U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20401 In the Matter of ) ) The Appeal of ) ) BIG RED ENTERPRISES ) Docket No. GPO BCA 07-93 Jacket No. 651-368 ) Purchase Order H-7187 ) DECISION AND ORDER By letter dated February 25, 1993, Big Red Enterprises (Appellant or Contractor), 329 North 2nd Street, Purcell, Oklahoma 73080,1 filed a timely appeal from the February 1, 1993, final decision of Contracting Officer David G. Sever of the U.S. Government Printing Office's (Respondent or GPO or Government) Columbus Regional Printing Procurement Office (CRPPO), 1335 Dublin Road, Suite 112-B, Columbus, Ohio 43215-7034, terminating the Appellant's contract identified as Jacket No. 651-368, Purchase Order H-7187, for default "for failure to produce and acceptable product (hickies/spots, skewness, loss of ink density, loss of halftone detail, etc.)," and for failure to "correct the defects as directed by the December 14, 1992[,] 'Cure Notice-Reprint'" (R4 File, Tab Q).2 Board Rules, Rules 1(a) and 2. Thereafter, on April 24, 1993, the Appellant filed a Complaint with the Board, in which it also protested the Respondent's assessment of excess reprocurement costs against its account (R4 File, Tabs R and S).3 Board Rules, Rule 6(a). Subsequently, on August 6, 1993, the Board conducted a presubmission conference to discuss the issues in the appeal, at which it was determined that the record was incomplete. See RPTC, at 7. Therefore, the parties were directed to obtain and submit to the Board by August 17, 1993, additional evidence in the form of affidavits and any other relevant documents.4 See RPTC, at 7-8. In addition, the Board gave the parties until September 10, 1993, to furnish written statements or briefs with respect to their positions of the two issues involved in the appeal. See RPTC, at 8. Following the presubmission conference there were numerous delays in augmenting the record, stemming from, among other things, the need of both parties for enlargements of time in which to provide the documents and affidavits, and the Board's adjusting the briefing dates in light of their extension requests. See Order Enlarging Time to Submit Documents Under the Small Claims (Expedited) Procedure, dated August 30, 1993, at fn. 1. Consequently, the Appellant's "Final Brief" in this case (hereinafter referred to as App. Brf.) was not submitted until February 16, 1994. Furthermore, because an administrative oversight, the Board did not initially settle the record until July 15, 1994. See Order Settling the Record, dated July 15, 1994, at 2. Thereafter, when the Board started to prepare its decision in this appeal, it noticed that the record was incomplete with respect to the Contractor's liability for excess reprocurement costs-a major issue in the case. Accordingly, the Board exercised its authority under Rule 13(b) of its procedures and reopened the record to afford both parties an opportunity to submit additional evidence and argument on that question. See Order Reopening the Record and Directing the Parties to Submit Additional Evidence, February 20, 1996, at 5-6. On March 21, 1996, the Respondent submitted its additional arguments and evidence in support of its position that the Government was entitled to excess reprocurement costs. See Respondent's Submission on Reprocurement, dated March 21, 1996 (hereinafter cited as R. Sub.). Attached to GPO's submission were copies of the following documents: (1) the reprocurement request from the Defense Printing Service (DPS); (2) the reprocurement solicitation (Jacket No. 751-771); (3) the bid list (Jacket No. 751-771); (4) the abstract of quotes (Jacket No. 751-771); (5) the Government's estimates; (6) the reprocurement contract (Jacket No. 751-771); (7) the original bid list (Jacket No. 651-368); (8) the original bid abstract (Jacket No. 651-368); and (9) the declaration of Philip L. Jones, Chief, Examination Billing Branch, Procurement Accounting Division, Financial Management Services, U.S. Government Printing Office (hereinafter referred to as Tabs 1-9). Thereafter, on April 9, 1996, the Contractor filed with the Board a document entitled "Appellant's Response on Reprocurement Cost and Contract Rebid" (hereinafter cited as App. R. Repro.). Board Rules, Rules 11 and 13. With the receipt of the Respondent's Submission on Reprocurement and the "Appellant's Response on Reprocurement Cost and Contract Rebid," the record was finally settled, and the case was ripe for decision. See Order Settling the Record, dated July 3, 1996. For the reasons which follow, the decision of the Contracting Officer defaulting the contract and assessing excess reprocurement costs is hereby AFFIRMED, and the appeal is DENIED.5 I. FINDINGS OF FACT6 1. On October 14, 1992, the CRPPO awarded a small purchase contract (Purchase Order H-7187, Jacket No. 651-368) to the Appellant for the production of 50 copies of an 836 page book plus cover entitled "History of ASD-1991" for the DPS at a contract price of $3,338.00 (R4 File, Tab A).7 2. Among other things, the contract specifications required: (a) the covers were to be printed on canary yellow vellum finish cover paper (JCP L-20); (b) the text of the book was to be printed in black ink on white offset book paper with a minimum 50% waste paper content (JCP A-60); (c) the trim size of the book was 81/2 x 11"; (d) the book was be perfect bound on the 11" side; and (e) the wrap-around covers were to be trimmed flush and glued on (R4 File, Tab A, at 1). Additionally, the specifications provided, in pertinent part: DESCRIPTION: GPO imprint must appear per GPO Pub. 310.2 Contract Terms.8 Cover 1 prints, Covers 2, 3 & 4 blank. Center spine image all sides. 834 text pages print, 2 blank pages. 36 half tones print throughout text as follows: 18 square-finish halftones (with finished sizes: two at 34-35 sq. ins., two at 61 sq. ins., and fourteen in the 50-52 sq. in. range) on the same number of pages. Balance of 18 are square-finish portrait halftones printing on the same number of pages consisting of one large portrait and one small portrait for each of nine photoprints. The large portrait halftones range in size from 48 to 58 sq. ins., the small portrait halftones range in size from 6 to 9 sq. ins. Shoot/crop all furnished color/B & W photoprints as marked, 133-line or finer. The 27 photoprints are keyed for page position and range in size and type as follows: (Note: All photoprint & halftone sizes are approximate) Black & White photoprints Two 5 x 6" Six 5 x 7" Six 8 x 10" Full Color photoprints Thirteen 8 x 10" See R4 File, Tab A, at 2. The Purchase Order also indicated that the finished product had to meet the Quality Level 3 of standards of GPO's Quality Assurance Through Attributes Program (hereinafter referred to as QATAP) (R4 File, Tab A, at 1).9 In that regard, the job was subject to the following quality standards: Quality Assurance Standards: The following standards shall apply to these specifications: (a) Non-destructive Tests - General Inspection Level I. (b) Destructive Tests - Special Inspection Level S-2. Specified Standards.--The specified standards for the attributes requiring them shall be: Attribute Specified Standard P-7. Type Quality and Uniformity Camera Copy P-8. Halftone Match (Single and Black & White/ double Impression) Full Color Photoprints REJECTION: Items which fail to meet the quality requirements of these specifications shall be processed pursuant to GPO Pub. 310.1. See R4 File, Tab A, at 2. As for Government-furnished material (hereinafter referred to as GFM), the Purchase Order said the Appellant would receive camera copy for the covers, spine and text, and 27 photoprints and page sequence sheets, which would be available for pick up at the CRPPO on October 15, 1992 (R4 File, Tab A, at 1). Finally, the specifications provided that the finished product was to be delivered, along with the GFM and two (2) printed samples, to the DPS facility located at Building 20, Area B, Room 101, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433-6503, by October 30, 1992. (R4 File, Tab A, at 1). 3. The record shows that on October 29, 1992, the day before the books were due at Wright-Patterson AFB, David Kroth, the Appellant's Owner/President, telephoned Michael Sommer, the CRPPO Compliance Officer for the contract, and told him that the books would not be delivered on time because his binding subcontractor could not perfect bind them; i.e., the thickness of the books exceeded the bindery equipment's capability (R4 File, Tab B; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 4). When Sommer responded that it was the Contractor's responsibility to bind the books in accordance with the contract, or find a bindery that could, and advised him that failure to delivery the completed job by October 30, 1992, might result in the contract being terminated for default, Kroth said that he would try to find another subcontractor in Dallas, Texas to complete the order (R4 File, Tab B; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 4). 4. Later that day, Kroth called Sommer again, and requested an extension of the contract's delivery date to November 6, 1992 in consideration for a $100.00 reduction in the contract price (R4 File, Tab B; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 5). In reply, Sommer said, in effect, that he had no authority to grant the contract extension, since that was the prerogative of the Contracting Officer and the DPS, and that the delivery date of October 30, 1992, was firm unless the Appellant heard otherwise (R4 File, Tab B; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 5). 5. After this conversation with Kroth, Sommer telephoned Michael E. Gallagher, the DPS Printing Specialist for the contract, to inform him of the delivery delay caused by the Contractor's bindery problems, and asked him to find out if the customer- agency was agreeable to a new delivery date of November 6, 1992 (R4 File, Tab B; Notice of Filing, Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6). On October 30, 1992, Les Mosher of ASD's Graphics Department, notified Gallagher that the new delivery date of November 6, 1992, was approved (R4 File, Tab B; Notice of Filing, Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6). 6. Although the Appellant notified the CRPPO that the 50 books had been shipped to Wright-Patterson AFB on November 5, 1992, the record indicates that they were not received until November 13, 1992 (R4 File, Tab D; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 7, Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6).10 However, the record also tells us that the originals and negatives were not included with the shipment, as called for by the contract (R4 File, Tab E; Notice of Filing, Gallagher Declaration,¶ 6).11 Although the delivery was made seven (7) days late under the revised contractual due date, timeliness is not an issue in this case. See, RPTC, at 3. 7. When they were delivered, ASD inspected the books and discovered numerous quality defects (R4 File, Tab E; Notice of Filing, Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6). Specifically, the customer- agency found the following discrepancies: (a) hickies or spots; (b) image skewness (text copy was not aligned on the pages); (c) the GPO imprint was missing; and (d) unmatching halftone densities-an overall problem, since it appears the entire book (halftones and text) was printed too light (R4 File, Tab E; Notice of Filing, Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6). Accordingly, Mosher notified Gallagher of the quality problems, and said the books were being rejected because they did not meet the contract specifications (Notice of Filing, Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6). Gallagher, in turn, prepared a "Notice of Quality Defects" and submitted it to the CRPPO, along with eight (8) random samples, and asked the Respondent to have the entire order reprinted (R4 File, Tab E; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 8). 8. DPS' "Notice of Quality Defects" was received by the CRPPO on November 18, 1992 Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 8). That same day, Contracting Officer Robert G. Seibert sent a letter entitled "Suspect Letter" to the Appellant, advising it that the books it had delivered were deemed "possibly not acceptable" by the customer-agency (R4 File, Tab F). The letter also said, in pertinent part: Preliminary examination of the product indicates, but may not be limited to, the following discrepancies: P-1. Hickies and Spots; P-5. Text and Illustration Image Position; P-8. Halftone Match; Camera copy and photos not returned to the use agency. An intensive examination will be made by the Government Printing Office. If our examination reveals that the deviation(s) reported by the user agency-or any additional deviation(s) confirmed during the inspection-would affect the acceptance of this product, corrective action may be necessary. Such action may include, but not be limited to: (1) have the defective products replaced by your firm[;] (2) have the defect(s) corrected[;] (3) accept the products with an appropriate reduction in cost[;] (4) termination of the purchase order for default[;] or (5) appropriate corrective action as determined by the contracting officer. See R4 File, Tab F. 9. On November 24, 1992, Sommer performed an initial quality inspection on the eight (8) random samples submitted by the DPS (R4 File, Tab I; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 9). His inspection confirmed DPS' complaint about the books, especially the noticeable variation in printing ink density, the overall loss of halftone detail, the presence of hickies and spots within the halftones, inconsistent margins, image skewness, and a missing GPO imprint line on the last printed text page (R4 File, Tab I; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶¶ 9, 20). Thus, following the QATAP guidelines, Sommer found the product deficient with respect to printing attributes P-7 (type quality and uniformity) because of ink density variation, and P-8 (halftone match) for loss of detail/contrast and failure to maintain dot structure, and assessed eight (8) major demerits each for those quality defects (R4 File, Tab I; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶¶ 9, 20). Accordingly, he recommended that the product be rejected and reprinted by the Appellant (R4 File, Tab I; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 20). However, Sommer also suggested that the Contractor be given an extra workweek to complete the job, because it was almost the Christmas/New Year's holidays, and the "subcontractor/bindery may be unable to schedule work during [the holiday period]" (R4 File, Tab I). On December 14, 1992, the Contracting Officer concurred in the recommended action (R4 File, Tab I). 