U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS WASHINGTON, DC 20401 In the Matter of ) ) the Appeal of ) ) GRAPHICDATA, INC. ) Docket No. GPO BCA 35-94 Program D306-S ) Purchase Order 94586 ) DECISION ON PARTIAL MOTION AND CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ORDER I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE On March 10, 1995, GraphicData, Inc.(Appellant or Contractor), 528 Fellowship Road, Mt. Laurel, New Jersey 08054, filed a timely appeal from the final decision, dated February 28, 1995,1 of Contracting Officer Jack G. Marken of the U.S. Government Printing Office's (Respondent or GPO or Government), Printing Procurement Department, Washington, DC 20401, denying its equitable adjustment claim and request to reprice its contract, identified as Program D306-S, Purchase Order 94586 (R4 File, Tab W).2 Thereafter, on April 3, 1995, the Appellant filed a timely appeal from the final decision, dated March 15, 1995, of the Contracting Officer exercising the Government's option to extend the contract (R4 File, Exh. No. 2). Separate Complaints in these appeals were submitted to the Board on April 3, 1995. Board Rules, Rule 6(a). The Board has consolidated both Complaints into this single proceeding. On April 25, 1995, the Respondent filed a Consolidated Answer with the Board addressing both Complaints. Board Rules, Rule 6(b). On June 16, 1995, the Board conducted a presubmission conference in these appeals. Board Rules, Rule 10. The only merits issue discussed at the meeting concerned the Contracting Officer's denial of the Appellant's equitable adjustment claim,3 which according to the OIG's Audit Report, had ballooned to $710,380.00 (R4 File, Exh. No. 6).4 See RPC, at 2 (citing GPO Office of Inspector General, Audit of GraphicData, Inc.'s Equitable Adjustment Proposal for Term Contract Program D306-S, OIG Report No. 95-11, dated April 1995). A review of the Audit Report showed that the OIG had questioned the Appellant's entire claim "due to lack of support for increased costs claimed by the Contractor as a result of the Government change."5 Id. (citing OIG Memorandum, dated April 13, 1995, p. 3 (R4 File, Exh. No. 6)). Therefore, it was clear that a hearing was necessary, at which the Contractor would have the burden of establishing both its entitlement to and the amount of its equitable adjustment claim. See RPC, at 5 (citing Board Rules, Rules 8 and 17 through 25). Accordingly, the Board used the conference to establish a deadline for completion of discovery (November 30, 1995), and scheduled a hearing in the appeal for January 9, 1996. Id. On August 9, 1995, following a discovery conference the previous day,6 the Appellant submitted its First Amended Complaint relating solely to the equitable adjustment issue, its third such pleading in this case, and the second one dealing with the pricing question.7 Board Rules, Rule 7(b). The Government's Answer to First Amended Complaint was filed with the Board on August 10, 1995. Id. Subsequently, at the joint request of the parties the Board revised the discovery schedule and set a new hearing date of February 21, 1996. See Amendment to Scheduling Order, dated November 20, 1995. On November 22, 1995, the parties filed a document entitled "Stipulations Agreed to by Both Appellant and Respondent" (hereinafter Jt. Stip.) with the Board. Thereafter, on December 19, 1995, the Appellant submitted its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Entitlement Only (hereinafter Partial Motion), requesting that the Board hold it was entitled to payment of the amount claimed in its original Complaint and First Amended Complaint as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). See Partial Motion, at 2. The Government responded on January 5, 1996, by filing Respondent's Motion Regarding Scheduling (Scheduling Motion), informing the Board, inter alia, that GPO wished to submit a cross-motion for summary judgment and an opposition to the Partial Motion. Accordingly, the Respondent asked the Board to endorse its suggested time table for processing the parties' summary judgment motions, and furthermore to postpone the hearing scheduled for February 21, 1996, until the entitlement question was settled "in the interests of judicial economy."8 See Scheduling Motion, at 2. On January 16, 1996, the Board conducted a brief telephone conference with the parties on the matters raised in the Partial Motion and the Scheduling Motion. Board Rules, Rule 10. As a result of that meeting, the Board established a schedule under which: (1) the Respondent would file its cross- motion for summary judgment and opposition to the Partial Motion by January 22, 1996; (2) the Appellant would submit its opposition to the Government cross-motion for summary judgment, by February 2, 1996; (3) the Board would render its ruling on the entitlement issue by April 5, 1996; and (4) the hearing set for February 21, 1996, would be postponed until May 7, 1996. See Order Setting Time for Filing Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment and Rescheduling Hearing, dated January 23, 1996, at 2. On January 22, 1996, in accordance with that schedule, GPO filed three documents with the Board; i.e., Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and Respondent's Opposition to Appellant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (hereinafter Cross-Motion and Opposition), Respondent's Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Dispute (hereinafter Material Facts), and Respondent's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Appellant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Entitlement Only (hereinafter Points and Authorities). Thereafter, on February 1, 1996, the Contractor filed Appellant's Reply to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and Respondent's Opposition to Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Entitlement Only (hereinafter Appellant's Reply). Subsequently, on February 8, 1996, the Appellant submitted a Request for Leave to File Supplement to Appellant's Reply Brief (hereinafter Appellant's Leave Request), which is hereby granted by the Board. Board Rules, Rule 11. The Board has carefully assessed the positions of the parties' against the undisputed facts on the issue of entitlement, and for the reasons which follow the Partial Motion is GRANTED, and the Cross-Motion and Opposition is DENIED.9 II. BACKGROUND The relevant facts concerning the entitlement issue are essentially uncontroverted, and are set forth here as presented in the R4 File, the transcript of the jurisdictional hearing conducted by the Board on January 3, 1995,10 the Respondent's statement of Material Facts, and the stipulation of the parties.11 In that regard, it should be noted that while the stipulations describe the events in this case in their chronological sequence, the Board has reworded, combined or reformatted some stipulations for stylistic reasons, or changed their placement for smoother reading. However, in doing so the Board has been careful not to alter the content of the stipulations in any way. 1. On November 15, 1993, GPO issued a solicitation for Program D306-S, a single- award, "requirements" contract, involving the printing of issues of U.S. Patents, for the Department of Commerce (Commerce), U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) (hereinafter the November Solicitation). Jt. Stip., ¶ 1; Material Facts, ¶ 1. The contract was for the term of one (1) year, beginning on February 1, 1994, and ending on January 31, 1995. Id. 2. The bids for Program D306-S were opened by the Respondent on December 13, 1993, after which the Contracting Officer began the required pre-award evaluation of the low bidder's responsibility. Material Facts, ¶ 1 (citing Deposition of Mr. Richard A. Bawcombe) (hereinafter Bawcombe Deposition, at 33).12 See Printing Procurement Regulation, GPO Publication 305.3 (Rev. 10-90), Chap. XI, Sec. 1 (hereinafter PPR). 3. While the Contracting Officer was engaged in this review, and before the contract was awarded, the PTO formulated a plan to substitute CD-ROM versions of patents for the paper or microfilm copies it had been distributing to certain foreign countries. Material Facts, ¶ 2. The expected impact on Program D306-S from this substitution program was a reduction in the number of sets of printed patents purchased thereunder. Id. 4. On March 7, 1994, the PTO orally informed the Respondent of the expected decrease in its need for printed patents caused by the substitution of CD-ROM patents. Jt. Stip., ¶ 5; Material Facts, ¶ 3. On that same day, the PTO also transferred $150,000.00 to Commerce's National Technical Information Service (NTIS) to cover the cost of mastering and replicating the PTO's prototype CD-ROMs for United States patents (hereinafter USAPat CD-ROMs).13 Jt. Stip., ¶ 6; Material Facts, p. 1, fn. 3. Four days later, on March 11, 1994, representatives of the PTO met with the Contracting Officer and discussed the expected decrease in PTO's needs for printed patents in light of the new CD-ROM program. Jt. Stip., ¶ 7; Material Facts, ¶ 3 5. On March 16, 1994, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks signed a document entitled "Notice to Intellectual Property Offices Having Patent Document Exchange Assignments With the US PTO" (hereinafter the Notice), which was sent to all countries with which the United States had an agreement to exchange paper or microfilm copies of patent documents. Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 2, 3; Material Facts, ¶ 4. The Notice stated that effective October 1, 1994, the United States would substitute CD-ROM patent documents for those currently provided in paper or microfilm under exchange agreements. Jt. Stip., ¶ 4; Material Facts, ¶ 4. However, the Notice also provided that, on request, the PTO would continue to furnish one (1) paper set of United States patents to any foreign Intellectual Property Office which maintained a classified paper search file, and continued to offer at least one (1) paper set of their patent documents to the PTO. Id. 6. On March 21, 1994, the PTO's prototype "USAPat CD-ROMs" were shipped to foreign countries. Jt. Stip., ¶ 8; Material Facts, p. 1, fn. 3, ¶ 5. 7. On March 22, 1994, Bawcombe wrote to Contracting Officer Weiss, advising him that the date established for the reduction of printed copies because of the CD-ROM changeover (October 1, 1994) "cannot be delayed." Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 9, 12; Material Facts, ¶ 5. Accordingly, that same day, the GPO canceled the November Solicitation because of "extensive changes in the estimated requirements," a reference to, in significant part, the reductions in printed copies of patents anticipated as a result of the substitution of CD-ROMs for paper copies. Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 10, 11. In that regard, from a survey of its customer base, the PTO determined the seven (7) countries had systems that could use CD-ROMs, and it estimated that a total of twelve (12) sets of paper copies could be eliminated by the conversion of patents to an electronic format, i.e., four (4) sets for Germany; two (2) sets each for Great Britain and Sweden; and one (1) set each for the Russian Federation, Austria, the People's Republic of China, and Denmark.14 Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 12,13; Material Facts, p. 3, fn. 4, ¶ 5. Consequently, on April 1, 1994, Mr. Tom Koontz of the PTO telecopied revised patent printing contract numbers to Ms. Karen Biehl of the GPO reflecting a reduction of twelve (12) printed sets. Jt. Stip., ¶ 15; Material Facts, ¶ 6. 8. By letters dated April 7, 1994, April 15, 1994, and May 26, 1994, respectively, the Patent Offices of Austria, Denmark, and the People's Republic of China wrote to the PTO supporting the conversion policy and stating their readiness to receive a CD-ROM set of patents.15 Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 16, 25, 52; Material Facts, ¶ 10. 9. However, the remaining targeted countries were not at all pleased by the PTO's plan to substitute CD-ROM sets of patents for paper sets. Thus, for example, on April 11, 1994, Mr. Hubert Rothe, Head of Industrial Property Information Section, Office of the President of German Patents, responded to the March 16, 1994, Notice with a facsimile transmission to Mr. Robert Saifer, the exchange coordinator in the PTO's Office of Search and Information Resources (OSIR), stating that the German Patent Office could not terminate the maintenance of its paper patent collections before the year 2002. Jt. Stip., ¶ 19; Material Facts, ¶ 10. In fact, Rothe even asked whether Germany could receive additional paper collections besides the one set the PTO proposed to provide, and requested the price for such extra sets. Id. 10. Likewise, on May 9, 1994, Mr. William Lawson, Administrator of the OSIR, received a letter from Mr. David J. Burford, Principal Examiner, British Patent Office (BPO), responding to the Notice, and stating that the PTO's proposed reduction in paper sets would greatly increase the BPO's photocopying load. Jt. Stip., ¶ 44; Material Facts, ¶ 10. Accordingly, Burford requested that the PTO reconsider the policy expressed in the Notice of reducing paper sets by substituting CD-ROMs, and if not the policy, then the time frame over which any changes would be introduced. Jt. Stip., ¶ 45. 11. Similarly, by letter dated May 11, 1994, and received by the PTO on May 31, 1994, the Director of the Russian Patent Office sent a letter to Lawson saying that their office was not ready to operate CD-ROM discs at the present time. Jt. Stip., ¶ 46; Material Facts, ¶ 10. Russia also asked the PTO to continue to supply "the former number of paper copies" of United States patents. Jt. Stip., ¶ 46. 12. In addition, even though Switzerland was not one of the countries slated to receive a CD-ROM set of patents, on April 8, 1994, Mr. V. Candolfi, of the Swiss Federal Intellectual Property Office (SFIPO), Patent Information Section, also responded to the Notice with a letter to Mr. William Lawson at the PTO stating that United States patent documents constituted an essential part of the Swiss classified search file, and that since the SFIPO could not produce all of the paper copies needed to maintain the search file from CD-ROMs, it would "not give up the paper set of [United States] patents" it was then receiving. Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 17, 18; Material Facts, ¶ 10. Furthermore, Candolfi asked the PTO to continue to provide the Swiss with one (1) paper set of United States documents. Jt. Stip., ¶ 18. 13. Furthermore, the record shows that the above concerns of Germany, Great Britain, and Sweden were also conveyed by representatives of those countries to Saifer at a meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization, Permanent Committee for Industrial Property Information,(hereinafter WIPO/PCIPI) Ad Hoc Working Group on General Information, in Geneva, Switzerland between April 18-22, 1994.16 Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 29-32; Material Facts, ¶ 10. In a nutshell, all three countries repeated that they were very disturbed about PTO's new policy of substituting CD-ROM sets of United States patents for the paper sets they were receiving, and expressed their displeasure at the prospect of surrendering their paper sets. Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 30-32; Material Facts, ¶ 10. 14. In the interim, on April 11, 1994, the GPO issued a new solicitation for Program D306-S to cover a term beginning on June 1, 1994, and ending February 28, 1995 (hereinafter the April Solicitation). Jt. Stip., ¶ 20; Material Facts, ¶ 7; R4 File, Tab A. Among other things, the April Solicitation stated, in pertinent part: SECTION 1.-GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS GPO CONTRACT TERMS: Any contract which results from this Invitation for Bid will be subject to the applicable provisions, clauses, and supplemental specifications of GPO Contract Terms (GPO Pub. 310.2, effective December 1, 1987 (Rev. 9-88) and GPO Contract Terms, Quality Assurance Through Attributes Program (GPO Pub. 310.1, effective May 1979 (revised November 1989).17 * * * * * * * * * * REQUIREMENTS: This is a requirements contract for the items and for the period specified herein. Shipment/delivery of items or performance of work shall be made only as authorized by orders issued in accordance with the clause entitled "Ordering". The quantities of items specified herein are estimates only, and are not purchased hereby. Except as may be otherwise provided in this contract, if the Government's requirements for the items set forth herein do not result in orders in the amounts or quantities described as "estimated", it shall not constitute the basis for an equitable price adjustment under this contract. Except as otherwise provided in this contract, the Government shall order from the contractor all the items set forth which are required to be purchased by the Government activity identified on page 1 [PTO]. The Government shall not be required to purchase from the contractor, requirements in excess of the limit on total orders under this contract, if any. * * * * * * * * * * SECTION 2.-SPECIFICATIONS SCOPE: These specifications cover the production of issues of U.S. Patents, requiring such operations as making reproducibles, printing/imaging, gathering, binding, packaging, mailing and distribution. The complex, timely distribution of high quality completely accurate sets of each issued patent, and the proper mailing and distribution thereof must be clearly recognized as a difficult and vital mandatory requirement of this contract. * * * * * * * * * * NUMBER OF ORDERS: It is anticipated at this time that print orders will be placed on a weekly basis. QUANTITY: It is the intention of the Government to have a contract in place that can meet the maximum weekly production requirements stated herein, yet at the same time freely admit that due to the nature of the product to be procured, it is impossible for the Government to state with any degree of accuracy the number of patents that will be required each year. The Government has no control over, nor can they accurately project actual long or short term requirements for this contract. The projected production quantities stated are based on historical data, projections and trends and should not be construed as a guarantee of the volume of work which may be ordered during the term of this contract. Contract requirements have been known to fluctuate greatly over short period of time. ******************************************************* NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS: All contractors planning to bid on this solicitation are put on notice that beginning on October 1, 1994[,] the [PTO] will be offering to supply U.S. Patents sets to their customers on CD-Rom [sic] rather than on paper. The basis of award figures offered in this solicitation were compiled utilizing two time periods. The first time period used was from the beginning of this contract (June 1, 1994) through September 12, 1994. The second period is from September 12, 1994 (the time the change-over to CD-ROM would go into effect), through the end of the contract. At this time it is unknown EXACTLY how many customers will request the change-over to CD-ROM, but based on the [PTO's] knowledge of their customers present capabilities, they anticipate that as many as 25 customers now receiving paper sets will switch to CD-ROM. The basis of award figures compiled for the second time period reflects the 25 set drop. Therefore, all contractors planning to submit bids on this procurement are put on notice that the required quantities stated in the specifications are the projected quantities anticipated at this time. These quantities, which are the Government's best estimates at this time, could change significantly during the term of the contract. Contractors bidding on this Program must do so with the knowledge that: the estimated quantities stated in the "Determination of Award" may be significantly reduced even further as customers switch to CD-ROM; and, the Government WILL NOT renegotiate any pricing due to these reductions.18 ******************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * SECTION 3.-DETERMINATION OF AWARD The Government will determine the lowest bid by applying the prices offered in the "Schedule of Prices" to the following units of production which are the estimated requirements to produce eight months' orders under this contract. These units do not constitute, nor are they to be construed as, a guarantee of the volume of work which may be ordered for a like period of time. * * * * * * * * * * NOTICE: CONTRACTORS INTENDING TO SUBMIT BIDS ON THIS PROGRAM ARE INSTRUCTED TO READ "NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR" ON PAGE 13 OF 30 PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF THEIR BID. The following item designations correspond to those listed in the "Schedule of Prices". I. PRINTING AND BINDING PATENTS (Excluding Design Patents): (1) (2) (3) (4) a. 37,792 172,906 426,709 1,936,304 b. 100 100 1,373 1,000 c. 464,327 3,327,164 213,427 1,824,352 II. DESIGN PATENTS PRINTING AND BINDING: (a) 32,372 III. DEDICATIONS, DISCLAIMERS, ADVERSE DECISIONS, AND SPECIAL CERTIFICATES: (a) 10,239 IV. CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION: (a) 1,351,133 V. GATHERING, COLLATING, BINDING, PACKING, AND DISTRIBUTION: 1.(a) 902 4. 20,272 (b) 3,230 5. 486 2. 53,056 6. 11,149 3. 10,597 VI. PAPER: (a) 16,723 (b) 8,605 See R4 File, Tab A, pp. 11, 13, 26. [Emphasis added.] See also Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 21-23; Material Facts, p. 4, fn. 5, ¶ 7. 15. The time and date established by the April Solicitation for the opening of bids from potential contractors was "11:00 a.m., prevailing Washington, D.C. time, on May 5, 1994." See R4 File, Tab A, p. 1. 16. Three days before bid opening, on May 2, 1994, the first regular issuance of USAPat CD-ROMs was mailed to foreign countries. Jt. Stip., ¶ 33; Material Facts, p. 1, fn. 3. 17. On May 3, 1994, two days before bid opening, the Appellant submitted a protest to GPO regarding the April Solicitation, asserting that it failed to estimate printing requirements separately for each of the two time periods in the contract. Jt. Stip., ¶ 34; Material Facts, ¶ 8. 18. Accordingly, on May 4, 1994, the Respondent issued Amendment No. 2 to the April Solicitation. Jt. Stip., ¶ 36; Material Facts, ¶ 9; R4 File, Tab A. The sole purpose of Amendment No. 2 was to divide production under the contract into two distinct production periods-the first from June 1, 1994, through August 1, 1994, and the second from August 2, 1994 to February 28, 1995-and to separately estimate the production requirements for each of them. Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 37, 38; Material Facts, ¶ 9; R4 File, Tab A. The difference between the two production periods was that all of the patent sets distributed to foreign countries in the first one were to be paper sets, while the second period involved the dissemination of patents in CD-ROM format and an expected decrease in the number of paper patent sets printed. Material Facts, p. 4, fn. 5. Furthermore, Amendment No. 2 amended the "NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS" in the April Solicitation by adding the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph: "Printed Orders issued after August 1, 1994, must be invoiced under pricing for production period two in the Schedule of Prices." See R4 File, Tab A, Amendment No. 2, p. 1. 19. As revised, the estimated production requirements for Program D306-S were as follows: FIRST PRODUCTION PERIOD (June 1, 1994 through August 1, 1994) I. PRINTING AND BINDING PATENTS (Excluding Design Patents): (1) (2) (3) (4) a. 7,858 67,073 88,724 753,986 b. 20 20 290 125 c. 96,545 691,802 44,377 379,329 II. DESIGN PATENTS PRINTING AND BINDING: (a) 6,731 III. DEDICATIONS, DISCLAIMERS, ADVERSE DECISIONS, AND SPECIAL CERTIFICATES: (a) 2,829 IV. CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION: (a) 448,197 V. GATHERING, COLLATING, BINDING, PACKING, AND DISTRIBUTION: 1.(a) 344 4. 7,731 (b) 272 5. 100 2. 10,883 6. 3,082 3. 4,041 VI. PAPER: (a) 5,558 (b) 1,789 SECOND PRODUCTION PERIOD (August 2, 1994 through February 28, 1995) I. PRINTING AND BINDING PATENTS (Excluding Design Patents): (1) (2) (3) (4) a. 29,934 105,833 337,985 1,182,318 b. 80 80 1,083 875 c. 367,782 2,635,362 169,050 1,445,023 II. DESIGN PATENTS PRINTING AND BINDING: (a) 25,641 III. DEDICATIONS, DISCLAIMERS, ADVERSE DECISIONS, AND SPECIAL CERTIFICATES: (a) 7,410 IV. CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION: (a) 902,936 V. GATHERING, COLLATING, BINDING, PACKING, AND DISTRIBUTION: 1.(a) 558 4. 12,541 (b) 2,958 5. 386 2. 42,173 6. 8,067 3. 6,556 VI. PAPER: (a) 11,165 (b) 6,816 See R4 File, Tab A, Amendment No. 2, pp. 1-2. 20. In summary, as now amended, the April Solicitation estimated: (a) 9,728,285 impressions for the first production period, or a monthly average of 4,864,142.5; and (b) 19,411,385 impressions for the second production period, or a monthly average of 2,773,055 impressions. Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 39, 40. Stated otherwise, the revised April Solicitation indicated that between the first and second production period monthly impressions were scheduled to decrease by 2,091,087.5, or 42 percent. Jt. Stip., ¶ 41. 21. Since Amendment No. 2 resolved the concerns of the Appellant regarding the April Solicitation, as originally issued, it withdrew its protest. Material Facts, ¶ 9. 22. After Amendment No. 2 was issued, but before the contract was awarded, the PTO continued to receive complaints from foreign governments about its new CD-ROM policy. In that regard, the record shows that Saifer attended Executive Committee meetings of the WIPO/PCIPI in Geneva, Switzerland between May 13-20, 1994, where representatives of the patent offices of Great Britain, Sweden,19 and the Russian Federation repeated their opposition to the PTO's conversion of patent sets from paper to CD-ROMs, and again expressed their displeasure at the prospect of losing paper sets of United States patents. Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 47-50; Material Facts, ¶ 10. 23. On May 20, 1994, GPO issued Purchase Order 94586 to the Appellant, awarding it the contract based on the April Solicitation, as amended.20 Jt. Stip., ¶ 51; Material Facts, ¶ 11; R4 File, Tab D. At the time the contract was awarded, both the PTO's OPP, which would issue the print orders, and GPO's Contracting Officer were unaware of the responses which the customer-agency had been receiving from foreign patent offices about the new CD-ROM policy. Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 54-55; Material Facts, ¶¶ 14, 16. 24. The record discloses that on May 31, 1994, after his return from the WIPO/PCIPI meeting, Saifer apparently decided that because of the adverse reactions to the new CD-ROM policy expressed by the foreign patent offices in Geneva, Switzerland, he would recommend a relaxation of that program to his supervisor. Material Facts, ¶ 13 (citing Saifer Deposition, at 114, 120-21). Accordingly, on June 27, 1994, he met with Bawcombe and Lawson, as well as other interested PTO officials to discuss the CD-ROM policy. Material Facts, ¶ 14 (citing Saifer Deposition, at 125). At this meeting, representatives of the OPP heard about the unfavorable responses from the foreign patent offices for the first time. Jt. Stip., ¶ 54; Material Facts, ¶ 14. The record indicates that the consensus at the meeting was that the PTO probably should modify the CD-ROM dissemination program. Material Facts, ¶ 14 (citing Saifer Deposition, at 125-26). 25. On July 7, 1994, Lawson orally advised Bawcombe that the PTO might decide to change its policy regarding the substitution of CD-ROM for paper sets. Jt. Stip., ¶ 56;21 Material Facts, ¶ 15. Accordingly, that same day, Bawcombe wrote a memorandum to Mr. Robert G. Cox, the Superintendent, of GPO's Departmental Account Representative Division, stating, in pertinent part: We have been advised by Mr. William Lawson, Administrator of the Search & Information Resources Office, that information previously provided to this Office regarding PTO's policy for the distribution of patent issues on CD-ROM has been rescinded.22 As a result, the patent printer, GraphicData, Inc. must continue with the present print volumes until further notice. . . . See R4 File, Tab E. See also Jt. Stip., ¶ 57; Material Facts, ¶ 15. This correspondence was the first notification the Respondent had that foreign patent offices were not responding favorably to the PTO's CD-ROM policy. Jt. Stip., ¶ 55; Material Facts, ¶ 16. 26. GPO promptly informed the Appellant that the PTO's CD- ROM policy had changed and that the customer agency's printing needs were now different. Material Facts, ¶ 17; R4 File, Tabs G, H, I and J. In that regard, the record discloses that between July 11, 1994, and July 14, 1994, the Respondent sent revised contract estimates to the Contractor for its review. R4 File, Tab H. In response, on July 15, 1994, the Appellant's President, Mr. Kenneth Margulies, wrote to Contracting Officer Weiss, stating, in pertinent part: The data detailed in "Contract Estimates" sheets faxed to me from 7/11/94 through 7/14/94, have been thoroughly evaluated. It is obvious that the schedule of prices submitted in our bid to perform the requirements of Program D306-S, dated 5/11/94, is not appropriate to the significant changes now planned in production and printing. These changes will require a contract modification. See R4 File, Tab H.23 27. Thereafter, on July 12, 1994, an employee of the OPP, Lois Grooms, sent Cox further information regarding the PTO's re-examination of its CD-ROM policy. See R4 File, Tab F. In her covering memorandum, Grooms stated, in pertinent part: This memo transmits the package of information received from Mr. William Lawson on July 8, 1994, which postpones indefinitely the policy to distribute patent issues on CD-ROM. The PTO Executive Committee is studying the alternatives suggested by Mr. Lawson, and GPO will be informed of that decision upon its issuance. Id. [Emphasis added.] 