U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS WASHINGTON, DC 20401 In the Matter of ) ) The Appeal of ) ) NEW SOUTH PRESS ) Docket No. GPO BCA 45-92 Jacket No. 635-994 ) Purchase Order F-1491 ) DECISION AND ORDER By letter dated November 16, 1992, New South Press (Appellant or Contractor), 3885 North Palafox Street, Pensacola, Florida 32505, filed a timely appeal from the November 12, 1992, final decision of Contracting Officer Douglas M. Faour, of the U.S. Government Printing Office's (Respondent or GPO or Government) Atlanta Regional Printing Procurement Office (ARPPO), 1888 Emery Street NW., Suite 110, Atlanta, Georgia 30318-2536, rejecting the Appellant's equitable adjustment claim in the amount of $2,000.00,1 under its contract identified as Jacket No. 635-994, Purchase Order F-1491, because of the Respondent's delay in supplying Government-furnished materials (GFM) (R4 File, Tabs D, L and M).2 For the reasons which follow, the decision of the Contracting Officer is hereby AFFIRMED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.3 I. FINDINGS OF FACT4 1. On July 10, 1992, the Respondent awarded the Appellant a contract for the production of 12 pamphlets of various case studies for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (R4 File, Tab A, pp. 6, 8). Insofar as is pertinent to this appeal, the contract terms provided: Any contract which results from this Invitation for Bid will be subject to the applicable articles of [GPO Contract Terms] . . . PRODUCT: 11 pamphlets at 7,017 copies and 1 pamphlet at 50,017 copies. All pamphlets are saddle stitched and range from 20 to 28 pages each. * * * * * * * * * * GOVERNMENT TO FURNISH: Camera copy, 8-1/2 x 11" copy black on white. One reproduction proof (image size 7-7/8 c 6-1/8") for shipping container labels. Identification markings such as register marks, ring folios, rubber stamped jacket numbers, commercial identification marks of any kind, etc., except GPO imprint, form number, and revision date, carried on copy or film, must not print on finished product. * * * * * * * * * * PRINTING: Covers 1 thru 4 with text pages as follows: JUNE Pamphlets Pages Copies ID Number 7 20 7,017 0093503 8 24 7,017 0993504 9 24 7,017 0992505 10 24 7,017 0993506 12 20 7,017 0993508 13 20 7,017 0993509 4 24 7,017 0993400 17 28 7,017 0993673 JULY 18 28 7,017 0993669 19 28 7,017 0993668 20 28 7,017 0993672 1 28 50,017 0993678 * * * * * * * * * * SCHEDULE: Government furnished materials for the first eight (8) pamphlets will be available for pickup July 9, 1992. Pick up at the Atlanta RPPO, 1888 Emery St., NW., 2 Park Place, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30318. The Government furnished materials for the next four (4) pamphlets will be available for pickup at the same location in July 1992. Deliver the first 8 pamphlets July 24, 1992 with the balance of pamphlets being delivered at destination 10 days after pickup of copy. See, R4 File, Tab A, pp. 1, 6, 8. [Emphasis added.] 2. Contrary to the terms of the contract, the GFM for the first eight pamphlets was not available for pickup July 9, 1992. Instead the Appellant received the GFM for those pamphlets on or about July 13, 1992, and the delivery date was extended to July 27, 1992, to accommodate for the delay (R4 File, Tab B).5 Thereafter, the Contractor completed the job on the first eight pamphlets and made a timely delivery to the CDC. 3. Under the contract's terms, the GFM for the remaining four pamphlets-Pamphlet Nos. 1, 18, 19, and 20-was to be available for pickup sometime in July 1992 (R4 File, Tabs A, p. 8, and D). However, when the GFM was not ready for the Appellant by the end of that month, the Contractor sent the following facsimile message to the Contracting Officer on or about August 13, 1992: We received the first 8 pamphlets on July 13th, and have completed and delivered them. The balance of the pamphlets were to be ready for pick up before 7/31/92/ As of 8/13/92 the above jobs will be 8 days late. Since all four books have a critical delivery we had left press and bindery windows open in our schedule, of which 4 days could not be filled. At a rate of 500.00 per day, the charge would be 2,000.00 for the four days. Please contact me and let know when the pamphlets will be ready to be picked up. Please check the appropriate line and fax back a signed copy of this form.6 Our number is (904) 434-8471. See, R4 File, Tab D. [Emphasis added.] 4. After conferring with Douglas M. Faour, the ARPPO Manager, Gary Bush, the Contracting Officer for this contract, refused to authorize the Appellant's request to be paid for idle press time on the ground that the matter was covered by GPO Contract Terms, and besides the Government had not given its permission for the Contractor to hold its press open (R4 File, Tab D). 