10. In the meantime, on December 4, 1993, Sommer spoke to Kroth and told him that the books had failed GPO's quality inspection because of their poor halftone reproduction an ink density variation (R4 File, Tab G; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 10). Sommer also said that the Appellant basically had two options: (a) reprint the entire publication in accordance with GPO Quality Level 3 requirements, and in the same amount of time (11 workdays); (b) or be defaulted and assessed any excess costs of reprocurement (R4 File, Tab G; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 10). In response, Kroth stated that he would consider these options, and advise GPO by December 7, 1993, if he would reprint the books (R4 File, Tab G; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 10). 11. On December 7, 1992, Kroth telephoned Sommer and told him that the Appellant would reprint the books (R4 File, Tab H; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 11). Accordingly, he asked Sommer to make arrangements for the Contractor to pick up the rejected books, GFM and the film negatives (R4 File, Tab H; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 11). However, Sommer informed Kroth that as of that date the GFM and the negatives, which the Appellant said it had returned, had still not been received by the customer-agency (R4 File, Tab H; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 11). In response, the Contractor stated that it would provide proof from its carrier, UPS, that it had, in fact, returned the missing GFM and negatives (R4 File, Tab H, Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 11). 12. The following day, December 8, 1992, Sommer received a telephone call from Ms. Krezeal Olinger, a Printing Assistant at DPS, informing him that UPS had just delivered two (2) boxes to the customer-agency, one with the GFM and photographs and the other containing the Appellant's film negatives (R4 File, Tab H; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 12, Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6). Olinger said that she would hold the film negatives at the DPS for the Appellant to pick up along with the rejected books, but would send the GFM (camera copy and photographs) to the CRPPO pursuant to the "Specified Standards" provisions regarding QATAP in the contract (R4 File, Tabs A and H; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 12, Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6). Sommer received the GFM on December 10, 1992 (Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 13). 13. On December 14, 1992, Contracting Officer Sever sent a document entitled "Cure Notice Reprint" (Cure Notice), to the Appellant (R4 File, Tab J). The Cure Notice stated, in pertinent part: You are notified that the [GPO] considers your failure to produce an acceptable product . . . a condition that is endangering performance of the contract in accordance with its terms. Therefore, unless such condition is cured within the time specified the Government may terminate the contract for default pursuant to the paragraph entitled "Default", U.S. GPO Contract Terms (Pub. 310.2). FAILURE: The 50 books delivered to the [DPS], Wright-Patterson AFB, [Ohio] were not in conformance with the specifications due to various printing defects. The defects included the following QATAP attributes (GPO Pub. 310.1): P-1. HICKIES AND SPOTS- throughout all halftones; P-5. TEXT IMAGE POSITION-Image skewness; P-7. TYPE QUALITY AND UNIFORMITY-loss of ink density (ink density washed out), variation in ink density throughout the books (i.e., light and dark type); and P-8. HALFTONE MATCH-loss of ink density/contrast/detail, and visible variation in density; also, the require GPO imprint is missing from each book. The entire quantity is hereby rejected and is to be reprinted. Your firm is to correct the defects by reprinting the 50 books and exercising tight quality control procedures to insure that the product meets all specification requirements and Quality Level 3 attributes. The rejected books, along with the film negatives, are to be picked up from the [DPS facility at the] delivery address on the purchase order/specifications. Contact Mr. Mike Gallagher at (513) 255-2038 for the purposes of establishing the date and method of transportation to be used to pick up the rejected product and film negatives. The original Government furnished camera copy/photographs are available for pick-up at the [CRPPO]; notify this office at (614) 488-4505 if your firm desires the return of these materials. All of the above is to be accomplished at no further expense to the Government. Any failure to pick up the rejected products may be cause for the Government to dispose of, and charge all costs to the contract. Cure Time: The printing and delivery of the reprinted 50 books, at the required destination, shall be completed by January 11, 1993. See R4 File, Tab J. See also Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 14. 14. On January 5, 1993, John Bryan, Procurement Assistant in the CRPPO's Compliance Section, informed the DPS that the delivery date for the reprint was January 11, 1993 (Notice of Filing, Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6). However, the Appellant did not deliver the reprinted books to DPS by that date. 15. On January 21, 1993, Gallagher telephoned ASD and spoke to both Mosher (Graphics Office), as well an employee named Corrine Erickson (History Office), who told him that the reprinted books had not been delivered (Notice of Filing, Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6). Consequently, when Bryan called later that same day, Gallagher informed him that the reprints never arrived (Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 15, Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6). 16. After his conversation with Gallagher, Bryan immediately telephoned the Appellant to inquire about the reprint status of the rejected books (R4 File, Tab K; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 15, Bryan Declaration, ¶ 3). Kroth told him that the negatives and rejected books had not been made available to the Contractor, even though it had twice sent its carrier, UPS, to the DPS' Wright-Patterson AFB facility (R4 File, Tab K; Notice of Filing, Bryan Declaration, ¶ 3).12 When Bryan asked the Appellant if he had received the Cure Notice, Kroth replied that he could not find any such letter (R4 File, Tab K; Notice of Filing, Bryan Declaration, ¶ 3). Finally, the Appellant said he assumed the rejected books were being used by the DPS, and therefore he had made no further attempt to reprint them (R4 File, Tabs K and P; Notice of Filing, Bryan Declaration, ¶ 3). Bryan ended the conversation by telling Kroth that someone from the CRPPO would be in touch with him (R4 File, Tab K; Notice of Filing, Bryan Declaration, ¶ 3). 17. Bryan then discussed the matter with Contracting Officer Sever (R4 File, Tab K; Notice of Filing, Bryan Declaration, ¶ 3). The record indicates that Sever instructed Bryan to contact the CRPPO's carrier, Federal Express, to verify the delivery of the Cure Notice to the Appellant (R4 File, Tabs J and K; Notice of Filing, Bryan Declaration, ¶ 3). Accordingly, Bryan telephoned Federal Express and spoke to an employee named Tommie Robbins, who confirmed that Federal Express Letter Package No. 5407425520 had been delivered to the Contractor's facility on December 15, 1992, at 4:30 p.m., and signed for by a "D. Kroth" (Notice of Filing, Bryan Declaration, ¶ 3). On receiving this information, Bryan asked Robbins to send a copy of the signature receipt to the CRPPO, and then shared the information with Contracting Officer Sever (Notice of Filing, Bryan Declaration, ¶ 3). 18. On January 22, 1993, Bryan telephoned Gallagher and asked about the status of the rejected books, and was told that the reprint had not been delivered (R4 File, Tab L; Notice of Filing, Bryan Declaration, ¶ 4; Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6). Gallagher also mentioned his conversation with Kroth on December 8, 1992, and the fact that he had instructed the Appellant to have UPS report to Building 20, Room 101 at Wright-Patterson AFB, for directions to the rejected books and negatives (R4 File, Tab L; Notice of Filing, Bryan Declaration, ¶ 4). Bryan asked Gallagher to provide him with the name of a person to contact at the facility, as well as the location of the rejected books and negatives (R4 File, Tab L; Notice of Filing, Bryan Declaration, ¶ 4).13 The record also indicates that the same day Kroth telephoned Gallagher and told him that UPS had tried to pick up the books and negatives at Building 20 and the material was not available (Notice of Filing, Bryan Declaration, ¶ 4). However, when Gallagher checked with Mosher, he was advised the rejected books were still there (Notice of Filing, Bryan Declaration, ¶ 4). 19. On January 25, 1993, Contracting Officer Sever spoke to Kroth and was informed that on December 22, 1992, the Appellant had sent UPS to pick up the rejected books and negatives at Building 20, Room 101, but when the carrier arrived the materials were not available to be picked up (R4 File, Tab M). Kroth also said that he assumed the books were being used, and hence the Government would have to pay for them (R4 File, Tab M). Sever responded by saying that it was almost certain that the Contractor would be defaulted because: (a) it had failed to comply with the Cure Notice; (b) it did not notify the CRPPO on December 22, 1992, that "allegedly" the books were unavailable;14 and (c) it was inexcusably delinquent in producing a quality product (R4 File, Tab M). After talking to Kroth, Sever instructed Sommer to call DPS confirm the whereabouts of the rejected books and negatives, and to find out if indeed the Appellant had not yet picked them up, whether UPS had come to pick up the material (R4 File, Tab M, Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 16). 20. The following day, Gallagher telephoned Sommer and told him that all of the rejected books were still at the DPS facility waiting for the Appellant to retrieve them (R4 File, Tab L; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 17). However, Gallagher also said that the location of the film negatives was not known, but that he would continue to look for them (R4 File, Tab L; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 17). 21. On January 27, 1993, Sommer called Gallagher and asked him to find out from the other DPS employees if they had seen UPS attempt to retrieve the rejected books and negatives for the Appellant, or leave "Call Tags" for the pick up, and further if the cartons had been moved after they were made available to the Contractor (R4 File, Tab N; Notice of Filing, Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6). In checking, Gallagher spoke to Mosher who told him that the material was still in the High Bay Area, Building 20, Area B (Notice of Filing, Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6). Accordingly, Gallagher telephoned Sommer and informed him that both the rejected books and the negatives were in the same location where they had placed in December 1992 (R4 File, Tab N; Notice of Filing, Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6; Sommer Declaration, ¶ 18). Apparently, the carton containing the film negatives had been included with seven (7) cartons set aside for the Appellant to pick up in the High Bay Area (R4 File, Tab N; Notice of Filing, Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6; Sommer Declaration, ¶ 18). Gallagher also told Sommer that he had no recollection of UPS "Call Tags" ever being received for the pickup of the negatives and rejected books (R4 File, Tab N). 22. On January 28, 1993, after speaking to two other DPS employees-Kathy Anderson and Jeri Pruitt-Gallagher telephoned Sommer and told him that no one else at the High Bay location had any recollection of a UPS request to pick up the cartons for the Appellant, nor did they receive any "Call Tags" (R4 File, Tab O; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 18). 23. On January 27, 1993, Contracting Officer Sever sought the approval of the Respondent's Contract Review Board (CRB) to terminate the contract for default (R4 File, Tab P).15 Termination was requested because of the Appellant's "failure to properly produce the order in accordance with the specifications and the December 14, 1992[,] 'Cure Notice-Reprint'" (R4 File, Tab P). The CRPPO received the CRB's approval to default the Appellant on January 28, 1993 (R4 File, Tab P). 24. Accordingly, by letter dated February 1, 1993, expressly titled "Notice of Termination-Complete," the Contracting Officer terminated the Appellant's contract for default because of its "failure to produce an acceptable product (hickies/spots, image skewness, loss of ink density, loss of halftone detail, etc.)[.]" and its failure "to correct the defects as directed by the December 14, 1992 'Cure Notice-Reprint'" (R4 File, Tab Q). The "Notice of Termination-Complete" also informed the Appellant that it was potentially liable for any excess reprocurement costs (R4 File, Tab Q). 25. On February 3, 1993, Sommer told Gallagher that the Appellant's contract had been defaulted, and asked that the DPS submit a new SF-1 printing requisition to start the reprocurement process (Notice of Filing, Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6). He also told Gallagher to retain the rejected books and negatives because the Appellant could request that they be returned (Notice of Filing, Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6).16 The DPS provided the new SF-1 to the CRPPO on February 5, 1993 (Notice of Filing, Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6; Respondent's Submission on Reprocurement, at 2; Exhibit No. 1). 