28. This written and oral exchange between the parties was summarized by Contracting Officer Weiss in a letter, dated July 21, 1994, which he wrote to Margulies, in which he stated: This will confirm our telephone conversation of July 11, 1994, in which I notified you of a change in the stated requirements for Program D306-S. When this program was originally solicited, it was anticipated that the production requirements would be drastically reduced after September 13, 1994. The Government Printing Office has recently been informed by the Patent and Trademark Office, that the reduction in production quantities they were projecting, due to their switch to the distribution of patents on CD-ROM, will not occur within their original schedule. They have further informed the GPO that this plan has been postponed indefinitely, pending resolution of certain international policy issues. As a result of this schedule change, the present print volumes will continue until further notice. These projected volumes were faxed to you on July 13, 1994. You are instructed to invoice for work performed in accordance with the prices listed in the current Schedule of Prices. If due to the above stated change, GraphicData, Inc. believes they are entitled to additional compensation, they should submit their request together with all evidence such as original worksheets, and data used in preparing the bid, published price lists, subcontractors' or suppliers' quotations if any, or any other supporting documentation, which will help to support their proposal for adjustment. This proposal for adjustment is to be submitted within 30 days from the date of receipt of this notification. See R4 File, Tab J. See also R4 File, Tab G. 29. The PTO's decision to postpone its policy of substituting CD-ROM patent sets for paper sets had an immediate impact on the Appellant's production planning. Specifically, the record shows that instead of producing a reduced number of patents during the second production period (August 2, 1994 through February 28, 1995), the Contractor had to perform at approximately the same rate as it had in the first production period (June 1, 1994 through August 1, 1994), or about at the same pace it performed under the previous contract. Material Facts, ¶ 17 (citing Tr. 28-29, 55). Thus, after the changes were ordered by GPO in July 1994, the Appellant's monthly impressions under the contract for the second production increased from the 2,773,055 forecast in the April Solicitation to 5,448,489. Jt. Stip., ¶ 43. Although the April Solicitation had told the Contractor to expect a 42 percent decrease in the number of monthly impressions during the second production period, instead the changes resulted in additional impressions (2,675,434 per month) amounting to a production increase of 96.4 percent. Id. This increase in the number of monthly impressions was reflected in the figure for total impressions, which increased to 38,139,425, or 5,448,489.29 per month, in the second production period. Jt. Stip., ¶ 42. 30. In the meantime, on July 8, 1994, Lawson sent Bawcombe a memorandum which stated that "there may be a delay in the planned reductions in the number of sets of each weekly issue of US Patents printed." Jt. Stip, ¶ 59; Material Facts, ¶ 18. Lawson's memorandum also said that the PTO had not made a decision to change the policy in the Notice of March 16, 1994, but rather set forth "possible outcomes," including the decision to proceed as then currently planned. Id. 31. On July 15, 1994, Lawson sent a memorandum to Michael Kirk, Deputy Commissioner of Patents, through channels, asking him to review the patent exchange policy promulgated in the Notice of March 16, 1994. In his memorandum, Lawson listed three (3) options: (a) implement the CD-ROM policy without change; (b) make ad hoc accommodations based on the needs or complaints of individual countries; and (c) suspend implementation of the policy for one (1) year, plus offer extra patent sets and certain CD-ROM enhancements at marginal cost. Jt. Stip., ¶ 60; Material Facts, ¶ 19. 32. Lawson's memorandum and recommendations of July 15, 1994, were considered by the PTO's Business Council at a meeting on August 1, 1994. Jt. Stip., ¶ 61; Material Facts, ¶ 20. As a result of the meeting, the Business Council decided to recommend the third option (suspension of the CD-ROM policy for one (1) year) to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, who was the only official in the PTO authorized to change the CD-ROM policy. Id. 33. The Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks accepted the Business Council's recommendation. Accordingly, on September 7, 1994, the Commissioner wrote to countries having patent exchange agreements with the United States, stating that implementation of the CD-ROM policy announced in the Notice of March 16, 1994, would be suspended for at least one year. Jt. Stip, ¶ 62; Material Facts, ¶ 20. The Commissioner's letter was the first official notification to the United States' exchange partners of the PTO's decision to postpone the previously announced policy of substituting CD-ROMs for paper sets of patents. Jt. Stip, ¶ 63; Material Facts, ¶ 20. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES24 A. Appellant's Partial Motion The Appellant's challenge to the Respondent's denial of its equitable adjustment claim is fairly straightforward and conventional, and its principal argument is a common one where "requirements" contracts are in dispute. In that regard, the Contractor fixes the blame for its financial loss squarely on the contract's estimates of work, which it relied on in bidding the job, and argues that they were negligently prepared by the Government, without due care, and as a result, recovery is justified in this case as a matter of law.25 Partial Motion, at 12-32; Appellant's Reply, at 11-17. However, the Appellant also contends, in the alternative, that the undisputed facts will support additional compensation based on either a "mutual mistake" or "constructive change" theory as well. Partial Motion, at 32-35; Appellant's Reply, at 3-11, 18-21. The Contractor's main argument is rooted in the well-settled principle relating to "requirements contracts" which holds that contractors who submit bids in reliance on negligently prepared and incorrect estimates of work in the solicitation are entitled to an equitable adjustment. Partial Motion, at 12; Appellant's Reply, at 11-13. In order for a contractor to recover, it must be shown that the estimates of requirements were prepared negligently, that the bidder relied on those estimates, and that actual performance significantly differed from the solicitation's estimates. Partial Motion, at 13-14 (citing Crown Laundry and Dry Cleaners, Inc. v. United States, 29 Fed. Cl. 506 (1993) (hereinafter Crown Laundry); Chemical Technology, Inc. v. United States, 645 F.2d 934, 227 Ct. Cl. 120 (1981); Womack v. United States, 389 F.2d 793, 182 Ct. Cl. 399 (1968) (hereinafter Womack); Contract Management, Inc., supra; Pruitt Energy Sources, Inc., ENGBCA No. 6134, 95-2 BCA ¶ 27,840; Atlantic Garages, Inc., GSBCA No. 5891, 82-1 BCA ¶ 15,479; Integrity Management, Inc., ASBCA No. 18289, 75-2 BCA ¶ 11,602).26 In effect, the rule means that Government must make a diligent effort to obtain all reasonably available information, take that data into account, and use it in developing its contract work estimates. Partial Motion, at 14; Appellant's Reply, at 11-13. As the Appellant observes, the Board has declared itself bound by the "negligent estimates" doctrine, and has indicated that it will apply the principle to GPO contracts, as appropriate. Partial Motion, at 14-16 (citing McDonald & Eudy Printers, Inc., GPOBCA 40-92 (January 31, 1994), 1994 WL 275096; Shepard Printing, GPOBCA 37-92 (January 28, 1994), 1994 WL 275077 (relying on AGS- Genesys Corp., ASBCA No. 35302, 89-2 BCA ¶ 21,702). Likewise, the Contractor notes that the General Accounting Office (GAO), another Legislative Branch entity, adheres to a version of this rule in administering its dual roles as adjudicator of bid protests and settler of claims against the Government; i.e., proof of negligent estimates will sustain a protest or permit recovery on a claim. Partial Motion, at 16-17 (citing Gibson & Cushman Dredging Corp., B-194902, 80-1 CPD ¶ 122 (February 12, 1980); Kleen-Rite Corp., B-182266, 75-1 CPD ¶ 190 (April 1, 1975); Lone Star Energy Co., B-199049.2, 83-1 CPD ¶ 6 (January 4, 1983); Input Data, B-179809, 74-1 CPD ¶ 87 (February 21, 1974); B-176750 (March 27, 1973); B-174345 (October 17, 1972); B-173356 (September 27, 1971); B-179037 (May 4, 1970)). Indeed, the Contractor says that GAO believes that the discovery of negligent estimates justifies canceling the solicitation and readvertising the work with the correct figures. Partial Motion, at 18 (citing Heritage Reporting Corp., B-248860, 92-2 CPD ¶ 276 (October 23, 1992); Air Life, Inc., B-214823, 84-2 CPD ¶ 478 (October 30, 1984)). The Appellant asserts that the undisputed facts in this case cry out for application of the rule. The crux of the Contractor's position that the contract estimates were faulty derives from its belief that the Government agencies involved in the procurement-GPO and the PTO-negligently failed to factor in the known foreign opposition to the CD-ROM substitution policy, an essential ingredient of the solicitation, resulting in estimates for the second production period which were artificially and significantly low. Partial Motion, at 18-20; Appellant's Reply, at 11-12. Stated otherwise, the Appellant believes that the Government's negligence is to be found in the fact that both GPO and the PTO prepared estimates for the solicitation which they knew were inadequate because the figures did not reflect the latest information available to them. Partial Motion, at 18-19; Appellant's Reply, at 11. In that regard, the Contractor says that the negligent behavior of GPO and the PTO in effect nullified the terms of the contract itself, especially the "Notice to All Contractors," which virtually announced to all potential bidders that they should expect a decline in patent orders once the CD-ROM policy was implemented, but instead, without any prior forecast or warning, total monthly impressions for the second production period actually increased by 96 percent.27 Partial Motion, at 20-21, 28 (citing R4 File, Tab A, at 13; Jt. Stip., ¶ 43). The Appellant notes that the size of the opposition immediately prior to the date of award-countries slated to receive eight (8) of the twelve (12) CD-ROM sets, or 66_ percent (eventually reaching nine (9) of twelve (12), or 75 percent), were absolutely hostile to the idea-should have placed the PTO on notice that the CD-ROM portion of the contract was in jeopardy and most likely would change. Partial Motion, at 21- 23 (citing Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 19, 29-32, 44, 47-51; Saifer Deposition, at 10, 114); Appellant's Reply, at 12- 13. Since the PTO was sensitive to foreign concerns, and had an interest in promoting comity in the international patent community, it knew "realistically" prior to the contract award date that the CD-ROM policy would be modified, but nonetheless delayed forty-seven (47) days to make GPO aware of the situation.28 Partial Motion, at 23-26 (citing Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 55-58. Saifer Deposition, at 22; Lawson Deposition, 23-24, 40, 43); Appellant's Reply, at 11-12, 14. Indeed, the Appellant believes that the PTO simply compounded its own negligence by the dilatory way in which the ultimate decision to suspend the CD-ROM substitution program was processed through agency channels, i.e., from July 7, 1994, when GPO was notified that the printing of paper sets of patents would not be reduced during the second production period, to September 7, 1994, when the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks approved the staff recommendation to suspend the policy and the foreign governments were notified of the fact, an additional sixty (60) days elapsed. Partial Motion, at 24- 26 (citing Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 55-60, 62-63). The Contractor says that its injury arises from the fact that it relied on the erroneous estimates in the solicitation in preparing its bid. Partial Motion, at 29. Thus, the Appellant figured that it would only take half of the resources of the first production period, in terms of staff, machinery, paper, etc., to print patents in the second production period, and its bid reflected that fact. Partial Motion, at 29-30 (citing Tr. 28-29). However, instead of printing less patents in the second period, the postponement of the CD-ROM program meant that the Contractor was expected to print patents at nearly double the rate shown in the solicitation estimate for the second production period. Partial Motion, at 30-31 (citing Tr. 55-57). Consequently, when the PTO's CD-ROM plan evaporated, the Appellant was compelled to employ more resources in the second period than it had contemplated in its bid in order to maintain the same pace of production. Id. Accordingly, the Contractor asserts that since the Government ignored the known adverse foreign reactions to the CD-ROM program in estimating the second period level of work when it should have reasonably suspected that the policy would be canceled, and as the Appellant was induced to lower its bid for second period work based on those erroneous estimates, the conclusion is warranted that the Government's negligent estimating was the proximate cause of the Contractor's increased expenditures and it should be held accountable. Partial Motion, at 29, 32, 36; Appellant's Reply, at 17. Secondly, the Appellant contends that the parties made a "mutual mistake" of fact regarding the estimated quantity of work, and the contract should be reformed to reflect the actual situation since it relied upon those figures in bidding. Partial Motion, at 32. The Contractor says that in this instance reformation, an equitable remedy sanctioned by law, is appropriate because the actual facts encountered in performance of the contract have caused it specific hardship, and it is only fair that each party bear a portion of the unexpected costs. Partial Motion, at 33. In that regard, the Appellant believes that the principles of National Presto Industries, Inc. v. United States, 167 Ct. Cl. 749, 338 F.2d 99 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 962 (1965) (hereinafter National Presto Industries), are applicable in this case because the mistake of fact was mutual, the contract failed to allocate the risk to either party, the Government obtained work that it needed, and the parties would have agreed to a higher price had the true facts been known at the time of the bid. Partial Motion, at 33-34. Finally, the Contractor asserts that an equitable adjustment is appropriate under the "Changes" clause, because the cancellation of the CD-ROM program and ensuing extraordinary increase in the printing requirements for the second production period was tantamount to a "constructive change" in the contract. Partial Motion, at 34; Appellant's Reply, at 3. See GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 4 (Changes). The Appellant argues that the change in work estimates made by the Contracting Officer for the second period, more than doubled the expected volume of printing, and amounted to "excess orders" for this "requirements" contract which were not reasonably related to the estimates in the solicitation.29 Partial Motion, at 35 (citing Allied Paint Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. United States, 470 F.2d 556, 200 Ct. Cl. 313 (1972)). Indeed, the Contractor says it was surprised by GPO's action because it was totally at odds with both the original printing estimates and the Government's excellent forecasts of anticipated workloads in past contracts for this type of work.30 Id. Furthermore, while the Appellant acknowledges the general rule, advanced by GPO, that a deviation from estimated quantities in a "requirements" contract is not usually considered a compensable change, see Points and Authorities, at 1, 20-22, it states that Respondent has ignored substantial case precedent which holds that altering or modifying the method used to fulfill the Government's requirements is a change entitling the contractor to an equitable adjustment for its increased costs. Appellant's Reply, at 3-10 (citing Alamo Automotive Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 9713, 1964 BCA ¶ 4,354; Escalante Garden Apartments, Inc., ASBCA No. 10287, 65-2 BCA ¶ 5,125; Del Rio Flying Service, ASBCA No. 15487, 71-1 BCA ¶ 8,744; Maya Transit Co., ASBCA No. 20186, 75-2 BCA ¶ 11,552; California Bus Lines, ASBCA No. 19732, 75-2 BCA ¶ 11,601; California Bus Lines, ASBCA No. 19751, 76-1 BCA ¶ 11,655; Desco Service Contractors, ASBCA No. 21856, 77-2 BCA ¶ 12752; Raytheon Service Co., GSBCA No. 5264, 82-1 BCA ¶ 15,546; Gemsco v. United States, 115 Ct. Cl. 209 (1950)). The alteration or modification made in this case was the Government's decision to cancel the solicitation's CD-ROM substitution program and instead to continue to print patents, which had a "disastrous effect" on the Appellant by forcing it to produce patents at an unexpectedly high volume in the second production period. Appellant's Reply, at 4-5. Thus, while the central objective of the contract-satisfying the PTO's requirements for the production of patents-was unchanged, a specified and essential mechanism for fulfilling those needs did change-the CD-ROM substitution program. Appellant's Reply, at 10-11. Since the Appellant's bid for the second production period was based on the solicitation's work estimates predicated on the implementation of the CD-ROM plan, the Government's decision not to use CD-ROMs was an ipso facto change in the contract methodology from that announced in the solicitation, which entitled the Contractor to reimbursement for its increased costs under a "constructive change" theory. Appellant's Reply, at 11. Moreover, the Appellant says that a "constructive change" is also proved by simply applying the rules of contract construction which show that while it assumed the risk of any changes which might occur from variations in the production of printed patents, the risks associated with the CD-ROM substitution program, a integral (but as it turned out invalid) ingredient of the contract, were absorbed by the Government because contractors were only warned in the solicitation about additional reductions in printed quantities from the use of CD-ROMs, and nothing was said about large increases in printed copies if the CD-ROM plan was cancelled. Appellant's Reply, at 18-21 (citing Brawley v. United States, 96 U.S. 168 (1877); Fortec Constructors v. United States, 760 F.2d 1288, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 1985); United States v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 713 F.2d 1541, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Gemsco, supra). Since GPO instructed the Contractor to craft its bid on the assumption that CD-ROM substitutions would furnish a significant quantity of the PTO's patent needs, when that fundamental premise dissolved in the face of foreign objections to the program, responsibility for the dramatic increase in printing requirements under the contract because the CD-ROMs were eliminated, devolved upon the Government, and the Appellant is entitled to an equitable adjustment because of the change. Appellant's Reply, at 20-21. Accordingly, since there are no genuine issues of material fact, for all of these reasons the Appellant contends that judgment as a matter of law in its favor on the issue of entitlement is warranted, and therefore, its Partial Motion should be granted. Partial Motion, at 36; Appellant's Reply, at 21-22. B. Respondent's Cross-Motion and Opposition The Respondent, on the other hand, thinks that it is entitled to summary judgment essentially for four reasons: (1) the very nature of a "requirements" contract precludes an equitable adjustment simply because the amount of work performed varies from the solicitation's estimates; (2) the Appellant has not shown that the Government negligently prepared its estimates for the quantity of work under Program D306-S; (3) the Contractor's "mutual mistake of fact" theory is not supported by the undisputed facts nor well-established case law; and (4) a deviation from the estimated quantities in a "requirements" contract does not constitute a compensable change under the "Changes" clause. The first argument advanced by the Respondent relies heavily on the legal characteristics of "requirements" contracts.31 The Respondent observes that a prime purpose of "requirements" contracts is to protect the Government from liability in the event of a significant variation between the contract estimates and the amount of its actual purchases. Points and Authorities, at 6 (citing Clearwater Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States, 227 Ct. Cl. 386, 650 F.2d 233, 240 (1981); Womack, supra). Stated otherwise, the only obligation assumed by the Government under a "requirements" contract is to allow the contractor to satisfy all of its actual needs at the contract rate-it is not liable for unordered supplies, and indeed, it may not even have any requirements at all during the contract term.32 Id. (citing Folge & Co. v. United States, 135 F.2d 117 (4th Cir. 1943); National Laundry Co. v. United States, 63 Ct. Cl. 626 (1927); AGS-Genesys Corp., supra; Alamo Automotive Service, Inc., ASBCA No. 8815, 63 BCA ¶ 3830; Metro Industrial Painting Corp., ASBCA No. 6328, 62 BCA ¶ 3343). By contrast, the contractor's duty under a "requirements" contract is to perform regardless, which includes fulfilling all of the Government's needs at the contract price even if the number or orders placed exceeds the original estimates. Points and Authorities, at 6-7 (citing Carstens Packing Co. v. United States, 52 Ct. Cl. 430 (1917)). If a change in circumstances alters the Government's requirements, the contractor is only entitled to be reimbursed for services actually performed and any additional compensation is not authorized.33 Points and Authorities, at 8 (citing Tennessee Valley Authority v. Imperial Professional Coatings, 599 F.Supp. 436 (E.D. Tenn. 1984); East Bay Auto Supply, Inc., ASBCA No. 25542, 81-2 BCA ¶15,204; Solano Aircraft Service, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 20677, 20941, 77-2 BCA ¶ 12,584; Gulf Coast Aviation, ASBCA Nos. 10189, 10380, 65-2 BCA ¶ 4928). As GPO points out, in the past the Board itself has relied on these principles in denying equitable adjustment claims by contractors. Points and Authorities, at 7 (citing McDonald & Eudy Printers, Inc., GPO BCA 40-92 (January 31, 1994), 1994 WL 275096; Shepard Printing, GPO BCA No. 37- 92 (January 28, 1994), 1994 WL 275077; B & W Press, GPOCAB 9-83 (March 8, 1984), 1984 WL 148109; Central Data Processing, GPOCAB 74-14 (January 7, 1975)).34 Accordingly, the Respondent contends that because the meaning of the "Requirements" clause, as interpreted by the cases, is so clear, the Appellant will have to look elsewhere for its relief.35 Points and Authorities, at 8. Second, the Respondent addresses the Appellant's main contention by denying that the Government was negligent in preparing the estimates for Program D306-S. Points and Authorities, at 9. Noting that the Contractor has not attacked the estimating methodology, GPO says that the Appellant's assertion that the Government should have anticipated the cancellation of PTO's CD-ROM plan in its figures for the second production period is nothing more than "20/20" hindsight. Id. In that regard, the Respondent tells us that the standard of care expected of the Government in calculating estimated quantities of work is not clairvoyancy, but rather reasonableness; i.e., to be legally sufficient, the estimates do not have to provide for every possible contingency, but rather they simply have to be based on all reasonably available and relevant information. Id. (citing Womack, supra; Integrity Management International, Inc., ASBCA No. 18289, 75-1 BCA ¶ 11,235, aff'd on reconsid., 75-2 BCA ¶ 11,602; American Maintenance and Management Services, ASBCA No. 18756, 75-2 BCA ¶ 11,407; Free-Flow Packaging Corp., GSBCA No. 3992, 75-1 BCA ¶ 11,105). GPO insists that the Government satisfied this legal standard when it formulated the production estimates in this case. Basically, the Respondent's contention is that it did base the estimates for the second production period on all the relevant information which was reasonably available to it when the contract was solicited and awarded, since neither the Contracting Officer nor the OPP, the PTO organization responsible for developing the Program D306-S estimates, had any knowledge, at that time, that the CD-ROM policy was being criticized by foreign patent offices and would soon be suspended. Points and Authorities, at 10-11 (citing Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 54, 55; Bawcombe Deposition at 9-10). Furthermore, GPO asserts that while the PTO International Liaison Staff was aware of the adverse foreign opinion during this period, it did not share that information with the OPP prior to award, and moreover, that knowledge could not be imputed to the Contracting Officer, the person who was ultimately responsible for the contents of the solicitation. Id. (citing Jt. Stip., ¶ 54; Bawcombe Deposition at 12-13, 35; Bateson-Solte, Inc. v. United States, 158 Ct. Cl. 455, 305 F.2d 386 (1962); The Bethlehem Corp., ASBCA No. 10595, 66-1 BCA ¶ 5,641). See also GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 1 (Contractual Responsibility).36 Finally, the Respondent states that nothing in the record supports the Appellant's argument that the PTO's International Liaison Staff should have known the CD-ROM substitution program was likely to be postponed because of foreign resistance to the idea. Points and Authorities, at 11, 14. In that regard, the undisputed chronology of the relevant events in this case shows that: (1) the contract was awarded on May 20, 1994; (2) although the contract called for the CD-ROM program to be implemented on August 1, 1994, by the date of award the reaction of the foreign patent community to the electronic conversion plan was decidedly mixed, with both negative (Germany, Great Britain, Sweden, the Russian Federation) and positive feedback ( Austria, Denmark, China, France, Egypt, Poland, the Czech Republic, New Zealand, Malaysia) being received by the PTO's International Liaison Staff; (3) on the date the contract was awarded, a PTO international liaison staffer, Saifer, was at a meeting of foreign patent offices in Geneva, Switzerland, where he heard additional criticisms of the CD-ROM policy, especially from Germany, a major recipient of United States patents; (4) about the same time as Saifer was in Switzerland, his supervisor, Lawson, was at a conference of patent officials in Tokyo, Japan, where he also heard negative comments about the CD-ROM substitution plan; (5) on his return from Switzerland, Saifer, thought about the adverse reactions of the foreign governments to the CD-ROM policy and concluded that it should be relaxed; (6) on May 31, 1994, eleven (11) days after the contract for Program D306-S was awarded, Saifer sent a memorandum to Lawson recommending a change in policy; (7) shortly afterward, Saifer and Lawson, who had reached the same conclusion, met to discuss the issue, and decided since neither one of them had authority to act on their own to change the policy, they would "initiate a review" of the problem by asking the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks to reverse his previous decision regarding CD-ROMs; (8) on June 27, 1994, before initiating such a policy review, Saifer and Lawson met with other interested PTO officials, including Bawcombe of the OPP (the PTO's contact with GPO), where they were apprised, for the first time, of the impact changing the CD-ROM plan would have on Program D306-S; (9) on July 7, 1994, Lawson orally advised Bawcombe that the CD-ROM policy might be changed; (10) Bawcombe immediately notified the Respondent, in writing, that same day, and told GPO that the Appellant would have to "continue with the present print volumes until further notice;" (11) GPO instantly informed the Contractor that the CD-ROM plan was in jeopardy; (12) on July 15, 1994, a review of the CD-ROM policy was formally initiated within the PTO; (13) on August 1, 1994, the date on which CD-ROM patents were scheduled to replace paper sets, the PTO Business Council recommended suspension of the plan for one (1) year; and (14) on September 7, 1994, the Commission of Patents and Trademarks accepted the Business Council recommendation and postponed the CD-ROM program for one (1) year, and notified the PTO's foreign counterparts of his decision. Points and Authorities, at 12-14 (citing Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 14, 16, 19, 24-25, 26-28, 30-32, 35, 44, 47-50, 52, 56-57, 60-63; Saifer Deposition, at 53, 55, 105-06, 114, 120-21, 123-24; Lawson Deposition, at 73, 84, 86-87). The Respondent argues that these undisputed facts show that when the contract was awarded to the Appellant, both GPO and the OPP were totally unaware of the PTO International Liaison Staff's uncertainty about the CD-ROM policy, and indeed, the international office had yet to form an opinion about whether to recommend a change to it or not; i.e., no definitive action was taken by anyone until after the contract was already in effect.37 Points and Authorities, at 14. Therefore, the Government says that since the GPO and the OPP prepared the contract estimates using the facts as they knew them prior to May 20, 1994, it cannot be said that there was a failure of due care in this instance.38 Id. Third, the Respondent disagrees that this case involves a mutual mistake of fact warranting relief for the Appellant. Points and Authorities, at 15. In that regard, GPO believes that the Contractor's reliance on National Presto Industries, to support its claim for reforming the contract is misplaced, because none of the three criterion established by the court is present here. Id. Thus, the Respondent says that the "fact" relied on by the Appellant for its claim-the Government's failure to foresee that the CD-ROM plan would not be implemented after the contract was awarded and that the actual level of work would outstrip the estimates for the second production period by a large margin-is not the sort of empirical and objectively verifiable knowledge contemplated in the lead case necessary to support reformation or rescission of a contract. Points and Authorities, at 16 (citing Robert R. Michaud, B-182299, 75-1 CPD ¶ 52). Furthermore, insofar as National Presto Industries requires a contract's silence with regard the risk exposure of either party, GPO notes that by definition "requirements" contracts allocate the risks to the contractor. Points and Authorities, at 16, fn. 10 (citing Integrity Management International, Inc., supra, 75-1 BCA at 53,481). Besides, the contract in this case contained no guarantees of work, and its numerous "disclaimers" emphasized the uncertain level of production in the future-indeed, the very essence of a "requirements" contract is its unpredictability. Points and Authorities, at 16-17 (citing R4 File, Tab A, at 1). Hence, the Respondent tells us that the failure to predict the future, as distinguished from the risk associated with the a bona fide mutual mistake of fact, does not give rise to judicial relief. Points and Authorities, at 17-18 (citing Leasco Corp. v. Taussig, 473 F.2d 777 (2d Cir. 1972); 13 WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS § 1543 (3d ed. 1975), at 75; 3 CORBIN ON CONTRACTS § 598 (2nd ed. 1960), at 585-86; RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 502). Moreover, GPO states that the pricing mechanisms in the disputed contract itself demonstrate the unwillingness of the Government to share expenses in this case-the third National Presto Industries criterion-but rather their inclusion invites contractors to develop pricing strategies to protect them from fluctuations in work levels and evinces the Government's desire to place the onus for any volume variations on the contractor.39 Points and Authorities, at 18 (citing The Tommy Nobis Center, Inc., GSBCA Nos. 8988-TD, 9420-TD, 89-3 BCA ¶ 22,112). The record shows that the Appellant chose not to avail itself of these pricing mechanisms.40 Points and Authorities, at 19. Accordingly, the Government says that it cannot be held responsible for the Contractor's gamble in formulating its bid, which may have won the contract but proved to be unwise in light of actual performance-the Appellant alone must bear the risk of its business decision.41 Points and Authorities, at 19-20 (citing Nevada Fleet Service, ASBCA Nos. 17198, 17859, 74-1 BCA ¶ 10,610). Finally, GPO rejects the Appellant's idea that the increased quantity of printed patents in the second production period, when measured against the contract's estimates, constitutes a compensable change under the "Changes" clause. Points and Authorities, at 20. See GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 4 (Changes). In that regard, the Respondent believes that Allied Paint Manufacturing Co., which the Contractor relies on to support its theory, is inapposite, because the court in that case ruled that a "requirements" contractor "accepted the risk that heavy demands under those contracts could strain its production capacities." Id. (citing Allied Paint Manufacturing Co. v. United States, supra, 470 F.2d at 567). Referring again to the nature and purpose of "requirements" contracts, where uncertainty not predictability is the rule, GPO argues that the Appellant's "Changes" position would shift the risk for fluctuations in workload from the Contractor to the Government, contrary to the reason why Program D306-S was solicited as a "requirements" contract in the first place. Points and Authorities, at 21 (citing Medart, Inc., supra; AGS-Genesys Corp., supra; Lone Star Energy Co., supra; FAR § 16.503(b)). Furthermore, the Respondent assumes that the Appellant's theory is one of a "constructive change" because there is no allegation or evidence of a "change order" being issued by the Contracting Officer. Id. (citing GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 4 (Changes). However, the Government says that the facts show that this principle is inapplicable in this case. Id. (citing C & S Park Service, Inc., ENG BCA Nos. 3624, 3625, 78-1 BCA ¶ 13,134 (diversion of work to another contractor); Pacific Technology Enterprises, Ltd., ASBCA No. 17087, 74-2 BCA ¶ 10,679 (same)).42 Indeed, GPO says that a failure to order estimated quantities, erroneous contract estimates, and even unforeseen events affecting estimated requirements are not "constructive changes." Points and Authorities, at 21-22 (citing Sentinel Protective Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 23560, 81-2 BCA ¶ 15,194 (unforeseen event-a drought causing a steep decrease in need for grass-cutting); Savon Wholesale Cleaners, ASBCA No. 18497, 74-2 BCA ¶ 10,810 (erroneous estimates); Toke Cleaners, IBCA No. 1008-10-73, 74-1 BCA ¶ 10,633 (failure to order estimated quantities raised the issue of good faith placement only); Beiser Aviation Corp., ASBCA No. 6215, 61-2 BCA ¶ 3155 (erroneous estimates); Contra Crown Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc., ASBCA 28889, 85-2 BCA ¶ 18,003 (erroneous estimates)). Therefore, the Respondent believes that the Appellant's "constructive change" theory fails for want of case support. Points and Authorities, at 22. Accordingly, GPO states that since it has established that there are no genuine issues of material fact in this case, and as the Contractor has not satisfied its burden of going forward, all of the above reasons warrant summary judgment in its favor, and the denial of the Partial Motion. Points and Authorities, at 22-23 (citing Durable Metal Products, Inc. v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 472, 477 (1993), quoting Campbell v. United States, 2 Cl. Ct. 247, 249 (1983)). IV. QUESTIONS PRESENTED In this proceeding, the Board is asked to decide if the suspension of the PTO's plan to substitute CD-ROMs for paper sets of patents in the second production period entitles the Appellant to additional compensation under its contract for Program 306-S. In order to resolve the entitlement issue, two questions need to be answered: 1. Was the Government derelict when it formulated its workload estimates for Program D306-S, and awarded the contract, without considering the possibility that the PTO's plan to replace paper sets of patents with CD-ROMs in the second production period might not be implemented because of foreign opposition to the idea, thus failing to foresee that the concomitant and significant reduction in sets of paper patents forecast for that period might never materialize? Stated otherwise, did the Government neglect to use all relevant information that was reasonably available to it in establishing the estimates in the solicitation, so that it can be said that they were negligently prepared? 