5. Thereafter, on August 27, 1992, the Contracting Officer sent the Appellant the GFM for two of the four remaining pamphlets-Pamphlet Nos. 19 and 20-and established a delivery date for those jobs of September 14, 1992 (R4 File, Tab E). The Contractor was also advised that the GFM for the last two pamphlets would be made available when received from the CDC (R4 File, Tab E). The following day, the Appellant telephoned the Contracting Officer and asked for additional time, and by Contract Modification No. 1, dated September 1, 1992, the delivery date for Pamphlet Nos. 19 and 20 was extended to September 18, 1992 (R4 File, Tabs F and G).7 As noted in Contract Modification No. 1, the adjustment in the delivery date was made ". . . due to scheduling problems that resulted from Government delay in providing camera copy to the contractor." See, R4 File, Tab G. 6. On September 29, 1992, the Appellant was notified that the GFM for the last two pamphlets-Pamphlet Nos. 1 and 18-was available for pick up (R4 File, Tab E). The parties initially agreed to a delivery date of October 26, 1992 for these pamphlets, which was confirmed by Contract Modification No. 2 (R4 File, Tabs E and H). However, the delivery date was subsequently revised to November 9, 1992 (R4 File, Tab K). 7. One reason for the Appellant's need for additional time was the CDC had made certain author's alterations in three of the pamphlets, i.e., Pamphlet Nos. 1, 19 and 20. Specifically, the number of pages in Pamphlet No. 1 was increased from 28 to 32, while the number of pages in Pamphlet Nos. 19 and 20 was reduced by eight and four pages, respectively. As a result of these alterations, the Respondent issued Contract Modification No. 3 which increased the contract price of Pamphlet No. 1 by $1,790.00, and decreased the contract price of Pamphlet Nos. 19 and 20 by a total of $639.95 (R4 File, Tabs F, J and K).8 8. It is undisputed that the Contractor completed the job on the remaining four pamphlets and delivered them to the CDC in accordance with the revised schedule. 9. On November 10, 1992, after the contract was completed, the Appellant sent the following facsimile message to the Contract Officer: We bid the above jacket on 7/7/92 for which we were to receive books on 7/9/92. We finnaly [sic] received the first of the 8 books on 7/14/92. These books were printed and delivered on 7/27/92. The balance of the 4 books, according to the contract were to be received July 1992, and in order to comply with the contract we left the window open to receive and produce the books. On 8/14/92 we sent a fax to your office in reference to the balance of the books and the fact that we held a window open for the same (I am enclosing a copy of this fax). Your reply was also received the same day and is also attached. When the jobs were finally received, two on 8/28/92 and two on 10/1/92 we turned them around in a timely fashion. However, one full shift in our pressroom was initially lost, which could not be filled quickly enough when it was evident that the balance of the books would not be on time. That shift loss cost our plant $2000.00 in lost production. New South hereby requests the agent [sic] to pay for the above losses. If additional information is necessary kindly advise. Please check the appropriate line and fax back a signed copy of this form.9 Our number is (904) 434-8471. See, R4 File, Tab L. [Emphasis added.] 10. By letter dated November 12, 1992, the ARPPO Manager/Contracting Officer denied the Appellant's request to be paid for idle press time (R4 File, Tab M). The reason given for his decision was succinctly stated in his letter, namely: Please refer to Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, page 15, (c) Extension of schedules. The schedule was adjusted as requested by you. Therefore, no payment due to Government delay will be paid for Purchase Order F 1491, Jacket 635-994. See, R4 File, Tab M. 11. On November 16, 1992, the Appellant timely appealed the Contracting Officer's decision to the Board. II. ISSUES PRESENTED At the prehearing telephone conference, the following issue was identified for resolution in this threshold proceeding: Where the Government does not have the GFM ready for the Appellant by the date specified in the contract, does the "Extension of Schedules" clause in GPO Contract Terms provide the exclusive remedy, or is the Contractor also entitled to compensation for the delay under some other clause? See, RPTC, p. 3.10 III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES11 The crux of the Appellant's position at this stage of the case is that because the late delivery of the GFM for Pamphlet Nos. 1, 18, 19, and 20 was caused by the Government's changes to those publications, GPO's standard "Changes" clause entitles it to reimbursement for