26. On February 10, 1993, the Respondent advertised the reprocurement solicitation under the same small purchase procedures as the original contract (R. Sub., at 2; Tab 6). With the exception of the contract due date, which allowed the reprocurement contractor 33 days to deliver the books instead of the 15 days given to the Appellant, the terms and conditions remained the same (R4 File, Tab A; R. Sub., at 2; Tab 6).17 The solicitation was publicly posted and mailed to six (6) contractors selected from the GPO's ABLS (R. Sub., at 2; Tab 3).18 Five offers were received, the lowest of which was from Dickson's Graphics, Inc. (Dickson's) for $4,410.00, including a two (2) percent prompt payment discount (R. Sub., at 2; Tab 4).19 Since the GPO contract price estimate was $4,400.00 to $4,900.00, the Contracting Officer determined that Dickson's price was fair and reasonable, and on February 18, 1993, it was awarded the reprocurement contract (R. Sub., at 2; Tabs 5 and 6). The record also indicates that Dickson's fully performed the reprocurement contract, and was paid $4,410.00 on April 21, 1993, by an electronic funds transfer (R. Sub., at 2; Tab 9). The Appellant was assessed excess reprocurement costs of $1,162.00 (R4 File, Tab S; R. Sub., at 2; Tab 9). 27. In the meantime, by letter dated February 19, 1993, the CRPPO notified the Appellant that the defaulted contract had been reprocured for $4,500.00, and therefore it owed the Government $1,162.00 (the difference between the repurchase price and the Contractor's price of $3,338.00) (R4 File, Tab R). Since the Respondent's payment records showed that the Appellant had already been paid $3,237.86 for the job, it was told to immediately remit the sum of $4,399.86 to the Government ($3,237.86 + $1,162.00) (R4 File, Tab R). That same day, the CRPPO also notified the Respondent's central office Voucher Examination Branch, Financial Management Service that the Appellant had been terminated for default, and asking it to recoup $1,162.00 in excess reprocurement costs and the $3,237.86 which the Contractor had already been paid (R4 File, Tab S). 28. By letter dated February 25, 1993, the Appellant timely appealed the Contracting Officer's default termination decision. Thereafter, in its Complaint of April 24, 1993, the Contractor also protested the Government's assessment of excess reprocurement costs. II. ISSUES PRESENTED Three questions require resolution in this case: 1. Did the Government fail to meet its inherent duty to cooperate with the Appellant in curing the defects by not providing the Contractor or UPS with the necessary information to enable it to retrieve the rejected books and film negatives in time to reprint and deliver the new books by the due date set forth in the Cure Notice? 2. Could the Respondent properly hold the Appellant responsible for producing Quality Level 3 work under QATAP since it was known that the Appellant was only a Quality Level 4 contractor? 3. Has the Government proved its claim of entitlement to excess reprocurement costs in this case, and if so, in what amount? III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES The Appellant's defense in this case is very simple. The Contractor says that while it was willing to reprint the books and deliver them to the DPS by January 11, 1993, its failure to do so was the direct result of the Government's lack of cooperation with UPS, when the carrier went to Wright-Patterson AFB on December 21, 1992, and December 24, 1992, respectively, to pick up the rejected books and film negatives, pursuant to previous arrangements between the Kroth and Gallagher, and the material was not there. See RPTC, at 5-6; App. Brf., at 1, ¶¶ 1, 2; App. F. Brf., ¶ 1. Conceding that the Respondent was "within [its] rights to turn down the job," the Appellant believes that it then became the Government's responsibility to have the rejected books and negatives "ready for pick up by UPS," and GPO's failure "to send [the Contractor] the books" within a reasonable time, justifies awarding it the full price for the books retained by DPS, as well as denying the assessment of excess reprocurement costs.20 See App. Brf., at 1-2, ¶¶ 1, 3-4. The key to the Appellant's excess reprocurement argument is its contention that as a Quality Level 4 contractor, it cannot be held liable for its inability to produce a Quality Level 3 job. See RPTC, at 6; App. R. Repro., at 1 (second paragraph). Indeed, the Contractor suggests that GPO was "bargain hunting," and accepted its low Quality Level 4 bid, fully intending to rebid the contract at Quality Level 3 if the work turned out to be rejectable, and thus "save $1[,]100 for thier [sic] trouble[.]" See App. R. Repro., at 1 (third and fourth paragraphs). Finally, the Appellant says that since the job was estimated to cost between $4,400.00 and $4,900.00, the Government's rejection of the original Quality Level 4 work at the contract price of $3,338.00 absolves the Contractor of any responsibility for the difference, just as acceptance of the books would not have obligated GPO "to pay us the difference that we saved them . . ."; i.e., the Government "own[s] the job at the estimated cost." See App. R. Repro., at 1 (first paragraph). Accordingly, the Appellant states that the Respondent owes it a total reimbursement of $4,500.00, consisting of the $3,338.00 it cost to print the original order of books, and the $1,162.00 in excess reprocurement, and it asks the Board to direct such payment.21 See RPTC, at 6; App. Brf., at 2, ¶ 4; Complaint. The Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the Contractor's failure to reprint the books by the Cure Notice due date of January 11, 1993, warranted defaulting its contract and the assessment of excess reprocurement costs (R4 File. Tabs Q and R). See RPTC, at 5. The Government says that it is well-settled that a contractor must continue performance notwithstanding the existence of a contract dispute, and its remedy is to seek additional compensation later. See R. Brf., at 3 (citing Brenner Metal Products Corp., ASBCA No. 25294, 82-1 BCA ¶ 15,462; Eriez Construction, Inc., VACAB No. 1273, 78-2 BCA ¶ 13,547). In this case, despite being directed by the Contracting Officer to print the books by January 11, 1993, the Appellant did not do so. See RPTC, at 5; R. Brf., at 3. The Respondent rejects the Contractor's excuse that its failure to reprint was related to its inability to retrieve the rejected materials from the DPS, notwithstanding two tries by UPS, because the record shows that the Appellant took no action after the second attempt; i.e., it did not alert either DPS or the CRPPO to the problem, nor did make a third try. See R. Brf., at 4. Furthermore, GPO states that the Contractor did not need the rejected publications and negatives to reprint the books. Id. Rather, the critical material for reprint purposes was the GFM held at the CRPPO. Id. Even though the Cure Notice told the Appellant that the CRPPO had the GFM, the record shows that the Contractor made no attempt to pick it up. Id. Consequently, for these reasons the Respondent asserts that the Appellant's excuse for nonperformance is without merit. Id. With respect to the Contractor's contention that it cannot be held liable for its inability to produce a Quality Level 3 job because it is a Quality Level 4 contractor, the Respondent has a simple answer-the Appellant should not have bid on the contract. See R. Brf., at 5-6. GPO's argument rests on black letter law which holds that the Government is entitled to strict compliance with its contract specifications, including those of fixed-price supply contracts. See R. Brf., at 5 (citing American Electric Contracting Corp. v. United States, 217 Ct. Cl. 338, 579 F.2d 602 (1978); Red Circle Corp. v. United States, 185 Ct. Cl. 1, 398 F.2d 836 (1968); Jefferson Construction Co. v. United States, 151 Ct. Cl. 75 (1960); Fry Communications Inc., GPO BCA 1-87 (June 1, 1989), 1989 WL 384980; Copigraph, Inc., GPO BCA 20-86 (May 25, 1989), 1989 WL 385174; Dependable Printing Co., Inc., GPO BCA 5-84 (September 12, 1985), 1985 WL 154847; Vogard Printing, GPOCAB 7-84 (January 7, 1986)).22 A purpose of the rule is to protect the integrity of the bidding system. Id. (citing Ideal Restaurant Supply Co., VACAB No. 570, 67-1 BCA ¶ 6,237). The Respondent says that the Appellant submitted an offer in response to the solicitation which clearly showed that the contract was for the printing of a Quality Level 3 product. Id. (citing R4 File, Tab A). If the Contractor believed the Quality Level 3 performance was beyond its capabilities, it could have returned the GFM to the CRPPO at no penalty. See R. Brf., at 6. When it failed to do so, but instead started to substantially perform the job, a contract was formed under the small purchase procedures. See R. Brf., at 5-6 (citing PPR, Chap. VII, Sect. 4, ¶ 1(b)). Thereafter, the Appellant was contractually bound to comply with the specification. See R. Brf., at 6. Finally, the Respondent states that it has complied with all of the requirements necessary to secure its entitlement to excess reprocurement costs. See R. Sub., at 1. Specifically, GPO claims that the evidence of record shows: (1) the reprocurement contract was performed under substantially the same terms and conditions as the original contract; (2) it acted within a reasonable time following default to repurchase the books; (3) it employed a reprocurement method which would maximize competition under the circumstances; (4) it obtained the lowest reasonable price; and (5) the work has been completed and final payment made so that the excess costs assessment is based upon liability for a sum certain. See R. Sub., at 1-2. Accordingly, for all of these reasons, the Government asserts the record supports the conclusion that both the default termination and the assessment of excess reprocurement were justified in this case, and that the Contracting Officer's actions should be affirmed. See RPTC, at 5; R. Brf., at 6; R. Sub., at 1. IV. DISCUSSION Although the Appellant has phrased the issues in terms of the Respondent's inherent duty to cooperate in curing the defective books, and its insistence that a Quality Level 4 contractor should not be required to produce Quality Level 3 work, basically this appeal is nothing more than a typical default case. Thus, no matter how the questions are posed, the Board is essentially asked to decide whether or not the contract was erroneously defaulted, and if the termination was proper, is the Contractor nonetheless excused from liability for excess reprocurement costs? At the outset, therefore, it is worthwhile to repeat the legal principles which apply to these issues. First, GPO's "Default" clause provides that a contracting officer may, upon written notice of default to the contractor, terminate a contract, in whole or in part, if the contractor fails to: (1) deliver the supplies or perform the required services within the time specified or any extension which may have been granted; (2) make progress on the work, so as to endanger performance of the contract; or (3) perform any of the other provisions of the contract. See GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 20(a)(1) (I),(ii),(iii). Furthermore, where a contract is terminated for default and the work must be reprocured, the contractor will be held responsible for excess procurement costs and possible liquidated damages. See GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶¶ 20(b), 22(d). However, the contractor is excused from paying such reprocurement costs or damages if the failure to perform or to deliver on time results from causes beyond its control and without its fault or negligence.23 See GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶¶ 20(c), 22(e), 23. Such causes include, but are not limited to, acts of God or of the public enemy, acts of the Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes, and unusually severe weather-but in each case, the failure to perform must be beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the contractor. See GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 20(c). See also Univex International, supra, slip op. at 17; K.C. Printing Co., GPO BCA 02-91 (February 22, 1995), slip op. at 9, 1995 WL 488531; Printing Unlimited, supra, slip op. at 16; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip. op. at 11. Where the failure to perform is caused by the default of a supplier or subcontractor, the cause of the default must be beyond the control of both the contractor and subcontractor, and without the fault or negligence of either, in order for the contractor not to be liable for any excess costs for failure to perform, unless the subcontracted supplies or services could have been secured from other sources in sufficient time to meet the required delivery schedule. See GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 20(d). See also Univex International, supra, slip op. at 17; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 10; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip op. at 11. Second, a default termination is a drastic action which may only be taken for good cause and on the basis of solid evidence.24 See Univex International, supra, slip op. at 17; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 10; Shepard Printing, supra, slip op. at 10-11; R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Co., GPO BCA 31-90 (February 6, 1992), slip op. at 25, 1992 WL 487874, aff'd, Civil Action No. 92-128C (U.S. Claims Court, October 2, 1992);25 Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 20 (citing Mary Rogers Manley d/b/a Mary Rogers Real Estate, HUDBCA No. 76-27, 78-2 BCA ¶ 13,519; Decatur Realty Sales, HUDBCA No. 75-26, 77-2 BCA ¶ 12,567). Consequently, the Government has the burden of proving the basis for the default, while the contractor has the burden of showing that its failure to perform was excusable. See Univex International, supra, slip op. at 18; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 10; Shepard Printing, supra, slip op. at 11; R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Co., supra, slip op. at 28; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip op. at 11. Accord Lisbon Contractors v. United States, 828 F.2d 759 (Fed. Cir. 1987)); Switlik Parachute Co. v. United States, 216 Ct. Cl. 362 (1978); J.F. Whalen and Co., AGBCA Nos. 83-160-1, 83-281-1, 88-3 BCA ¶ 21,066; B. M. Harrison Electrosonics, Inc., ASBCA No. 7684, 1963 BCA ¶ 3,736. If the Government fails to meet its burden of proof, then the termination is converted into one of convenience and the contractor is allowed to recover for the work performed. See GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 20(g). See also Graphics Image, Inc., supra, slip. op. at 24-28. Cf. Univex International, supra, slip op. at 18; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 11; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 17-18; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip op. at 9. Third, where the default