17).  This appeal was docketed as PSBCA No. 4310 on December 21, 1998.

DECISION

            Respondent’s burden in these cases is to demonstrate that the repairs it undertook at the Mount Airy Station were necessary to keep the facility in good repair and tenantable condition and that Appellant breached the lease by failing to accomplish the repairs after being notified by Respondent of the need for repairs.  See J. Leonard Spodek d/b/a Nationwide Postal Management, PSBCA No. 4223, 99-2 BCA ¶ 30,559; J. Leonard Spodek d/b/a Nationwide Postal Management, PSBCA Nos. 3833, 3941, 97-2 BCA ¶ 29,273; Real Properties MLP, Limited Partnership, PSBCA No. 3453, 95-2 BCA ¶ 27,829.

PSBCA No. 4206

            The sole issue in this appeal is whether Respondent should be allowed to recover its in-house costs of collecting from Appellant the costs Respondent incurred in repairing the toilet.  Although Appellant does not dispute his responsibility for, or the need for repairing the toilet, he argues that he should not be charged with administrative collection costs, plus interest, since he sent in a check for the costs of the repair within thirty days of receiving the final decision assessing the cost of the repair.

            Although the Board has allowed recovery from the lessor of administrative costs incurred to obtain repairs to a leased facility that the lessor was obligated to perform, it has not allowed recovery of the cost of collection from the lessor allegedly incurred by the Postal Service.   See J. Leonard Spodek/Nationwide Postal Management, PSBCA No. 4207, 00-1 BCA ¶ 30,593, and cases cited therein.  We see no basis for extending the recovery of administrative costs in this appeal.  Appellant’s payment of Respondent’s cost to repair the toilet within thirty days was reasonable.  Accordingly, Respondent is entitled to recover the cost of the toilet repair, but may not recover administrative collection costs, or interest thereon.

PSBCA No. 4217

            Appellant, as lessor, was responsible for maintaining the facility in good repair and tenantable condition (Finding of Fact No. (FOF) 4).  Respondent performed each of the repairs involved in this appeal only after Appellant failed to accomplish them despite being given notice, on two occasions, of the need for the repairs^[2] (FOF 9, 10, 13, 14, 16-18).  The costs of the repairs, performed by an IQC contractor under a competitively awarded contract, were reasonable (FOF 12, 15, 19).  See Real Properties MLP, Limited Partnership, PSBCA No. 3453 supra.  Thus, the only remaining issue is whether the repairs were necessary to keep the facility in good repair and tenantable condition.

            a.  Ceramic Tile – Appellant argues that replacement of missing ceramic tile was Respondent’s responsibility because Respondent replaced the flooring at the facility.  Appellant further argues that the ceramic tile was missing or damaged because of the negligence of Respondent’s employees.  Each of these arguments is rejected.  The replaced tiles were not on the floor but were on the wall of the customer lobby, and Appellant has not shown a connection between the missing tiles and replacement of the floor of the facility.  Further, Appellant offered no evidence to support his allegation that the tiles were missing or damaged through acts or negligence of Respondent’s employees.  The missing tiles left sharp, rough edges within reach of customers and were unsightly in the post office’s public spaces.  Accordingly, Appellant is responsible for the costs of replacing the ceramic tile in the customer lobby.

            b.  Replace Cracked Concrete – Appellant argues that he personally tested the cracked concrete and did not find it to be a safety hazard.  However, Appellant did not offer any evidence to support this argument.^[3]  In contrast, both the postmaster and Respondent’s IQC contractor testified that the sidewalk was cracked and uneven and posed a safety hazard.  Photographs clearly showing the extent of cracking supported this testimony.  (Finding of Fact No. (FOF) 7).  Thus, the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that the repairs to the cracked sidewalk were reasonable and necessary.

            c.  Repair Window Head – In his brief, Appellant conceded the need for this repair effort and did not dispute its cost.

            d.  Repoint Concrete Cap on Parapet – Appellant does not dispute the cost of this work but argues that this work was unnecessary and that he personally inspected the building and did not find any interior damage resulting from missing mortar on the capstone.  The evidence in the appeal, consisting of both testimony and photographs, supports the conclusion that missing mortar along the parapet was causing water leaks and interior damage (FOF 5).  Thus, it was reasonable for Respondent to carry out this repair effort when Appellant failed to do so.

            e.  Recaulk Exterior Windows and Paint Interior and Exterior Surfaces – Appellant does not dispute that this work was necessary, but argues that the work is Respondent’s responsibility under the lease.  Appellant does not cite any specific section of the lease placing this responsibility on Respondent, but refers to other leases entered into by Respondent that specifically place the responsibility for painting on the lessor. 