unabsorbed overhead resulting from the delay.12 App. Brf., pp. 3, 4. The Appellant contends that where a contractor's costs under a fixed-price contract are increased by the Government's dilatory conduct, the authorities hold that it may be compensated for any financial inconvenience caused by the delay, App. Brf., p. 3 (citing, Cibinic and Nash, Chap. 6 (Delays), provided that it proves, by credible evidence, that it was impossible or impractical to obtain new work to absorb overhead or pay facilities costs during the period of delay, id. (citing, Capital Electric Company v. United States, 729 F.2d 743 (Fed.Cir. 1984); J.W. Cook & Sons, Inc., ASBCA No. 39691, 92-3 BCA ¶ 25,053, at 124,863). The Contractor relies heavily on the Board's decision in Banta Company to support its position on the entitlement issue. Id. (citing, Banta Company, GPO BCA 03-91 (November 15, 1993), Sl. op. at 30-32). In that regard, the Appellant sees Banta Company as standing for the proposition that, contrary to the Respondent's belief, the contract's "Extension of Schedules" clause is not the exclusive remedy available to contractors adversely affected by Government delays. Id. See, GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 12(c). The Contractor argues that Banta Company is factually similar to this appeal in most respects, and thus the Board's holding in that case is dispositive of the legal issue here. App. Brf., pp. 3-4. Accordingly, the Appellant urges the Board to find, as a threshold matter, that the Contractor is entitled to compensation under the "Changes" clause for the press downtime caused by the Government's delayed delivery of the GFM, and it also asks the Board to direct the parties to proceed with discovery on the question of recoverable costs. App. Brf., p. 4. The Respondent, on the other hand, while admitting that the Government was responsible for the delay in delivering the GFM to the Contractor, contends that the Appellant's reimbursement demand is really a breach of contract claim which cannot be considered under the "Changes" clause. R. Brf., p. 1. Furthermore, the Respondent reminds the Board that it is without jurisdiction to hear claims for breach of contract because GPO is a Legislative branch agency, and hence is not covered by the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), Pub. L. 95-563 (November 1, 1978), 92 Stat. 2383, 41 U.S.C. §§ 601, 606. R. Brf., pp. 1-2 (citing, The Wessel Company, supra; United States v. Utah Construction and Mining Company, 384 U.S. 394 (1966); Harbor Printing & Copy Service, Inc., GPOCAB No. 77-5 (1977); Cloverleaf Enterprises, Inc., GPOCAB No. 79-12 (1980); and Information Systems, Inc., GPOCAB No. 78-11 (1979)).13 Thus, the Respondent contends that the Appellant's sole remedy is to be found within the contract itself, namely, in the clause which provides for an automatic extension of the delivery schedule in the event of a delay caused by "any action" of the Government. RPTC, p. 2; R. Brf., p. 2 (citing, United States v. Rice, 317 U.S. 61 (1942)). See, GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 12(c). Since such an extension was granted to the Appellant in this case-indeed, the Contractor received additional time, at its request-it has received the full relief allowed by the contract.14 RPTC, p. 2; R. Brf., p. 3; Res. R. Brf., p. 4. See, R4 File, Tabs G and H. As for the Appellant's reliance on the Board's decision in Banta Company, the Respondent believes that it is misplaced. Res. R. Brf., p. 1. In the Respondent's view, this case is distinguishable from Banta Company because the Contractor here has not shown any nexus between the alterations to the number of text pages ordered by the Government and the delay experienced by the contractor.15 Res. R. Brf., p. 2 (citing, Banta Company, supra, Sl. op. at 33). Instead, the record discloses simple tardiness by the Government in furnishing the GFM, or the sort of "naked delay" not compensable under the "Changes" clause. Id. (citing, Banta Company, supra, Sl. op. at 31-32). For the same reason, the Respondent believes that the Contractor's reliance on J.W. Cook & Sons, Inc., supra, and Capital Electric Company v. United States, supra, is equally unavailing; i.e., both decisions are anchored in two contract clauses-the "Suspension of Work" clause (FAR § 52.212-12) and the "Protest After Award" clause (FAR § 52.233-3)-which explicitly allow a contracting officer to equitably adjust the contract price to compensate for the costs associated with a Government-caused delay, but which are not present in this appeal. Res. R. Brf., pp. 2-3 (citing, Capital Electric Company v. United States, supra, 758 F.2d at 744 ("Suspension of Work" clause); J.W. Cook & Sons, Inc., supra, 92-3 BCA ¶ 25,053 at 124,863 ("Protest After