termination is based on untimely performance, as in this case, the failure to deliver the corrected books by the established reprint date, the contractor's burden of proof is four-fold: (1) to prove affirmatively that the delay was caused by or arose out of a situation which was beyond the contractor's control and that it was not at fault or negligent; (2) to show that performance would have been timely but for the occurrence of the event which is claimed to excuse the delay; (3) to show that it took every reasonable precaution to avoid foreseeable causes for delay and to minimize their effect; and (4) to establish a precise period of time that performance was delayed by the causes alleged. See Univex International, supra, slip op. at 18-19; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 11; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip op. at 12. This burden must be carried by substantial evidence- unsupported reasons by way of explanation are not enough-and the contractor must also show that the delay in contract performance was due to unforeseeable causes beyond its control and without any contributory negligence on its part. See Univex International, supra, slip op. at 19; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 11; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip op. at 12-13. Finally, a default termination is a discretionary act which can be challenged on an abuse of discretion standard. See Univex International, supra, slip op. at 19; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 12; Graphics Image, Inc., supra, slip op. at 24-25; Shepard Printing, supra, slip op. at 12. Accord Darwin Construction Co., Inc. v. United States, 811 F.2d 593 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Quality Environment Systems v. United States, 7 Cl. Ct. 428 (1985); Jamco Constructors, Inc., VABCA Nos. 3271, 3516T, 94-1 BCA ¶ 26,405, reconsid. denied, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,792; Walsky Construction Co., ASBCA No. 41541, 94-1 BCA ¶ 26.264, reconsid. denied, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,698. The burden is on the contractor to prove abuse of discretion. See Univex International, supra, slip op. at 19; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 12; Shepard Printing, supra, slip op. at 12. Accord Kit Pack Co., Inc., ASBCA No. 33135, 89-3 BCA ¶ 22,151; Lafayette Coal Co., ASBCA No. 32174, 89-3 BCA ¶ 21,963. Applying these principles to the facts in the record, the Board reaches the following conclusions: A. The Respondent's failure to assist the Appellant in making arrangements to retrieve the rejected books and film negatives from the DPS was not such conduct which would amount to a breach of its implied duty to cooperate with the Contractor in the performance of the contract. Thus, the Appellant has not shown that its failure to perform arose from causes beyond its control and without its fault or negligence. 1. When the Contracting Officer terminated the contract because of a "failure to produce an acceptable product (hickies/spots, image skewness, loss of ink density, loss of halftone detail, etc.)[,]" (R4 File, Tab Q), he was clearly defaulting the Contractor for a failure to "[d]eliver the supplies or to perform the services within the time specified or any extension, thereof;. . .". See GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 20(a)(1)(I).26 The Appellant does not dispute the Contracting Officer's finding in that regard. Besides the record clearly supports the conclusion that the defects in the rejected books were major, not minor, discrepancies under QATAP (R4 File, Tab I).27 Under GPO's regulations the Contracting Officer is the only person authorized to make final determinations on whether products submitted by a contractor conform to contract specifications.28 See PPR, Chap. XIII, Sec. 1, ¶ 4.f. See also Sterling Printing, Inc., GPO BCA 20-89 (March 28, 1994), slip op. at 34-35, fn. 46, 1994 WL 275104, reconsid. denied, GPO BCA 20-89 (July 5, 1994), 1994 WL 377592, second motion for reconsid. denied, GPO BCA 20-89 (August 12, 1994); Hurt's Printing Co., Inc., supra, slip op. at 21-22. . Accordingly, in the absence of credible evidence in the record to show that the Contracting Officer's judgment was somehow erroneous or flawed, there is no basis to disturb his decision, and the Board will let it stand. See Univex International, supra, slip op. at 23; Printing Unlimited, supra, slip op. at 21-22; Stabbe Senter Press, GPO BCA 13-85 and 19-85 (May 12, 1989), slip op. at 53, 1989 WL 384977. 2. The Appellant's objection to the default action focuses on the second reason given in the February 1, 1993, "Notice of Termination-Complete," namely, the Contractor's failure ""to correct the defects as directed by the December 14, 1992 'Cure Notice-Reprint'" (R4 File, Tab Q).29 Hence, this not a situation where a contractor is defaulted because its supplies, which were timely delivered, are subsequently found to be nonconforming. Rather, the Contracting Officer only resorted to default when there was no delivery at all of the reprinted books by January 11, 1993, the date established by the Respondent in a final effort to secure a satisfactory product for the DPS (R4 File, Tab J). See GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 14(h) (Inspections and Tests) ("If the contractor fails to promptly remove, replace, or correct rejected supplies that are required to be removed or to be replaced or corrected, the Government may . . . (2) terminate for default as provided in article 20 'Default'." [Emphasis added.]). 3. The Appellant blames its inability to deliver the reprinted books squarely on the Respondent, whom it says was responsible for having the rejected books and film negatives "ready for pick up by UPS," but failed to give it the proper instructions so that its carrier could retrieve the material from the DPS. See RPTC, at 5-6; App. Brf., at 1, ¶¶ 1, 2; App. F. Brf., ¶ 1. Although the Contractor does not tell us why it needed the rejected books and negatives since the GFM was available for pick up at the CRPPO throughout the cure period, its assertions amount to an allegation that the Government failed to cooperate with it in the performance of the contract. 4. A well-settled principle states that in every public contract there is an implied affirmative obligation on the part of the Government that it will do whatever is necessary to enable the contractor to perform.30 See Univex International, supra, slip op. at 25; Hurt's Printing Co., Inc., supra, slip op. at 24; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 38-39 (citing Nanofast, Inc., supra; The Kehm Corp. v. United States, 119 Ct. Cl. 454, 93 F.Supp. 620 (1950); United States v. Speed, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 77 (1868)). Under this doctrine, the Government will be held liable for breaching its implied duty to cooperate if it wrongfully fails or refuses to take some action, within its control, which is essential for the contractor's performance. See Univex International, supra, slip op. at 26; Hurt's Printing Co., Inc., supra, slip op. at 24; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 39. Where such a breach occurs, the contractor has a legal right to avoid the contract, is discharged from its duty to perform, and is relieved of the default termination and its consequences. See Malone v. United States, 849 F.2d. 1441, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In most cases applying this principle, there is a clear nexus between the Government's breaching conduct and the performance period itself. See e.g., Maitland Brothers Co. and Maitland Brothers Co. and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., ASBCA Nos. 30,089, 30,764, 31,032, 32,071, 32,605, 34,659, 90-1 BCA ¶ 22,367; Singleton Contracting Corp., GSBCA No. 8,552, 90-1 BCA ¶ 22,298; G. W. Galloway Co., ASBCA Nos. 17,436, 17,723, 17,836, 17,911, 18,324, 77-2 BCA ¶ 12,640. Moreover, the Government's liability also depends on the reasonableness of its conduct under the circumstances, see PBI Electrical Corp. v. United States, 17 Cl. Ct. 128 (1989); Ben C. Gerwick, Inc. v. United States, 152 Ct. Cl. 69, 285 F.2d 432 (1961); John McCabe, ASBCA No. 36958, 90-2 BCA ¶ 22,785; Tolis Cain Corp., DOTCAB No. 72-2, 76-2 BCA ¶ 11,954, and whether that conduct has harmed the contractor, see Commerce International Co. v. United States, 167 Ct. Cl. 529, 338 F.2d 81 (1964); Toombs & Co., ASBCA No. 34590, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,403. 5. No detailed survey of the cases involving the Government's duty to cooperate with a contractor is necessary here. However, it should be noted that a violation of the duty to cooperate can occur if an agency fails to help solve a problem which has arisen during contract performance, see e.g., Hardrives, Inc., IBCA No. 2319, 94-1 BCA ¶ 26,267; James R. Lowe, Inc., ASBCA No. 42026, 92-2 BCA ¶ 24,835, reconsid. denied, 93-1 BCA ¶ 25,516; Robert R. Marquis, Inc., ASBCA No. 38438, 92-1 BCA ¶ 24,692; Pittsburgh-Des Moines Corp., EBCA No. 314-3-84, 89-2 BCA ¶ 21,525, or provide the contractor with pertinent information, see e.g., Spectrum Leasing Corp., GSBCA Nos. 7,347, 7,379, 7,425-27, 90-3 BCA ¶ 22,984; Ballenger Corp., DOTCAB No. 74-32, 84-1 BCA ¶ 16,973, modified on other grounds, 84-2 BCA ¶ 17,277; Hardie-Tynes Manufacturing Co., ASBCA No. 20,582, 76-2 BCA ¶ 11,972. On the other hand, as this Board has held, the Government has no obligation to provide assistance where the contractor could have resolved the problem on its own. See Professional Printing of Kansas, Inc., GPO BCA 02-93 (May 19, 1995), slip op. at 81, fn. 83, 1995 WL 488488. Accord Moore Mill & Lumber Co., AGBCA 87-172-1, 90-3 BCA ¶ 23,111; John S. Vayanos Contracting Co., PSBCA No. 2317, 89-1 BCA ¶ 21,494, at 108,294). Applying these principles in this case, the Board finds no basis for holding that the Respondent breached its implied duty of cooperation with the Appellant's performance. 6. First, as already discussed, before defaulting the contract, the Respondent made an independent test of the rejected product in order to confirm the DPS's complaint that the books contained major defects under QATAP, notified the Appellant of the deficiencies involved (ink density variation, and loss of detail/contrast and failure to maintain dot structure), and afforded the Contractor ample opportunity to correct the defects by reprinting the books.31 See Univex International, supra, slip op. at 27-28 (Government did not violate its duty to cooperate where record showed that it tested the product twice in order to confirm the customer-agency's complaint that the rejected books contained major defects, notified the contractor of the deficiencies involved as well as the probable source of the problem, and gave the contractor a chance to cure the problem by reprinting the books); Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 42-44 (the Board rejected the contractor's breach claim where the record showed that the defects were "critical," not "minor," and the contractor was, in fact, given a chance to repair the books, but was unable to do so within a reasonable time). Rather, it seems to the Board that the reason the reprinted books were not delivered by January 11, 1993, the cure date established by the Respondent, is that the Appellant itself either misunderstood, or was indifferent to its own responsibilities for correcting its mistakes. As the Board reads the record, after it tried twice unsuccessfully to retrieve the rejected books and film negatives, the Contractor apparently thought that the burden to return that material then shifted to the Government. See App. Brf., at 2, ¶ 4. 7. Second, assuming that the Appellant was correct in believing that the rejected books and negatives were necessary for producing the reprints, the simple fact is that the Respondent did not become aware of the unsuccessful efforts to pick up the material at the customer-agency until January 21, 1993, ten (10) days after the books were to be delivered to the DPS, when the CRPPO employees telephoned the Contractor to check on the delivery status of the reprints. (R4 File, Tab K; Notice of Filing, Bryan Declaration, ¶ 3; Sommer Declaration, ¶ 15). Instead, the Government's evidence, which is not refuted by the Appellant, is that no one representing the Appellant ever telephoned the CRPPO to ask for assistance in making arrangements to pick up the rejected books and film negatives (Notice of Filing, Bryan Declaration, ¶ 6; Sommer Declaration, ¶ 19). Thus, the record clearly shows that between December 24, 1992, the date of UPS' last trip to the DPS facility at Wright-Patterson AFB, and January 21, 1993, period of nearly a month, the Contractor kept silent about his difficulties in retrieving the materials and left it to the Respondent to take the next step. Recently, in another context, the Board observed that the Government "is not required to be clairvoyant . . .". See GraphicData, Inc., GPO BCA 35-94 (June 14, 1996), slip op. at 62, 83, 1996 WL______ (quoting Womack v. United States, 182 Ct. Cl. 399, 413, 389 F.2d 793, 801 (1968)). See also Cibinic & Nash, at 254. Accord, Contract Management, Inc., ASBCA No. 44885, 95-2 BCA ¶ 27,886, at 139,108; Fa. Kammerdiener GmbH & Co., KG, ASBCA No. 45248, 94-3 BCA ¶ 27,197, at 135,554; Integrity Management International, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 34802, 35412, 36149, 37140, 89-3 BCA ¶ 21,996, at 110,605. Consequently, it is incongruous for the Appellant to now claim that the Government failed to cooperate with it picking up the rejected books and negatives, when the record clearly shows that it never sought or asked for such cooperation in the first place. 8. Third, when the Board considers the fact that the Contractor knew since December 15, 1992, that the GFM-the material really needed to produce the reprints-was being held for it at the CRPPO (R4 File, Tab J), and made no effort to pick it up, it has no trouble concluding that the Appellant was hardly acting with the "diligence" required to meet its obligations under the "Disputes" clause. GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 5(d) (Disputes) ("Pending final decision a dispute hereunder, the contractor shall proceed diligently with performance in accordance with the Contracting Officer's decision."). See Univex International, supra, slip op. at 29; Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 36, 44, fn. 51; Nor Cal Trade School of Offset Printing, GPO BCA 1-85 (September 12, 1986), slip op. 8-9, 1986 WL 181455. Accord Altina Trucking, PSBCA No. 3341, 93-3 BCA ¶ 26,256; Twigg Corp., NASA BCA No. 62-0192, 93-1 BCA ¶ 25,318; A. N. Xepapas, AIA, VABCA No. 3087, 91-2 BCA ¶ 23,799. In the last analysis, contrary to what the Appellant might believe, the duties and responsibilities set forth in a Government contract are mutual; they are not a "one-way street" flowing only from the Government to the Contractor. See Univex International, supra, slip op. at 29 (citing Malone v. United States, supra, 849 F.2d. at 1445; John S. Vayanos Contracting Co., supra, 89-1 BCA at 108,294). 