            Appellant is correct that the lease does not specifically require painting on a regular basis.  Respondent must demonstrate, therefore, that the painting it performed was necessary to keep the premises in good repair and tenantable condition and not done purely for cosmetic purposes.  However, good repair and tenantable condition includes maintaining the premises in a condition suitable for a business purpose.  Thus, Respondent may satisfy its burden by demonstrating that surfaces to be painted were visible to the public and their condition was inconsistent with the business image the Postal Service seeks to project.  See Leonard Spodek/Nationwide Postal Management, PSBCA No. 4223, 99-2 BCA ¶ 30,559; Edward R. and Lorraine Ester, PSBCA No. 1559, 88-2 BCA ¶ 20,573.

            The evidence in this appeal demonstrates that the interior surfaces had not been painted for at least fifteen years.  The walls had dark stains from water damage, were mildewed and required patching.  Repainting the interior was necessary to keep the facility in good repair and tenantable condition, i.e., to correct the mildewed and stained condition as well as to complete the repair of the water damaged walls.  Two coats were necessary to completely cover the dark stains.  (FOF 8, 12).  Respondent was, therefore, justified in carrying out this repair effort when Appellant failed to do so.

            Respondent has also satisfactorily demonstrated the need to recaulk exterior windows to prevent water leaks and keep the facility in good repair (FOF 5).  However, Respondent has not supported the need for exterior repainting.  The loading dock area where exterior painting was accomplished is not visible to the post office customers and, therefore, painting it was not necessary to the preservation of Respondent’s public business image.  Respondent has not shown any similar justification for requiring Appellant to paint this exterior area, other than for cosmetic purposes.  (FOF 8).  Accordingly, requiring Appellant to repaint this exterior area has not been shown to fall within Appellant’s responsibility to maintain the premises in good repair and tenantable condition.  This aspect of Appellant’s claim is, therefore, sustained. 

            f.  Replace Approximately 400 Ceiling Tiles – Appellant argues that, although some of the ceiling tiles were damaged, it was excessive to replace 400 ceiling tiles.  Appellant further argues that, to the extent any ceiling tiles were damaged by water from roof leaks, the leaks were caused by Respondent’s failure to keep leaves and debris off the roof.  The record does not support Appellant’s arguments.  There is no evidence in the record of debris on the roof that would have caused roof leaks.  The record establishes that Respondent replaced only those ceiling tiles that were damaged by water leaks (FOF 8).  Appellant should have accomplished this work in accordance with the lease’s requirement that the lessor maintain the facility in good repair and tenantable condition.

            g.  Asphalt Repairs – We have found that the asphalt in the parking and maneuvering areas was badly deteriorated and hazardous and required replacement (FOF 6).  Appellant concedes that the asphalt was severely deteriorated.  However, Appellant argues that the extent of deterioration was beyond normal wear and tear and, therefore, must have been caused by Respondent’s employees.  Appellant offered no evidence to support these allegations.  Accordingly, Appellant was responsible under the terms of the lease to replace the deteriorated asphalt in the parking and maneuvering areas.

            h.  Ballasts and S-Trap Repairs – The evidence demonstrates that these repairs were necessary and that the costs of repairs were reasonable.  Paragraph 6 of the lease is specific with regard to the lessor’s responsibility to replace all ballasts, when needed, throughout the life of the lease (FOF 3).  Indeed, Appellant concedes these repairs were necessary, to the extent acts or negligence of postal employees did not cause the damage.  When Appellant failed to take any action to carry out these repairs, the contracting officer was justified, under the terms of the lease, to accomplish the repairs and charge their cost to Appellant.  (FOF 12, 16-19).

