U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20401 In the Matter of ) ) The Appeal of ) ) UNIVEX INTERNATIONAL ) Docket No. GPO BCA 23-90 Jacket No. 606-648 ) Purchase Order B-9708 ) SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION ON EXCESS REPROCUREMENT COSTS AND ORDER A. Statement of the Case On February 7, 1996, the Board issued its Decision on Motion for Reconsideration and Order in the above-captioned appeal of Univex International (Appellant or Contractor), denying the Appellant's motion for reconsideration of the Board's July 31, 1995, ruling upholding the Contracting Officer's default termination of the contract for a failure to timely deliver an acceptable product, and rejecting the Appellant's defenses that: (1) the default was procedurally defective; and (2) the Respondent breached its implied duty to cooperate with the Contractor in the performance of the contract. Univex International, GPO BCA 23-90 (February 7, 1996),slip op. at 7-8, 13, 1996 WL 112554, aff'g Univex International, GPO BCA 23-90 (July 31, 1995), slip. op. at 24, 31, 36, 1995 WL 488438. See GPO Instruction 110.12, Subject: Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedure, dated September 17, 1984, Rule 29 (Board Rules). See also GPO Contract Terms, Solicitation Provisions, Supplemental Specifications, and Contract Clauses, GPO Publication 310.2, effective December 1, 1987 (Rev. 9-88), ¶ 20(a)(1)(I) (Default). Also rejected by the Board in the context of its reconsideration ruling was the Contractor's objection to the Board's decision that the issue concerning excess reprocurement costs was not ripe for consideration under the record before it, and therefore the matter should be remanded to the Contracting Officer for the submission of further evidence on that question.1 See Univex International, supra (February 7, 1996), slip op. at 11-12, aff'g Univex International, supra, (July 31, 1995), slip op. at 33-35 (citing Sterling Printing, Inc., GPO BCA 20-89 (March 28, 1994) slip op. at 48, 1994 WL 275104, reconsid. denied Sterling Printing, GPO BCA 20-89 (July 5, 1994), slip op. at 1-2, 1994 WL 377592). However, because the record showed that the Respondent complied with the Board's remand order on August 29, 1995, and the Appellant filed its motion for reconsideration on September 6, 1995, the Board believed that the eight (8) day difference was too short a period of time for the Contractor to marshall its arguments on the excess cost issue, particularly since those days also included the Labor Day holiday. See Univex International, supra (February 7, 1996), slip op. at 12. Consequently, even though the Appellant's motion for reconsideration on the merits of the remand was denied, the Board thought that fundamental notions of justice and fair play dictated an opportunity for the Contractor to review and respond to the Government's evidence concerning excess costs. Id. (citing Board Rules, Preface to Rules, ¶ VI.C. (Administration and Interpretation of Rules)). Accordingly, the Board granted the Appellant an additional thirty (30) days from the date it received the reconsideration decision to submit any evidence or arguments it may have had solely on the question of excess reprocurement costs, with any reply from the Respondent being due within fifteen (15) days after receiving a copy of the Contractor's submission. See Univex International, supra (February 7, 1996), slip op. at 12-13 (citing Board Rules, Rule 16). The Appellant did not submit any additional evidence or arguments on the excess reprocurement cost issue within the time allowed by the Board. As a consequence, nothing further was received from the Government either. Therefore, this supplemental decision is based on the record, as augmented by the Respondent's Notice of Filing, dated August 29, 1995, submitting declarations from Contracting Officer Annamarie T. Mierson, Assistant Manager of GPO's Philadelphia Regional Printing Procurement Office (hereinafter Mierson Declaration), and Philip Jones, Chief, Examination and Billing Branch, Procurement Accounting Division, Financial Management Services (FMS) (hereinafter Jones Declaration), as well as other relevant documents which were attached. See Univex International, supra (February 7, 1996), slip op. at 2, fn. 1. From the record, the Board concludes that the Respondent has sustained is burden of proof with regard to the Appellant's liability for excess reprocurement costs. B. Discussion 1. As indicated in the Board's principal opinion in this dispute, the assessment of excess reprocurement costs is considered a Government claim. See Univex International, supra (July 31, 1995), slip op. at 32 (quoting K.C. Printing Co., GPO BCA 02-91 (February 22, 1995), slip op. at 18, 1995 WL 488531, and citing Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 50-51). See also Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., GPO BCA 06-95 (August 29, 1995), slip op. at 28, 1995 WL 818784, reconsid. denied February 13, 1996. The burden is on the Government to show that the repurchase was proper and to prove its entitlement to the amount of excess costs claimed. See Univex International, supra (July 31, 1995), slip op. at 32-33 (quoting K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 18, and citing Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 51). The Government does this by proving five things, namely, 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.2 See Univex International, supra (July 31, 1995), slip op. at 33 (quoting K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 18-19, and citing Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 52-53). See also Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 28. Furthermore, each element of the Government's claim must be supported by record evidence; i.e., failure to satisfy even one criterion may result in a reduction of the excess costs claimed. See