2. Assuming that under the circumstances of this case the Government exercised due care and was not otherwise negligent in preparing the workload estimates and awarding the Program D306-S contract, is the Appellant nonetheless entitled to an equitable adjustment or additional compensation under some other theory of recovery; e.g., "mutual mistake of fact," "constructive change," etc.? V. DECISION Before addressing the issues raised by the parties, it is necessary to say a few words about the nature of this proceeding. First, it should be noted that there is nothing in the Board Rules expressly providing for motions for summary judgment.43 However, the Board has traditionally entertained summary motions, even in the absence of such an express authorization. See e.g., The George Marr Co.,supra, slip op. at 34; Vanier Graphics, Inc., GPO BCA 12-92 (May 17, 1994), 1994 WL 275102; RAP Chemical Corp., GPO BCA 4-91 (January 23, 1992), 1992 WL 487876; International Lithographing, Inc., GPO BCA 18-88 (February 21, 1990), 1990 WL 454981. See generally Matthew S. Foss, U.S. Government Printing Office: The First Decade, 24 PUB. CONT. L.J. 579, 594 (ABA 1995) (hereinafter Foss, The First Decade). Second, in deciding summary judgment motions, the Board is guided by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See The George Marr Co.,supra, slip op. at 35; Vanier Graphics, Inc., supra, slip op. at 32; RAP Chemical Corp., supra, slip. op. at 17-18. Accord Christie-Willamette, NASA BCA 283-4, 87-3 BCA ¶ 19,981 (citing Astro Dynamics, Inc., NASA BCA ¶ 476-1, 77-1 BCA ¶ 12.230); Automated Services, Inc., EBCA Nos. 386-3-87, 391-5-87, 87-3 BCA ¶ 20,157. Under Rule 56, courts are instructed to grant a motion for summary judgment if the pleadings and supporting affidavits and other submissions "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."44 FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). That standard applies whether the moving party is seeking a complete disposition of the case, or, as here, is asking for partial summary judgment on a particular issue; e.g., entitlement. See McDonnell Douglas Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 45556, 95-1 BCA ¶ 27,333, at 136,230 (citing Cox & Palmer Construction Corp., ASBCA No. 43438, 89-3 BCA ¶ 22,197). Thus, the principal judicial inquiry required by Rule 56 is whether a genuine issue of material fact exists.45 See The George Marr Co.,supra, slip op. at 35-36; RBP Chemical Corp., supra, slip. op. at 22 (citing Castillo Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 22). Accord John's Janitorial Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 34234, 90-3 BCA ¶ 22,973 (citing, General Dynamics Corporation, ASBCA Nos. 32660, 32661, 89-2 BCA ¶ 21,851); Ite, Inc., supra. Stated otherwise, on a motion for summary judgment, a court cannot try issues of fact; it can only determine whether there are issues to be tried. See IBM Poughkeepsie Employees Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc., supra, 590 F.Supp. at 771 (citing Schering Corp. v. Home Insurance Co., 712 F.2d 4, 9 (2d Cir. 1983)). If no triable issues exist, the rule permits the immediate entry of summary judgment. See e.g., Reingold v. Deloitte, Haskins and Sells, 599 F.Supp. 1241, 1261 (S.D.N.Y. 1984); United States v. ACB Sales and Service, Inc., 590 F.Supp. 561 (D. Ariz. 1984). Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has stated that summary judgment is mandatory in the absence of a genuine issue of any material fact.46 See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, supra, 477 U.S. at 322-23. Third, the burden is on the party moving for summary judgment to demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, supra, 477 U.S. at 322-23; Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). In order to establish entitlement to an equitable adjustment as a matter of law, the moving party must show three necessary elements-liability, causation and resultant injury. See McDonnell Douglas Services, Inc., supra, 95-1 BCA at 136,230 (citing Wilner Construction Co. v. United States, 24 F.3d 1397, 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See also Capital Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 40510, 40511, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,310, at 116,907 (even in a case heard on entitlement only, appellant must establish liability, and at least the fact of resultant injury) (citing Lemar Const. Co., ASBCA No. 31161, 31719, 88-1 BCA ¶ 20,429). That burden is an affirmative one, and is not met merely by disproving the unsupported claims of its opponent. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, supra, 477 U.S. at 323. On the other hand, while the nonmoving party also has an evidentiary burden, it is not a heavy one; it is simply required to go beyond allegations in the pleadings and designate specific facts in the record or by affidavits to show there is a genuine issue to be heard.47 See e.g., McDonnell v. Flaharty, 636 F.2d 184 (7th Cir. 1980); United States v. Kates, 419 F.Supp. 846 (D.Pa. 1976); Upper West Fork River Watershed Association v. Corps of Engineers, United States Army, 414 F.Supp. 908 (D.W.Va. 1976), aff'd 556 F.2d 576 (4th Cir. 1977), cert. denied 434 U.S. 1010 (1978). See generally, Vanier Graphics, Inc., supra, slip op. at 32-38; RBP Chemical Corp., supra, slip. op. at 17-26. Finally, whether the adjudicatory forum is faced with one summary judgment motion or two, as here, the principles are the same. See The George Marr Co.,supra, slip op. at 37; Vanier Graphics, Inc., supra, slip op. at 38. As expressed by the United States Court of Federal Claims, the rule governing motions filed by both parties in the same proceeding is that: Both plaintiff and defendant, as moving parties, have the burden of establishing that there are no genuine material issues in dispute and that, as movant, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [Citation omitted.] In opposing the other's motion, each party has the burden of providing sufficient evidence, not necessarily admissible at trial, to show that a genuine issue of material fact indeed exits. [Citation omitted.] If the non-movant's evidence is merely colorable, or not sufficiently probative, summary judgment may be granted. [Citations omitted.] In resolving cross-motions, the court may not weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter on summary judgment. [Citation omitted.] Any evidence presented by the opponent is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in its favor. [Citation omitted.] With respect to any facts that may be considered as contested, each party, in its capacity as the opponent of summary judgment, is entitled to "all applicable presumptions, inferences and intendments." [Citation omitted.] That the parties, in their cross-motions, have separately alleged the absence of genuine issues of material fact, does not relieve the court of its responsibility to determine the appropriateness of summary disposition of the matter. . . . [T]he court must evaluate each party's motion on its own merits and drawing all reasonable inferences against the party whose motion is being considered. See Bataco Industries, Inc. v. United States, 29 Fed. Cl. 318, 322 (1993) (quoted in The George Marr Co.,supra, slip op. at 37-38; Vanier Graphics, Inc., supra, slip op. at 38-39). See also Baca v. United States, supra, 29 Fed. Cl. at 358-59. There are no genuine issues of material fact in this case. All of the essential facts which are needed to resolve the entitltement question have been placed before the Board in the R4 File, the transcript of the jurisdictional hearing, the Respondent's statement of Material Facts, and the stipulation of the parties. The only task left for the Board is to apply those facts to the disputed contract, and contract interpretation is clearly a question of law. See Fry Communications, Inc.-InfoConversion Joint Venture v. United States, 22 Cl. Ct. 497, 503 (Cl.Ct. 1991); Professional Printing of Kansas, Inc., supra, slip op. at 46, fn. 62; General Business Forms, Inc., GPO BCA 2-84 (December 3, 1985), slip op. at 16, 1985 WL 154846 (citing John C. Grimberg Co. v. United States, 7 Ct. Cl. 452 (1985)); RD Printing Associates, Inc., GPO BCA 02-92 (December 16, 1992), slip op. at 13, 1992 WL 516088. See also Fortec Contractors v. United States, supra, 760 F.2d at 1291; P.J. Maffei Building Wrecking Co. v. United States, 732 F.2d 913, 916 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Pacificorp Capital, Inc. v. United States, 25 Cl. Ct. 707, 715 (1992), aff'd, 988 F.2d 130 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Ralph Construction, Inc. v. United States, 4 Cl. Ct. 727, 731 (1984) (citing Torncello v. United States, 681 F.2d 756, 760 (Ct.Cl. 1982)); Hol-Gar Manufacturing Corp. v. United States, 169 Ct. Cl. 384, 386, 351 F.2d 972, 973 (1965). Accordingly, the threshold entitlement issue is ripe for decision by summary judgment. When the Board considers the Appellant's PartialMotion and Appellant's Reply, and the Respondent's Cross-Motion and Opposition, and Points and Authorities, against the record in this case, including the parties' stipulations as augmented by GPO's statement of Material Facts, it draws the following conclusions: A. The evidence presented to the Board does not allow it to conclude that the Government failed to use all relevant information that was reasonably available to it when it formulated its estimates for the Program D306-S solicitation. Thus, there is no basis for finding, without further proof, that the Government's estimates, which did not take into account the adverse foreign comments to the PTO's plan to substitute CD-ROM patents for paper sets starting August 2, 1994, were negligently prepared or were otherwise unreasonable on the date the Appellant submitted its bid and received the contract award. The Appellant's allegation that the Government should have foreseen, and considered, the possibility that the PTO would subsequently decide to postpone implementation of the CD-ROM program because of foreign opposition to the idea, causing a significant increase in the need for paper patents after August 1, 1994, is simply not sustainable on this record. This appeal is a rarity. In the combined annals of the Board in the ad hoc panels which preceded it, only one other case has involved a contractor's direct challenge to the workload estimates of a "requirements" contract.48 See Datagraphics Press, Inc., [No GPO CAB No.] (June 23, 1978), slip op. at 6-7. The adjudicatory history of this agency, which the Board supposes mirrors the experience of its Executive Branch counterparts, discloses that in most "requirements" contract disputes, the validity of the estimates is a tangential matter, since the typical complaint is that either too few orders were placed according to the estimates, see e.g., Shepard Printing, supra; McDonald and Eudy Printers, Inc.; supra; Information Systems, Inc., GPOCAB 78-11 (January 18, 1979), 1979 WL 28889; Central Data Processing, supra, or too many, see e.g., Swanson I, supra; Castillo Printing Co., supra; Tamms Lithography, Inc., GPO BCA 14-89 (July 13, 1990), 1990 WL 454986; B & W Press, supra. Accord Medart, Inc. v. Austin, supra (less work); Perini Corp. v. United States, 180 Ct. Cl. 768, 381 F.2d 403 (1967) (excess orders); LB & M Associates, Inc., DOTBCA No. 2905, 96-1 BCA ¶ 28,173 (less work); Independent Manufacturing and Service Companies of America, Inc., ASBCA No. 47199, 95-1 BCA ¶ 27,56 (excess work); California Bus Lines, Inc., ASBCA No. 42181, 91-3 BCA ¶ 24,341 (less work); Command Tech Corp., ASBCA No. 40318, 90-3 BCA ¶ 23,215 (less work) (cited in McDonald and Eudy Printers, Inc.; supra, slip op. at 16); The Tommy Nobis Center, Inc., supra (excess orders); Robert H. O'Hair and O'Hair Construction Co., a joint venture, AGBCA No. 82-115-1, 89-1 BCA ¶ 21,384 (excess orders); LFS, Inc., LBCA No. 82-BCA- 10, 84-2 BCA ¶ 17,306 (excess orders); Miltex Industries, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 19449, 20886, 77-2 BCA ¶ 12,768 (excess orders); Sponge Fishing Co., GSBCA No. 1386, 65-1 BCA ¶ 4627 (excess orders). In this case, while the gravamen of the complaint is generally about the Government's excess orders, the Appellant does not dispute the settled principle, which defines the meaning of a "requirements" contract, that such a contractor is required to supply all of the Government needs regardless of the extent to which it may exceed the estimate. See e.g., The Tommy Nobis Center, Inc., supra; Robert H. O'Hair and O'Hair Construction Co., a joint venture, supra; Sponge Fishing Co., supra. However, it should be noted that even this general rule has its limits. For, as one contract appeals observed by way of dicta: "[a]n argument can be made that where quantities are increased in a "requirements" contract, the contractor must furnish services. . . . However, there is a point when the increase in amount may become so great that it would be unreasonable to insist on performance." See LFS, Inc., supra 84-2 BCA at 86,245. Furthermore, the scope and meaning of GPO's "Requirements" clause is not at issue in this appeal. See Shepard Printing, supra, slip op. at 20-23; McDonald and Eudy Printers, Inc.; supra, slip op. at 11-14. Both the Appellant and the Respondent also agree that Program D306-S is a "requirements" contract, and fully understand the legal consequences of such an arrangement with respect to the rights and obligations of the contracting parties. Partial Motion, at 12-28; Points and Authorities, at 5-8.49 What is new and distinct about this dispute is that two of the three theories of recovery raised by the Appellant-"negligent estimates" and "mutual mistake"- involve not so much performance problems as matters pertaining to the formation of the contract itself. With specific regard to the "negligent estimates" principle, which we address here, the Government's liability is tied to pre-solicitation conduct which plants contractual land mines for the innocent and unsuspecting contractor.50 Therefore, the Board needs to take a moment to clarify its jurisdiction in this case, because the source of its remedial powers is quite different from those exercised by its Executive Branch counterparts operating under the auspices of the CDA.51 For years, whenever they have had to described the parties' rights and obligations under a "requirements" contract, the Board and the ad hoc panels have simply repeated, in almost mantra-like fashion, the accepted principle that the Government's obligation is merely to exercise due care in preparing its estimates, see Shepard Printing, supra, slip op. at 23-24 (citing Crown Laundry, supra; Dynamic Science, Inc., ASBCA No. 29510, 85-1 BCA¶ 17,710; Huff's Janitorial Service, ASBCA No. 26860, 83-1 BCA ¶ 16,518); see McDonald and Eudy Printers, Inc.; supra, slip op. at 15 (quoting Shepard Printing, supra); Datagraphics Press, Inc., supra, slip op. at 7 (". . . the Government is only required to produce as accurate an estimate as possible." Citing Womack, supra), and thus no equitable price adjustment is available to the contractor in the absence of evidence that the Government has been negligent in the preparation of its estimates, see McDonald and Eudy Printers, Inc.; supra, slip op. at 19. However, in a recent decision the board of contract appeals for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VABCA) explained the basis for the Government's liability when it failed to meet this due care standard: The rationale for holding the Government liable for a contractor's damages resulting from negligently prepared estimates in its requirements contracts is that the contractor has reasonably relied upon such estimates in the preparation of its unit price(s) to the Government for such services. Since the contractor then agrees to be bound to provide such services to the Government at the price(s) bid, the Government is equally bound to use its best information in preparing the quantity estimates upon which the contractor has relied. Womack v. United States [12 CCF ¶ 81,795], 182 Ct. Cl. 399, 412-13, 389 F.2d 793, 800-01 (1968). It thus follows that failure to exercise due care in preparing estimates, coupled with a contractor's financial losses directly attributable to reasonable reliance on such estimates, subjects the Government to liability. Since there is no remedy-granting clause in the contract itself, the negligent misrepresentation can be pursued as a common law breach of contract. Alert Care Ambulance Service, VABCA No. 2844, 90-3 BCA ¶ 22,945; Atlantic Garages, Inc., GSBCA No. 5891, 82-1 BCA ¶ 15,479, at 76,711. See Ambulance Service & Transport of Marlin, VABCA Nos. 3485, 3486, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,729, at 133,005. [Emphasis added.] See also Everett Plywood & Door Corp. v. United States, 190 Ct. Cl. 80. 90-91. 419 F.2d 425, 430-31 (1969). Unlike the VABCA, 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 e.g., 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, Foss, The First Decade, at 584-85. 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 the contract before it. See Shepard Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 9, fn. 8; R.D. Printing Associates, Inc., supra, slip op. at 9, 13, fns. 9, 15; 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. Consequently, the Board has followed the trail blazed by the ad hoc panels and steadfastly refused to entertain "pure" breach of contract claims, that is, claims for damages not redressable under a specific contract provision, on the twin grounds that because of its limited jurisdiction it can only mine for remedies in the contract clauses themselves, and that any breach decision it might render would be no better than an advisory opinion. See R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Co., supra, slip op. at 30-35; The Wessel Co., Inc., supra, slip op. at 27, fn. 29, 33-41 (citing United States v. Utah Construction and Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 407-11 (1966); Blake Construction Co., Inc., GSBCA No. 2205, 67-1 BCA ¶ 6,311, at 29,197- 98); Cloverleaf Enterprises, Inc., [No GPO CAB No.] (May 9, 1980) slip op. at 11, 1980 WL 81267; Microform Data System, Inc., GPOCAB 3-79 (February 1, 1980), slip op. at 10-12, 1980 WL 81258; Information Systems, Inc., supra, slip op. at 5-6. See also H.L. Eikenberg Co., GPOCAB 76-13 (May 9, 1979), slip op. at 35, fn. 21 ("The Board can only grant relief in situations where an administrative remedy is provided under some remedy or relief clause in the contracts." Quoting Federal Food Marketers Co., AGBCA Nos. 447, 448, 76-1 BCA ¶ 11,709, at 55,82. (Citations omitted.)). See generally, Foss, The First Decade, at 587. Therefore, the Appellant's "negligent estimates" claim would seem to be beyond the reach of the Board since it has no access to the traditional means for rectifying such Government nonfeasance. However, the Court of Federal Claims has provided the solution to this conundrum. In Crown Laundry, a summary judgment proceeding like this appeal, the Court said: In Womack v. United States, 182 Ct. Cl. 399, 401, 389 F.2d, 801 (1968), the Court of Claims pointed out that the government was obligated to base solicitation estimates on "all relevant information that is reasonably available to it." If the critical element in this summary judgment matter is what relevant information was available to Redstone Arsenal procurement personnel relative to the estimate formulation utilized in the solicitation at issue in this case, then the case is not ripe for decision at this time. Indeed, the other areas were plaintiff is critical of the government's estimate formulation practice and procedure likewise needs to be ventilated at trial. On the other hand, if the issue is confined to the question of reasonableness of the government's estimate formulation and attendant circumstances, then summary judgment is appropriate. See Crown Laundry, supra, 29 Fed. Cl. at 522. [Emphasis added.] Reviewing the reasonableness of actions by GPO Contracting Officers is within the inherent authority of the Board, and is accomplished by applying the so-called "abuse of discretion" test. See Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 18; Univex International, supra, slip op. at 19; Graphic Image, Inc., GPO BCA 13- 92 (August 31, 1992), slip op. at 25, 1992 WL 487875; Atlantic Research Corp., GPO BCA 22-87 (July 10, 1989), slip op. at 5-6, 1989 WL 384985. Accord Darwin Construction Co. 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, 3515T, 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. It is on that basis that the Board assumes jurisdiction over the "negligent estimates" issue.52 The Board's analysis begins with three observations. First, only the Appellant and GPO were the parties to the contract in question. See GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 1 (Contractual Authority).53 See also B & B Reproductions, supra, slip op. at 37-38 (citing PPR, Chap. I, Sec. 2 (Definition of "Contracting Officer), Sec. 3, ¶ 2(d) (Procurement Authority-Contracting Officers); RD Printing Associates, Inc., supra, slip op. at 10, fn. 11. Thus, while the PTO was certainly an active "participant" in the contract by virtue of its "direct-deal" authority, it was not a party54-a fact acknowledged by the customer agency. See Bawcombe Deposition, at 36 ("It is GPO's contract, they would have [the] final say."). Second, there is no disagreement about the standard of care in these sorts of cases-the Government's estimates should be realistic, and based on "all relevant information that is reasonably available to it;" i.e., the most current information available. See Crown Laundry, supra, 29 Fed. Cl. at 522 (citing Womack, supra); Medart, Inc. v. Austin, supra, 967 F.2d at 582; Contract Management, Inc., supra, 95-2 BCA at 139,107 (citing FAR § 16.503(a)(1));55 Fa. Kammerdiener GmbH & Co., KG, ASBCA No. 45248, 94-3 BCA ¶ 27,197, at 135,554; Ambulance Service & Transport of Marlin, supra, 94-2 BCA at 133,005. See also Integrity Management International, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 34802, 35412, 36149, 37140, 89-3 BCA ¶ 21,996; Crown Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc., ASBCA No. 28889, 85-2 BCA ¶ 18,003. In simple terms, the Government is not free to carelessly guess at its needs. See Crown Laundry, supra, 29 Fed. Cl. at 520; Medart v. Austin, 967 F.2d at 581. Therefore, if the contractor can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Government's estimates are unreasonably inaccurate because it failed to exercise due care, and that it relied on those faulty estimates to its detriment in bidding, then the risk of any shortfall, which is normally the contractor's under a "requirements" contract, shifts to the Government and it will be held liable. See Crown Laundry, supra, 29 Fed. Cl. at 519-20; Timber Investors, Inc. v. United States, supra, 587 F.2d at 478; Womack, supra, 389 F.2d at 801-02; Contract Management, Inc., supra, 95-2 BCA at 139,107-08 (citing Chemical Technology, Inc. v. United States, supra, 645 F.2d at 947-48); Fa. Kammerdiener GmbH & Co., KG, supra, 94-3 BCA ¶ 27,197, at 135,554 (citing Apex International Management Services, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 37813, 38178, 38224, 38278, 38297, 38354, 38514, 94-1 BCA ¶ 26,299); Ambulance Service & Transport of Marlin, supra, 94-2 BCA at 133,005; Alert Care Ambulance Service, supra, 90-3 BCA at 115,179; Maya Transit Company, supra, 75-2 BCA at 55,126. Unless this were the rule, then Government-furnished data in a bidding invitation, whether an estimate, "historical" material, or empirical data, which was not developed from relevant, current and available information, would be "surplusage at best or deception at worst." See Womack, supra, 389 F.2d at 801. See also Emerald Maintenance, Inc., ASBCA No. 42908, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,904, at 133,970. Finally, the "all relevant and reasonably available information" rule concerns matters of time, or more properly timing. Perhaps the most quoted phrase from the Womack decision is the Court of Claims' statement that the Government "is not required to be clairvoyant . . .". Womack, supra, 389 F.2d at 801. See e.g., Contract Management, Inc., supra, 95-2 BCA at 139,108; Fa. Kammerdiener GmbH & Co., KG, supra, 94-3 BCA ¶ 27,197, at 135,554; Integrity Management International, Inc., supra, 89-3 BCA at 110,605. See Shepard Printing, supra, slip op. at 20-23; McDonald and Eudy Printers, Inc.; supra, slip op. at 11-14; Datagraphics Press, Inc., supra, slip op. at 7. See also Cibinic & Nash, Administration, at 254. Accordingly, to paraphrase a famous question from the Watergate era, the central issue in this case boils down to-"What did the Contracting Officer know, and when did he know it?" The evidence of record clearly indicates that the Contractor relied on the solicitation estimates for the second production period in formulating its bid. Tr. 27-29, 57. Therefore, if the Appellant is to prevail on its "negligent estimates" claim it must prove, by a preponderance of the undisputed material evidence, that the inaccuracy of those workload figures was a direct consequence of the Contracting Officer's failure to exercise due care in preparing them. In other words, its evidence must show that before the award of the contract, the Contracting Officer was aware of, but failed to take into account, all relevant and reasonably available information at his disposal when developing (or at least revising) the post- August 1, 1994, work estimates. See e.g., Crown Laundry, supra (by not checking out or verifying the estimates provided by the user activities which the contracting officer felt were "exaggerated" as a hedge against the possibility of increased needs in the future-estimates which were nothing more than wild guesses and which the Government admitted were inaccurate-before the solicitation containing them was put out for bids, the Government failed to exercise reasonable care was liable to the contractor for damages); Contract Management, Inc., supra (Government contractual estimates of custodial requirements which were based on the prior year's fixed-price contract, were negligent because they were not revised to account for a projected funding shortfall which was known before award-the most current financial information available-so that the subsequent reduction of work for budgetary reasons warranted an equitable adjustment in favor of a janitorial contractor that was misled by the unadjusted original estimate); Fa. Kammerdiener GmbH & Co., KG, supra (Government estimates were negligent under a contract for floor sanding and sealing work in unoccupied Army housing units where the contracting officer awarded the contract using the original estimates, which predicted certain dates of unoccupancy, without considering a so-called "stop loss" order, which he received before award, that kept the troops in place and made the dates that the units would become vacant uncertain, or without revising the estimates or making the uncertain occupancy dates known the contractor); Ambulance Service & Transport of Marlin, supra (although the Government contended that its estimates under two "requirements" contracts for ambulance services were prepared in good faith using the best available historical data combined with anticipated future needs, the board found that it had not properly assessed the information in its possession regarding past usage and projected needs in developing the estimates or considered all of the relevant, available information; thus, the Government failed to exercise due care and was liable to the contractor for damages resulting from the contractor's reasonable reliance on those negligently prepared estimates); Alert Care Ambulance Service, supra (Government failed to exercise due care in preparing its quantity estimates for each type of trip it required in its solicitation for ambulance services, because neglected to use historical data and also relied on estimates from earlier contracts which had proven to be inaccurate; i.e., there was no rational basis for the projected ambulance usage which was significantly overstated). See also Pruitt Energy Sources, Inc., supra (Government's estimates of work under a "requirements" contract for computer services were grossly and unreasonably inadequate because it: (a) applied, without adjustment, a year's worth of historical data on service calls to the contract base period of less than seven months; (b) inflated the estimate for a one-year option period by proportionally increasing the already inflated seven-month base period estimate; (c) accounted for a 300 percent increase in its computer equipment inventory by multiplying the estimate by three to take care of the overlap between the period during which the inventory increased and the period during which the government had gathered its historical service call data, thus engaging in double counting; and (d) guessed at the average travel time per service call, without regard to available information as to where most of the equipment was located and where most service calls had occurred in the past). Similarly, the parties agree that the Government's second period estimates were inaccurate, perhaps whoppingly so, since the difference between the job as bid and as actually performed was 138 percent, which represents the gap between the 42 percent reduction the Contractor had anticipated when the CD-ROM program was implemented, and the 96 percent increase in production it actually experienced under the contract after August 1, 1994, when that electronic dissemination plan was suspended. Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 41, 42, 43. On the other hand, while the size of the discrepancy looks suspicious, much like a telltale column of smoke in the distance, that fact alone is insufficient to prove that the Government failed to exercise due care when it prepared its work estimates for Program D306-S. See Medart, Inc. v. Austin, supra, 967 F.2d at 581; Crown Laundry, supra, 29 Fed. Cl. at 520; Clearwater Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States, 227 Ct. Cl. 386, 650 F.2d 233, 240 (1981); Womack, supra, 389 F.2d at 802; Pruitt Energy Sources, Inc., supra, 95-2 BCA at 138,828; Alert Care Ambulance Service supra, 90-3 BCA at 115,180. See also Emerald Maintenance, Inc.,supra, 94-2 BCA at 133,970 (fact that actual experience varies significantly from data furnished in a Government solicitation does not, standing alone, create liability nor shift to the Government the burden of proving the reasonableness of its data); Gulf Construction Group, Inc., ENG BCA No. 5964, 94-1 BCA ¶ 26,524 (disparity with estimates alone do not show that estimates are prepared without due care). What it does mean, however, is that the magnitude of the forecasting error, when considered in light of other factors, might be the final link in a chain of evidence presented by the Appellant to show that the Government's estimates were negligently prepared. See Pruitt Energy Sources, Inc., supra, 95-2 BCA at 138,828 (citing Ambulance Service & Transport of Marlin, supra). Compare Crown Laundry, supra (failure to verify estimates plus 45 percent shortfall was evidence of negligent preparation); Pruitt Energy Sources, Inc., supra (estimates based on faulty computation methods which resulted in an 84 percent shortfall were negligent); Fa. Kammerdiener GmbH & Co., KG, supra (Government negligence found in a failure to revise original estimates in light of a "stop loss" order received before award of the contract that changed vacancy dates of housing units and led to a 90 percent shortfall); Ambulance Service & Transport of Marlin, supra (shortfalls of 46 percent and 72 percent, respectively, on two contracts for transportation services were the result of the Government's failure to account for past shortfalls and future projections of decreased hospital usage in preparing its estimates); and Alert Care Ambulance Service supra (Government's estimates were significantly overstated by 41 percent because it failed to use historic data and relied on inaccurate estimates in earlier contracts), with Medart, Inc. v. Austin, supra (Government estimates based the previous year's demand for metal storage cabinets were reasonable notwithstanding a shortfall in actual orders of between 24 percent and 70 percent for the four types of cabinets covered by the contract); Gulf Construction Group, Inc., supra (no showing of basis for estimates so overrun of 115 percent not proof of negligent preparation); Integrity Management International, Inc., supra (using the historical workload under the predecessor contract and adjusting for certain foreseeable factors such as the level of troop strength, was a rational approach for developing estimates for laundry services even though there were shortfalls of 10.7 percent and 44.6 percent, respectively, in actual work ordered under the two parts of the contract); Datagraphics Press, Inc., supra (GPO estimates based on the status of United States Postal Service postal rate proceedings were not negligently prepared despite an 18 percent shortfall in actual orders). Consequently, in a case like this the spotlight is trained on how the Government arrived at the estimates relied on by the bidding contractor, rather than on the contractor's subsequent financial position stemming from the failure of the actual level of work to represent some reasonable relationship to the Government's projections. In this case, the Appellant places the blame for the 138 percent discrepancy between the contract estimates for the second production period and the number of actual orders squarely on the shoulders of the Respondent and the PTO for failing to take in to account the foreign opposition to the CD-ROM plan when the estimates for Program D306-S were being prepared. Partial Motion, at 18-20; Appellant's Reply, at 11-12. In so many words, the Contractor believes that the scope of hostile opinion from the foreign community-66_ percent, and eventually 75 percent, of the countries slated to the CD-ROM sets had expressed their disagreement with the new electronic dissemination plan-was too large to be ignored, should have alerted the Government to the possibility that the CD-ROM program could change, thus affecting the workload in the second production period. Partial Motion, at 21-23 (citing Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 19, 29-32, 44, 47-51; Saifer Deposition, at 10, 114); Appellant's Reply, at 12-13. Since the reaction of concerned foreign governments to the CD-ROM program was known prior to award of the contract, and was information which was relevant and reasonably available to GPO at the time, the Appellant says that the Respondent's failure to consider it amounts to lack of due care, and because the erroneous estimates were the result of this negligence, it is entitled to be reimbursed for the financial harm it suffered by relying on them. Partial Motion, at 29, 32, 36; Appellant's Reply, at 17. In so arguing, the Appellant believes this case is "four square" with the situation confronting the ASBCA in Contract Management, Inc. See Appellant's Leave Request, at 3. Contract Management, Inc., involved a "requirements" contract for janitorial services at three Army posts in California-the Presidio, Fort Baker, and Fort Mason. Although the workload estimates in the solicitation were essentially the same as in the prior custodial contract, which was fixed-price (the Army switched to a "requirements" contract for administrative reasons), before the new contract was awarded the Engineering office, which oversaw the contract, projected a substantial funding shortfall for janitorial services; i.e., there would only enough funds to pay for three-quarters of the contract. To compound the contract's anticipated financial difficulties, prior to award of the contract Army headquarters advised the Presidio commander that there would be a further twelve (12) percent cut in funding for operations and maintenance, and the local units be asked to absorb the increased costs. Army headquarters recommended minimizing the "frequency of service contracts such as custodial, refuse, entomology, etc." as a way to reduce expenses. Also before the contract was awarded, on the advise of the local budget committee, the Presidio commander reduced the Engineering office's funding by $690,000.00. Despite these "storm signals," the Government did not revise its estimates to reflect this budgetary information, and awarded the contract to Contract Management, Inc. (CMI) with requirements figures still based on the prior year's contract. Equally important, the Army never informed CMI of any possible funding difficulties or discussed any issue concerning the availability of funds with the contractor; indeed, CMI was unaware of any funding problems when the contract was signed. Seven (7) months into the contract period, the Army issued a series of contract modifications reducing the frequencies of scheduled cleaning services and making numerous changes to the cleaning intervals listed on the contract drawings, all of which the ASBCA found to be caused by the budgetary problems foreseen by the Engineering office and the funding cuts directed by Army headquarters, both of which occurred prior to award. While the ASBCA found no evidence of bad faith in this case, it nonetheless held that the Government's negligent failure to revise its contractual estimate of the amount of required janitorial services to account for the projected funding shortfall and budget reduction warranted an equitable adjustment in favor of CMI because it was misled by the estimate. . The ASBCA reasoned, in pertinent part: As we stated in Crown Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc., ASBCA No. 28889, 85-2 BCA ¶ 18,003 at 90,259: In a requirements contract providing estimates of future quantities, the Government has a duty to consider all relevant information in preparing estimates included in a solicitation. Clearly the estimates here are not a guarantee, but absence of a guarantee does not absolve the Government of liability for not exercising due care when it ignores all relevant information. Here, appellant relied upon the estimates provided by the Government in preparing its bid as it was entitled to do. The Government, however, did not amend the solicitation estimates prior to contract award to reflect the November 1989 projection that [the Engineering office] would experience a funding shortfall for this contract in July 1990 and the $690,00 reduction to the [the Engineering office] budget in January 1990. Thus, although highly relevant and the most current information available, the Government's funding problems were not reflected in the Government's estimates and were not otherwise made known to appellant. We conclude that the Government did not exercise due care when it ignored this funding information and failed to amend or update its custodial services estimates. The Government was negligent in preparing its estimates and misled appellant. Womack v. United States, supra; Chemical Technology, Inc. v. United States, supra. * * * * * * * * * * Instead, we perceive this case to be more like Maya Transit Company, ASBCA No. 20186, 75-2 BCA ¶ 11,552, where the Government canceled bus services it had contracted to purchase solely because of budgetary limitations. There, as here, the Government's needs did not change. We held that, having contracted to purchase bus services in excess of its capabilities, the Government could not eliminate needed bus services by changing its budget priorities or redistributing its own capabilities. 75-2 BCA at 55,125. Citing Womack, supra, we further concluded that appellant did not assume the risk that the Government would refuse to order needed bus services and that the Government's internal "budgetary limitations" were not among the risks that appellant agreed to assume under the contract. Id. at 55, 126. See Contract Management, Inc.,supra, 95-2 BCA at 139,108-09. On the surface, perhaps, Contract Management, Inc. shares some factual features with this appeal. However, that case differs from this matter in at least three important respects, so that its usefulness here, beyond being a restatement of the Womack principles, is somewhat limited. First, as a structural matter, Contract Management, Inc. was not a summary judgment proceeding, but rather was decided after a full hearing on the merits. Indeed, the ASBCA had previously denied summary judgment on CMI's claim because, inter alia, there were genuine issues of material fact relating to whether the contracting officer, confronted with funding difficulties, acted in good faith in determining what the Government's custodial requirements would be, as well as how to fulfill them. See Contract Management, Inc., ASBCA No. 44885, 94-1 BCA ¶ 26,460, at 131,666. In that regard, the ASBCA ascribed particular relevance to facts establishing what the Government and CMI knew about the nature and extent of the funding difficulties, both at the time the previous fixed-price contract was restructured into a "requirements" contract and when the contract was finally awarded, and what factors influenced the contracting officer in his evaluation of custodial needs, including the resources available, the priorities and the most economical method of satisfying conflicting needs. Id. c.f. Phillips National, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 41654, 42764, 93-1 BCA ¶ 25,271 (no summary judgment on issue of negligent preparation of estimates).56 The Board has searched the record for evidence of the mechanics used to arrive at the disputed estimates in this case, and the only thing it could find was the following exchange in Bawcombe's deposition: Q. [Mr. Lieberman] Did your office have some kind of procedure for agreeing with the solicitation, saying that's acceptable to the patent office? A. [Mr. Bawcombe] We have a-the staff works directly with the contracting officer and the contracting specialist at GPO. Whenever a solicitation goes out, it's basically an agreement between those two staffs. Q. Is it fair to say that any time a D306-S patent printing solicitation goes out, it's closely coordinated between your office and the GPO? A. Yes.57 Q. Is it also fair to say that your office would carefully examine any estimates of requirements contained in such a solicitation? A. Yes. Q. Have there ever been instances in which your office has either objected to the requirements or requested that a change be made in the requirements for D306-S? [Objection omitted.] A. There have been times when we requested changes, yes. Q. Has the GPO made the changes you requested? [Objection omitted.] A. Yes. Q. Is it also fair to say that whenever there are disagreements between the two staffs, GPO and PTO, they're resolved to the satisfaction of both organizations? [Objection omitted.] A. Usually. Q. Well, who has the final say on what's in the solicitation? The PTO or the GPO? A. The GPO. Q. Is that true with respect to the requirements that are contained in the solicitation? A. I'm sorry[.] What is true? Q. What I'm asking is this. Here's a hypothetical. The patent office says, we anticipate, because of a change in something, that we're only going to need X copies of patents for the next 12 months, and GPO looks at that and says, "No. We think we'll need 1.5 times X, 50 percent more." Who would have the final say over what goes into the solicitation" GPO or PTO? A. It is GPO's contract, they would have the final say. Q. Have you ever experienced a situation-how long have you been involved in the printing of patents? A. 22 years. Q. And that whole time have you been involved in relationships with the GPO printing on behalf of the PTO? A. Through-I've been director for five and a half years, so obviously-I was deputy director for 11 years prior to that, so, yes, for the majority of that time. Q. Is it a fair statement or isn't it a fair statement that if the patent office identifies certain requirements, that GPO will funnel those particular requirements into any solicitation? [Objection omitted.] A. It is a fair statement to say that they-yes. We have had some difference of opinions, but it doesn't deal with volumes or anything like that. Q. So normally, the printing office accepts the patent office estimates of what's necessary? A. Yes. They question them sometimes, but then we sit down and we explain them. Q. So in your experience, they've either accepted them or, based on an explanation, they've accepted them? A. That's correct. See Bawcombe Deposition, at 34-38.58 In the Board's view, this colloquy is not enough to warrant the conclusion that there are no genuine issues of material fact relating to what steps Contracting Officer Weiss took, in this particular procurement, in formulating the estimates which are now alleged to have been negligently prepared. Nothing in the above exchange, or elsewhere in the record, tells us about the nature and extent of the communications between GPO and the PTO concerning the disputed solicitation, explains the basis for the estimates (although a logical place to start would have been the historical data on Program D306-S in the hands of the customer-agency and/or GPO), describes how the Government calculated the volume reduction in paper sets because of the substitution of CD-ROM patents, or otherwise casts a light on the rationality of the procedure used to develop the estimates. Perhaps the most glaring omission in the record on this issue is the absence of a deposition from the Contracting Officer-the person with actual contracting authority. The likelihood is that the pattern of consultations described by Bawcombe was also followed in this case, but summary judgment proceedings are no place for guesses, and moreover, the Board has routinely declined to substitute its assumptions for the hard evidence the parties are required to introduce. See Univex International, supra, at 35; Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 82. Accordingly, summary judgment would be inappropriate here on that basis alone. Secondly, the issue in Contract Management, Inc. concerned a reduction in the amount of estimated work for reasons outside the scope of the contract, namely a lack of funds, while this is dispute involves the financial impact on a contractor when a specification in the solicitation itself fails. That is, Contract Management, Inc. involved a situation where the Army activity, an appropriated fund organization, knew before it awarded the contract precisely how much money it would have to spend for custodial services, and that if services were provided at the level anticipated in the contract a funding shortfall was certain, but nonetheless proceeded to award the contract without revising its estimates. See Contract Management, Inc., supra, 95-2 BCA at 139,105. Indeed, the record showed that before the contract was awarded the contract administrators discussed the need for reductions in janitorial activity in light of the projected budget shortfall and Army headquarters' announcement of further funding cuts; i.e., before the contract was awarded, its administrators recognized that the estimates were "out of kilter" with the actual facts regarding the contract funding level, and positively knew that they had a problem because not enough money was available in the budget to completely pay for the services identified as required in the contract. Id. Assuring adequate funding is fundamental to every Government contract; in fact, under the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, unless otherwise authorized by law, no contracting officer or Federal employee may create or authorize an obligation in excess of the funds available or in advance of appropriations. See FAR § 32.702; PPR, Chap. VIII, Sec. 4, ¶ 1. In most cases, and Contract Management, Inc. is no exception, an appropriated fund activity knows its budget before, or shortly after the start of the fiscal year, and it is gross neglect not to factor that data into contract estimates, indeed, an activity cannot make contracting plans without such information, as the ASBCA so found. See Contract Management, Inc., supra, 95-2 BCA at 139,108. Here, by contrast, the postponement of the CD-ROM program, which resulted in greater production of paper sets of patents in the second period than accounted for in the Appellant's bid, had nothing to do with the lack of funds, but rather was a management decision made on the basis of external factors, namely, adverse reaction to the idea by foreign customers. Consequently, the Appellant's argument essentially comes down to a claim that somehow the Government breached an implied warranty of specifications in the disputed contract, namely that the CD-ROM program would be used to supply a certain number of patents and the requirements for paper sets would be reduced accordingly. Assuming arguendo, that "implied warranty" has any viability in the context of this appeal, the Board would first have to decide what the affect the CD-ROM specification had on the Contractor's own ability to perform. See Professional Printing of Kansas, Inc., supra, slip op. at 55-56 (citing Hol-Gar Manufacturing Corp. v. United States, 175 Ct. Cl. 518, 360 F.2d 634 (1966); D.E.W., Incorporated, ASBCA No. 358, 94-3 BCA ¶ 27,182 (and cases cited therein); Santa Fe Engineers, Inc., ASBCA No. 45228, 93 BCA ¶ 25,555); Colorgraphics Corp., GPO BCA 16-87 (March 31, 1989), slip op. at 22, 1989 WL 384970 (citing Consolidated Diesel Electric Corp, ASBCA No. 10496, 67-2 BCA ¶ 6669). The first step in such an analysis, and indeed the key to it, would be to decide, in the context of the contract, whether the CD-ROM plan was a "design" specification or a "performance" one, since the law makes a clear distinction between them with respect to the rights and obligations of the parties to a Government contract. Professional Printing of Kansas, Inc., supra, slip op. at 56 (citing Aleutian Constructors v. United States, 24 Cl. Ct. 372 (1992)); Colorgraphics Corp., supra, slip op. at 23 (citing Monitor Plastics Co., ASBCA No. 14447, 72-2 ¶ 9,626). See also Big Chief Drilling Co. v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 1276 (1992); Geo-Con, Inc., ENG BCA Nos. 5749, 5976, 94-1 BCA ¶ 26,359; Southwest Marine, Inc., DOTBCA No. 1661, 93-3 BCA ¶ 16,168. The simple matter is that there is no evidence whatsoever in this record concerning the nature, type and scope of the CD-ROM specification. Therefore, even if the Board thought that the implied warranty theory had some place in this case, and it does not, it would also have to say that there are genuine material issues of fact remaining to be decided, and thus summary judgment would be inappropriate. See Boar Contractors, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 38857, 39731, 92-1 BCA ¶ 24,691 (no summary judgment on claim of defective "density"specification); DataStat Corp., NASA BCA No. 881-11, 83-2 BCA ¶ 16,879 (no summary judgment on claim of defective specifications in Government's "technical data package"). Cf. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., ASBCA No. 32300, 86-3 BCA ¶ 19,147 (summary judgment allowed where painting contractor correctly used the paint system specified in the contract and the paint system failed). Finally, the third difference between the situation in Contract Management, Inc. and this appeal, and perhaps the most crucial one, is the fact that notwithstanding that various offices within the chain-of-command may have had a role to play in contracting for janitorial services, the ASBCA was only dealing with a single contracting entity-the case involved an Army contract, pure and simple-while here we must sort out the contracting relationship of two Government agencies, GPO and the PTO. And so, we reach the nub of the problem regarding the Appellant's claim that the Government's estimates for the Program D306-S contract were negligently prepared, namely the issue of "imputed knowledge." GPO, not the PTO, is the Appellant's contracting partner in this case. Therefore, in order to succeed on its "negligent estimates" claim, the Contractor has to show that the Program D306-S estimates were unrealistic because GPO's Contracting Officer, Weiss, did not consider the most current information reasonably available to him before the contract was awarded. See e.g., Crown Laundry, supra; Medart, Inc. v. Austin, supra; Contract Management, Inc., supra; Ambulance Service & Transport of Marlin, supra; Fa. Kammerdiener GmbH & Co., KG, supra. Assuming arguendo, that the foreign patent office complaints about the CD-ROM program would have been relevant in the construction of the contract estimates for the second production period, then the Appellant must prove that the Contracting Officer knew about those criticisms and ignored them in developing the estimates, or otherwise failed to revise his figures in light of that information. Since the parties agree that the Respondent did not learn of the foreign opposition to the CD-ROM policy, or the possibility of a change to it, until July 7, 1994-nearly two (2) months after the contract was awarded-when the OPP informed GPO (erroneously as it turned out) that the distribution of patents on CD-ROMs had been rescinded (postponement of the program was only under consideration at the time)-it would seem that the Contractor has "proved itself out of court." (Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 55-58; Material Facts, p. 6, fn. 7, ¶¶ 15-16; R4 File, Tabs E and F). However, the Appellant asks the Board to impute the knowledge acquired by the OSIR's International Liaison Staff in the months of April and May 1994, before the contract was awarded, that key foreign patent offices-Germany, Great Britain, the Russian Federation, Switzerland, and Sweden-were unhappy with the CD-ROM patent substitution plan and that there was a chance it would change, even though it is apparent that the International Liaison staff did not inform the OPP of these foreign complaints, and as a consequence, GPO was also unaware of them (Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 17-19, 29-32, 44-46, 47-50; Material Facts, ¶ 10).59 In short, the Contractor argues that the adverse information gathered from foreign patent offices, both orally and in writing, by the OSIR's International Liaison office before May 20, 1994, should be considered "reasonably available" to the Contracting Officer for the purposes of the "Womack" standards. The Board disagrees. Imputing the knowledge or conduct of one Federal agency to another one is not automatic. See Cryo-Sonics, Inc., ASBCA No. 11483, 66-2 BCA ¶ 5,890, at 27,331. Indeed, there are relatively few cases on the books involving imputed knowledge or conduct, and the Board's research has disclosed none precisely like this one. Where it is applied, the usual rule is that imputation is appropriate if there is a "significant bond" between the two agencies and their projects. See Weaver Construction Co., supra, 91-2 BCA at 119,184 (Forest Service's tortious interference with contract work performed in a national forest which it supervised and regulated and which caused a delay was imputed to the contracting agency, Federal Highway Administration, because there was "a significant bond" between the two agencies; i.e., coordination between them concerning the contract was undoubtedly essential. Citing Lewis-Nicholson, Inc. v. United States, 213 Ct. Cl. 192 (1977); L.W. Foster Sportswear Co. v. United States, supra; J.A. Jones Construction Co. v. United States, supra). But cf. Hawaiian Dredging & Construction Co., ASBCA No. 25594, 84-2 BCA ¶ 17,290 (Board refused to impute knowledge of the plans of the Department of Labor and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to change the regulations covering the use of alien workers on Guam to the procuring agency, the Navy, which was as unaware of Labor's plans as the contractor); Unitec, Inc., ASBCA No. 22025, 79-2 BCA ¶ 13,923 (Board refused to impute knowledge of Corps of Engineers personnel to Army's Fort Stewart personnel because there was no "meaningful connection."). Similarly, the rule may be applied to impute the knowledge of one organization within an agency to another. See Cryo-Sonics, Inc., supra, 66-2 BCA at 27,331-32 (knowledge of engineer in the Air Force command that did the developmental work on a project was charged to the Air Force command which negotiated and administered the contract since the engineer's report was referenced by the contractor's proposal). However, the Board has been unable to find any case which, in effect, combines the principles expressed in Weaver Construction Co. and Cryo- Sonics, Inc.; i.e., one where a contracting agency with "a significant bond" to another agency has been charged with knowledge possessed by an organization within the latter agency with which has no connection whatsoever. Specifically, we can probably say that there is clearly "a significant bond" or "meaningful relationship" between the PTO and GPO in this situation, and it might be one thing if the OPP had been made aware of the foreign complaints to the CD- ROM program by the OSIR's International Liaison Staff, and neglected to inform GPO. It is something else again to either engage in "double imputation"-credit the OPP with the information possessed by the OSIR and then by some process of osmosis transfer it to the Respondent-or to "leap frog" over the OPP altogether and impute the International Liaison Staff's knowledge directly to GPO. Thus, the question is how far into the PTO does the Board pursue "imputed knowledge" before the theory loses force and becomes a farce?60 On careful consideration, the Board has concluded that in this case applying the "imputed knowledge" theory would be inappropriate. Accepted legal fictions such as "imputed knowledge" have their purposes, see New South Press & Assoc., Inc., supra, slip op. at 39 (conventional wisdom that a fixed- price contract terminated for convenience is converted into a cost reimbursement contract is an accepted legal fiction and not completely true. Citing Graphic Litho Co., Inc., GPO BCA 17-85 (February 23, 1988), slip op. at 9-10, 1988 WL 363327, reconsid. denied, September 30, 1988), but they should not be allowed to overcome clear, unmistakable and uncontroverted facts. It has been said: . . . [T]here is an implied duty upon all parties to "lay their cards on the table" in the negotiation or bidding process, viz., a duty of communication, which, when complied with, would have a salutary effect on the entire procurement from its inception. See Automated Services, Inc., GSBCA Nos. EEOC-2, EEOC-3, 81-2 BCA ¶ 15,303, at 5,766. The record supports the view that, in fact, the key offices in both the PTO and GPO responsible for dealing with the disputed contract were true to this duty, but that an important "user" activity within the PTO was not; i.e., instead of "laying their cards on the table," the OSIR's International Liaison Staff was "holding their cards close to the vest." In this case, the record confirms that the OSIR's International Liaison Staff was, in conjunction with the OEDPS, was instrumental in moving the PTO toward the CD-ROM substitution policy. See Saifer Deposition, at 22-24, 33-40. Therefore, perhaps the OSIR had an obligation to tell the OPP (since it did not talk directly to GPO) that 9 of 12 foreign governments slated to receive patents in CD-ROM form were opposed to the idea and leave it up to the OPP to convey that information to the Respondent, but it did not, and those are the facts. Because the OPP, as GPO's official contact point in the PTO, was unaware of the foreign complaints, to claim that OSIR's knowledge should now be imputed to the Respondent would be tantamount to establishing the OSIR as a second contact point in the customer agency-a management decision by which the Board would, in effect, be usurping powers of the Commissioner of Patents and Trademark. Overall, the Board believes that the situation in this case has more in common with Hawaiian Dredging & Construction Co., supra, than with Weaver Construction Co., supra, and that the "imputed knowledge" theory is of dubious value where, as here, key organizational elements to the contractual relationship are completely "in the dark" about any potential problems with respect to the solicitation and have no reason to inquire. More importantly, using "imputed knowledge" as the basis for finding the Contracting Officer negligent in his preparation of the estimates for Program D306-S would violate one of the principal teachings of Womack, namely, that the exercise of due care is not synonymous with clairvoyancy. See Womack, supra, 389 F.2d at 801. Obviously, the rules should protect against careless guesswork by the Government as to its requirements in formulating its estimates, see Medart v. Austin, 967 F.2d at 581, but unlike the situation in Crown Laundry, supra, where the contracting officer proceeded with the solicitation and award without verifying the estimates of the user activities, even though he thought they were "exaggerated," there is nothing in this record about the numbers given to him by the PTO for the solicitation, and on which the contract awarded was based, which would have raised a "red flag" in the Contracting Officer's mind or led him to suspect that the estimates might be seriously flawed, see Crown Laundry, supra, 29 Fed. Cl. at 523. Moreover, the record is devoid of any evidence which would allow the Board to find that during the relevant period during which Program D306-S was solicited and awarded, the second period production estimates were grossly erroneous or negligently prepared. In that regard, the Appellant's reliance on the complaints of foreign patent offices might lend some heft to its argument if key PTO personnel knew, before the contract was awarded, that the CD-ROM program would be canceled, and the Government plunged ahead despite that fact. However, the parties have stipulated that just the opposite is true. Thus, the Board is told that one of the options in Lawson's memorandum of July 15, 1994, requesting review of the CD-ROM policy, was the suggestion that it be left alone and implemented according to plan. Jt. Stip., ¶ 60. See also Saifer Deposition, at 128-31. The PTO's decision to suspend the CD-ROM dissemination program was made months after the contract was awarded, and until then there was always the possibility that the discussions within the PTO concerning foreign opposition to the CD-ROM idea would have had no affect on the contract. Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 61-62. Saifer Deposition, at 128-30. Therefore, as far as GPO knew, on the date it awarded the contract to the Appellant, the CD-ROM substitution program was "alive and well," and an integral part of the PTO's scheme for distributing United States patents to its foreign exchange partners.61 But says, the Contractor, even though the formal decision to drop the CD-ROM program for a year was made after it received the contract, the principal management officials within the PTO, and hence by imputation, GPO, should have known that a change in policy was likely, and perhaps imminent. However, until the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks made the actual decision to postpone the CD-ROM policy on September 7, 1994, what anyone else might have "known" would have been nothing more than an "educated guess," at best, or "mere speculation," at worst. Therefore, even assuming that the Contracting Officer was aware of the adverse reaction of most of the foreign government involved in the CD-ROM plan to that idea and knew that PTO management was considering what to do about the complaints, for Weiss to have based his contract actions between April 11, 1994, the date of the solicitation, and May 20, 1994, the date of award, on his own belief about the ultimate outcome of the PTO's discussions, would have been an attempt at clairvoyancy. GPO Contracting Officers have many important responsibilities, but trying to predict the future management actions of another agency with respect to its contracts is not one of them, and it would be foolish for them to try to do so. The Womack court would not impose a requirement on contracting officers to be clairvoyant. Neither will the Board. Summary judgment is appropriate under Rule 56 only if the evidence warrants the conclusion that there are no genuine issues of material fact involved in the case. On this record, including the stipulations of the parties, the Board cannot say conclusively that the Government's estimates for Program D306-S in the April Solicitation were negligently prepared. B. Although the Board has jurisdiction to consider the Appellant's claim for recovery on the basis of a "mutual mistake of fact" when the contract was formed, the Government's estimates for Program D306-S is not the sort of error contemplated by law as warranting reformation of the contract. The second "formation" issue involves the Appellant's attempt to recover based on the principles of National Presto Industries, by requesting reformation of the contract on the ground that the parties made a "mutual mistake" of fact regarding the estimated quantity of work. Partial Motion, at 32. Briefly, the four elements of National Presto Industries are: (1) at the time of contract formation both the contractor and the Government make a mistake as to (2) a "basic assumption" on which the contract was based, which had (3) a "material effect" upon performance, (4) provided that the party seeking reformation did not assume the risk of that mistake. See generally, Cibinic & Nash, Administration, at 322 (citing Restatement, Second, Contracts § 152. The Respondent contends that National Presto Industries has no bearing on this case. Points and Authorities, at 15-20. The Government is correct. However, before addressing the merits of the Contractor's allegations, the Board needs to take a moment, as did with the "negligent estimates" question, and clarify the scope of its jurisdiction with respect to "mutual mistakes." Admittedly, the Board's files may not contain copies of all of GPO's contract appeals decisions prior to 1984. However, its research of the 22 years worth of decisions it does have discloses that all of the "mistake" cases considered by this forum and the previous ad hoc panels, with one exception, concerned unilateral mistakes in bid discovered after award. See e.g., Web Business Forms, GPO BCA 16-89 (September 30, 1994), 1994 WL 837423; Taggart Printing Co., GPO BCA 11-85 (January 20, 1987), 1987 WL 228967; Peake Printing, Inc., supra; Great Lakes Lithograph Co., GPO BCA 18-84 (May 22, 1985), 1985 WL 154849; Citiplate, Inc., GPOCAB 4-84 (May 4, 1984), 1984 WL 148104. Only in McDonald & Eudy Printers, Inc., supra did the Board discuss the theory of "mutual mistake," and then simply as commentary in the context of that decision. McDonald & Eudy Printers, Inc., involved a contractor's equitable adjustment claim under a "requirements" contract to cover the surplus paper it had purchased to meet the Government's needs, but which went unused when less orders were placed than estimated. Since there was no proof that the estimates had been negligently prepared, the Board denied the claim because the "Requirements" clause clearly states that the Government's failure to order the estimated requirements does not constitute the basis for an equitable adjustment. See McDonald & Eudy Printers, Inc., supra, slip op. at 17-18 (citing Command Tech Corp., supra; University of Iowa, ASBCA No. 14581, 70-1 BCA ¶ 8,218). Observing, that the excess paper resulted from the contractor's erroneous business judgment, which is not a ground for relief, id., slip at 19-20 (citing Hurt's Printing Co., Inc., GPO BCA 27-92 (January 21, 1994, 1994 WL 275098; Aydin Corp. v. United States, 229 Ct. Cl. 309, 669 F.2d 681 (1982); American Ship Building Co. v. United States, 228 Ct. Cl. 220, 654 F.2d 75 (1981); National Refrigerants, Inc., GSBCA No. 7544, 85-2 BCA ¶ 17,996; Cibinic & Nash, Formation), the Board compared the contractor's position with the one rejected by the board in University of Iowa, where the ASBCA said the contractor's belief that the Government's estimated requirements were "relatively firm," amounted to: [At most] . . . show a mutual mistake as to [those] requirements. Relief for mutual mistake requires reformation of the contract. This is a matter for the General Accounting Office or the courts. It is beyond our authority to grant. University of Iowa, supra, 70-1 BCA ¶ 8,218, at 38,214. [Emphasis added.] Although it was dicta, the Board's reference to University of Iowa was its way of reminding the parties that it is a forum of limited jurisdiction, for the reasons stated previously in this opinion, and that it functions essentially as a pre-CDA board of contract appeals whose remedial powers are tied to the clauses in the contract.62 See Swanson I, supra, slip op. at 28; The Wessel Co., Inc.,supra, slip op. at 34. See also H.L. Eikenberg Co., supra, slip op. at 35, fn. 21. Accord AJN Reporters, GSBCA No. 5022, 78-2 BCA ¶ 13,298 (no equitable authority to revise the terms of the contract); RIHA Construction Co., ASBCA No. 21441, 77-1 BCA ¶ 12,324 (no authority to grant reformation or remedy a mistake in bid without a relief provision in the contract); American Standard, Inc., NASA BCA No. 771-14, 73-1 BCA ¶ 9,899 (no authority to reform the contract); Taiei Co., Inc., ASBCA No. 17123, 72-2 BCA ¶ 9,738 (no jurisdiction to consider a mutual mistake claim); Horton & Converse, VACAB No. 519, 65-2 BCA ¶ 4,995 (authority of the head of an agency to reform contracts in limited situations not delegated to the board). Having said that, however, this does not mean that the Board's remedial arsenal is without any equitable ammunition whatsoever. For example, there is no doubt that the Board can reform a contract to remedy a post-award discovery of a unilateral mistake in bid. The sources of that remedial authority are the phrase "related to the contract" in the GPO "Disputes" clause, and the agency's printing procurement regulations. GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 5(a) (Disputes); PPR, Chap. XI, Sec. 6, ¶ 4. See Web Business Forms, Inc., supra, slip op. at 27; Peake Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 6; Great Lakes Lithograph Co., supra, slip op. at 18. See also, Foss, The First Decade, at 587, fn. 41. Indeed, the PPR expressly provides, in pertinent part, that where such a mistake claim is made, the Contracting Officer may rescind or reform the contract: (i) by deleting the item or items involved in the mistake; or (ii) by increasing the price of the contract, as corrected, does not exceed that of the next lowest acceptable bid under the original invitation for bids. c. Determinations under subparagraph 6.4b may be made only on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that a mistake in bid was made, and either that the mistake was mutual or that the unilateral mistake made by the contractor was so apparent as to have charged the Contracting Officer with notice of probability of mistake. If the evidence does not warrant a determination under subparagraph 6.4(b)(i) or (ii), a determination may be made that no change shall be made in the contract as awarded. See PPR, Chap. XI, Sec. 6, ¶¶ 4(b),(c). [Emphasis added.] Except for some minor variations in language and structure, the above quoted paragraphs of the PPR are identical to the provisions of FAR § 14.406-4 (Mistakes after award). In that respect, both regulations basically repeat the general rule of Government contracts law which holds that a contractor who is awarded a contract on the basis of a mistaken bid will be bound by its erroneous offer if the mistake was neither induced nor shared by the Government, unless the contracting officer knew or should have known of the existence of the mistake at the time the bid was accepted. See Web Business Forms, Inc., supra, slip op. at 28; Great Lakes Lithograph Co., supra, slip op. at 20-21 (citing, Doke, Mistakes in Government Contracts-Error Detection Duty of Contracting Officers, 18 S.W.L.J. 1 (1964)). The Board has indicated on numerous occasions that where GPO adopts the regulatory language of other agencies as its own then under settled rules of construction the Board must presume that the uniform interpretation given to those words has also been accepted. See Web Business Forms, Inc., supra, slip op. at 29 (rules on post-award discovery of mistakes in bid); McDonald & Eudy Printers, Inc., supra, slip op. at 11-12 ("Requirements" clause); Shepard Printing, supra, slip op. at 21-22 ("Requirements" clause); Banta Co., supra, slip. op. at 34 ("Changes" clause). Furthermore, the purpose and scope of the Board's authority was explained in Great Lakes Lithograph Co., supra, its leading case on the question of post-award discovery of a mistake in bid, where it adopted the teachings of the Court of Claims in Ruggiero v. United States, 190 Ct. Cl. 327, 420 F.2d 709, 715-16 (1970), when the Court stated in pertinent part: . . . As we pointed out in [Charnick] v. United States, 372 F.2d 492, 178 Ct. Cl. 498 (1967), what we are really concerned with is the overreaching of a contractor by a contracting officer when the latter has the knowledge, actual or imputed as something he ought to know, that the bid is based on or embodies a disastrous mistake and accepts the bid in face of that knowledge. The corrections of the mistake, perhaps in the teeth of general conditions or specifications, by rescission or reformation, represents an application of equitable principles in a legal action. The mistake, to invoke such principles, must be, as in the cases cited, a clear cut clerical or arithmetical error, or misreading of specifications, and the authorities cited do not extend to mistakes of judgment. . . . [A]n agreement cannot be revised to reflect a plaintiff's subjective understanding the defendant does not and should not know of. Benjamin v. United States, 348 F.2d 502, 172 Ct. Cl. 118 (1965). See Great Lakes Lithograph Co., supra, slip op. at 25-26. The Board subsequently amplified these views in Taggart Printing Corp. when it stated, in pertinent part: Recently in Valley Forms, Inc., . . .and again in Peake Printers, Inc., . . . , we cited Manistique Tool and Manufacturing Company, ASBCA No. 29164, Aug. 13, 1984, 84-2 BCA [¶ 17,599], wherein at page 87,677 it said: As a general rule, neither a Board of Contract Appeals or the Claims Court is authorized to relieve a bidder from its obligations under a contract unless it is subject to invalidation on recognized legal grounds, such as mutual mistake, or a mistake of which the contracting officer was on notice or should have been on notice. [Citations omitted.] Moreover, before relief by reformation or rescission is available to relieve a contractor of the effect of its mistake, the mistake must be a "clear cut clerical or arithmetical error, or misreading of the specifications" and such relief does not extend to mistakes of judgment. [Citations omitted.] See Taggart Printing Corp.,supra, slip op. at 7. [Emphasis added.] See also Valley Forms, supra, slip op. at 11; Peake Printers, Inc., supra, slip op. at 7-8. Thus, the Board's authority to decide "mutual mistake" claims is clear, and, in the final analysis, it will apply precisely the same rules as its Executive Branch counterparts. See Web Business Forms, Inc., supra, slip op. at 33. See also e.g., Liebherr Crane Corp. v. United States, 810 F.2d 1153 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Bromley Contracting Co., Inc. v. United States, 794 F.2d 669 (Fed. Cir. 1986);United States v. Hamilton Enterprises, Inc.,711 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Aydin Corp. v. United States, 669 F.2d 681 (Ct. Cl. 1982); Wender Presses, Inc. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 483, 343 F.2d 961 (1965); Packard Construction Co., ASBCA No. 45996, 94-1 BCA ¶ 26,512; Construction Administrative Services, Inc., ENG BCA No. 6033, 93-3 BCA ¶ 26,091; Outside Plant Engineering & Construction Company, Inc., NASA BCA No. 58-1191, 93-1 BCA ¶ 25,489); Baltazar Torres, GSBCA No. 11472, 92-3 BCA ¶ 25,178, at 125,469. As indicated above, this dispute marks the first "pure mutual mistake" claim in its annals. However, ample guidance is provided by the precedent of Executive Branch boards to enable the Board to resolve the issue. First, it is generally recognized that reformation is an extraordinary remedy and is not available to rewrite a contract to cover unforeseen contingencies. See Jeppsen Sanderson, Inc. v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 624, 628 (1988) (citing American Employers Insurance Co. v. United States, 812 F.2d 700, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Indeed, in the courts generally "have been wary in granting relief from innocent mutual mistakes imbedded in, or underlying, consummated contracts." See Edwards v. United States, 19 Cl. Ct. 663, 674 (1990) (quoting National Presto Industries, supra, 167 Ct. Cl. at 761, 338 F.2d at 106-07). Because reformation is an extraordinary remedy: . . . . Its purpose is not to make a new agreement between the parties, but to establish the true existing one. To justify reformation, the mistake must have been mutual and must have been made in reducing to writing the contract upon which the parties agreed, not in making the agreement itself. Even a clear showing that the parties would have made a different agreement if they had been aware of the actual facts will not justify reformation. See Edward Hines Lumber Co., B- 186775, 76-2 CPD ¶ 322, citing 39 Comp. Gen. 660, 664 (1960) and 1548 Williston on Contracts (Rev. Ed.). See LDG Timber Enterprises Incorporated, AGBCA No. 89-126-1, 92-3 BCA ¶ 25,070, at 124,945 (quoting Pacific Coast Molybdenum Co., ASBCA No. 84-161-1, 89-2 BCA ¶ 21,755). [Emphasis added.] See also Atlas Corp. v. United States, 895 F.2d 745, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 811 (1990) (". . . the court may reform the contract to bring the parties' agreement in accord with the true state of facts."). Second, contract reformation is only appropriate when it can be shown by clear and convincing evidence that the parties intended to be bound by the terms of the agreement as reformed. See Roseburg Lumber Co. v. United States, 978 F.2d 660, 668-69 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Edwards v. United States, supra, 19 Cl. Ct. at 674); Jeppsen Sanderson, Inc. v. United States, supra, 14 Cl. Ct. at 628 (citing Bromion, Inc. v. United States, 411 F.2d 1020, 1022-23, 188 Ct. Cl. 31, 36 (1969); LDG Timber Enterprises Incorporated, supra, 92-3 BCA ¶ 25,070, at 124,945 (citing Pacific Coast Molybdenum Co., supra). See also Olson Plumbing & Heating Co. v. United States, 221 Ct. Cl. 197, 602 F.2d 950 (1979); McNamara Construction Litd. of Manitoba v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl. 1, 509 F.2d 1166, 1170 (1975); Flippin Materials Co. v. United States, 160 Ct. Cl. 357, 312 F.2d 408 (1963). Finally, reformation of a contract requires that a contract appeals board find the existence of a qualifying "mistake." See Web Business Forms, Inc., supra, slip op. at 26, fn. 27 (citing Atlas Corp. et al. v. United States, 15 Cl. Ct. 681 (1988); Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 1 (1987); Olson Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, supra; ITT Arctic Services, Inc. v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 533, 513 F.2d 588 (1975); Foster Wheeler Corp. v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl. 533, 513 F.2d 588 (1975); EDC/MTI Joint Venture, ENG BCA No. 5631, 90-2 BCA ¶ 22,669). In that regard, the accepted definition of the term "mistake" for the purposes of the rule is as follows: A mistake of fact supporting reformation does not arise based on the inability to predict the future as distinguished from a bona fide mistake regarding the existing facts on which a bargain is based. Hilton Construction Co., Ltd. [DOT CAB No. 1035, 80-1 BCA ¶ 14,318]. In this regard, a mistake is a belief not in accord with existing facts. Martin-Copeland Co., ASBCA No. 26551, 83-2 BCA ¶ 16,752. Thus, [T]he word 'mistake' is not used here, as it is sometimes used in common speech, to refer to an improvident act, including the making of a contract, that is the result of such an erroneous belief . . . Furthermore, the erroneous belief must relate to the facts as they exist at the time of the making of the contract. A party's prediction or judgment as to events to occur in the future, even if erroneous, is not a 'mistake' as that word is defined here. Martin-Copeland Co., supra, quoting Restatement of the Law, Contracts, 2d, Section 151, Comment a. See Hilton Construction Co., Ltd., supra. . . . See Southern Dredging Company, Inc., ENG BCA No. 5843, 92-2 BCA ¶ 24,886, at 124,117. [Emphasis added.] In so many words, a "mutual mistake" justifying reformation is essentially a genuine misconception shared by the parties at the time a contract is formed about a basic assumption of the agreement, which is erroneous at the time they enter the contract, and not one which subsequently turns out to be wrong. See e.g., Management & Training Corp. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA Nos. 11182, 11297, 11673, 11698, 93-2 BCA ¶ 25,814 (mutual mistake about the costs of providing chilled water and steam to the buildings under the contracts); Air Compressor Products, Inc., ASBCA No. 40015, 91-2 BCA ¶ 23,957 (mutual mistake about the nature of the product); Active Fire Sprinkler Corp., GSBCA No. 5461, 85-1 BCA ¶ 17,868 (mutual mistake regarding EPA asbestos rules which made work processes more costly). On the other hand, a shared belief, prediction, or judgment concerning future events does not meet the "mutual mistake" test because it does not relate to facts existing at the time the contract is formed and on which the parties base their bargain. See e.g., Dairyland Power Cooperative v. United States, 16 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (purchaser of nuclear power plant not entitled to rescission of contract because of the parties' mistake about the future availability of commercial reprocessing for spent fuel); Jeppsen Sanderson, Inc. v. United States supra (shared prediction as to how trial judge would act not a mutual mistake); Southern Dredging Company, Inc., supra (an unanticipated escalation of a contractor's fuel costs following an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait did not warrant reformation of the contract because the contractor did not establish that the contract was based on a mutual mistake concerning the stability of world oil prices); Chevron U.S.A., Inc., ASBCA No. 32323, 90-1 BCA ¶ 22,602 (contractor not entitled to reformation of the contact because there was no proof that the parties made a mutual mistake about the port for loading oil). See also Jay P. Altmayer, Nancy Hirshler, Jane Beskin, Amsouth Bank, N.A., as Trustee Under the Will of Claire Pollack, and Jay P. Altmayer and Amsouth Bank, N.A., as Co-Trustees Under the Will of Marvin C. Altmayer v. General Services Administration, GSBCA No. 12720, 94-3 BCA ¶ 27,070 (a lessor's claim for reformation of a building lease on the grounds that the parties were mutually mistaken as to the total price of alteration work was rejected because, even if a mistake existed, it did not constitute a basic assumption underlying the lease or have a material effect on the bargain). In the Board's opinion, the Appellant's argument that reformation of the Program D306-S contract is warranted on the ground that the parties made a "mutual mistake" of fact regarding the estimated quantity of work is without merit. First, contract estimates, by definition, are not usually considered facts, but rather are deemed opinions or judgments based on facts which forecast the volume of work in the future. See Emerald Maintenance, Inc., ASBCA No. 29948, 89-3 BCA ¶ 22,127. Consequently, the estimates themselves are not normally the subject of a "mutual mistake claim," but rather it is the underlying facts supporting the estimates which are the focus of inquiry. For example, in Management & Training Corp., supra, reformation was granted where the Government's estimate failed to include the cost of chilled water for the air conditioning systems to the buildings covered by the contracts, neither party was aware of the true cost, and thus their mutual mistake constituted an erroneous basic assumption concerning the cost of material components of the contract having a material effect on the bargain. See Management & Training Corp., supra, 93-2 BCA ¶ 25,814, at 128,520. In effect, the contract appeals board ruled that the estimates had been negligently prepared because the historical cost was available to the contracting officer, but simply not used, and under the "Womack" principles the contractor should not bear the risk of the mistake. Id. The Appellant seems to be making the same sort of "mutual mistake of fact" claim in this case, but there is a substantial difference between the circumstances here and those in Management & Training Corp. Whereas in Management & Training Corp. the mistake involved the contracting officer's preparation of estimates without referring to the existing and available historical cost data, in this case the estimates for the second production period were more or less honest projections based on the introduction of a new electronic dissemination program; i.e., historical, realistic and knowable cost information for the second period simply did not exist, and so was not be a factor that could be overlooked by the Contracting Officer. Indeed, contrary to the finding of the contract appeals board in Management & Training Corp., the Board has already found that the Government's estimates in this case were not negligently prepared. Second, and more importantly, the cases make clear that a mistake of fact justifying reformation must relate to facts which exist at the time the contract is formed. It must be conceded that in this situation the CD-ROM program constituted a basic assumption of the agreement in the minds of both the Appellant and the Contracting Officer. Perhaps it can also be said that the PTO's plan to introduce the CD-ROM patent substitution program on August 2, 1994, was an existing fact when the contract was formed. However, to the extent that the CD-ROM plan was postponed, then it was a fact which proved erroneous, and thus it does not qualify as a "mutual mistake" under the case law. See Southern Dredging Company, Inc., supra; Martin-Copeland Co., supra; Hilton Construction Co., Ltd., supra. Indeed, by definition in the contract, the CD- ROM patent substitution program itself was a prediction of a future event, which would have precluded the parties from engaging in a "mutual mistake" when they negotiated their contract on that basis. See e.g., Dairyland Power Cooperative v. United States, supra; Jeppsen Sanderson, Inc. v. United States supra; Southern Dredging Company, Inc., supra. Accordingly, the Board finds that no "mutual mistake" occurred in this case.63 Under Rule 56, the Board can only grant summary judgment if the evidence warrants the conclusion that there are no genuine issues of material fact involved in the case. On this record, including the stipulations of the parties, the Board cannot say conclusively that there a "mutual mistake of fact" warranting reformation of the Program D306-S contract. C. Even though the Appellant has not prevailed on its claims that the Government's contract estimates were negligently prepared, or that the parties made a "mutual mistake" justifying reformation of the contract, it is entitled to summary judgment because the PTO's decision to suspend the CD-ROM program after the contract was awarded amounted to a "constructive change" to the contract. The Appellant's last argument on the issue of entitlement is its contention that an equitable adjustment is warranted because the PTO's post-award cancellation of the CD-ROM program for Program D306-S, which substantially increased volume of printing in the second production period instead of reducing the amount of work as expected, constituted a "constructive change" in the contract. Partial Motion, at 34; Appellant's Reply, at 3. The crux of the Contractor's position is that notwithstanding the general rule for "requirements" contracts that precludes equitable adjustments for deviations from the estimated quantities, the cases do allow relief if a contractor is damaged by the Government's modification, alteration or change to the contractual method used to satisfy its needs. Appellant's Reply, at 3-10. The Respondent, on the other hand, asserts the Government's traditional and familiar position in these sorts of case in opposition to the claim, namely, that the nature and purpose of a "requirements" contract precludes equitable adjustments for variations between the contract estimates and the actual quantities ordered; indeed, the "Requirements" clause expressly says so, and application of the "Changes" clause would defeat the very purpose of why a "requirements" contract was employed for Program D306-S in the first place. Points and Authorities, at 20-21. Furthermore, GPO says that the Appellant's theory has no case support since erroneous estimates, a failure to order estimated quantities, and even unforeseen events affecting estimated requirements, are not considered "constructive changes" under the law. Points and Authorities, at 21-22. In the Board's view, the "constructive change" issue is what this dispute is all about. Moreover, it provides a vehicle for the Board to answer the question which expressly avoided in Shepard Printing, namely, whether, as argued by the Respondent both in that appeal and here, the "Requirements" clause precludes an equitable adjustment in any and all cases involving differences between a contract's estimated quantities and the amount of actual orders? See Shepard Printing, supra, slip op. at 27, fn. 27. For the reasons which follow, the Board believes that the general rule barring recovery for deviations from a "requirements" contract's estimated quantities is not absolute, that there are exceptions, and this case illustrates one of them. Before addressing the central question on its merits, two observations are necessary. First, the Board notes that even though they involved different types of contracts, there are some procedural parallels between this dispute and Universal Printing Co.