            i.  Administrative Costs – Respondent seeks to recover $500.00 in administrative costs incurred in awarding and administering a third party contract to accomplish repairs to the Mount Airy Station when Appellant failed to make the repairs.  The amount was determined based on the hourly salary costs of Postal Service employees involved in the effort (FOF 22).  Appellant offered no evidence to contradict Respondent’s evidence.  Accordingly, we conclude that Respondent necessarily incurred these administrative costs and that they may be collected from Appellant.  See The Estate of George Rutman, PSBCA Nos. 3697, 3705, 97-2 BCA ¶ 29,115; Real Properties MLP, Limited Partnership, PSBCA No. 3453, 95-2 BCA ¶ 27,829 at 138,756; M.R. Kaplan, et al., PSBCA Nos. 1147, 1298, 1303, 1310, 88-3 BCA ¶ 20,827 at 105,319.  The remaining $200.00 in administrative costs is being sought by Respondent to defray the costs of collecting money from Appellant by offsetting rental payments otherwise due Appellant.  However, as explained in PSBCA 4206, supra, these administrative costs have no relationship to the performance of repairs to the Mount Airy Station and may not be recovered in this appeal.  See J. Leonard Spodek/Nationwide Postal Management, PSBCA No. 4207, supra.

            In summary, Respondent may recover the cost of work order Nos. 3.00, 3.01 and 3.02, less those costs associated with exterior painting, as well as interest on the costs of these work orders.  Respondent may also recover the administrative costs incurred in awarding and administering the work orders.  However, Respondent may not recover the additional administrative costs it seeks that were  incurred by Respondent in collecting these sums from Appellant.

PSBCA No. 4310

            Appellant agrees with Respondent that the roof of the loading dock needed to be replaced, but argues that he would have accomplished the replacement at a cost of $3,900 rather than $9,231.40 incurred by Respondent in replacing the roof.  The evidence in this appeal, however, does not support Appellant’s position.  To the contrary, Appellant’s own roofing contractor gave him an estimate of $8,000 to $10,000 to replace the roof (FOF 29).  However, when Appellant failed to take any action after six months, Respondent had the work accomplished under a competitively awarded IQC contract at a cost of $9,231.40 (FOF 32).  Accordingly, we find Respondent’s actions reasonable and Appellant liable for reimbursing Respondent for roof repair costs, plus interest on the unpaid balance.  In addition, Respondent is entitled to recover the administrative costs it incurred in having the work accomplished.  However, Respondent may not recover the additional administrative collection costs it seeks to defray the costs of collecting from Appellant by offsetting other rental payments due Appellant.  (See discussion of Administrative Costs, supra).

CONCLUSION

            PSBCA No. 4206 -- Respondent is entitled to recover its costs for repairing the toilet.  However, Respondent may not recover the administrative costs it seeks (or interest thereon) incurred in collecting the repair costs from Appellant.

            PSBCA No. 4217 – Respondent is entitled to recover the cost of work order No. 3.00 under the IQC contract performed by Holbrook Construction Company, less those costs associated with exterior painting.  In addition, Respondent may recover the entire cost of work order Nos. 3.01 and 3.02, plus interest on the cost of the three work orders, as well as the administrative costs it incurred in awarding and administering the work orders.  However, Respondent may not recover the additional administrative costs it seeks as costs incurred in collecting the money from Appellant.

            PSBCA No. 4310 – Respondent is entitled to recover the cost of work order No. 1.0, awarded under the IQC contract to have the loading dock roof replaced, plus interest thereon.  In addition, Respondent is entitled to recover the administrative costs it incurred in awarding and administering the work order with Holbrook Construction Company.  Respondent may not recover the additional administrative costs incurred in collecting the money from Appellant.

            These appeals are sustained to the extent indicated, but are otherwise denied.

William K. Mahn
Administrative Judge
Board Member

I concur:
James A. Cohen
Administrative Judge
Chairman

I concur:
David I. Brochstein
Administrative Judge
Vice Chairman

[1]   The dock loading area was not visible to post office customers and patrons (RX 52, 56, 61).

[2]   Respondent notified Appellant of the need for the repairs on July 3, 1997, and again on September 12, 1997, and did not award the third party contract until October 24, 1997, almost four months after the first notice (FOF 9, 12).

[3] In his testimony, Appellant stated that he inspected the sidewalk but did not testify concerning his opinion as to its condition (Tr. 374).