Univex International, supra (July 31, 1995), slip op. at 33 (quoting K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 19, and citing Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 53-54). See also Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 28. All of the necessary elements have been satisfied by the Respondent in this case. 2. First, the Board's own comparison of the original and reprocurement contracts leaves no question but that the reprocurement contractor, Quadra Graphics, 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 Notice of Filing, Mierson Declaration, Attachment 2. The Appellant does not allege otherwise. Both the Appellant and Quadra Graphics were asked to produce 605 copies of a 698-page loose-leaf book with covers, and one complete set of films for the Department of the Navy. Among other things, the original and reprocurement contracts described the same product in terms of trim size, paper weight and color, ink color, drill hole dimensions and spacing, and gave the same packing instructions to the contractor. Indeed, the only observable difference between the two contracts was the assignment of a new Jacket number (705-869) to the repurchase contract. Accordingly, the Board concludes that the Respondent has met the first condition for excess reprocurement costs, namely, showing that the second contract purchased the same or similar items, and was performed under substantially the same terms and conditions as the original contract. See 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 March 16, 1990. See Notice of Filing, Mierson Declaration, ¶ 4; R4 File, Tab U. The reprocurement contract was awarded to Quadra Graphics 18 days later, on April 3, 1990. See Notice of Filing, Mierson Declaration, ¶ 5, Attachment 2. 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 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 loose-leaf books. See 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 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, supra, 89-3 BCA at 110,425 (citing Techcraft Systems, VABCA Nos. 1894, 2027, 86-3 BCA ¶ 19,320); 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 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 103,067.3 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.4 See 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."5 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. Soliciting those firms which bid on the original procurement is one commonly used reprocurement method.6 See 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). Indeed, such a mitigation step is considered presumptively reasonable, even if the reprocurement price itself seems unreasonable. See 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). In this case, the Contracting Officer utilized the same small purchase procedures to reprocure the contract, as she had in making the initial award. See Notice of Filing, Mierson Declaration, ¶ 5; Attachment 3. Basically, as with the original contract, five (5) potential contractors were contacted for the reprocurement, and likewise two (2) offers were received, including one from Quadra Graphics, the second low bidder on the original contract. See Notice of Filing, Mierson Declaration, Attachment 3; R4 File, Tab B. See also Univex International, supra (July 31, 1995), slip op. at 3, fn. 4. 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 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 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.7 See 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 be $2,318.00 (Quadra Graphics' original bid of $16,736.00 minus the contract price of $14,418.00). See R4 File, Tabs A and B. However, in this case, the Contractor was actually assessed excess costs of $5,829.40 (the difference between the price paid to Quadra Graphics for the repurchased work-$20,282.08-and the Appellant's original bid after certain adjustments were made). See Notice of Filing, Jones Declaration,¶ 3. Therefore, the question is whether the extra $2,511.40 is a reasonable assessment under the circumstances. The Board believes that it is. First, even though Quadra Graphics' repurchase bid is 43 percent higher than the Appellant's winning bid on the original contract ($20,514.00 compared to $14,418.00), its original bid was already 16 percent greater. More importantly, however, Quadra Graphics' $20,514.00 bid is 16 percent lower than GMC's offer of $24,372.00-the next lowest reprocurement bid-and the closeness of the two reprocurement offers indicates a reasonable market price. See American Kal Enters, Inc., GSBCA No. 4449, 76-2 BCA ¶ 11,929. Second, while Quadra Graphics received the reprocurement contract at a price 23 percent higher than its bid on the original contract, the fact remains that the reprocurement award was made to second low bidder on the original procurement. See Great Northern Forestry Service, AGBCA 85-260-1, 90-2 BCA ¶ 22,668. Besides, 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 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. Third, this is not a situation where the reprocurement occurred shortly after the original award; i.e., nearly eight (8) months elapsed between the time the Appellant received the original contract (August 23, 1989) and the date Quadra Graphics was given the repurchase agreement (April 3, 1990). 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). Indeed, 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 $5,829.40,8 and in the absence of such a challenge the Government's cost assessment is presumed to be correct. 