-a true "Changes" clause case-insofar as both contracting officers, when confronted by extraordinary actions on the part of the customer-agency, continued to deal with the contract as if it was a normal procurement. There, the Board found itself in agreement with the contractor's argument that instead of proceeding as if nothing was unusual about the contract modification situation at issue, perhaps the contracting officer should have exercised the Government's rights under the contract's "Termination for the Convenience" clause, GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶19, once he saw that the extensive author's alterations being made by the customer-agency were causing major disruptions in the contract performance schedule, substantially reducing the product for which bids had been solicited, and increasing the contractor's costs.64 See Universal Printing Co., supra, slip at 32-33 (citing Swanson II, supra (a Department of Justice contract for typesetting legal briefs from manuscript copy was terminated for the convenience of the Government by GPO when the customer-agency decided it also wanted to transmit brief copy in an electronic format); Graphic Litho Company, Inc., supra (after extensive delays, a Department of Agriculture contract for the production of maps was terminated for convenience by GPO because the customer-agency still had not indicated when it would have the corrected Government- furnished material ready for the contractor). See also, New South Press, supra (contract termination for convenience before production because of grossly erroneous estimates). On the other hand, the Board was also aware that in most cases agency boards of contract appeals will not disturb a contracting officer's choice of procedure, particularly where the contractor has not challenged the exercise of that discretion. See Universal Printing Co., supra, slip at 33 (citing Condor Reliability Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 40538, 90-3 BCA ¶ 23,254; Goetz Demolition Company, ASBCA No. 39129, 90-3 BCA ¶ 23,241; Kinetic Engineering & Construction, Inc., ASBCA No. 30726, 89-1 BCA ¶ 21,397; Celesco Industries, Inc., supra, 79-1 BCA ¶ 13,604). Therefore, in accordance with its general policy, and in the absence of some "compelling reason," and none was shown, the Board said it would not question the parties's choice of procedure, but would decide the matter in form presented to it. See Universal Printing Co., supra, slip at 34 (citing Shepard Printing, supra, slip. op. at 14-15, fn. 20; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 19-20, fn. 22; Stabbe Senter Press, GPO BCA 13-85 and 19-85 (May 12, 1989), slip op. at 53, 1989 WL 384977. In this case, too, it seems that the better course for the Government to follow as soon as it was known the CD-ROM patent substitution plan, which was a critical part of the Program D306-S contract, was canceled, would have been to terminate the contract for convenience and resolicit the work for the second production period. See New South Press & Assoc., Inc., supra; Swanson II, supra. However, the choice made by the Contracting Officer was to continue with the contract as awarded, and the Board will decide this dispute on that basis. The second matter concerns the Respondent's assumption that the Appellant is seeking to recover on the basis of a "constructive change" because it did not allege that a formal "change order" was issued in accordance with the "Changes" clause in the contract. Points and Authorities, at 21. GPO's "Changes" clause, which is incorporated by reference in the disputed contract, provides: (a) The Contracting Officer may at any time, by written order, and without notice to the sureties, if any, make changes within the general scope of this contract in any one or more of the following: (1) Drawings, designs, or specifications when the supplies furnished are to be specially manufactured for the Government in accordance with the drawings, designs, or specifications. (2) Method of shipment or packing. (3) Place of delivery. (b) If any change causes an increase or decrease in the cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the work, whether or not changed by the order, the Contracting Officer shall make an equitable adjustment in the contract price, the delivery schedule, or both, and shall modify the contract. (c) The contractor must submit any "proposal for adjustment" (hereinafter referred to as proposal) under this article within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written order. However, if the Contracting Officer decides that the facts justify it, the Contracting Officer may receive and act upon a proposal submitted anytime before final payment. (d) If the contractor's proposal includes the cost of property made obsolete or excess by the change, the Contracting Officer shall have the right to prescribe the manner or the disposition of the property. (e) Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute under article 5 "Disputes." However, nothing in this article shall excuse the contractor from proceeding with the contract as changed. GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 4 (Changes). [Emphasis added.] See R4 File, Tab A, at 2. The Board has mentioned before that the above clause is identical to the FAR "Changes" clause (FAR § 52.243-1 (Changes-Fixed-Price)). See Banta Co., supra, slip op. at 34. Accordingly, the Board gives the same interpretation to GPO's "Changes" clause, and the rules pertaining thereto, that the Executive Branch contract appeals boards and the courts apply to the FAR "Changes" clause. Id. (Citing United States v. Aguon, 851 F.2d 1158 (9th Cir. 1988); Van Cleef v. Aeroflex Corporation, 657 F.2d 1094 (9th Cir. 1981); L.B. Foster v. Railroad Service, Inc., 734 F.Supp. 818 (N.D. Ill. 1990)). To conform with the requirements of the "Changes" clause, a formal "change order" must: (a) be directed to the contractor by the person with contracting authority; (b) be in writing; (c) be within the general scope of the contract and concern the drawings, designs, specifications, method of shipment or place of delivery; (d) provide for an equitable adjustment in case costs are increased by the change; and (e) inform the contractor that must submit any "proposal for adjustment" within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written order. See Queens Lithographing Corp., GPOCAB No. 9-77 (March 30, 1979), slip op. at 11, 1979 WL 28897. It seems to the Board that the Contracting Officer's letter to the Appellant, dated July 21, 1994, has all of these "change order" elements. See R4 File, Tab J. In that regard, the letter (a writing) is signed by the Contracting Officer (the contracting authority), concerns a change in the "schedule" (a change to a specification)-indeed, the Contracting Offer expressly states the letter is a notification of "a change in the stated requirements for Program D306-S"-directs the Contractor to perform the additional work, informs the Appellant that it may apply for an equitable adjustment "[i]f due to the above stated change, GraphicData, Inc. believes they are entitled to additional compensation" (equitable adjustment element), and instructs the Contractor to submit its proposal "within 30 days from the date of receipt of this notification" (proposal time frame). Clearly, any casual observer would say that the July 21, 1994, was a "change order" within the meaning of the "Changes" clause, and what it essentially does is convert a contract with two separate periods-the first one just involving the production of patents in paper sets, and the second consisting of patents in both paper and CD-ROM form, with the Appellant being responsible for the paper issues throughout-into a contract with a single production period only of paper patent sets; i.e., for all practical purposes, it reinstated the terms and conditions of the earlier November Solicitation for Program D306-S. Indeed, the Contractor acted as if the July 21, 1994, letter was a "change order," and submitted its equitable adjustment proposal, as instructed by the Contracting Officer, and within the necessary time frame. See R4 File, Tab K. The Respondent, however, says that no "change order" was issued in this case. Apparently, when the Government uses the term "change order" it probably has in mind GPO Form 913, entitled "Contract Modification," which has a box with the following words after it: "This Change Order is issued pursuant to_________." See PPR, Chap. XVI, Procurement Forms, at 176. Furthermore, the PPR contains detailed instructions concerning the use and processing of contract modifications, including, in pertinent part: 1. General * * * * * * * * * * c. Bilateral Agreements, Unilateral Actions, and Administrative Changes. * * * * * * * * * * (2) If the modification is authorized by a contract provision, the Contracting Officer has the unilateral right to issue a change order. Before issuing a change order under the "Changes" clause, the Contracting Officer shall try to reach an equitable adjustment and issue a supplemental agreement in accordance with the above paragraph. . . . Change orders require the signature of the Contracting Officer only. The contractor is required to comply with the requested change regardless of whether a bilateral agreement has been reached. . . . 2. Processing a. CRB concurrence. All proposed modifications involving an increase or decrease in excess of 25 percent of the contract or print order price (if the increase/decrease exceeds $5000), or any modification increasing or decreasing the contract or print order price by $10,000 or more must be submitted to the central office CRB [Contract Review Board]. b. GPO Form 913. All contract modifications shall be issued by the Contracting Officer in writing on GPO Form 913, "Contract Modification,". . . * * * * * * * * * * e. Checkboxes on GPO Form 913. The appropriate box shall be checked to distinguish between a change order and supplemental agreement on GPO Form 913. The authority for issuing the change order/supplemental agreement shall be stated on the appropriate line. Change orders may be issued pursuant to the "Changes" clause or other contract provision. Supplemental agreements are entered into pursuant to mutual agreement. * * * * * * * * * * See PPR, Chap. XII, Sec. 2, ¶¶ 1(c), 2(a), (b), (e) (Contract Modifications). [Original emphasis.] Thus, the Government's position seems to be that unless the Contracting Officer received CRB concurrence for the modification, and informed the Appellant of the change by signing and sending a copy of GPO Form 913 to the Appellant, no "change order" within the contemplation of GPO's regulations was issued. The Board, however, does not believe that the "Changes" clause is so limited. In that regard, the Board sees nothing in the "Changes"clause which expressly tells the Contracting Officer to use GPO Form 913 in making a change to the contract. Certainly, the drafters of the "Changes" clause could have specifically identified GPO Form 913 as the only official "change order" for a GPO contract, just as they identified other GPO Forms elsewhere in GPO Contract Terms, but they failed to do so. See e.g., GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶¶ 7 (Government Furnished Property, GPO Form 2511), 19 (Termination for the Convenience of the Government, GPO Form 911), 24 (Payments on Purchase Order, GPO Form 199). Indeed, a reference to GPO Form 913 is found in GPO's "Payment for Accelerated Delivery" clause. See GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 26 (Payment for Accelerated Delivery). Accordingly, contrary to the Respondent, the Board believes that the Contracting Officer did issue a "change order" in this case-his letter of July 21, 1994. This is not to say that the CRB role in contract modification matters has been vitiated, but rather as the Board reads the PPR, any equitable adjustment increasing the contract price must still be submitted to the CRB for approval. However, insofar as the change itself is concerned, that matter appears to have been disposed of by the Contracting Officer on July 21, 1994.65 The Respondent argues, furthermore, that the reason there is no "change order" (and as a consequence, some evidence of any CRB action) in this case is that none was required because no change occurred. In so many words, the Government believes that the "Requirements" clause covers all situations where actual orders deviate from the contract estimates, and that the clause expressly states "if the Government's requirements for the items set forth herein do not result in orders in the amounts or quantities described as 'estimated', it shall not constitute the basis for an equitable price adjustment." See R4 File, Tab A, at 11. Furthermore, GPO believes that nothing herein amounts to a "constructive change," as that term is understood in the law. The Board disagrees. Accordingly, the Board holds that, assuming arguendo, the Contracting Officer's letter of July 21, 1994, failed as a formal "change order" in this case, the Appellant is still entitled to recover on the basis of a "constructive change." Cf. Merchant Service Co. [No GPO CAB No.] (February 11, 1980), slip op. at 16, 1980 WL 81262 ("The 'constructive change' doctrine is the mechanism used to direct the Government to retroactively compensate the contractor for work which it should have been properly compensated for under the "Changes" or "Extra" clauses during the term of the contract."). See also Cibinic & Nash, Administration, at 429 ("A constructive change occurs when the contract work is actually changed but the procedures of the Changes clause have not been followed."). The Board's conclusion that there was a "constructive change" in this situation is rooted in the following undisputed facts in the record: (1) sometime in February or March 1994, a decision was made within the PTO to substitute CD-ROM patents for some of the paper sets procured under Program D306-S (Saifer Deposition, at 67-68; Lawson Deposition, at 62-63); (2) also in February or March 1994, the OPP was informed that "there would be a change" in the Program D306-S contract, namely the substitution of CD-ROM patents for paper sets and as a result there would be a reduction in volume of paper sets (Bawcombe Deposition, at 31-32); (3) on March 7, 1994, while GPO was reviewing the low bidder's offer for a earlier November Solicitation for Program D306-S, it was notified by the OPP that CD-ROMs would replace printed patent sets and the need for paper patents would decrease (Jt. Stip., ¶ 5; Material Facts, ¶¶ 2, 3); (4) shortly thereafter, on March 11, 1994, the CD-ROM program and its impact on Program D306-S was discussed at a meeting of GPO and PTO representatives (Jt. Stip., ¶ 7; Material Facts, ¶ 3); (5) on March 16, 1994, the PTO officially notified all countries that were parties to exchange agreements for paper or microfilm copies of patents that, effect October 1, 1994, CD-ROM patents would be substituted (Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 2-4; Material Facts, ¶ 4); (6) on March 22, 1994, GPO canceled the November Solicitation because of "extensive changes in the estimated requirements" (Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 10, 11); (7) on April 1, 1994, the PTO sent revised patent printing contract numbers to GPO reflecting a reduction of twelve (12) printed sets under Program D306-S (Jt. Stip., ¶ 15; Material Facts, ¶ 6); (8) on April 11, 1994, GPO issued a new solicitation for Program D306-S-the April Solicitation- which, inter alia, notified potential offerors that starting October 1, 1994, the PTO would be supplying patents on CD-ROMs and that there would be twenty-five (25) less paper patent sets required after that date (Jt. Stip., ¶ 20; Material Facts, ¶ 7; R4 File, Tab A);66 (9) inaddition to a warning on the first page of the solicitation that "[s]ignficant quantity reductions may occur during the term of the contract," the April Solicitation contained the following notice about the new CD-ROM patent program for potential bidders: NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS: All contractors planning to bid on this solicitation are put on notice that beginning on October 1, 1994[,] the [PTO] will be offering to supply U.S. Patents sets to their customers on CD-Rom [sic] rather than on paper. The basis of award figures offered in this solicitation were compiled utilizing two time periods. The first time period used was from the beginning of this contract (June 1, 1994) through September 12, 1994. The second period is from September 12, 1994 (the time the change-over to CD-ROM would go into effect), through the end of the contract. At this time it is unknown EXACTLY how many customers will request the change-over to CD-ROM, but based on the [PTO's] knowledge of their customers present capabilities, they anticipate that as many as 25 customers now receiving paper sets will switch to CD-ROM. The basis of award figures compiled for the second time period reflects the 25 set drop. Therefore, all contractors planning to submit bids on this procurement are put on notice that the required quantities stated in the specifications are the projected quantities anticipated at this time. These quantities, which are the Government's best estimates at this time, could change significantly during the term of the contract. Contractors bidding on this Program must do so with the knowledge that: the estimated quantities stated in the "Determination of Award" may be significantly reduced even further as customers switch to CD-ROM; and, the Government WILL NOT renegotiate any pricing due to these reductions. [Emphasis added]; (10) on May 4, 1994, the Respondent issued Amendment No. 2 to correct a structural error in the April Solicitation-the failure to provide separate estimates for the two production periods in the contract-which was brought to its attention by the Contractor (Jt. Stip., ¶ 34, 36-38; Material Facts, ¶¶ 8-9; R4 File, Tab A; (11) on May 20, 1994, GPO awarded the contract for Program D306-S to the Appellant (Jt. Stip, ¶ 51; Material Facts, ¶ 11); (12) when the contract was awarded, the OPP, the PTO organization responsible for issuing the print orders, and GPO, the contracting entity, were unaware of the complaints made by foreign patent offices about the CD-ROM policy to the International Liaison Staff because the OSIR did not share that information with them (Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 54-55; Material Facts, ¶¶ 14, 16); (13) the OPP first heard about the unfavorable foreign reactions to the CD-ROM program at a meeting on June 27, 1994, attended by the International Liaison Staff and other interested PTO officials, where a consensus was reached that the agency should probably modify the electronic dissemination program (Jt. Stip., ¶ 54; Material Facts, ¶ 14; Saifer Deposition, at 125-26); (14) the Respondent was not advised about the foreign opposition to the CD-ROM policy, or the possibility of a change to it, until July 7, 1994, when the OPP informed GPO that the distribution of patents on CD-ROMs had been rescinded (actually only postponement of the program was under consideration) (Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 55-58; Material Facts, p. 6, fn. 7, ¶¶ 15-16; R4 File, Tabs E and F); (15) the Respondent promptly told the Appellant that the PTO's CD-ROM policy had changed, and between July 11, 1994, and July 14, 1994, GPO sent revised estimates to the Contractor to review (Material Facts, ¶ 17; R4 File, Tabs, G, H, I and J); (16) on July 12, 1994, the OPP sent the Respondent follow-up information pertaining to the CD-ROM policy, noting that it was postponed indefinitely while the PTO's Executive Committee decided what steps to take (R4 File, Tab F); (17) between July 8, 1994, and September 7, 1994, the PTO management chain considered three options regarding the CD-ROM policy-implement it unchanged; make ad hoc accommodations for specific countries; or suspend the program for one (1) year-and decided to recommend suspension to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks (Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 59-61; Material Facts, ¶¶ 18-20); (18) on September 7, 1994, the Commissioner accepted the recommendation, postponed the CD-ROM policy for one (1) year, and so notified the United States' foreign patent exchange partners (Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 62-63; Material Facts, ¶ 20); (19) in the interim, on July 21, 1994, the Contracting Officer directed the Appellant to continue printing paper patents and to invoice the work at its bid prices (R4 File, Tabs G and J); and (20) as a result of the changes ordered by the Contracting Officer, the Contractor's production rate increased 96.4 percent (Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 42- 43). In the Board's view, these stipulated facts satisfy the two requirements for a "constructive change"-a "change" and an "order"-and justify an equitable adjustment for the Appellant on at least two grounds, each of which is encompassed under the broad scope of the "constructive changes" doctrine. See Cibinic & Nash, Administration, at 431(citing Industrial Research Associates, Inc., DCAB WB-5, 68-1 BCA ¶ 7069).67 In this case, the so-called "order" element is clear. See R4 File, Tabs G, H, I and J. As for the "change" element, first, the Board agrees with the Appellant that the cancellation of the CD-ROM program under the circumstances above amounted to a change in the method or means of performance for Program D306-S. Changes in the manner of performance have long been recognized as permissible and compensable on the theory that such changes were modifications to the work itself and hence were changes to the specifications. See Cibinic & Nash, Administration, at 397 (citing Farnsworth & Chambers Co., ASBCA No. 5408, 59-2 BCA ¶ 2329; Carpenter Construction Co., NASABCA No. 18, 1964 BCA ¶ 4452. As explained by the ASBCA in Desco Service Contractors, a case cited by the Appellant: . . . In a requirements-type contract, absent lack of good faith on the part of the Government in placing orders for its needs, the contractor takes the risk of the requirements falling short of the estimates (Fischer & Sons, Ltd., ASBCA No. 7916, 1963 BCA ¶ 3702; Gulf Coast Aviation Co., Inc., ASBCA Nos. 10189 & 10380, 65-2 BCA ¶ 492; Gordon Associates, Inc., ASBCA No. 10364, 66-2 BCA ¶ 5907; Intercontinental Engine Service, Inc. v. United States, 199 Ct. Cl. 297 (1972); Del Rio Flying Service, ASBCA No. 15304, et al., 71-1 BCA ¶ 8744; Machlett Laboratories, Inc., ASBCA No. 16194, 73-1 BCA ¶ 9929); however, he does not assume the risk that the Government may change the requirements (Gemsco, Inc. v. United States [4 CCF ¶ 60,844], 115 Ct. Cl. 209 (1950); Escalante Garden Apartments, Inc., ASBCA No. 10287, 65-2 BCA ¶ 5125 at pp. 24,134-5; Henry Angelo & Sons, Inc., ASBCA No. 15082, 72-2 BCA ¶ 9493). In the latter event, if the Government change causes an increase in performance costs, the contractor is entitled to an equitable adjustment under the Changes clause. Alamo Automotive Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 9713, 1964 BCA ¶ 4354; California Bus Lines, ASBCA No. 19732, 75-2 BCA ¶ 11,601. In this case the Government changed the requirements when it changed the frequency of inspections specified in the contractually governing technical order. Cf. Alamo Automotive Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 8815, 1963 BCA ¶ 3830, where the technical order was not a contractually governing documents. See Desco Service Contractors, supra, 77-2 BCA at 61,962. [Emphasis added.] See also Military Services, Inc. of Georgia, ASBCA No. 21595, 78-1 BCA ¶ 13,214 (a mess hall services contractor was entitled to an equitable adjustment under the "Changes" clause when the Government added three new mess halls to the contract (an approximately 25 percent increase) to make the contractor whole as a consequence of the way the Government administered the change). If the Appellant had simply received orders in excess of the estimated requirements, as suggested by the Respondent, then the general rule assigning the risks of any variations between the contract estimates and actual orders would clearly apply, and that would be the end of the matter. But that is not this case. To say, however, that a deviation from the estimated quantities in a "Requirements" contract here does not result in a compensable change, either under the "Changes" clause or as a "constructive change" is to ignore the reason the changes occurred in the first place. In this case, when the Government, in mid-contract, changed the method of producing patents for the second production period from a dual approach involving paper patents and CD- ROMs to a single method of paper patents only, and placed the responsibility for satisfying all of the PTO's needs squarely on the Appellant's lap, it caused an increase in orders which flowed not from the fact that there was just more work, but rather from a totally restructuring of the contract In effect, the Government's elimination of the CD-ROM program made the Appellant a party to a contract it never bargained for-one closely resembling, if not exactly like, the canceled November Solicitation. Certainly, there was nothing in the solicitation which would have alerted the Contractor to this possibility. There was nothing conjectural about the CD-ROM plan in the solicitation-there are no "ifs," "ands," "buts," or "maybes" about the Government's intention to change its method of dissemination of patents from totally paper to an offer of CD-ROM substitutes. Potential bidders were clearly informed by the "Notice to Contractors" contained in the solicitation, inter alia, that: (1) the PTO "will" start offering its customers patents in CD- ROM format instead of paper on October 1, 1994; (2) accordingly, the basis of award figures were divided into two time periods, the first running from June 1, 1994, to September 12, 1994, in which all patents would be printed, and the second from September 12, 1994 (the change-over time to CD-ROMs) through the end of the contract; (3) although the precise number of customers asking for CD- ROM patents was not known, the PTO expected that as many as 25 paper customers would switch to CD-ROM patents, and the basis of award figures for the second period reflected that decrease in paper sets; (4) the required quantities were the Government's best estimates at the time, but they could "change significantly" during the contract term; (5) as customers converted to CD-ROM patents, the estimated quantities stated in the "Determination of Award" may be "significantly reduced even further;" and (6) the "Government WILL NOT renegotiate any pricing due to these reductions." See R4 File, Tab A, at 13. The "Notice to Contractors" contains no "red lights" warning of unexpected increases in the amount of work-indeed, the plain language of the "Notice to Contractors," as well as the "Requirements" clause itself, speak in terms of less work, not more; i.e., the Government was saying "This is how it is, and things may get worse, so plan accordingly." Having led potential offerors, including the Contractor, into making preparations for reduced operations in accordance with the contract schedule , the Government cannot now say, "Hey, we didn't mean it." In the Board's view, the Respondent places too much reliance in the raw meaning of the "Requirements" clause. While it is true, as GPO says, that a "requirements" contract is meant to be "used when the Government anticipates recurring needs but cannot predetermine the precise quantities or future demands at the time of award," Points and Authorities, at 6 (citing Medart, Inc. v. Austin, supra), and will protect the Government from liability for fluctuations between contract estimates and actual requirements in the normal ordering process, it is not intended to be a licence for the Government to tinker with the methods or means of performance which makeup the essence of the contract itself. Therefore, the Board believes that when the Respondent canceled the CD-ROM program for the second production period, and altered performance for that portion of the contract from the solicitation's mixture of CD-ROMs and paper patents, to the production of patents on paper alone, it "constructively changed" the agreement, and the Appellant is entitled to an equitable adjustment on that basis. The second reason for application of the "constructive change" doctrine in this case is a wine of comparatively new vintage. In that regard, a "constructive change" may be found where the Government's estimates, while not negligent, are so grossly inadequate that it would be unfair to hold the contract to performing at the bid price. See e.g., Operational Service Corporation, ASBCA Nos. 37059, 37466, 38461, 38703, 93-3 BCA ¶ 26,190 (a grass mowing contractor was entitled to an equitable adjustment for a "constructive change" due to a substantial underestimation of the acreage to be mowed under a grounds maintenance contract); J.V. Bailey Co., Inc., ENG BCA Nos. 5348, 5555, 90-3 BCA ¶ 23,179 (painting contractor that relied on contract representations that 700-900 square feet of surface area needed to be painted was entitled to an equitable adjustment because the actual surface area was 1400 square feet, which amounted to a "constructive change"). See also LFS, Inc., supra (increase in quantities so great that it is "unreasonable" to insist on performance). While the Appellant may think that the situation in Contract Management, Inc., supra, is "virtually identical" to its situation, in the Board's opinion, Operational Service Corporation is closer to the mark. In that case, the Army and the contractor entered a one year grass mowing "requirements" contract with two option years. The contract called for the contractor to mow approximately 100 areas of different sizes. However, the Army did not survey the areas because it considered the cost of surveying prohibitive. During the course of the contract when an issue concerning excessive mowing acreage arose, the contractor had the areas surveyed and determined that the contract estimates were about one-half the actual mowing area. The Army also surveyed the areas and concluded that the contract estimates were too low. The matter was presented to the ASBCA on the issue of entitlement only. Before the ASBCA, the contractor made essentially the same claims as here, inter alia, that the Government's estimates had been negligently prepared, and that it was otherwise entitled to an equitable adjustment. In the context of its opinion, the ASBCA rejected the contractor's negligent estimates claim based on the Government's failure to order the number of mowing listed in the contract, on the ground that it was evident from the contract what the numbers indicated and no bidder should have been misled, and besides bidders were alerted to the fact that the number of mowings was dependent on the weather. See Operational Service Corporation, supra, 93-3 BCA at 130,381. However, despite the fact that the Government's estimates were not negligent, the ASBCA also held that the contractor was entitled to an equitable adjustment for a "constructive change" due to a substantial underestimation of acreage to be mowed, because the estimates were grossly inadequate and it is unconscionable to allow the Government to benefit from its own inaccurate estimates. Id., 93-3 BCA at 130,380. In so ruling, the ASBCA reasoned as follows: The difficulties with the results of both sets of surveys, in our view, pertain not as much to their accuracy as to the extrapolations made from them to the entire contract. Neither survey meets the test of a valid statistical sample. However the results of the surveys when weighted for number of times mowed showing a variation calculated by appellant's expert of at least 43 percent could with other evidence in this record, including the proposed Modification P00003 to the CA Contract (an notwithstanding the Government's calculations based on appellant's fuel and labor costs) convince us that the acreage estimates in the contract were substantially