Award" clause)). Here, instead, the applicable GPO contract clause only provides for an automatic extension of the delivery schedule when the contractor experiences a delay in the Government's making the GFM available for contract performance. Res. R. Brf., p. 3. Accordingly, as the requisite schedule adjustment was received by the Appellant, the Respondent believes argues that no further relief is authorized and the appeal should be denied in its entirety. RPTC, p. 2; Res. R. Brf., p. 4. IV. DECISION16 As a rule, absent facts or a clause allowing otherwise, a contractor bears the risk of performance costs in a firm fixed-price contract. See, Web Business Forms, Inc., GPO BCA 16-89 (September 30, 1994), Sl. op. at 23 (citing, D.K.'s Precision and Manufacturing, ASBCA No. 39616, 90-2 BCA ¶ 22,830; Chevron U.S.A., Inc., ASBCA No. 32323, 90-1 BCA ¶ 22,602; Nedlog Company, ASBCA No. 26034, 82-1 BCA ¶ 15,519). In this threshold proceeding, the Board is asked to decide whether, as a matter of law, the Appellant can recover its downtime costs under GPO's standard "Changes" clause for the delay caused by the Government's late delivery of the GFM for Pamphlet Nos. 1, 18, 19, and 20, if it can prove its claim.17 GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 4. On one side of this question is the Appellant, who claims an entitlement to compensation based on the standard GPO "Changes" clause. See, GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 4. On the other side is the Respondent, who argues that the automatic extension of the delivery schedule received by the Contractor by virtue of the "Extension of Schedules" clause, is the exclusive remedy for the delay.18 See, GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 12(c)(1). Although both sides cite the Board's decision in Banta Company, they disagree on whether that opinion answers the issue in this proceeding; i.e., the Appellant sees that decision as controlling, while the Respondent thinks Banta Company has no application whatsoever. Therefore, this dispute provides the Board with a convenient vehicle to clarify its holding in Banta Company and describe the circumstances in which it applies. The controversy in Banta Company arose out of two contracts awarded by GPO for the production of separate tax booklets for the Internal Revenue Service. Apart from being covered by GPO Contract Terms, both contracts contained a clause which instructed the Government to negotiate supplemental agreements with the contractor for contract changes. Banta Company, supra, Sl. op. at 4-5, 20. As originally ordered by the Government, the contractor was to print 4,701,000 copies of one tax booklet consisting of 88 pages, and 911,000 copies of the other one, a 120 page IRS publication.19 After the contractor had submitted the pre-production samples of both tax booklets to GPO, and the agency had approved them, the Government issued change orders reducing the number of pages in each booklet from 88 to 80 and from 120 to 112, respectively. The parties stipulated that the change orders required the contractor to revise its production plans, reconfigure its presses, "slit" the already manufactured paper stock to fit those new press and forms configurations, and employ extra press crews to handle the additional roll changes required by the use of smaller paper rolls, all of which substantially increased the contractor's manufacturing costs.20 Id., Sl. op. at 5-7. Furthermore, the parties agreed that the Government's late delivery of the revised camera copy for the 80 page tax booklet also resulted in increased costs because, among other things, it disrupted the contractor's printing operations.21 Id., Sl. op. 7, 10, fn. 11. Following completion of both printing jobs, the contractor submitted two equitable adjustment claims to the contracting officer, including one which asked for compensation for the late arrival of the GFM for the 80 page tax booklet. Id., Sl. op. at 8. On the recommendation of GPO's Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which audited the claims and found that the contractor had bid both contracts at a loss, the contracting officer employed the "total cost" method of cost accounting to recover money from the contractor instead of awarding it an equitable adjustment.22 Id., Sl. op. at 12-13. Before the Board the contractor contended, inter alia, that: (1) the Government's use of the "total cost" approach to determine the contractor's equitable adjustment was inappropriate; and (2) under express language in the contract specifications, the Government's late delivery of the GFM was a "change" within the meaning of the "Changes" clause in GPO Contract Terms, thus, entitling the contractor to compensation for the delay. Banta Company, supra, Sl. op. at 16. In the process of defending