9. Finally, there is no merit to the Appellant's contention that GPO's failure to give it the proper instructions so that UPS could retrieve the rejected books and negatives from the DPS somehow also breached the Government's implied duty of cooperation.32 The Contractor does not tell us why it needed the rejected books and negatives. However, since the GFM was always available to it at the CRPPO, it seems clear that the purpose for wanting the return of the material at the DPS was solely for the convenience of the Appellant and was not essential for performance of the reprint. See Univex International, supra, slip op. at 29-30 (Government action or inaction constituting breach must be essential for the contractor to perform). See also Hurt's Printing Co., Inc., supra, slip op. at 24 Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 39. Furthermore, the record discloses that the Appellant made its arrangements to pick up the rejected books and film negatives directly with DPS, who told the Contractor that the material was located in the High Bay area, Building 20, Area B on Wright-Patterson AFB (R4 File, Tab M; Notice of Filing, Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6). Although the record shows that as of December 8, 1992, the Respondent was aware that the DPS was holding the rejected books and negatives for the Appellant, there is absolutely no evidence that GPO knew exactly where the material was being stored, or that the Contractor's carrier was having trouble retrieving it until after January 11, 1993, the reprint due date, nor has the Appellant attempted to present such proof (R4 File, Tabs H and M; Notice of Filing, Bryan Declaration, ¶¶ 3, 4 (January 21-22, 1993), Sommer Declaration, ¶¶ 12, 16, 18 (January 25-27, 1993)). In order to find a cooperation breach based on a failure to pass along instructions for picking up rejected material, some evidence of knowledge of the proper procedure or arrangements by the Respondent is required; anything less is pure speculation. See Univex International, supra, slip op. at 30. 10. Taking all of the evidence into consideration, the Board concludes that the Appellant has not met its burden of proof with respect to excusing its failure to make a timely shipment of the reprinted books; i.e., it has not shown that its failure to perform arose from causes beyond its control and without its fault or negligence. See Univex International, supra, slip op. at 31; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 18; Hurt's Printing Co., Inc., supra, slip op. at 29; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip op. at 15. Accord Johnson Textile and Plastics Co., ASBCA No. 25985, 84-2 BCA ¶ 17,467; Affiliated Metal Products Co., ASBCA No. 15567, 71-2 BCA ¶ 8,947. On this record, the Contractor's case is essentially a collection of unverified assertions amounting to little more than argument, which standing alone cannot substitute for proof. Cf. Reese Manufacturing, Inc., ASBCA No. 35144, 88-1 BCA ¶ 20,358. Indeed, the Board has never allowed such unsubstantiated contentions to form the basis for recovery. See B & B Reproductions, GPO BCA 09-89 (June 30, 1995), slip op. at 39, 1995 WL 488447; Hurt's Printing Co., Inc., supra, slip op. at 29; Printing Unlimited, supra, slip op. at 12; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 57. Accord Singleton Contracting Corp., GSBCA No. 8548, 90-2 BCA ¶ 22,748; Tri-State Services of Texas, Inc., ASBCA No. 38019, 89-3 BCA ¶ 22,064)); Gemini Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 30247, 86-1 BCA ¶ 18,736. Accordingly, the Board concludes that under the circumstances of this case, the Contracting Officer was justified in terminating the contract for default, and his decision is affirmed. B. Even though the Appellant was a Quality Level 4 contractor, it was not improper for the Respondent to hold it responsible for producing Quality Level 3 work under QATAP. 1. The Appellant's argument that as a Quality Level 4 contractor, it cannot be held liable for its inability to produce a Quality Level 3 job, is easily disposed of. First, to the extent that the Contractor suggests that GPO accepted its low Quality Level 4 bid with the intention of rebidding the work at Quality Level 3 if it could not deliver an acceptable product, and charge the Contractor with the additional costs, such a belief is mere conjecture and speculation. Moreover, the assertion amounts to an accusation that the Respondent was acting in "bad faith" when it awarded the Appellant the contract. The Board has said on numerous occasions, an allegation of bad faith must be established by "well-nigh irrefragable proof" because there is a strong presumption that Government officials properly and honestly carry out their functions.33 See MPE Business Forms, Inc., GPO BCA 10-95 (August 16, 1996), slip op. at 27-28, fn. 34, 1996 WL_____; New South Press & Assoc., Inc., supra, slip op. at 36; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., GPO BCA 06-95 (August 29, 1995), slip op. at 12, fn. 16, 1995 WL 818784, reconsid. denied February 13, 1996; Professional Printing of Kansas, Inc., supra, slip op. at 43, fn. 58; Universal Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 24, fn. 24; B. P. Printing and Office Supplies, supra, slip op. at 16; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 54; The Standard Register Co., GPO BCA 4-86 (October 28, 1987), slip op. at 12-13, 1987 WL 228972. Accord Brill Brothers, Inc., ASBCA No. 42573, 94-1 BCA ¶ 26,352; Karpak Data and Design, IBCA No. 2944 et al., 93-1 BCA ¶ 25,360; Local Contractors, Inc., ASBCA No. 37108, 92-1 BCA ¶ 24,491. The key to such evidence is that there must be a showing of specific intent on the part of the Government to injure the Contractor. See MPE Business Forms, Inc., supra, slip op. at 27-28, fn. 34; New South Press & Assoc., Inc., supra, slip op. at 36, fn. 52; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 54. Accord Kalvar Corp. v. United States, 543 F.2d 1298, 1302 (Ct. Cl. 1976), cert. denied 434 U.S. 830 (1977). See also Solar Turbines, Inc. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 142 (1991). In the Board's view, no such "irrefragable proof" of the Respondent's bad faith exists in this record. Certainly, there is absolutely no evidence which would show that GPO by itself, or in concert with the DPS, specifically set out to harm the Appellant. See Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 12, fn 16; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 57. 2. Second, the Contractor is basically asking the Board to review the Contracting Officer's responsibility determination. Stated otherwise, the Appellant is in effect protesting its own award. However, Federal Government contract appeals boards, as a rule, have no jurisdiction over bid protests, but rather are limited to hearing post-award and not pre-award disputes.34 See Carolina Oil Distributing Co., Inc., ASBCA No. 48093, 95-2 BCA ¶ 27,797; Dill's Star Route, Inc., PSBCA No. 3699, 95-2 BCA ¶ 27,608; C & J Associates, VABCA No. 3924, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,628. This is especially true in this case because the Board is not a creature of statute, but rather derives all of its powers from the "Disputes" clause of the contract itself, and thus its jurisdiction is narrowly defined. See GraphicData, Inc., supra, slip op. at 57; R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Co., GPO BCA 15-90 (March 6, 1992), slip op. at 26-27, 1992 WL 382924; The Wessel Co., Inc., GPO BCA 8-90 (February 28, 1992), slip op. at 32, 1992 WL 487877; Automated Datatron, Inc., GPO BCA 20-87 (March 31, 1989), slip op. at 4-5, 1989 WL 384973; Bay Printing, Inc., GPO BCA 16-85 (January 30, 1987), slip op. at 9, 1987 WL 228967; Peak Printers, Inc., GPO BCA 12-85 (November 12, 1986), slip op. at 6, 1986 WL 181453. See generally, Matthew S. Foss, U.S. Government Printing Office Board of Contract Appeals: The First Decade, 24 PUB. CONT. L. J. 579, 584-85 (1995) (hereinafter Foss, The First Decade). Specifically, as the Board interprets GPO Instruction 110.10C, Subject: Establishment of the Board of Contract Appeals, dated September 17, 1984-its "enabling statute"-and the jurisdictional provisions of its rules of practice and procedure, see Board Rules, Preface to Rules, ¶ I (Jurisdiction), it sees its authority as purely derivative and contractual, and has consistently confined the exercise of its remedial powers to the contract before it. See GraphicData, Inc., supra, slip op. at 57; Shepard Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 9, fn. 8; R.D. Printing Associates, Inc., GPO BCA 2-92 (December 16, 1992) slip op. at 9, 13, fns. 9, 15, 1992 WL 516088; Peak Printers, Inc., supra, slip op. at 6. See also Automated Datatron, Inc.,supra, slip op. at 4-5 ("The Public Printer has not under the provision of paragraph 5 of GPO Instruction 110.10C delegated authority to this Board to consider legal questions existing outside the contract itself."). Accord Wehran Engineering Corp., GSBCA No. 6055-NAFC, 84-3 BCA ¶ 17,614. See generally, Foss, The First Decade, at 585-86. Furthermore, the Respondent's printing regulations clearly state that protests of GPO contracts must be taken to either the agency's Office of the General Counsel or General Accounting Office-the Board has been assigned no role in this process. See PPR, Chap. X, Sec. 2, ¶¶ 1.(b), 2-3. 3. Third, to the extent that it can be said that the Appellant's allegation may be "related to" the contract, much like a "mistake in bid" claim, see e.g., Web Business Forms, Inc., GPO BCA 16-89 (September 30, 1994), slip op. 27,1994 WL 837423; Peak Printers, Inc., supra, slip op. at 6; Great Lakes Lithograph Co., GPO BCA 18-84 (May 22, 1985), slip op. at 18, 1985 WL 154849, the well- settled rule is that if a determination with respect to a contractor's reliability and dependability is made in good faith and is reasonable under the applicable law and regulations, it should be upheld. See Wright Industries, Inc., ASBCA No. 18282, 78-2 BCA ¶ 13,396, at 65,492 (citing Warren Brothers Roads Co. v. United States, 173 Ct. Cl. 714, 720-21 (1965); Coastal Cargo Co., Inc. v. United States, 173 Ct. Cl. 259 (1965); Brown & Son Electric Co. v. United States, 163 Ct. Cl. 465 (1963)). It has also been held with respect to determinations of responsibility and responsiveness that a contracting officer has authority, when acting in good faith and in a manner reasonable under the circumstances, to make a valid award to an otherwise unqualified bidder. See Wright Industries, Inc., supra, 78-2 BCA at 65,492 (citing John Reiner & Company v. United States, 163 Ct. Cl. 381 (1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 931 (1964); 46 Comp. Gen. 275 (1966); 44 Comp. Gen. 221 (1964)). The Board has just found that the record in this case contains no evidence of bad faith on the part of the Respondent in its dealings with the Contractor. Nor can it be said, under all of the circumstances in this appeal, that the Contracting Officer was arbitrary or capricious in deciding that the Appellant was qualified for award of the contract. Accordingly, for these reasons, the Board agrees with the Government that once the Contractor submitted its offer and accepted the contract, which clearly showed that it was expected to produce a Quality Level 3 product, it was obligated to perform in accordance with the specifications, and it is no excuse for the Appellant to now claim that it was only a Quality Level 4 contractor. C. The Government has proved its claim of entitlement to excess reprocurement costs in the amount assessed. 1. The last issue concerns the scope of the Appellant's liability for excess reprocurement costs, if any. In K.C. Printing, Co., the Board summarized the legal principles governing questions concerning excess reprocurement costs: The assessment of excess reprocurement costs is considered a Government claim. See Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, [Slip op.] at 50-51 (and cases cited therein). Consequently, the Government has the burden of demonstrating the propriety of the repurchase and proving its entitlement to the amount of excess costs it claims. Id., [Slip op.] at 51 (and cases cited therein). In doing so, the Government must satisfy five criteria to establish an entitlement to recovery against a defaulting contractor, namely, it must show that: (a) the reprocurement contract was performed under substantially the same terms and conditions as the original contract; (b) it acted within a reasonable time following default to repurchase the supplies; (c) it employed a reprocurement method which would maximize competition under the circumstances; (d) it obtained the lowest reasonable price; and (e) the work has been completed and final payment made so that the excess costs assessment is based upon liability for a sum certain. [Footnote omitted.] Id., [Slip op.] at 52-53 (and cases cited therein). Furthermore, the Government claim must be supported by evidence in the record as to each element of the claim. Id., [Slip op.] at 53 (and cases cited therein). Failure to satisfy even one criterion may result in a reduction of the excess costs claimed. Id., [Slip op.] at 53-54 (and cases cited therein). See K.C. Printing, Co., supra, slip op. at 18-19. [Original emphasis.] Whether the Government's repurchase was improper, and if so, what is the amount of reasonable excess costs under the circumstances, are questions of fact. See Univex International, supra, slip op. at 33; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 19, fn. 20; Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 50 (citing Cable Systems and Assembly Co., ASBCA No. 17844, 73-2 BCA ¶ 10,172, at 47,892). The Board finds that the Respondent has satisfied all of the necessary elements in this case. 2. First, the Board's own comparison of the original and reprocurement contracts leaves no question but that the reprocurement