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 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 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 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) Quadra Graphics' reprocurement contract (Notice of Filing, Mierson Declaration, Attachment 2); (b) the Compliance Officer's memorandum, dated April 4, 1990, informing the FMS that the Appellant's defaulted contract had been reprocured for $20,514.00 and asking that the excess costs be charged to the Contractor (Notice of Filing, Mierson Declaration, Attachment 4); (c) a statement from FMS' Chief, Examination and Billing Branch, Procurement Accounting Division, that Quadra Graphics had been paid $20,282.08 for the completed work by Treasury Check No. 30,499,167 on June 20, 1990, and assessing $5,829.40 against the Appellant's as its excess cost obligation (Notice of Filing, Jones Declaration,¶ 3); and (d) a computer printout of the payment history for the repurchased job (Notice of Filing, Jones Declaration,¶ 4, Attachment). In the Board's view, this evidence is sufficient to prove that Quadra Graphics 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 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 that the Respondent has sustained is burden of proof with regard to the Appellant's liability for excess reprocurement costs. THEREFORE, the Government's assessment is hereby AFFIRMED, and the appeal is DENIED. It is so Ordered. July 5, 1996 STUART M. FOSS Administrative Judge _______________ 1 The Appellant challenged the Board's ruling on two grounds: (a) the Board's remand order violated the well-settled rule against acceptance of evidence after the record is settled; and (b) any remand should be equally available to the Appellant for the purpose of providing additional proof on its efforts to perform and on the Government's breach of its implied duty to cooperate. The Board agreed with the Contractor that, generally, absent unusual circumstances, evidence proffered for admission after the record has been settled is not be accepted. See Univex International, supra (February 7, 1996), slip op. at 11-12 (citing Goetz Demolition Co., ASBCA Nos. 40605, 41346, 93-2 BCA ¶ 25,886; Sunshine Cordage Corp., supra, 90-1 BCA ¶ 22,572; Scalf Engineering Co. & Pike County Construction Co., a Joint Venture, IBCA No. 2328, 89-3 BCA ¶ 21,950, reconsid. denied 89-3 BCA ¶ 22,221 (hereinafter Scalf Engineering); USD Technologies, Inc., ASBCA No. 31305, 87-2 BCA ¶ 19,680, aff'd 845 F.2d 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Jim Davis, AGBCA Nos. 86-103-1, 86-104-1, 86-1 BCA ¶ 18,634 (the rule applies equally to an appeal without a hearing); Sequal, Inc., ASBCA No. 29119, 85-3 BCA ¶ 18,366). Indeed, that principle is specifically incorporated in the Board Rules, see Board Rules, Rule 13(b), and has been applied by the Board in appropriate circumstances, see Professional Printing of Kansas, Inc., GPO BCA 02-93 (May 19, 1995), slip op. at 29, fn. 43, 1995 WL 488488; Sterling Printing, supra (July 5, 1994), slip. op. at 12. However, the Board also observed that by its terms, the rule operates only against a party who wishes to introduce additional evidence, and the Board is not a party to the litigation. See Univex International, supra (February 7, 1996), slip op. at 10 (citing Sterling Printing, supra (July 5, 1994) slip. op. at 6; Zinger Construction Co., Inc., GSBCA No. 11039-R, 92-3 BCA ¶ 25,039, at 124,815). In the Board's view, it had inherent power to reopen the record on its own, and when it remanded the matter to the Respondent for submission of additional evidence on the issue of excess reprocurement costs in this case, it was merely following a course already laid out by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. See Univex International, supra (February 7, 1996), slip op. at 10-11 (citing Marmac Industries, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 23590, 24029, 24502, 24503, 84-1 BCA ¶ 17,098, at 85,108). Accordingly, there was nothing in the Appellant's objection which would establish any error on the part of the Board so as to justify a reversal of its opinion. See Univex International, supra (February 7, 1996), slip op. at 11-12 (citing Sterling Printing, supra (July 5, 1994) slip op. at 5-6; Graphic Litho, Inc., GPO BCA 17-85 (September 30, 1988), Order Denying Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration, slip op. at 4-5; Castillo Printing Co., GPO BCA 10-90 (March 30, 1992), Decision on Motion for Reconsideration and Order, slip. op. at 7; Pennsylvania Printed Products, Inc., GPO BCA 29-87 (June 7, 1990), Order Denying Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, slip op. at 2-3). 2 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 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). 3 GPO procedures are consistent with the general practice in Government reprocurements. See Printing Procurement Regulation, GPO Publication 305.3 (Rev. 10-90), Chap. XIV, Sec. 1, ¶ 3.f.(2). 4 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. 5 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. 6 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 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). Basically, 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. See Dillon Tool Maintenance, Inc. v. United States, 218 Ct.Cl. 732 (1978); AAA Janitorial Services, ASBCA No. 9603, 67-1 BCA ¶ 6,091. 7 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. 8 In the principal decision in this case, the Board noted that the Contractor mistakenly believed that it was responsible for the entire amount of the repurchase contract, and that the maximum extent of its excess costs liability was nearer $5,685.72, which represented the difference between the Appellant's winning bid of $14,418.00 for the original contract and Quadra Graphics reprocurement offer of $20,103.72 (the $20,514.00 repurchase price less the 2 percent prompt payment discount). See Univex International, supra (July 31, 1995), slip op. at 35, fn. 33. As it turns out, the Respondent's excess costs assessment and the Board's estimate only differs by $143.68, or less than 3 percent-a de minimis amount in the context of this case.