its choice of the "total cost" technique, GPO also contested its liability for late delivery of the revised camera copy with essentially the same arguments it makes in this case, namely, the Board has no authority to decide breach of contract claims, and the only remedy available to the contractor was an extension of the delivery schedule under the relevant clause in GPO Contract Terms. Banta Company, supra, Sl. op. at 20-21. On these facts, the Board held, for the first time, that the "Changes" clause in GPO Contract Terms provided a basis for compensating a contractor whose production costs were increased by the delay resulting from the Government's late delivery of the GFM, and that an automatic adjustment of the delivery schedule pursuant to the "Extension of Schedules" clause was not an exclusive remedy for such dilatory conduct.23 Banta Company, supra, Sl. op. at 35. In explaining its decision, the Board reasoned, in pertinent part, as follows: The Board's examination of cases involving contractor claims for the recovery of delay and impact costs, teaches it that a vital consideration is the timing of the delay with respect to the Government-ordered change. In the simplest situation, extra costs stemming from a "naked" delay, that is, a disruption of work resulting from some Government action which does not physically change the work under the contract, are usually not recoverable under the standard "Changes" clause. [Footnote omitted.] See, Model Engineering & Manufacturing Corporation, ASBCA No. 7490, 1962 BCA ¶ 3,363; Weldfab, Inc., IBCA No. 268, 61-2 BCA ¶ 3,121. Also cf., Editors Press Incorporated, GPO BCA 03-90 (September 4, 1991), Sl. op. at 18-19. . . . On the other hand, the cases hold that if a delay occurs from some Government action after a change order is issued, the contractor may recover delay and impact costs for both changed and unchanged work. Thus, the ASBCA has ruled that: Where costs in a work item are increased as a direct result of a change in that item, the increased costs are compensable, including costs of delays in performance in the change order. [Emphasis added.] Power Equipment Corporation, ASBCA No. 5904, 1964 BCA ¶ 4,025, at 19,815, mot. for reconsid. denied, 1964 BCA ¶ 4,228. See also, Coastal Drydock and Repair Corporation, ASBCA No. 36754, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,324, at 117, 002 (increased cost of disrupted unchanged work flowing directly from the change is compensable under the "Changes" clause); Merritt- Chapman and Scott v. United States, 192 Ct.Cl. 851, 429 F.2d 431 (1970); Paul Hardeman, Inc. v. United States, 186 Ct.Cl. 743, 752, 406 F.2d 1357 (1969) (concurring opinion of Judge Davis). [Footnote omitted.] See generally, Cibinic and Nash, pp. 525-26. In other words, recovery is allowed if there is a clear nexus between the change ordered by the Government and the delay experienced by the contractor. The reason why recovery is allowed for the contractor's delay and disruption costs which are the direct and necessary result of the Government's change order, can be found in the language of the "Changes" clause itself. See, Cibinic and Nash, p. 524. In that regard, the standard "Changes" clause for fixed-priced contracts provides, in pertinent part: (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. See, FAR § 52.243-1 (Changes-Fixed-Price). The drafters of the clause, which first appeared in the 1967 revision to the FAR, stated that under this language: [A]n equitable adjustment clearly encompasses the effect of a change order upon any part of the work, including delay expense, provided, of course, that such effect was the necessary, reasonable, and foreseeable result of the change. [Emphasis added.] See, 32 Fed. Reg. 16269 (1967). Even a cursory examination of GPO's "Changes" clause, which was incorporated by reference in both contracts here, discloses that the language is identical to the wording of the FAR "Changes" clause. GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 4(b). Under settled rules of construction, the Board must presume that when the drafters of GPO's "Changes" clause adopted the FAR language verbatim, they also accepted the uniform interpretation given to those words by the 1967 revision committee, Executive branch contract appeals boards, and the courts. Cf., 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). Furthermore, the cost accounting principles governing GPO contracts reenforce the Board's belief that GPO's "Changes" clause is intended to apply to a contractor's delay and disruption costs flowing from Government changes to the contract. In that regard, the applicable accounting rules provide that payment for equipment downtime is allowable if, inter alia, the machinery was necessary when acquired and is now idle because