contractor, Dickson's, was asked to produce and deliver the identical books as those in the Appellant's original contract, under essentially the same terms and conditions. Compare R4 File, Tabs A and R. Sub., Tab 2. Indeed, the Appellant does not allege otherwise. Both the Appellant and Dickson's were asked to produce 50 copies of an 836 page book plus cover entitled "History of ASD-1991" for the DPS. Among other things, the original and reprocurement contracts described the same product in terms of printing of covers and text, trim size, paper weight and color, ink color, perfect binding, wrap- around covers, GPO imprint, and QATAP quality level. Indeed, the only observable differences between the two contracts was the assignment of a new Jacket number (751-771) and an increase in the performance schedule from 15 to 33 days. While the greater time allowed for delivery of the repurchased books was certainly a change in the terms and conditions of the contract, it was not a material alteration because it had no pecuniary impact; i.e., it did not cause a substantial increase in the price of the reprocurement contract. See Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 59-60 (citing AGH Industries, ASBCA Nos. 27960, 31150, 89-2 BCA ¶ 21,637; Ace Reforestration, Inc., AGBCA No. 84-271-1, 83-2 BCA ¶ 20,218; T.M. Industries, ASBCA No. 21025, 77-1 BCA ¶ 12,545; Churchill Chemical Corp., GSBCA No. 4353, 77-1 BCA ¶ 12,318, aff'd, 221 Ct. Cl. 284, 602 F.2d 358 (1979); Solar Laboratories, Inc., ASBCA No. 19957, 76-2 BCA ¶ 12,115; Arjay Machine Co., ASBCA No. 16535, 73-2 BCA ¶ 10,179; Marmac Industries, ASBCA No. 12158, 72-1 BCA ¶ 9,249). Accord Schmalz Construction, Ltd., AGBCA No. 92-177-1, 94-1 BCA ¶ 26,423; Meyer Labs, Inc., ASBCA No. 19525, 87-2 BCA ¶ 19,810; Lester Phillips, Inc., ASBCA No. 20735, 77-1 BCA ¶ 12,447. See generally Cibinic & Nash, at 1007-09, 1011-12. In any event, it was the Appellant's burden of proof to show that the Respondent's changes made the reprocurement contract "materially different" from the one it received by demonstrating that the increase in performance time also caused an unreasonable increase of a specified amount in the price of the repurchase. See Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 61 (citing Theodore R. Korotie, AGBCA No. 86-245-1, 89-3 BCA ¶ 22,214; Ace Reforestration, Inc., supra; Solar Laboratories, Inc., supra); Knepper Press, GPOCAB Nos. 2-84 and 3-84 (October 2, 1984), slip op. at 4, 1984 WL 148107. The Contractor has not done so in this case. Accordingly, the Board concludes that the Respondent has met the first condition for excess reprocurement costs, namely, showing that the reprocurement contract purchased the same or similar items, and was performed under substantially the same terms and conditions as the original contract. See Univex International, GPO BCA 23-90, Supplemental Decision on Excess Reprocurement Costs and Order (July 5, 1996), slip op. at 5-6, 1996 WL _____ (hereinafter Univex Supp.); Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 29; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 19; Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 62-63. Accord B & M Construction, Inc., AGBCA No. 90-165-1, 93-1 BCA ¶ 25,431; Zan Machine Co., ASBCA No. 39462, 91-3 BCA ¶ 24,085; Boston Pneumatics, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 26188, 26190, 26825, 26984, 27605, 27606, 87-1 BCA ¶ 19,395. 3. Second, the Board has no trouble in concluding that the reprocurement was accomplished in a timely fashion. The record in this case shows that the Appellant's contract was terminated for default on February 1, 1993 (R4 File, Tab Q). The reprocurement contract was awarded to Dickson's 17 days later, on February 18, 1993 (R. Sub., Tab 6). Accordingly, on this record the Board finds that the Respondent acted with reasonable dispatch and without undue delay to reprocure the defaulted books, and thus it has satisfied its evidentiary burden for the second criterion. See Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 6; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 29-30; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 20; Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 63-65. Accord Astro-Space Laboratories, Inc. v. United States, 200 Ct. Cl. 282, 470 F.2d 1003 (1972); Puroflow Corp., ASBCA No. 36058, 93-3 BCA ¶ 26,191; John L. Hartsoe, AGBCA No. 88-116-1, 93-2 BCA ¶ 25,614; Sequal, Inc., ASBCA No. 30838, 88-1 BCA ¶ 20,382; Disan Corp., ASBCA Nos. 21297, 22221, 79-1 BCA ¶ 16,677. 4. Third, the Board believes that the Contracting Officer chose a reasonable method to repurchase the books. See Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 6-7; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 30; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 20-23. Cf. Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 73. As a rule, a contracting officer has very broad discretionary powers in reprocuring items on a defaulted contract, and the choice of which procurement method to use is one of them. See Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 6-7; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 30; Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 17, fn. 25 (citing Astro-Space Laboratories, Inc. v. United States, supra; Old Dominion Security, Inc., GSBCA No. 9126, 90-2 BCA ¶ 22,745; Columbia Loose Leaf Corp., GSBCA Nos. 5805(5067)- REIN, 5806(5230)-REIN, 82-1 BCA ¶ 15,464). See also Venice Maid Co., Inc. v. United States, 639 F.2d 690 (Ct. Cl. 1980); Zan Machine Co., supra. Although the Government has an obligation in reprocuring a defaulted contract to mitigate the defaulted contractor's excess cost liability by selecting a method that will maximize competition and obtain the best or lowest reasonable price under the circumstances, see e.g., Scalf Engineering Co. and Pike County Construction Co., A Joint Venture, IBCA No. 2328, 89-3 BCA ¶ 21,950 at 110,425 (citing Techcraft Systems, VABCA Nos. 1894, 2027, 86-3 BCA ¶ 19,320) (hereinafter Scalf Engineering); Sequal, Inc., supra, 88-1 BCA at 103,067, the law also allows a contracting officer to limit competition for the repurchase if the situation demands it-e.g., the Government's need to assure a quick award to a firm which could begin work almost immediately-since a reprocurement is technically a purchase for the defaulted contractor's account, see Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 7; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 31; Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 67. Accord William A. Hulett, AGBCA Nos. 91-230-3, 92-133-3, 92-196-3, 93-1 BCA ¶ 25,389, at 126,459; Old Dominion Security, Inc., supra, 90-2 BCA at 114,165 (citing Camrex Reliance Paint Co., GSBCA No. 6870, 85-3 BCA ¶ 18,376; Century Tool Co., GSBCA No. 3999, 76-1 BCA ¶ 11,850); Sequal, Inc., supra, 88-1 BCA at 103,067.35 The test used in determining the adequacy of a repurchase solicitation is one of reasonableness, and the burden is on the Government to prove that it acted reasonably in selecting the reprocurement method and in mitigating the contractor's excess costs.36 See Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 8; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 31; K.C. Printing, supra, slip op. at 21 (citing Sam's Electric Co., GSBCA Nos. 9359, 10044, 90-3 BCA ¶ 12,128; Fancy Industries, Inc., ASBCA No. 26578, 83-2 BCA ¶ 16,659); Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 67. However, the Government's obligation to mitigate costs "is not one of perfection, but one of reasonableness and prudence under the circumstances."37 See Mid-America Painters, Inc., ENG BCA No. 5703, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,367, at 117,232; Barrett Refining Corp., supra, 91-1 BCA at 118,145. This duty may be satisfied by a variety of repurchase methods, including soliciting those firms which bid on the original procurement.38 See Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 8; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 32; K.C. Printing, supra, slip op. at 22 (citing American Marine Upholstery Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 564, 345 F.2d 577 (1965); Mid-America Painters, Inc., supra). In this case, the Contracting Officer utilized the same small purchase procedures to reprocure the contract, as he had in making the initial award (R. Sub., at 2, Tab 2). Like the original solicitation, potential contractors for the repurchase were selected from the GPO's ABLS (R. Sub., at 2; Tab 3).39 However, three (3) more potential contractors bid on the reprocurement contract than responded to the original solicitation (R. Sub., at 2, Tabs 4 and 8). On the evidence before it, the Board is satisfied that the reprocurement method chosen by the Respondent was reasonable in that a sufficient number of potential contractors were contacted to assure competitive prices, and that further solicitation of other firms would not have resulted in lower prices and therefore would have been unnecessary. See Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 9; K.C. Printing, supra, slip op. at 22-23 (citing Century Tool Co., GSBCA No. 4007, 78-1 BCA ¶ 13,050, at 63,735, reconsid. denied, 78-2 BCA ¶ 13,345; Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 73). Accordingly, the Board believes that the Respondent has met its burden with respect to the third criterion necessary to establish an entitlement to recovery of excess reprocurement costs against a defaulting contractor. See Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 9; K.C. Printing, supra, slip op. at 23 (citing Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 73). 5. Fourth, mitigation of damages also requires the Government to show that it obtained the lowest reasonable reprocurement price- the lowest reasonable price for the Government under circumstances, not the defaulted Contractor.40 See Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 10; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 35; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 23-24. Accord Barrett Refining Corp., supra; Scalf Engineering, supra; Sequal, Inc., supra; Fancy Industries, Inc., supra. In that regard, the Board has observed that ". . . the most common method used for recalculating excess costs is simply to take the difference between the original contract price and the second low bid on the original contract." See Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 84-85. Accord Mid-America Painters, Inc., supra; Sequal, Inc., supra; Fancy Industries, Inc., supra; Zero-Temp, Inc., ASBCA No. 21590, 78-1 BCA ¶ 13,212. Under that way of figuring, the Appellant's excess cost liability would have been $2,008.00 (Sterling Press' bid of $5,346.00 on the original contract minus the Appellant's contract price of $3,338.00) (R4 File, Tab A; R. Sub., Tab 8). However, in this case, the Contractor was actually assessed excess costs of $1,162.00 (the difference between the price paid to Dickson's for the repurchased work-$4,410.00-and the Appellant's original bid after certain adjustments were made) (R4 File, Tabs R and S; R. Sub., Tab 9). Therefore, the question is whether the extra $1,162.00 is a reasonable assessment under the circumstances. The Board believes that it is. First, while Dickson's did not bid on the original contract, its repurchase offer of $4,500.00 not only was at the low end of the Government's cost estimate ($4,400.00 to $4,900.00) for the work, and was also approximately 16 percent less than Sterling Press' second low bid on the initial solicitation. Second, and just as revealing, is the fact that Dickson's repurchase offer of $4,500.00 is about 13 percent lower than Neal Printing's bid of $5,141.00-the next lowest reprocurement bid-and the closeness of the two offers indicates a reasonable market price. See American Kal Enters, Inc., GSBCA No. 4449, 76-2 BCA ¶ 11,929. Third, while Dickson's repurchase offer is nearly 35 percent higher than the Appellant's bid on the original contract, it is well-settled that the mere fact of a significant price increase in the reprocurement does not render it unreasonable in the face of Government due care and diligence. See Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 11; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 23. Accord Futura Systems, Inc., ENG BCA No. 6037, 95-2 BCA ¶ 27,654; Foster Refrigerator Corp., ASBCA No. 34021, 89-2 BCA ¶ 21,591; Boston Pneumatics, Inc., supra; Fancy Industries, Inc., supra. Fourth, this is not a situation where the reprocurement occurred shortly after the original award; i.e., four (4) months elapsed between the time the Appellant received the original contract (October 14, 1992) and the date Dickson's was given the repurchase agreement (February 18, 1993) (R4 File, Tab A; R. Sub., Tab 6). Cf. Century Tool Co., GSBCA No. 4000, 76-1 BCA ¶ 11,855 (no mitigation where reprocurement unit price was three (3) cents greater than a bid by same contractor two weeks earlier); International Technology Corp., B-250377.5, 93-2 CPD ¶ 102 (original offers satisfied competition requirement where only a few months had passed between the default termination and original competition for a hazardous waste management contract). The Board has upheld repurchase awards at prices significantly higher than the original contract where less time has passed between the initial award and the reprocurement. See Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra (contract price 39 percent higher on reprocurement made three (3) months after the original award); K.C. Printing Co., supra (contract price three times higher on reprocurement made less than two (2) months after original award). Finally, the Appellant has not objected to the Respondent's excess reprocurement cost figure of $1,162.00, and in the absence of such a challenge the Government's cost assessment is presumed to be correct.41 See Pickett Enterprises, Inc., GSBCA No. 9472, 9890, 10051, 10102, 10426, 92-1 BCA ¶ 24,668. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Respondent has carried its evidentiary burden of showing that the excess reprocurement costs assessed in this case mitigated the Appellant's liability and represented the lowest reasonable price for the Government under the circumstances. See Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 12; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 36; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 25. Cf. Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 77. 