underestimated. This was a competitively bid contract and it was reasonable to expect that the bidders would all base their bids on the estimates in the solicitation and bear the risk of reasonable deviations from the estimates. However, where the variations are so large as to make the estimates grossly inadequate, it would be unconscionable to allow the Government to benefit from its own inaccurate estimates. See Briefing Papers #75-3 (Shedd "Unconscionability in Contracts") and 1976 Revision Note (Ruberry), 3 BPC 199. These estimates were not forecasts of future events-for example, the number of service calls which would be required (Emerald Maintenance, Inc., ASBCA No. 29948, 89-3 BCA ¶ 22,127)-but of the size of existing areas. Cf. Gregg, Gibson & Gregg, Inc., ENGBCA No. 3041, 71-1 BCA ¶ 8677. We conclude, therefore, that there was a constructive change to the contract for which appellant should receive an equitable adjustment. Id. [Emphasis added.] In the Board's view, the circumstances in Operational Service Corporation offers a close fit to the situation in this case. The Board has already determined that the Government's estimates in this case were not negligently prepared because they were based on all information readily available at the time. On the other hand, the parties cannot escape the fact, which they have stipulated to, that the Government's figures for the second production period when the planned substitution of CD-ROMs for paper patents was canceled, underestimated the Appellant's actual production by 96.4 percent (Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 42- 43). Therefore, the Board believes that the size of the variation is "so large as to make the estimates grossly inadequate, it would be unconscionable to allow the Government to benefit from its own inaccurate estimates." See Operational Services Corporation, supra, 93-3 BCA at 130,380. Accordingly, the Board holds that because of these grossly inadequate estimates, the Appellant has established a second ground for a "constructive change," and it is entitled to an equitable adjustment.68 On this record, including the stipulations of the parties, the Appellant has proved its entitlement to an equitable adjustment because the cancellation of the CD- ROM patent substitution program in its contract for Program D306-S amounted to a change of the agreement. Therefore, to that extent the Contractor is entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56, and the Partial Motion is GRANTED, and the Cross-Motion and Opposition is DENIED. See McDonnell Douglas Services, Inc., supra; Operational Service Corporation, supra. ORDER The Board finds and concludes that: (1) contrary to the Appellant's belief, the Government's estimates for Program D306-S were based on all relevant and reasonably available information at the time, and were not negligently prepared as alleged; and (2) the undisputed facts do not disclose such a "mutual mistake" as would warrant reformation of the contract. THEREFORE, on those issues the Partial Motion is DENIED and the Cross-Motion and Opposition is GRANTED. On the Appellant's claim to an equitable adjustment based on the cancellation of the CD- ROM patent substitution program in its contract for Program D306-S, the Board finds and concludes that the Government's postponement of the plan amounted to a change of the agreement. THEREFORE, to that extent the Contractor is entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56, and the Partial Motion is GRANTED, and the Cross-Motion and Opposition is DENIED. It is so Ordered. June 14, 1996 STUART M. FOSS Administrative Judge _______________ 1 Although this summary judgment proceeding arises from the Contracting Officer's action in February 1995, the parties have been litigating in this forum since October 21, 1994, when the Appellant filed both a Notice of Appeal and a Complaint alleging that because the Contracting Officer at the time, Richard Weiss, had failed to a issue a final decision on its equitable adjustment claim of $532,092.74 within a reasonable time, the Board should take jurisdiction over this matter. GPO Instruction 110.12, Subject: Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedure, dated September 17, 1984, Rules 1(c), 6(a) (Board Rules). Subsequently, the Respondent moved to dismiss the Complaint on the ground that the Contracting Officer had not had a reasonable amount of time in which to issue a final decision since the original claim was only submitted on August 22, 1994, and certified on September 20, 1994. See Motion to Dismiss, dated November 4, 1994, at 2-3 (citing Cosmo Construction, IBCA No. 412, 64 BCA ¶ 4059). Indeed, noting that the Board prefers to review audited claims, the Government said that the Contractor's claim was being reviewed by GPO's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) when the Complaint was filed, and that no audit report had yet been issued. Id., at 1-2 (citing Banta Co., GPO BCA 03-91 (November 15, 1993), slip op. at 57, 1993 WL 526843; R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Co., GPO BCA 15-90, Decision on Motion for Reconsideration and Order (December 20, 1993), slip op. at 14). Accordingly, the GPO argued that since the OIG's audit report was necessary for any final decision on the claim, the Board should dismiss the Complaint as premature. Id., at 3 (citing Universal Printing Co., GPO BCA No. 9-90 (June 22, 1994), slip op. at 30, 1994 WL 377586). The Appellant immediately filed its opposition to the Respondent's motion, see Opposition to Government's Motion to Dismiss and Request for Telephonic Conference, dated November 8, 1994, eliciting a reply from the Government, see Respondent's Reply to Appellant's Response to Motion to Dismiss, dated November 25, 1994, which compelled the Board to scheduled a hearing to determine the jurisdictional question, see GraphicData, Inc., GPO BCA 35-94, Decision and Order Scheduling Hearing (December 21, 1994), slip op. at 8-9 (citing Graphic Image, Inc., GPO BCA No. 05-94, Order Scheduling Hearing, slip op. at 4; Board Rules, Rule 5), 1994 WL 837426. The hearing was conducted on January 3, 1995. Thereafter, the Board issued its opinion agreeing with the Respondent that the appeal was premature, see GraphicData, Inc., GPO BCA 35-94, Decision and Order Accepting Appeal and Denying Motion to Dismiss (January 31, 1995), slip op. at 7-8 (citing Executive Elevator Service, Inc., VABCA No. 2741, 88-3 BCA ¶ 20,964; Roebbelen Engineering, Inc., DOT BCA No. 1814, 87-1BCA ¶ 98,628), 1995 WL 488515, but ruling that fact was not fatal to the justiciability of the appeal, id., slip op. at 8 (citing Briggs Engineering and Testing Co., Inc. v. United States, 230 Ct. Cl. 828 (1982); So-Pak-Company, Inc., ASBCA No. 3906, 93-3 BCA ¶ 26,215; Rice King, ASBCA No. 43352, 92-2 BCA ¶ 24,805; Emerson Electric Co., ASBCA No. 31184, 86-2 BCA ¶ 18,979). In deciding to accept the Contractor's appeal (and stay further proceedings pending the receipt of the Contracting Officer's final decision), the Board found the fact that nearly 131 days had elapsed between the date the claim was filed (August 22, 1994) and the date the OIG actually began its audit (January 9, 1995) to be particularly persuasive. Id., slip op. at 8-9. As the Board noted, even though the Contracting Officer had requested the audit much earlier (September 21, 1994), the OIG's delay was imputed to him because the auditors were agents of the Contracting Officer for the purpose of reviewing the claim, and their obligations were no less than his. Id., slip op. at 8 (citing Computer Systems & Resources, Inc., GSBCA No. 8434-TD, 86-3 BCA ¶ 19,017). Since the OIG had promised to submit its audit report by the end of January 1995, and the Contracting Officer had said he would issue a final decision within two weeks after receiving it, the Board believed that dismissing the appeal at that juncture only to have a new appeal filed after the final decision, would simply be promoting form over substance. Id., slip op. at 9 (citing Cessna Aircraft Co., ASBCA No. 43196, 92-1 BCA ¶ 24,425; So-Pak-Company, Inc., supra). Therefore, the Board determined that it would accept the appeal, but give both the auditors and the Contracting Officer a reasonable period of time in which to complete review of the Appellant's claim and to issue a decision. Id., slip op. at 9 (citing James Reeves Contractor, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 35280-81, 35281-82, 87-3 BCA ¶ 20,173; Computer Systems & Resources, Inc., supra). Further proceedings in the matter were stayed until the Contracting Officer rendered his final decision. Id., slip op. at 10 (citing EPCo Associates, GPO BCA 26-93 (November 18, 1993), 1993 WL 526919; Improved Petroleum Recovery, EBCA Nos. 348-1-86, 349-1-86, 87-1 BCA ¶ 19,431). However, it should be noted that when the Contracting Officer issued his final decision on February 28, 1995, the OIG still had not submitted its audit report, so his decision was based on an oral briefing by the auditors. 2 The Contracting Officer's original appeal file, assembled pursuant to Rule 4 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, was delivered to the Board on April 7, 1995. Board Rules, Rule 4(a). The file consisted of 24 documents, labeled Tabs A through X, inclusive. Thereafter, on April 25, 1995, Counsel for GPO submitted six (6) additional documents for inclusion in the appeal file, namely: (a) a letter from Counsel for the Appellant, dated March 7, 1995 (Exhibit No. 1); (b) the Contracting Officer's final decision, dated March 15, 1995, concerning the Government's exercise of its option to extend the contract (Exhibit No. 2); (c) a letter from Counsel for the Appellant, dated March 21, 1995 (Exhibit No. 3); (d) a "show cause" notice issued by the Contracting Officer on March 24, 1995 (Exhibit No. 4); (e) a letter from Counsel for the Appellant, dated March 29, 1995 (Exhibit No. 5); and (f) the OIG audit report on the Contractor's claim, dated April 13, 1995 (Exhibit No. 6) (hereinafter Audit Report). At the presubmission conference conducted by the Board on Jun 16, 1995, Counsel for the Appellant stated that he had received copies of these additional documents, and that Exhibit No. 6 was a complete copy of the Audit Report. See Report of Presubmission Conference, dated September 8, 1995, at 2, fn. 2 (hereinafter RPC). The Contracting Officer's appeal file is hereinafter referred to as R4 File, with an appropriate Tab letter or Exhibit number also indicated. 3 One procedural matter was also addressed at the conference, namely the question joined by the Appellant's March 10, 1995, Motion for Sanctions (Motion), and the April 6, 1995, Respondent's Opposition to Appellant's Motion for Sanctions (Opposition), submitted by GPO. See RPC, at 2-5, The crux of the Motion was the Contractor's dissatisfaction with the Contracting Officer's final decision of February 28, 1995, and the OIG's failure to submit a timely Audit Report, as directed by the Board on January 31, 1995. See note 1 supra. Accordingly, the Appellant asked for the following sanctions against GPO: (a) excluding the Audit Report from the appeal record; (b) precluding the OIG auditors from testifying in this appeal; and (c) levying a monetary penalty of $5,000.00 against the Respondent. See RPC, at 2-3. The Government's Opposition, on the other hand, asserted that: (a) the Contracting Officer's final decision was "as clear, concise and complete as possible;" (b) the OIG's inability to complete the audit prior to February 28, 1995, was not tantamount to a violation of the Board's January 31, 1995, Decision and Order; (c) the Board lacked authority to compel the OIG, a creature of statute, to give priority to the audit of the Contractor's claim over other matters within its jurisdiction; and (d) the Board's sanctioning authority pursuant to Rule 31 of the Board Rules did not extend to monetary penalties. See RPC, at 3. Responding to the parties, the Board observed that unlike contract appeals boards in the Executive Branch, which take their authority from the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq., the Board is a creature of the parties' contract and GPO regulations, such as the Board Rules, and the agency's Printing Procurement Regulation, GPO Publication 305.3 (Rev. 10-90) (hereinafter PPR). See RPC, at 3-4. Thus, its ability to impose sanctions is severely limited and not at all parallel to the power possessed by the CDA boards. See RPC, at 4. In that regard, the Board noted that the provisions of Rule 31, by its terms, allowed it to tailor sanctions in order to secure compliance with its case handling procedures, it supposed that it could exclude both the Audit Report and any testimony from the OIG auditors under Rule 31 if the allegations made in the Motion are sustained. Id. However, the Board also said that even without Rule 31, it has the traditional power inherent in all adjudicatory bodies to exclude improperly withheld evidence or draw adverse inferences where evidence which should be produced is not. Id. Accordingly, while the Board agreed that it could consider the evidentiary sanctions proposed by the Appellant, it declined to rule on the Motion at the conference, but preferred to dispose of the matter prior to the hearing. See RPC, at 4-5. On the other hand, the Board stated that it was unaware of anything in Rule 31 or elsewhere in GPO's regulations which would authorize it to "fine" any offending party in any appeal. See RPC, at 5. Consequently, to the extent that the Motion asked the Board to impose monetary sanctions on the Respondent, it said that it lacked the authority to grant such a request, and denied that part of the Motion. Id. 4 As indicated, the Appellant's initial claim was for $532,093.00. However, the OIG was asked to audit a claim which the Contractor had increased to $710,380.00. Later, in its First Amended Complaint, the Contractor returned to its original claim amount. See First Amended Complaint, at 2, fn. 1. 5 The contract's "Changes" clause will be found in GPO Contract Terms, Solicitation Provisions, Supplemental Specifications, and Contract Clauses, GPO Publication 310.2, Effective December 1, 1987 (Rev. 9-88), Contract Clauses, ¶ 4 (Changes) (hereinafter GPO Contract Terms), which is incorporated by reference in the contract specifications (R4 File, Tab A, p. 2). 6 Prior to the discovery conference, on August 4, 1995, Counsel for the Appellant submitted a Motion to Compel, asking the Board to order the Respondent to answer certain interrogatories and respond to certain requests for admission which Counsel for GPO had object to; i.e., interrogatory numbers 53-57, inclusive, interrogatory numbers 59 and 60, interrogatory numbers 62-64, inclusive, and requests for admission numbers 3 and 4. However, after the conference, Counsel for GPO informed Counsel for the Appellant that he was withdrawing his objections to those interrogatories and requests for admission. Accordingly, on August 10, 1995, Counsel for the Appellant withdrew his Motion to Compel to "eliminate the necessity for the Board to rule on a motion that is likely to become moot." See Letter to the Board from Richard D. Lieberman,Esq., dated August 10, 1995, at 2. 7 As noted previously, the amount of the claim in the First Amended Complaint was the original $532,092.74, and not the audited amount of $710,380.00. See note 4 supra. 8 GPO's arguments in favor of postponing the hearing, as set forth in the Scheduling Motion, were: "[¶]The only issue to be decided in the motions for summary judgment is whether the Appellant is entitled to be paid more money under the contract. Both parties have stipulated to certain facts which each believes disposes of the question of liability. The parties will argue their positions in the summary judgment pleadings. Given that neither side believes there are factual questions to be resolved by the Board, there is no need for a hearing on the issue of entitlement. [¶] Similarly, if the question of Appellant's entitlement is answered in the negative, no hearing is necessary on the issue of quantum. To hold a hearing on February 21, 1996, on the issue of quantum, before entitlement is established, would be 'putting the cart before the horse.' As a practical matter, should the issue of entitlement be decided in Appellant's favor, given the undisputed facts in the case, as well as the information already gleaned as a result of GPO's audit of the claim, the amount of Appellant's recovery would most likely be negotiated by the parties. [¶] Thus, it would not be an effective use of either the parties' or the Board's resources to hold a hearing on either entitlement or quantum at this time." See Scheduling Motion, at 1-2. 9 Because of the press of other business, the Board was unable to issue this summary judgment decision by April 5, 1996, as promised in its Order of January 23, 1996. Accordingly, after discussing the matter with the parties, the Board canceled the hearing set for May 7, 1996, and rescheduled it for June 4, 1996. See Amendment to Scheduling Order, dated April 29, 1996. Subsequently, with the consent of the parties, the Board also postponed the hearing set for June 4, 1996, and rescheduled it for July 9, 1996. See Order Rescheduling Hearing, dated June 6, 1996. 10 See note 1 supra. The reporter's transcript of the hearing shall be referred to hereinafter as "Tr.," with an appropriate page number thereafter. 11 As a rule, a party is bound by its stipulations, and such evidentiary agreements freely entered into are controlling and conclusive on all issues of fact. See The George Marr Co., GPO BCA 31-94 (April 23, 1996), slip op. at 3, fn. 3; Banta Co., GPO BCA 03-91 (November 15, 1993), slip op. at 52-53, 1993 WL 526843 (citing Morelock v. NCR Corp., 586 F.2d 1096, 1107 (6th Cir. 1978), cert. denied 441 U.S. 906, 99 S.Ct. 1995 (1979); Bromley Contracting Co., Inc. v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 69, 74 (1987), aff'd 861 F.2d 729 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Gresham & Co. v. United States, 200 Ct. Cl. 97, 112, 470 F.2d 542, 551 (1972); FED. R. CIV. P. 16). While a court or board may reject a factual stipulation if it is "demonstrably false" or contrary to the record evidence, the record here fails to disclose any facts which would contradict the stipulation in this case. See Professional Printing of Kansas, Inc., GPO BCA 02-93 (May 19, 1995), slip op. at 43, fn. 57, 1995 WL 488488 (citing Dillon, Read & Co., Inc. v. United States, 875 F.2d 293 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Bromley Contracting Co., Inc. v. United States, supra, 14 Cl. Ct. at 74; Kaminer Construction Corp. v. United States, 203 Ct. Cl. 182, 197, 488 F.2d 980, 988 (1973)). See also The George Marr Co., supra, slip op. at 3, fn. 3; Banta Co., supra, slip op. at 53. 12 Bawcombe was Director of the PTO's Office of Patent Publication and Dissemination (OPP). Material Facts, ¶ 5. The OPP served as the PTO's contact point with GPO for Program D306- S, which included responsibility for providing the Contracting Officer with estimates of the volume of patent printing to be acquired under the program. Id (citing Bawcombe Deposition, at 10). 13 NTIS is a self-supporting agency within Commerce charged with being the central clearinghouse and Governmentwide resource for scientific, technical, engineering, and other business- related information. Its multimedia products range from paper copy technical reports and periodicals to CD-ROMs, audiovisual products, computer software and electronic databases, and on-line services. See The United States Government Manual (1995/96 ed.), at 168. 14 The record indicates that on March 31, 1994, France also expressed an interest in receiving CD-ROM patents instead of the paper copies. Jt. Stip., ¶ 14. However, the PTO had not included the French Patent Office in its plan to reduce paper sets of patents by converting to a CD-ROM format. Id. Other countries expressing a wish and a willingness to receive a CD-ROM set of patents that were not included in the PTO's reduction plan for paper sets were Egypt (by letter dated April 12, 1994), the Republic of Poland (by letter dated April 18, 1994), the Czech Republic (by letter dated April 19, 1994), New Zealand (by letter dated April 22, 1994), Malaysia (by letter dated May 4, 1994), and Romania (by letter dated June 1, 1994). Jt. Stip., ¶ 24, 26-28, 35, 53. 15 These positive responses to the CD-ROM policy, as well as the negative ones identified above, were received by the PTO's International Liaison staff, which is responsible for administering approximately eighty-one (81) patent exchange agreements. Material Facts, at 4, fn. 6 (citing the Deposition of Mr. Robert Saifer) (hereinafter Saifer Deposition), ¶ 10. 16 Sweden's dissatisfaction was conveyed to Saifer by Switzerland's representatives at the meeting. See Saifer Deposition, at 56. Insofar as the parties' original stipulation identified the complainant as Switzerland itself (Jt. Stip., ¶ 32), it is in error. See Partial Motion, at 7, fn. 3. 17 GPO Contract Terms, Solicitation Provisions, Supplemental Specifications, and Contract Clauses, GPO Publication 310.2, Effective December 1, 1987 (Rev. 9-88), which the contract incorporates by reference, shall be referred to hereinafter as GPO Contract Terms. 18 In addition to this notice, the solicitation also warned potential bidders, at the very outset, that "[s]ignificant quantity reductions may occur during the term of the contract." See R4 File, Tab A, p.1. 19 See note 16 supra. 20 The Appellant, who was also the incumbent contractor on Program D306-S, had submitted the only bid for the work. R4 File, Tab B. 21 The parties' stipulation misidentifies Bawcombe as an employee of GPO, when clearly he was an official of the PTO, i.e., the Director of the OPP. See Bawcombe Deposition, at 8; R4 File, Tab E. 22 The parties agree that Bawcombe was mistaken about the CD- ROM policy being rescinded when he sent the memorandum to Cox. At the time, the PTO had not postponed the CD-ROM program, but rather it was still in effect. Jt. Stip., ¶ 58; Material Facts, p. 6, fn. 7. Under PTO procedures, the decision to cancel the CD-ROM policy was the prerogative of the agency's Executive Committee, which had not yet considered the matter-it received the issue for deliberation after July 7, 1994. See R4 File, Tab F. See also Material Facts, p. 6, fn. 7. 23 Although Margulies outlined one contract modification approach in an attachment to his letter, he subsequently offered to provide the Government with alternatives based on different approaches. See R4 File, Tab I. 24 The conflicting positions of the parties are amply set forth in the Appellant's Partial Motion, Appellant's Reply, and Appellant's Leave Request, and in the Respondent's statements of Material Facts and Points and Authorities, as well as the testimony in the hearing on January 3, 1995. Between them, the parties have provided the Board with a comprehensive survey of the case law in this area, and made its summary judgment task much easier. The Board appreciates the briefing efforts of both counsel in this case, and commends them for the professionalism they have shown in representing their clients' interests. 25 While pursing its "Government negligence" argument at great length, the Appellant briefly raises the specter that the undisputed facts in this case may also establish a lack of good faith on the part of GPO and PTO. Partial Motion, at 2, 16-17. As the Board understands it, the Contractor reasons that because Program D306-S was awarded despite the strenuous objections of PTO's foreign patent exchange partners to substitution of CD-ROM sets for the second production period, and with PTO fully aware that cancellation of this new electronic conversion program was imminent, the Government somehow engaged in bad faith conduct; i.e., the PTO consciously ignored the best information available to it in preparing the contract estimates of work. Partial Motion, at 18-32; Appellant's Reply, at 11-14. The Respondent denies any bad faith on the Government's part in preparing the Program D306-S estimates. Points and Authorities, at 14-15. In that regard, GPO makes three cogent observations: (a) variations from the solicitation estimates in a "requirements" contract do not amount to bad faith, see Points and Authorities, at 14 (citing DynCorp, ASBCA No, 38862, 91-2 BCA ¶ 24,044, aff'd 972 F.2d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1992)); (b) there is no specific evidence of intent on part of the Government to retaliate or injure the Contractor, which is necessary is support such an allegation, see Points and Authorities, at 15 (citing American General Leasing v. United States, 218 Ct. Cl. 367, 374-75, 587 F.2d 54, 59 (1979); Kalvar Corp., Inc. v. United States, 211 Ct. Cl. 192, 199, 543 F.2d 1298, 1302, (1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 830 (1977); Librach v. United States, 147 Ct. Cl. 605, 612-14 (1959)); and (c) the evidentiary standard of "well-nigh irrefragable proof" for bad faith cases has not been met here, id (citing Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. United States, 847 F.2d 1567, 1571 (1988); Sanders v. United States, 801 F.2d 1328, 1331 91986); American General Leasing v. United States, supra, 218 Ct. Cl. at 374; Marine Construction & Dredging, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 38412, 38538, 38913, 39246, 39860, 39913, 40286, 42513, 95-1 BCA ¶ 27,286). The Board agrees with the Respondent that Government bad faith is not an issue in this case, basically for two reasons. First, not every instance of negligence rises to the level of bad faith. Second, and perhaps most important, there is no inkling of malice, either actual or imputed, on the part of the Government here. As 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. See e.g., New South Press & Assoc., Inc., GPO BCA 14-92 (January 31, 1996), slip op. 35-36, 1996 WL 112555; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., GPO BCA 06-95 (August 29, 1995), slip op. at 12, fn. 16, 1995 WL 818784; Professional Printing of Kansas, Inc., GPO BCA 02-93 (May 19, 1995), slip op. at 43, fn. 58, 1995 WL 488488; Universal Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 24, fn. 24; Sterling Printing, Inc., GPO BCA 20-89 (March 28, 1994), slip op. at 34-35, fn. 46, 1994 WL 275104; B. P. Printing and Office Supplies, GPO BCA 14-91 (August 10, 1992), slip op. at 16, 1992 WL 382917; The Standard Register Co., supra, slip op. at 12-13. 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. Such "well-nigh irrefragable" proof does not exist in this case. The key to such evidence is a showing of a specific intent on the part of the Government to injure the contractor. See Stephenson, Inc., GPO BCA 2-88 (December 20, 1991), slip op. at 54, 1991 WL 439274. Accord Caldwell & Santmyer, Inc. v. Glickman, 55 F.3d 1578, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Torncello v. United States, 231 Ct. Cl. 20, 681 F.2d 756, 770 (1982); Kalvar Corp. v. United States, supra. See also Solar Turbines, Inc. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 142 (1991). There is absolutely nothing in this record which would show that the employees of two separate entities-GPO and the PTO-set out to harm the Appellant or that they acted in concert to achieve that specific result; e.g., that they fraudulently solicited patents based on CD-ROMs for the second production period in order to induce a lower bid price from the Contractor, and then purposefully canceled the plan for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the lower prices. See Professional Printing of Kansas, Inc., supra, slip op. at 43; Universal Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 24, fn. 24; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 57. Accordingly, the Board deems it unnecessary to engage in any detailed treatment of the Appellant's allegations of Government bad faith, and will confine its analysis to the remaining issues; i.e., negligent preparation of the contract estimates, mutual mistake, and constructive change. Besides, a finding that the Government acted in bad faith is not necessary to a finding that its estimates were also negligently prepared. See Contract Management, Inc., ASBCA No. 44885, 95-2 BCA ¶ 27, 886; DynCorp, supra, 91-2 BCA at 120,350. 26 The Appellant discussed in detail the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) opinion in Contract Management, Inc. in its February 8, 1996, Request for Leave to File Supplement to Appellant's Reply Brief. 27 The Appellant notes that it based its bid on the solicitation's estimated a 42 percent reduction in total monthly impressions between the first and second production periods. Partial Motion, at 28 (citing Jt. Stip., ¶ 41). Thus, there was a 138 percent difference between the work as bid and the job as actually performed. Id. 28 The Appellant suspects that if the PTO had properly informed the Respondent prior to May 20, 1994, that the CD-ROM portion might not be implemented because of the objections of the foreign patent offices, GPO would have had time to either amend the work estimates for the second production period or cancel the solicitation and readvertise it with the new figures. Partial Motion, at 27. This would have allowed all bidders time to revise their bids. Partial Motion, at 20. Furthermore, the Contractor notes that although it received the first print order on June 13, 1994, work for the first production period under the contract did not actually begin until July 14, 1994, when the Government-furnished material was received, or approximately eight (8) weeks after it was awarded. Partial Motion, at 27, fn. 13. Thus, the Appellant suggests that the contract could have been partially terminated for convenience and a separate solicitation issued for the second production period. Id. See GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 19 (Termination for the Convenience of the Government). 29 A version of this "excess orders" argument was made by the GPO contractor in R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Co., GPO BCA 31-90 (February 6, 1992), 1992 WL 487874, aff'd sub nom. Richard C. Swanson, T/A R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Co. v. United States, Civil Action No. 92-128C (Cl. Ct. October 2, 1992) (unpublished) (hereinafter Swanson I), and was rejected by the Board. In that case, the Board affirmed the contracting officer's partial default of the appellant's contract for the printing and binding of Department of Labor area and industry wage surveys and bulletins on the ground that the appellant failed to comply with the contract's delivery requirements. The appellant admitted that it had problems making timely deliveries for the first three months of its contract, but it blamed its failure on, inter alia, an excessive number of print orders issued by the Government. This argument was rejected by the Board because it was based on an interpretation of the contract which was found to be untenable. 30 While the Appellant commends the Government for the accuracy of its previous Program D306-S estimates, the Respondent notes that other contractors performing patent work under that program would disagree. Points and Authorities, at 17, fn. 12 (citing EPCo Associates v. United States, Civil Action No. 93-309C (Fed. Cl. August 17, 1993); EPCo Associates, GPO BCA 16-91 and 16A-91 (November 18, 1993), 1993 WL 526882; EPCo Associates, GPO BCA 26-93 (November 18, 1993), 1993 WL 526919. 