6. Finally, in order to establish a right to excess reprocurement costs, the Government must demonstrate that the repurchased work has been completed, and final payment made to the reprocurement contractor so that the excess costs assessment is based upon liability for a sum certain. See Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 12; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 36 (citing Whitlock Corp. v. United States, 141 Ct. Cl. 758, 159 F.Supp. 602 (1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 815 (1958); John L. Hartsoe, supra; Lafayette Coal Co., ASBCA Nos. 32174, 33311, 87-3 BCA ¶ 20,116). See also K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 25-26; Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 78. Where the Government fails to offer evidence that a reprocurement contract was awarded, performed, or paid for, the assessment of excess costs against a defaulted contractor will be denied. See Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 12-13; Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 85. Accord, Patty Armfield, AGBCA Nos. 91-185-1, 92-141-1, 92-143-1, 93-1 BCA ¶ 25,235; Pyramid Packing, Inc., AGBCA No. 86-128-1, 92-2 BCA ¶ 24,831; Scalf Engineering, supra. Here, the relevant documentation presented by the Respondent consists of: (a) Dickson's reprocurement contract (R. Sub., Tab 6); (b) the Contracting Officer's memorandum, dated February 19, 1993, informing the FMS that the Appellant's defaulted contract had been reprocured for $4,500.00 and asking that the excess costs be charged to the Contractor (R4 File, Tab S); and (c) a statement from FMS' Chief, Examination and Billing Branch, Procurement Accounting Division, that Dickson's had been paid $4,410.00 for the completed work by electronic funds transfer on April 21, 1993, and assessing $1,162.00 against the Appellant's as its excess cost obligation (R. Sub., Tab 9). In the Board's view, this evidence is sufficient to prove that Dickson's was awarded the contract, produced and delivered the books, and received final payment for the work. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Respondent has carried its burden of proof with respect to the last element necessary to establish its entitlement to excess reprocurement costs. See Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 13; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 37; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 26. Cf. Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 83. Also cf. Patty Armfield, supra; Pyramid Packing, Inc., supra; Scalf Engineering, supra. ORDER Considering the record as a whole, the Board finds and concludes: (1) the Respondent did not breach its implied duty to cooperate with the Contractor in the performance of the contract; (2) the Government could properly hold the Appellant responsible for Quality Level 3 work under QATAP even though it was a Quality Level 4 contractor; and (3) GPO has sustained is burden of proof with regard to the Contractor's liability for excess reprocurement costs. THEREFORE, the Contracting Officer's decision terminating the Appellant's contract for default, and his assessment of excess reprocurement costs is hereby AFFIRMED, and the appeal is DENIED. It is so Ordered. August 30, 1996 STUART M. FOSS Administrative Judge _______________ 1 At the time the appeal was filed, the Appellant's address was 112 South 3rd Street, Purcell, Oklahoma 73080. 2 The Contracting Officer's appeal file, assembled pursuant to Rule 4 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, was submitted to the Board on April 22, 1993. GPO Instruction 110.12, Subject: Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedure, dated September 17, 1984, Rule 4(a) (Board Rules). It will be referred to herein as R4 File, with an appropriate Tab letter also indicated. The R4 File contains 19 documents identified as Tabs A through S. 3 The amount of excess reprocurement costs shown in the record is $1,162.00 (R4 File, Tabs R and S). However, the Government also sought reimbursement of the $3,237.86 which had already been paid to the Appellant on the defaulted contract, for a total recovery of $4,399.86 (R4 File, Tabs R and S). This $3,237.86 figure was apparently the discounted price for the books, because both in its Complaint and at the presubmission conference held on August 6, 1993, see Board Rules, Rule 10, the Contractor asked for the full contract price of $3,338.00 on the product it delivered, making its total claim $4,500.00. See Complaint (last two sentences); Report of Presubmission Conference, dated August 17, 1993, at 6 (hereinafter RPTC). 4 The Appellant was asked to obtain a notarized affidavit from a representative of the United Parcel Service (UPS) clearly detailing it efforts to pick up the film negatives and rejected books, including the dates, the persons contacted, and the locations visited by the carrier. The Respondent was told to obtain an affidavit from the customer-agency's representative, Mike Gallagher, stating precisely what instructions he gave UPS concerning retrieving the film negatives and rejected books, whether anyone came to pick up these materials, the location where the materials were available, etc., as well as any other pertinent details. See RPTC, at 7. 5 The Contractor originally sought to have this appeal processed under the Board's optional Small Claims (Expedited) Procedure. Board Rules, Rules 12.1(a), 12.2. However, because of numerous delays in augmenting the record, stemming from, among other things, the need of both parties for enlargements of time in which to provide additional documents and affidavits, and the Board's adjusting the briefing dates in light of their extension requests, the initial settlement of the record did not occur until July 15, 1994, nearly 17 months after the appeal was filed. Then, after the record was reopened by the Board on February 20, 1996, for the purpose of receiving additional evidence and arguments from the parties on the issue of excess reprocurement costs, it was not finally settled until July 3, 1996. Accordingly, the Appellant's election of the option Small Claims (Expedited) Procedure has become moot, and the matter has been processed under the Board's regular procedure for handling cases submitted on the record without a hearing. Board Rules, Rule 11. See e.g., Universal Printing Co., GPO BCA 09-90 (June 22, 1994), slip op. at 2, fn. 3, 1994 WL 377586; McDonald & Eudy Printers, Inc., GPO BCA 06-91 (May 6, 1994), slip op. at 1, fn. 2, 1994 WL 377581. See also Univex International, GPO BCA 23-90 (July 31, 1995), slip op. at 2, fn. 1., 1995 WL 488438, reconsid. denied February 7, 1996, 1006 WL 112554. 6 The record on which this decision is based consists of: (a) the Appellant's Notice of Appeal, dated February 25, 1993; (b) the R4 File; (c) the Appellant's Complaint, dated April 24, 1993; (d) the Contractor's letter, dated May 27, 1993, attaching copies of United Parcel Service (hereinafter UPS) "Call Tags," dated December 21, 1992; (e) the Respondent's "general denial," dated June 17, 1993; (f) the Report of Prehearing Telephone Conference, dated August 17, 1993; (g) the Appellant's brief, dated August 23, 1993 (hereinafter cited as App. Brf.), attaching copies of UPS "Call Tags," dated December 22, 1992; (h) GPO's Notice of Filing, dated September 8, 1993, enclosing declarations of Michael E. Gallagher, DPS Printing Specialist, John C. Bryan, Procurement Assistant in the Compliance Section of the CRPPO, and Michael J. Sommer, Quality Assurance/Contract Compliance Officer at the CRPPO (hereinafter referred to as the Gallagher, Bryan, and Sommer Declarations, respectively); (i) the Respondent's brief, dated September 27, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as R. Brf.); (j) the Appellant's "Final Brief," dated February 16, 1994 (hereinafter cited as App. F. Brf.); (k) the Respondent's Submission on Reprocurement, dated March 21, 1996; and (l) he "Appellant's Response on Reprocurement Cost and Contract Rebid," dated March 28, 1996. Board Rules, Rule 13(a). The facts, which are essentially undisputed, are recited here only to the extent necessary for this decision. 7 The record indicates that the Respondent solicited the contract under its Automated Bid List System (ABLS) to four (4) contractors, and that the Appellant's offer was the low bid of only two offers received on the contract, the other bidder being Sterling Press (R. Sub., Tabs 7 and 8). 8 GPO Contract Terms, Solicitation Provisions, Supplemental Specifications, and Contract Clauses, GPO Publication 310.2, effective December 1, 1987 (Rev. 9-88) (GPO Contract Terms). 9 GPO Contract Terms, Quality Assurance Through Attributes Program for Printing and Binding, GPO Publication 310.1, Effective May 1979 (Revised November 1989). 10 In the interim, the Contracting Officer Sever had issued a "Show Cause" notice to the Appellant on November 3, 1992, informing the Contractor that it could be defaulted because it had failed to deliver the books by October 30, 1992, and affording it an opportunity to explain the reasons for the non- delivery, in writing, by November 9, 1992 (R4 File, Tab C; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 6). By letter, dated November 6, 1992, Kroth responded to the "Show Cause" notice by reiterating his conversation with Sommer on October 29, 1992, and telling the Contracting Officer that the bindery problem has since been rectified, and the books shipped to Wright-Patterson AFB on November 5, 1992 (R4 File, Tab D; Notice of Filing, Sommer Declaration, ¶ 7). 11 The GFM was finally received sometime between November 13, 1992, and December 8, 1992 (Notice of Filing, Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6; Sommer Declaration, ¶ 12). 12 The two occasions referred to are December 21, 1992, and December 24, 1992. See note 6 supra (attachments to Appellant's letter of May 27, 1993, and brief of August 23, 1993). 13 On January 25, 1993, Gallagher called Bryan and gave him the names, location, and telephone number of Mosher, Tom Gooseman, and Kelli Cradelbaugh, as the persons to contact in the customer agency as this matter (Notice of Filing, Bryan Declaration, ¶ 5). 14 Neither Bryan or Sommer can recall anyone representing the Appellant ever asking to pick up the materials at DPS or requesting the CRPPO's assistance in making arrangements to do so (Notice of Filing, Bryan Declaration, ¶ 6; Sommer Declaration, ¶ 19). 15 Under the Respondent's printing procurement regulation, the Contracting Officer must submit a proposal to terminate a contract for default to the CRB for its review and concurrence. See Printing Procurement Regulation, GPO Publication 305.3 (September 1, 1988), Chap. I, Sec. 10, ¶ 4.b.(i) (hereinafter PPR). See also Univex International, supra, slip op. at 9; fn. 12; Hurt's Printing Co., Inc., GPO BCA 27-91 (January 24, 1994), slip op. at 7, fn. 10, 1994 WL 275098; Graphics Image, Inc., GPO BCA 13-92 (August 31, 1992), slip. op. at 9, fn. 10, 1992 WL 487875. 16 The record indicates that the DPS still had the rejected books and negatives (the reprocurement contractor reprinted the books using new negatives) as late as March 10, 1993 (Notice of Filing, Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6). But, by the end of August 1993, the books and negatives had disappeared from the High Bay area (Notice of Filing, Gallagher Declaration, ¶ 6). 17 The Respondent indicates that the purpose of the additional production time was to allow more bidders to make an offer, and thus mitigate excess reprocurement costs through increased competition (R. Sub., at 2). 18 The six ABLS contractors were Marek Lithographics, Graphics East, Inc; McClain Printing Company; RVR, Incorporated; CPW Business Services, Inc., and Crossmark Graphics, Inc. (R. Sub., Tab 3). 19 Dickson's name is misspelled in the bid abstract as "Dixon" (R. Sub., Tab 4). 20 The Appellant thinks this is especially true because the rejected books have since been either misplaced or are being used by the Government. See App. F. Brf., ¶ 6. 21 To the extent that the Contractor also now implies that it should not be held responsible for the poor quality of the original job because the Government provided it with bad negatives, see App. F. Brf., ¶¶ 3, 6, that issue is not before the Board. Under the "Government Furnished Property (GFP)" clause of GPO Contract Terms, which was incorporated in the Appellant's contract by reference, see GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 7, the Contractor had an affirmative duty to notify the Contracting Officer of any problems or discrepancies "prior to the performance of any work." See Web Business Forms, Inc., GPO BCA 31-89 (July 22, 1995), slip op. at 13-14, 1995 WL 488523; Printing Unlimited, GPO BCA 21-90 (November 30, 1993), slip op. at 13, 1993 WL 516844; Custom Printing Co., GPO BCA 10-87 (May 10, 1988), slip op. at 12; 1988 WL 363328. Accord Southern Athletic Co., Inc., ASBCA No. 9258, 65-1 BCA ¶ 4649; Sidran Sportswear Co., Inc., ASBCA No. 9557, 65-1 BCA ¶ 4632. The record clearly shows that the Appellant did not take its complaint about the GFM to the Contracting Officer "prior to the performance of any work." Therefore, it is too late now to raise the GFM issue in these proceedings. See Web Business Forms, Inc., supra, slip op. at 15. See also Shepard Printing, GPO BCA 37-92 (January 28, 1994), slip op. at 27, 1994 WL 275077 (the Board lacks jurisdiction over contractor's allegations not first presented to the Contracting Officer). 22 The Board was created by the Public Printer in 1984. See GPO Instruction 110.10C, Subject: Establishment of the Board of Contract Appeals, dated September 17, 1984. Before then, ad hoc panels considered disputes between contractors and GPO. Even though it was decide in January 1986, Vogard Printing was an ad hoc panel case. The Board cites the decisions of these ad hoc boards as GPOCAB. While the Board is not bound by their decisions, its policy is to follow the rulings of the ad hoc panels where applicable and appropriate. See The George Marr Co., GPO BCA 31-94 (April 23, 1996), slip op. at 50, fn. 40, 1996 WL ______; New South Press & Assoc., Inc., GPO BCA 14-92 (January 31, 1996), slip op. at 32, fn. 45, 1996 WL 112555; Shepard Printing, GPO BCA 23-91 (April 29, 1993), slip op. at 14, fn. 19, 1993 WL 526848; Stephenson, Inc., GPO BCA 02-88 (December 20, 1991), slip op. at 18, fn. 20, 1991 WL 439274; Chavis and Chavis Printing, GPO BCA 20-90 (February 6, 1991), slip op. at 9, fn. 9, 1991 WL 439270. 23 While the excusable events listed in the "Default" clause, all of which must be beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the contractor, are set forth in the context of relieving the contractor from responsibility for excess reprocurement costs, it is well-settled that the same occurrences extend the time available for performance and make termination prior to that time improper. See e.g., FKC Engineering Co., ASBCA No. 14856, 70-1 BCA ¶ 8,312. 24 Default terminations-as a species of forfeiture-are strictly construed. See D. Joseph DeVito v. United States, 188 Ct. Cl. 979, 413 F.2d 1147, 1153 (1969). See also Murphy, et al. v. United States, 164 Ct. Cl. 332 (1964); J. D. Hedin Construction Co. v. United States, 187 Ct. Cl. 45, 408 F.2d 424 (1969); Foremost Mechanical Systems, Inc., GSBCA Nos. 12335, 12384, 95-1 BCA ¶ 27,382. 25 Since October 29, 1992, the United States Claims Court has been known as the United States Court of Federal Claims. See Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-572, 106 Stat. 4506 (1992) (Title IX). 26 Clauses such as ¶ 20(a)(1)(I) have uniformly been held to apply not only to late deliveries of the contracted goods, Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 19 (citing Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip op. at 12-15; Jomar Enterprises, Inc., GPO BCA 13-86 (May 25, 1989), slip op. at 3-5), but also to the timely delivery of nonconforming supplies. Id. (citing KOPA Kopier Produckte, ASBCA No. 29,471, 85-3 BCA ¶ 18,367; Meyer Labs, Inc., ASBCA No. 18,347, 77-1 BCA ¶ 12,539). See also Delta Industries, Inc., DOT BCA No. 2601, 94-1 BCA ¶ 26, 318; Industrial Data Link Corp., ASBCA No. 31570, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,382. The rationale for this dual application of the default clause is simple. As explained in a leading text on the subject of public contracts: "While these clauses explicitly make untimely performance the basis for the default action, it is important to recognize that nearly every Government contract spells out the contractor's required performance in terms of the nature of the product or service which is to be delivered or performed as well as the time by which this performance is to be completed. Thus, in order for the contractor to render 'timely performance,' two basic requirements must be satisfied: (1) the product, service or construction work must conform to the required design/performance specifications, and (2) the product must be delivered or the work completed by the specified due date. Citing Radiation Technology, Inc. v. United States, 177 Ct. Cl. 227, 366 F.2d 1003 (1966); Nash Metalware Co., GSBCA No. 11951, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,780; Air, Inc., GSBCA No. 8847, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,352." See John Cibinic, Jr. & Ralph C. Nash, Jr., Administration of Government Contracts 3d ed., (The George Washington University, 1995), at 908 (hereinafter Cibinic & Nash). 27 Whether a defect is minor is a question of fact, based upon a consideration of: (a) whether the items are usable; (b) the nature of the product; (c) the urgency of the Government's needs; and (d) the extent of repair and adjustment necessary to produce a fully conforming product. See Cibinic & Nash, at 915 (citing Kain Cattle Co., ASBCA No. 17124, 73-1 BCA ¶ 9,999). In that regard, numerous minor defects, when considered together, can constitute a major nonconformity. See Astro Science Corp. v. United States, 200 Ct. Cl. 354, 471 F.2d 624 (1973); Environmental Tectonics Corp., supra; Kain Cattle Co., supra. Furthermore, even if a defect is minor, if it is not readily correctable the contractor cannot claim the benefit of the "substantial compliance" doctrine. See Inforex, Inc., GSBCA No. 3859, 76-1 BCA ¶ 11,679; Levelator Corp., VACAB No. 1069, 74-2 BCA ¶ 10,763; Nuclear Equipment Corp., NASABCA No. 1170-18, 73-1 BCA ¶ 9,815. The "substantial compliance doctrine" is a limited exception to the general rule applicable to situations where a contractor has timely shipped nonconforming goods which deviate from the specifications in only minor respects. See Radiation Technology, Inc. v. United States, supra. Under the so-called "substantial compliance" doctrine, a defaulting contractor is afforded an opportunity, by operation of law, to correct minor defects in shipments to the Government. Cf. Hurt's Printing Co., Inc., supra, slip op. at 17; B. P. Printing and Office Supplies, GPO BCA 22-91 (February 5, 1993), slip op. at 12, 1993 WL 311371; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 24, 48-54. For the "substantial compliance rule to apply to a particular shipment of nonconforming goods, the contractor must show that: (a) a timely delivery of goods was made; (b) he/she reasonably believed, in good faith, that the supplies conformed to the contract when shipped and that they would be acceptable; and (c) the defects are minor in nature and capable of correction within a reasonable period of time. See Radiation Technology, Inc. v. United States, supra. See generally Cibinic & Nash, at 912-17. A contractor who ships nonconforming goods is only protected by the Radiation Technology rule to the extent that he/she can satisfy all elements of the test. See Univex International, supra, slip op. at 21, fn. 21. See Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 51, fn. 55 (citing Norwood Precision Products, Textron, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 38095, 38196, 90-3 BCA ¶ 23,200; Introl Corp., ASBCA No. 27,610, 85-2 BCA ¶ 18,044 at 90,578; Environmental Tectonics Corp., supra, 76-2 BCA ¶ 12,134). The Radiation Technology doctrine is clearly an encroachment on the Government's right to terminate. However, "substantial compliance" does not apply in this case. 28 Indeed, the general view is that the Contracting Officer's discretion to decide whether a product is conforming or nonconforming is inherent in his/her administration of the contract. See Univex International, supra, slip op. at 23, fn. 24 (citing Vogard Printing, supra, slip op. at 6; Thomas W. Yoder Co., Inc., VACAB No. 997, 74-1 BCA ¶ 10,424). 29 As a general rule, no "cure notice" is required where a contract is to be terminated because of the contractor's failure to timely deliver or perform. See Univex International, supra, slip op. at 21; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 13; B. P. Printing and Office Supplies, supra, slip op. at 12; Shepard Printing, supra, slip op. at 13; Stephenson, Inc., supra, Slip op. at 19-20. Accord Chambers-Thompson Moving and Storage, Inc., ASBCA No. 43260, 93-3 BCA ¶ 26,033, at 129,408; Sonico, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 31110, 34269, 89-2 BCA ¶ 21,611. However, in this case, despite the general rule, the Appellant was offered an opportunity to cure the defects by reprinting the order (R4 File, Tab J). See Univex International, supra, slip op. at 23; Hurt's Printing Co., Inc., supra, slip op. at 21-22; Shepard Printing, supra, slip op. at 14. It should be noted that while GPO's printing procurement regulation, like the procurement rules of other Federal agencies, recommends the issuance of a show cause letter, "where practicable," prior to the default termination of a contract for failure to make timely deliveries or perform services within the time required by the contract, see PPR, Chap. XIV, Sec. 1, ¶ 3(c)(1); cf. Lewis B. Udis v. United States, 7 Cl. Ct. 379, 385-86 (1985), none was issued in this case. However, the omission of a "show cause notice" by the Government is not generally a procedural defect to a termination based on the contractor's failure to make timely deliveries or perform timely services. See Univex International, supra, slip op. at 24, fn. 25; Shepard Printing, supra, slip op. at 14, fn. 20; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 20, fn. 22. Accord Kit Pack Co., Inc., supra, 89-3 BCA at 111,486-87 (citing H. N. Bailey & Associates, ASBCA No. 21,300, 77-2 BCA ¶ 12,681). 30 See Cibinic & Nash, at 295-300. There is also an implied negative obligation on the part of the Government that it will not do that which will interfere with the contractor in the performance of the contract. Id., at 300-05. See e.g., Nanofast, Inc., ASBCA No. 12,545, 69-1 BCA ¶ 7,566 (citing Fern E. Chalender d/b/a Chalender Construction Co. of Springfield, Missouri v. United States, 127 Ct. Cl. 557 (1954); George A. Fuller Co. v. United States, 108 Ct. Cl. 70, 69 F.Supp. 409 (1947); Restatement, Contracts, §§ 295, 315). Both implied duties are part of every Government contract. See George A. Fuller Co. v. United States, supra. 31 Thus, the record shows that while the time for performance of the original order was 15 days (October 15, 1992, to October 30, 1992), the Contracting Officer nearly doubled the amount of performance time to accomplish the reprint, based on Sommer's recommendation because of the Christmas/New Year's holidays; i.e., there were 26 days between the date Kroth received the Cure Notice (December 15,1992) and the date established for delivery of the reprinted books (January 11, 1993) (R4 File, Tabs A, I and J; Notice of Filing, Bryan Declaration, ¶ 3; Sommer Declaration, ¶ 20). Moreover, the record discloses that as late as January 21, 1992, more than a month after the Appellant had received the Cure Notice, the CRPPO was stilling looking for the delivery of the reprints, and the Contracting Officer had not yet made up his mind to default the contract (Notice of Filing, Bryan Declaration, ¶ 3; Sommer Declaration, ¶ 15). 32 The Appellant does not contend, nor is there any evidence, that the Government tortiously interfered with the carrier's attempt to pick up the rejected books and negatives. Cf. Kellner Equipment, Inc., ASBCA No. 26006, 82-2 BCA ¶ 16.077 (evidence that military policemen checked the identification of the contractor's employees before allowing them on the job site did not excuse the delay which resulted in default termination for failure to complete performance by the due date, since it is anticipated that policemen will take such action). 33 "Irrefragable" proof simply means evidence which is incapable of being refuted; i.e., indisputable evidence. See Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 54 (citing Webster's New Work Dictionary (1988), at 714). 34 The GSBCA is an exception to this general rule. By statute, it has been granted protest authority for automated data processing and telecommunication disputes involving Federal agencies. See Technology Advancement Group, Inc. v. Department of the Navy; Dulles Networking Associates, Inc., Intervenor, GSBCA No. 12709-P, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,714; Executone Information Systems, Inc. v. Department of Health and Human Services; Government Telecommunications, Inc., Intervenor, GSBCA No. 12402- P, 94-1 BCA ¶ 26,274. 35 GPO procedures are consistent with the general theory and practice in Government reprocurements. See PPR, Chap. XIV, Sec. 1, ¶ 3.f.(2). 36 In most cases, the Government satisfies this burden by showing that it used sealed bid advertising to repurchase defaulted supplies and services. See e.g., H & H Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 168 Ct. Cl. 873 (1964); Lester Brothers, Inc. v. United States, 151 Ct. Cl. 536 (1960); Star Food Processing, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 34161, 34163, 34164, 34165, 35544, 35545, 35546, 35547, 90-1 BCA ¶ 22,390; Erickson Enterprises, AGBCA 77-168, 79-1 BCA ¶ 13,628. 37 This duty is to be carried out within the confines of Federal procurement statutes, regulations, policies and directives, and in pursuit of the Government's own best interests, whether or not that results in a lower price for a defaulted contractor. See Barrett Refining Corp., ASBCA Nos. 36590, 37093, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,566, at 118,145. 38 Indeed, such a mitigation step is considered presumptively reasonable, even if the reprocurement price itself seems unreasonable. See Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 8; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 32; K.C. Printing, supra, slip op. at 22 (citing Mid-America Painters, Inc., supra); Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 69-70 (citing Zoda v. United States, 148 Ct. Cl. 49, 180 F.Supp. 419 (1980); United Microwave Co., ASBCA No. 7947, 1963 ¶ 3,701). Cf. American Photographic Industries, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 29272, 29832, 90-1 BCA ¶ 22,728 (the Government failed to mitigate damages because it did not contact the second low bidder on the original contract). See also Dillon Tool Maintenance, Inc. v. United States, 218 Ct. Cl. 732 (1978); AAA Janitorial Services, ASBCA No. 9603, 67-1 BCA ¶ 6,091 (the law creates a rebuttable presumption that the repurchase could have been completed at the price previously quoted by a lower bidder if an effort had been made to do so). In fact, if the Government fails to make a reasonable effort at contacting the original bidders, the result may result in a denial or reduction of the excess cost assessment. See Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 8, fn. 6; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 32, fn. 32; K.C. Printing, supra, slip op. at 22, fn. 23 (citing Associated Cleaning, Inc., GSBCA No. 8320, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,360; Old Dominion Security, Inc., supra; Barrett Chemical Co., Inc., GSBCA No. 4544, 77-2 BCA ¶ 12,625). 39 See notes 7 and 18 supra. 40 In fulfilling the obligation to secure the best price for the Government, a contracting officer must follow the same standard of reasonableness and prudence under the circumstances which he/she exercised in the timing and selecting of the method of reprocurement. See William A. Hulett, supra; Barrett Refining Corp., supra; Mid-America Painters, Inc., supra. 41 The Respondent apparently calculated excess reprocurement costs by subtracting the Appellant's undiscounted contract price ($3,338.00) from Dickson's undiscounted bid ($4,500.00) (R4 File, Tab A; R. Sub., Tabs 4 and 8). However, neither contractor was actually paid those amounts. The Board's own calculations based on the discounted payments, rounded off to the nearest dollar, show the Appellant's liability to be actually $1,172.00 (Dickson's $4,410.00 minus the Appellant's $3,237.86). Regardless, the legal maxim de minimis non curat lex (the law does not take notice of trifles) clearly covers this situation, and the Board will leave the Respondent's figures undisturbed. See Univex Supp., supra, at 12, fn. 8.