31 As GPO notes, a "requirements" contract is formed when the Government promises to fill all of its actual needs during the contract period with purchases from the contractor, and the latter commits to meeting those needs at the agreed contract price. Points and Authorities, at 5-6 (citing Shader Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 276 F.2d 1, 4 (Ct. Cl. 1960). A key characteristic of "requirements" contacts is the very uncertainty about actual purchases over the contract term, since this type of arrangement is used when the Government anticipates future recurring needs but cannot tell precisely what they will be at the time the contract is awarded. Points and Authorities, at 6 (citing Medart, Inc., v. Austin, 967 F.2d 579 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Another feature is the allocation of the risks associated with the difference between the contract estimates and actual purchase to the contractor, not the Government; i.e., contract estimates alone, will not change a "requirements" contract to one for a definite quantity. Id. (citing Medart, Inc., supra; Lone Star Energy Co., VACAB No. 1163, 76-1 BCA ¶ 111,650). It is this risk allocation element which is at the heart of this dispute. 32 Thus, GPO says that the Government's failure to order any services whatsoever under a "requirements" contract does not entitle the contractor to compensation. Points and Authorities, at 8 (citing AGS-Genesys Corp., supra). 33 According to GPO, under a "requirements" contract the contractor alone bears the risks associated with such unanticipated changes. Points and Authorities, at 8 (citing Henry Barracks Housing Corp. v. United States, 281 F.2d 196 (Ct. Cl. 1960); Metro Industrial Painting Corp., supra). 34 B & W Press and Central Data Processing were decided by ad hoc contract appeals panels which considered appeals from final decisions of GPO Contracting Officers prior to the establishment of the Board in 1984. GPO Instruction 110.10C, Subject: Establishment of the Board of Contract Appeal, dated September 17, 1984. Decisions of these ad hoc panels are cited by the Board in its decisions as "GPOCAB." While the Board is not bound by the decisions of the ad hoc panels, its policy is to follow their rulings where applicable and appropriate. Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 33, fn. 34; Univex International, GPO BCA 23-90 (July 31, 1995), slip op. at 23, fn. 24, 1995 WL 488438, reconsid. denied, February 7, 1996, 1996 WL 112554; Universal Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 11, fn. 9; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 18, fn. 20. See also Shepard Printing, GPO BCA 23-92 (April 29, 1993), slip op. at 14, fn. 19, 1993 WL 526848; Chavis v. Chavis Printing, GPO BCA 20-90 (February 6, 1991), slip op. at 9, fn. 9, 1991 WL 43920. 35 The GPO "Requirements" clause, except for a few minor word differences, repeats the standard "Requirements" clause set forth in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) for Executive Branch procurements. See FAR § 52.216-21 (Requirements). Perhaps more importantly, the GPO clause, for all practical purposes, is a verbatim copy of the "Requirements" clause found in Executive Branch contracts prior to 1984. There is no confusion about the scope and meaning of its terms. See McDonald & Eudy Printers, Inc., supra, slip op. at 11-12; Shepard Printing, supra, slip op. at 21. 36 This provision of GPO Contract Terms states: "Awards by GPO for printing, binding, and related services are the sole responsibility of GPO and not of its customer agencies. Modifications shall have no force or effect unless addressed before the fact to and subsequently confirmed in writing by the Contracting Officer. Failure to comply with this article may be cause for nonpayment of additional costs incurred or rejection of the order." See also PPR, Chap. I, Sec. 2 (Definition of "Contracting Officer"), Sec. 3, ¶ 2(d) (Procurement Authority- Contracting Officers). As indicated previously, GPO Contract Terms is incorporated by reference in the solicitation, and thus the above-quoted language is part of the disputed contract. See note 5 supra. Furthermore, the Board itself has recognized and affirmed the exclusive contracting authority of GPO Contracting Officers many times in the past. See e.g., B & B Reproductions, GPO BCA 09-89 (June 30, 1995), slip op. at 37-38, 1995 WL 488447; RD Printing Associates, Inc., GPO BCA 02-92 (December 16, 1992), slip op. at 10, fn. 11, 1992 WL 487875; Castillo Printing Co., GPO BCA 10-90 (May 7, 1991), slip op. at 48, reconsid., denied, March 30, 1992. 37 GPO also contends that the speed with which all parties were notified once Lawson decided to initiate review of the CD- ROM policy, is further proof that the Government acted reasonably and responsibly under the circumstances. The Respondent says that it was important to notify the Appellant quickly of the change regarding the CD-ROM policy, even though it had not yet been formally rescinded, because the date for implementation was fast approaching, and while the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks had not issued an official decision, the Contractor needed to know that the PTO's needs would not diminish as expected on August 1, 1994. GPO says that without such a warning, the Appellant might have scaled back its printing capability to match the solicitation's lower estimates for the second production period. Points and Authorities, at 14. 38 The Appellant, as might be expected, takes strenuous issue with the Respondent's view of the facts on the negligence question. Appellant's Reply, at 11-17. However, reduced to its essentials, the Contractor's contrary interpretation of the facts and the law is two-fold. First, the Appellant argues that the source of the Government's negligence, and the real culprit in this matter, was the PTO's International Liaison Staff, which knew prior to May 20, 1994, that there was a question about the viability of the plan to substitute CD-ROM patents for paper sets because of the objections of key foreign countries, and yet failed to alert the OPP and GPO so that the solicitation estimates could be amended and potential bidders notified accordingly. Appellant's Reply, at 12 (citing Jt. Stip., ¶ 57). In that regard, as if this major failure of communication was not enough, the Contractor also believes that the PTO's International Liaison Staff proceeded to make matters worse by the dilatory way in which they handled this adverse information; i.e., nearly three (3) months passed between April 11, 1994, when Germany first complained about the CD-ROM proposal, and July 7, 1994, when the OPP and GPO were told that the electronic substitution plan was in trouble, during which time the solicitation was "on the street," the contract was awarded, and all the while the Government officials actually involved with the contract, as well as the Appellant, were kept completely "in the dark" about the plan's possible cancellation. Appellant's Reply, at 13-14 (citing Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 29-32, 47-50). Second, the Appellant disagrees with the Respondent's assertion that any knowledge acquired by he PTO could not be imputed to GPO. Appellant's Reply, at 15. As the Contractor sees the law, if two agencies have a close contractual relationship, facts known by the employees of one of them may be imputed to the other, especially if either a reason to inquire, or a duty to receive or transmit relevant information is present. Appellant's Reply, at 15-16 (citing J.A. Jones Construction Co. v. United States, 182 Ct. Cl. 615, 390 F.2d 886 (1968); In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, 597 F.Supp. 740 (E.D.N.Y. 1984); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY §§ 272, 275 (1958)). In this case, according to the Appellant, GPO's role as the PTO's agent with respect to the contract, created the sort of "significant bond" or "meaningful connection" between them which, in the eyes of the law, would allow the Contractor to reasonably expect that they would consult with one another and share information. Appellant's Reply, at 16 (citing L.W. Foster Sportswear Co., Inc. v. United States, 186 Ct. Cl. 499, 405 F. 2d 1285 (1969); J.A. Jones Construction Co., supra, 182 Ct. Cl. at 626; Weaver Construction Co., DOTCAB No. 2034, 91-2 BCA ¶ 23,800; National Standards Association, GSBCA No. 10451-P (January 17, 1990), 1990 BPD ¶ 25; 44 U.S.C. §§ 501-02). In the Appellant's view, when the Government agencies involved in this procurement failed to share relevant information affecting the contract, particularly about the plan to replace paper patents with CD-ROM sets, it had a profound "ripple effect" on the work estimates in the solicitation for the second production period, and their nonfeasance justifies a finding of negligence. Appellant's Reply, at 17. 39 The Respondent notes that the "Schedule of Prices" for Program D306-S provides a two-tier system for pricing for printing and binding for each production period under the contract. Points and Authorities, at 18-19 (citing R4 File, Tab A, Amendment No. 2, at 4-9). Specifically, bids were solicited on the basis of a price for the "first 10 copies" printed and another price for "each additional 5 copies or fraction thereof" for each production period. Points and Authorities, at 18 (citing R4 File, Tab A, Amendment No. 2 at 4, 7 (Line Items I(a)-(c)). This "rule of 5" for extra charges also applied to some other contract line items besides printing and binding. Points and Authorities, at 18-19 (citing R4 File, Tab A, Amendment No. 2, at 4, 7 (Line Item II(a) requiring that copies in addition to the specified 10 be charged under Line Item I(a) (2),(4) and I(b)(2),(4)). GPO's contention is that a potential contractor could tailor a protective pricing strategy by manipulating "the rule of 5." Points and Authorities, at 18. 40 In that regard, the Contractor only submitted a price for the "first 10 copies," and except for two (2) line items (of the twelve (12) involved) entered "NC (No Charge)" for additional copies. Points and Authorities, at 19 (citing R4 File, Tab C). Similarly, the Contractor bid "NC" on other contract line items which were asked for offers on a "per leaf" or "per set" basis. Id. (citing R4 File, Tab C (Line Items III, IV, V)). The Appellant did submit prices for each 1000 leafs of paper used for printing. Id. (citing R4 File, Tab C (Line Item VI)). 41 The Respondent also questions whether or not the Appellant was actually damaged by the PTO's postponement of the CD-ROM policy. Points and Authorities, at 20, fn. 13. In that regard, GPO contends that: (a) the Appellant was paid for each 1000 sheets of paper used regardless of the number of sets of patents ordered; (b) the Contractor held the predecessor contract and the level of effort on that contract and for the first production period in this one was the same; (c) for the second production period the actual level of effort was only "slightly (10 percent) higher" than the first period; and (d) the Appellant's prices for paper and "first 10 copies" in the second production period were actually higher than the prices it charged for the same line items in the first period. Id. (See R4 File, Tab C; Tr. 28-29, 55). From this the Government concludes that the Contractor really received more compensation during the second production period for only a slightly higher level of work. Whether or not the Respondent's comments and calculations are accurate will not be tested in this proceeding. Such matters relate to the quantum issue, and the amount of relief, if any, would depend on the Appellant's ability to prove its costs. See New South Press & Assoc., Inc., supra, slip op. at 38; R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Co., GPO BCA 15-90, Supplemental Decision (July 1, 1993), slip op. at 19, 1993 WL 526638 (citing Building Maintenance Specialists, Inc., ENG BCA No. 5654, 90-3 BCA ¶ 23,032) (hereinafter Swanson II). Accord Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 828 F.2d 759, 767 (Fed. Cir. 1987); J.W. Cook & Sons, Inc., ASBCA No. 39691, 92-3 BCA ¶ 25,053, at 124,863 (citing Tubergen & Associates, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 34106, 34107, 90-3 BCA ¶ 23,058); Youngstrand Surveying, AGBCA No. 90-150-1, 92-2 BCA ¶ 25,017, at 124,694 (citing Roberts International Corp., ASBCA No. 15118, 71-1 BCA ¶ 8869). Consequently, the scope of recovery could range anywhere from the total amount of the Contractor's claim to a sum no greater than a "peppercorn." 42 See also Consolidated Security, Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA No. 12693, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,892. 43 The Board Rules specifically identify only two types of motions; i.e., motions for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and motions for reconsideration. See Board Rules, Rules 5, 12.4 (reconsideration in small claims (expedited) and accelerated procedure cases) and 29 (reconsideration in cases conducted under the regular procedure). 44 One of the principal purposes of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses, see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986), and to cut through the pleadings and distinguish substantial issues from phantom issues raised only in the pleadings, see Ite, Inc., NASA BCA No. 1086-6, 88-1 BCA ¶ 20,269, at 102,595-96 (citing, 6 J. MOORE, W. TAGGART & J. WICKER, MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 56.15(2) (2d ed. 1985)). As a consequence, the procedure is deemed "an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed 'to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.'" See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, supra, 477 U.S. at 327 (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 1; William W. Schwarzer, Summary Judgment under the Federal Rules: Defining Genuine Issues of Material Fact, 99 F.R.D. 465, 467 (1987)). See also Board Rules, Preface to Rules, ¶ VI.C. Indeed, district courts have the power to enter such judgments sua sponte, provided that the losing party has notice that it must come forward with all of its evidence. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, supra, 477 U.S. at 326 (citing, 10A C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2720, pp. 28-29 (1983)). While courts are reluctant to deprive a litigant of the right to a jury trial, nonetheless they recognize that the summary procedure, "properly employed," is a useful device for unmasking frivolous claims and putting a swift end to meritless litigation. See IBM Poughkeepsie Employees Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc., 590 F.Supp. 769, 771 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (citing Quinn v. Syracuse Model Neighborhood Corp., 63 F.2d 438, 445 (2d Cir. 1980); Applegate v. Top Associates, Inc., 425 F.2d 92, 96 (2d Cir. 1970)). However, courts always have discretion to deny the motion even where the moving party seems to have discharged its summary judgment burden. See e.g., Flores v. Kelley, 61 F.R.D. 442 (D.Ind. 1973); John Blair & Co. v. Walton, 47 F.R.D. 196, 197 (D.Del. 1969). In such cases, the thinking is that regardless of whether the burden is met, the court should have the freedom to allow the case to continue when it has any doubt as to the wisdom of terminating the action prior to a full trial. See e.g., Baca v. United States, 29 Fed. Cl. 354, 358 (1993) ("A trial court may deny summary judgment, if 'there is reason to believe that the better course would be to proceed to trial.'" [Citation omitted.]) See also Olberding v. Department of Defense, et al., 564 F.Supp. 907, 908, fn. 1 (D.Ia. 1982), aff'd 709 F.2d 621 (8th Cir. 1983). Furthermore, where difficult legal issues are involved, the court can refuse summary judgment on the ground that a fuller development of the facts may serve to clarify the law or help indicate its application to the case. See e.g., Davidson v. Stanadyne, Inc., 718 F.2d 1334, 1339, (5th Cir. 1983); Security Pacific National Bank v. OL.s. Pacific Pride, O/N, 549 F.Supp. 53, 55 ((D.Wash. 1982). 45 A material fact is on which will make a difference in the outcome of the case. McDonnell Douglas Services, Inc., supra, 95-1 BCA at 136,229 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986)). 46 The Board's research indicates that agency contract appeals boards are somewhat less strict in applying Rule 56 than are the courts. See The George Marr Co., supra, slip op. at 36, fn. 29; Vanier Graphics, Inc., supra, slip op. at 36, fn. 29. The reason for this apparent leniency probably has something to do with the nature of the administrative process itself. In that regard, the Supreme Court instructs that: "Rule 56 must be construed with due regard not only for the rights of persons asserting claims and defenses that are adequately based in fact to have those claims and defenses tried to a jury, but also for the rights of persons opposing such claims and defenses to demonstrate in the manner provided by the Rule, prior to trial, that the claims and defenses have no factual basis." See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, supra 477 U.S. at 327. [Emphasis added.] Administrative proceedings, of course, are not intended to confront the parties with all the rigors of courtroom litigation before a jury. Furthermore, it is axiomatic that in administrative hearings the strict rules of evidence do not apply. See Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute, 333 U.S. 683, 705-06 (1948). See also, Donovan v. Sarasota Concrete Co., 693 F.2d 1061, 1066 (11th Cir. 1982); Calhoun v. Bailar, 626 F.2d 145, 148 (9th Cir. 1980). For evidence to be admitted in an administrative proceeding it must only be relevant and material, and no attention is paid to whether the proof would be admissible in court. See Grant Associates, Inc. v. United States, 11 Cl.Ct. 816 (1987). Indeed, an administrative body may exclude evidence otherwise admissible under the Federal Rules. See Carpenter Sprinkler Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 605 F.2d 60,66 (2d Cir. 1979). Perhaps the best known difference between the courts and administrative forums is the use of hearsay evidence, which is fully admissible in administrative proceedings. See Evosevich v. Consolidation Coal, 789 F.2d 1021 (3rd Cir. 1986); Williams v. Department of Transportation, 781 F.2d 1573 (11th Cir. 1986), rehearing denied 794 F.2d 687 (1987). In that regard, hearsay proof is allowed if it is relevant and material, see Veg- Mix, Inc. v. Department of Agriculture, 832 F.2d 601 (D.C. Cir. 1987), and otherwise reliable, adequate, probative and fundamentally fair, see e.g. Mobile Consortium of CETA Alabama v. Department of Labor, 745 F.2d 1416 (11th Cir. 1984); Diaz v. Postal Service, 658 F.Supp. 484 (E.D. Cal. 1987). See also Pitts on behalf of Pitts v. United States, 1 Cl.Ct. 148 (1983). 47 The Federal summary judgment rule provides: "[A]n adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e). See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, supra, 477 U.S. at 324; First National Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289 (1968); Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387, 1390-91 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also Do-Well Machine Shop, Inc., ASBCA No. 34898, 89-1 BCA ¶ 21.491, at 108,281; Ite Inc., supra, 88-1 BCA at 102,595. 48 New South Press & Assoc., Inc., a recent decision, might have been another such case. However, when the contractor challenged the contract estimates as grossly inaccurate after it received the first print order, but before performance began, the Government terminated the contract for convenience. See New South Press & Assoc., Inc., supra, slip op. 9-15. Since the parties could not agree on the amount of compensation owed to the contractor under the circumstances, the matter was heard by the Board as a standard dispute involving a convenience termination claim. 49 The Respondent states that the "Requirements" clause in Program D306-S is "almost identical to the provisions contained in other Government contracts which have been construed by the courts and boards of contract appeals. Points and Authorities, at 5 (citing R4File, Tab A, at 11). Actually, for all practical purposes, the clause is a verbatim republication of the "Requirements" clause found in Executive Branch contracts prior to 1984. See Shepard Printing, supra, slip op. at 21; McDonald and Eudy Printers, Inc.; supra, slip op. at 11-12. 50 The Board notes that this is the second time it has had occasion to describe the Appellant as an "innocent bidder." See GraphicData, Inc., GPO BCA 28-88 (February 9, 1990), slip op. at 9, 1990 WL 454980. 51 See note 3 supra. 52 Another theory which might be available to the Board is one which says that Government estimates are impliedly warranted to be reasonably accurate, and bases the Government's liability for inaccurate estimates on a breach of that warranty. See Cedar Lumber, Inc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 539, 546 (1984) (citing Caffall Brothers Forest Products, Inc. v. United States, 230 Ct. Cl. 517, 529-30, 678 F.2d 1071, 1078 (1982); Timber Investors, Inc. v. United States, 218 Ct. Cl. 408, 417-20, 587 F.2d. 471, 476-78 (1978)). See also John Cibinic, Jr. and Ralph C. Nash, Jr., Administration of Government Contracts, 3d ed., (The George Washington University, 1995), at 254-255 (hereinafter Cibinic & Nash, Administration). In that respect, the issue would be akin to a Government breach of its implied duty to cooperate with the Contractor in performance of the contract. See New South Press, GPO BCA 45-92 (November 4, 1994), slip op. 25, 1994 WL 837425; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 38-39. Accord Oxwell, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 27523, 27524, 86-2 BCA ¶ 18,967 (Government failed to provide proper GFP support); Robert J. DiDomenico, GSBCA No. 5539, 82-2 BCA ¶ 16,093 (Government breached its lease contract by delivering the plans for building alterations four months late which caused the contractor to incur additional costs from performance in winter weather and from inability to schedule work in the most efficient manner). Although, as indicated, the Board has ruled that it is without jurisdiction to entertain "pure" breach of contract claims, see R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Co., supra, slip op. at 41; The Wessel Co., Inc., supra, slip op. at 46, it has never expressly held that claims relying on the Government's alleged breach of its implied duty to cooperate with the contractor in performance of the contract are barred from this forum as well, cf. Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 46-47 (contractor's breach of duty allegation considered and rejected by the Board). But cf. Professional Printing of Kansas, Inc., supra, slip op. at 62 (Board upheld contractor's claim based on implied warranty of specifications). Likewise, since the Board's jurisdiction in this case is predicated on its traditional power to review the reasonableness of Contracting Officer actions, it deems it unnecessary to enter uncharted waters and extend its inquiry to the examination the possible breach of another type of implied warranty. 53 As made clear in the "Contractual Responsibility" provision of GPO Contract Terms: "Awards by GPO for printing, binding, and related services are the sole responsibility of GPO and not of its customer agencies. Modifications shall have no force or effect unless addressed before the fact to and subsequently confirmed in writing by the Contracting Officer. Failure to comply with this article may be cause for nonpayment of additional costs incurred or rejection of the order." 54 As defined in GPO's regulations, a "direct-deal term contract" is one which: ". . . allow[s] the customer agency to place print orders (GPO Form 2511) directly with contractors rather than routing them through the GPO for placement." See GPO Agency Procedural Handbook, GPO Publication 305.1, dated March 1987, Sec. IV, ¶ 1, at p. 8 (hereinafter GPO Handbook). The purpose of this method of contract administration is: ". . . to ensure that agency printing needs are met in the most effective and efficient manner possible." Id. It should be noted, however, that an agency's direct-deal authority: ". . . extends only the placement of print orders and to the transmission of copy and proofs. . . . All other authority rests with GPO's Contracting Officers." See GPO Handbook, Section IV, Sec. IV, ¶ 2, at p. 9. [Emphasis added.] See also, B & B Reproductions, supra, slip op. at 3, fn. 5; RD Printing Associates, Inc., supra, slip op. at 6, fn. 6; supra; Swanson I, supra, slip op. at 6, fn. 4. 55 The Board is unaware of any requirement in the PPR comparable to FAR § 16.503(a)(1). However, the PPR does state that a term contract, such as here, is appropriate "[w]hen requirements can be forecast with relative accuracy, . . .". PPR, Chap. VII, Section 1, ¶ 2. In any event, the Board's cases have generally assumed that the GPO Contracting Officers are bound to the same standard of care as their Executive Branch counterparts. See e.g., Shepard Printing, supra, slip op. at 23-24; McDonald & Eudy Printers, Inc., supra, slip op. at 15. 56 As a rule, negligence issues are poor candidates for summary judgment. See Didier v. J.C. Penney Co., 868 F.2d 276, 281 (8th Cir. 1989). See generally, William W. Schwarzer, Alan Hirsch and David J. Barrans, The Analysis and Decision of Summary Judgment Motions (Federal Judicial Center, 1991), at 34; William W. Schwarzer, Summary Judgment Under the Federal Rules: Defining Issues of Material Fact, 99 F.R.D. 465, 471-72 (1987). The Board suspects that this is because the proximate cause question is particularly susceptible to the Rule 56 requirement that any evidence presented by the party opposing summary judgment (typically the one accused of negligence) must be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in its favor. See Baca v. United States, supra, 29 Fed. Cl. at 358-59; Bataco Industries, Inc. v. United States, supra, 29 Fed. Cl. at 322. 57 Earlier in his deposition, Bawcombe identified his office- the OPP-as the organization within the PTO responsible for identifying patent printing requirements from the user offices in the agency and communicating them to GPO. See Bawcombe Deposition, at 9-10, 15. 58 This working relationship between GPO and the OPP seems to have generated trustworthy estimates for Program D306-S in the past, a fact admitted by the Contractor. Tr. 65. Indeed, the Appellant has no complaint about the estimates for the first production period, which seem to have followed the historical pattern. Material Facts, ¶ 17 (citing Tr. 28-29, 55). Rather, this appeal focuses entirely on the estimates for the second period of performance. 59 The International Liaison Staff also received several comments supporting the CD-ROM policy-from Austria, Denmark, the People's Republic of China, France, Egypt, Poland, the Czech Republic, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Romania (Jt. Stip., ¶¶ 14, 16, 24-28, 35 52-53 ; Material Facts, ¶ 10)-but these favorable reactions are not germane to the issues in this proceeding. 60 Thus, for example, the record shows that the PTO's Office of Electronic Data Products and Services (OEDPS) also played a major role in the CD-ROM substitution policy. See Saifer Deposition, at 36-37. 61 For the same reason, the so-called "superior knowledge" doctrine is not applicable to this case. See See Professional Printing of Kansas, Inc., supra, slip op. at 81, fn. 83. Accord AIW-Alton, Inc., ASBCA No. 49917, 95-2 BCA ¶ 27,875; R.A. Edwards, Inc., ENG BCA No. 5985, 94-2 ¶ 26,733. 62 The Board's inability to provide equitable relief also extended to contractor requests for reinstatement of their contracts. See Swanson I, supra, slip op. at 26, fn. 14 (where the Board denied the contractor's request for reinstatement of the contract because that form of equitable relief was solely within the authority of GPO's contracting officers). Accord Crow Fitting Co., Inc., ASBCA No. 25378, 81-1 BCA ¶ 14,951; Campbell & Associates, GSBCA No. 5061, 78-2 BCA ¶ 13,354; Southwestern Cooperative Educational Laboratory, LBCA No. 74-BCA-101, 75-1 BCA ¶ 11,309. 63 In light of this finding, the Board finds it unnecessary to decide whether the Respondent would have been willing to accept a higher price, as the Appellant contends, see Partial Motion, at 34, or whether the contract allocated the risk to the Contractor, as contended by GPO, see Points and Authorities, at 18. However, the Board notes that there is some evidence in the record showing that the Contracting Officer was not averse to considering an increase in the contract price after the CD-ROM program was postponed by the PTO. See e.g., R4 File, Tabs J and M. 64 When to use the "Changes" clause, and under what circumstances is the "Termination for Convenience" clause appropriate, is a question that is constantly debated by the contract appeals boards. See J.A. Jones Construction Co., IBCA No. 3280, 94-3 BCA ¶ 27,103; Industrial Consultants, Inc., VABCA No. 3249, 91-3 BCA ¶ 24,326. Both clauses provide a mechanism for the deletion of contract work. However, the usual practice is when major portions of the contract work is deleted, the "Termination for Convenience" clause is more appropriate where no additional work is substituted in its place, while deletion of a minor item of work is considered to be within the ordinary coverage of the "Changes" clause. See Manis Drilling, IBCA No. 2658, 93-3 BCA ¶ 25,931, at 128,980. 65 The Board supposes that an argument could be made that the Contracting Officer's letter of July 21, 1994, was an ultra vivres act. However, it is not necessary to get into that issue because, even if the letter was not a "change order" within the meaning of the "Changes" clause, then at the very least a "constructive change" occurred in this case. 66 Nothing in the record explains how the PTO's projected reduction of twelve (12) paper patent sets became a decrease of twenty-five (25) paper patent sets in the April Solicitation. 67 In analyzing the "constructive change" doctrine, the board in Industrial Research Associates, Inc., thought that the "change" element involved an examination of the actual performance to See whether it went beyond the minimum standards demanded by the terms of the contract, while the "order" element needed some Government action, in word or deed, requiring the contractor to perform work which is not a necessary part of the contract. See Industrial Research Associates, Inc., supra, 68-1 BCA at 32,685-86. Cibinic & Nash believe that this interpretation is too narrow because it neglects changes where Government "fault" is involved. In their view, Government "fault" can also satisfy the "order" requirement, and thus it is more correct to state that a "constructive change" requires work beyond the contract requirements plus either an "order" or "fault" on the part of the Government. See Cibinic & Nash, Administration, at 431. 68 A "constructive change" based on grossly inadequate estimates is not the same as a "cardinal change" due to the magnitude of the difference between the contract estimates and the actual cost of the work to the contractor. See Edward R. Marden Corp. v. United States, 194 Ct. Cl. 799, 442 F.2d 364, 369 (1971). Also cf. CCI Contractors, Inc., AGBCA No. 84-314-1, 91-3 BCA ¶ 24,225, at 121,168. Nothing in the Board's ruling in this case is meant to imply that the grossly inaccurate estimates caused by the postponement of the CD-ROM plan amounted to a "drastic modification beyond the scope of the contract work" which would have allowed the Appellant to cease work on the contract. See Airprep Technology, Inc. v. United States, 30 Fed. Cl. 488, 505 (1994); Air-A-Plane Corp. v. United States, 408 F.2d 1030, 87 Ct. Cl. 269, 275 (1969).