of changes in requirements, production economies, reorganization, termination, or other causes which could not have been foreseen. [Footnote omitted.] [Citing, GPO Contract Cost Principles, p. 22, ¶ 25(b)(2) (Idle facilities and idle capacity costs).] Therefore, the Board concludes that GPO's standard "Changes" clause, like the parallel provision in the FAR, allows a contractor to recover compensation for delay expenses stemming from a change order upon any part of the work as part of an equitable adjustment. [Footnote omitted.] See, Banta Company, supra, Sl. op. at 31-35. In this case, there is no doubt that the Government altered the number of pages in Pamphlet Nos. 1, 19 and 20, and that the time it took to do so resulted in late delivery of the GFM for those publications to the Appellant.24 Therefore, the issue in this case boils down to a question of whether that is enough, standing alone, to give rise to an obligation on the part of the Respondent to compensate the Contractor for its downtime costs stemming from that delay. The Board believes not. When the Board measures the facts here against the principles set forth above, it is compelled to conclude that this is simply not a Banta Company situation. Thus, the record shows that under the terms of the Appellant's contract the GFM for Pamphlet Nos. 1, 18, 19, and 20 was to be ready for pickup sometime in late July 1992 (Factual Finding No. 2). However, the camera copy for the last four booklets was not available then (Factual Finding No. 3), but instead the GFM for Pamphlet Nos. 19 and 20 was delivered to the Appellant on August 27, 1992, and the camera copy for Pamphlet Nos. 1 and 18 was made available on September 29, 1992 (Factual Finding Nos. 5 and 6). While the Government changed the number of text pages in three of the publications (Pamphlet Nos. 1, 19 and 20) and it was solely to blame for the delayed delivery of the revised camera copy (Factual Finding No. 5), it is also clear that until that time the Appellant had performed no work whatsoever toward producing those booklets. In that regard, the single most important distinction between Banta Company and the Appellant's situation here is that in Banta Company the contractor had already performed substantial work on the publications ordered by the Government. See, KRW, Incorporated, DOT BCA No. 2572, 94-1 BCA ¶ 26,435; Diversified Marine Tech, Inc., DOT BCA Nos. 2455, 2482, 93-2 BCA ¶ 25,720; Industrial Controls, GSBCA No. 5391, 79-2 BCA ¶ 14,171. Stated otherwise, the changes in Banta Company, which occurred after the GPO had already approved the contractor's pre-production samples of both tax booklets, had a substantial impact on the contractor's production plans and operations, increased its press, paper and labor costs, and did more than just disrupt the contractor's manufacturing schedule.25 Under those circumstances, traditional "Changes" clause concepts clearly entitled the contractor to an equitable adjustment in the contract price to compensate for its increased costs, including downtime expenses-a fact which even the OIG auditors recognized when measuring the contractor's claim by the "actual cost" method.26 See, Southwest Marine, Inc., ASBCA No. 39472, 93-2 BCA ¶ 25,682; Bryant & Bryant, ASBCA No. 27910, 88-3 BCA ¶ 20,923; Kolar, Inc., ASBA No. 23252, 28482, 86-2 BCA ¶ 18,9929. Apart from the delay in the delivery of the GFM for the remaining four pamphlets, this case bears absolutely no resemblance to Banta Company. That is, even though the Respondent altered the number of pages in three of the pamphlets, those changes had no affect on contract performance because the Appellant had done nothing as yet to produce the remaining booklets-indeed, it could not do so because it did not have the necessary GFM. Consequently, for all practical purposes, the impact on the Appellant's manufacturing posture here is no different than if the Government had not made any alterations all; i.e., we would be looking at a simple delay situation. Accordingly, the Board holds that the Appellant's claim in this case is not a matter appropriate for resolution under the "Changes" clause, as described in Banta Company. Since the "Changes" clause is not applicable in this dispute, the Board's authority to equitably adjust the contract price must be found in some other clause of the contract. Nello L. Teer, supra, 86-3 BCA ¶ 19,326. The Board's research indicates that if this case had arisen under the CDA, an Executive Branch board of contract appeals would be able to allow recovery under the "Government-Furnished Property" clause of the FAR because it expressly provides for the sort of relief sought by the Appellant. See, Dave Hakala, AGBCA No. 85-219-3, 85-3 BCA ¶ 18,382; LogiMetrics, Inc., ASBCA No. 28516, 84-3 BCA ¶ 17,593; Swinging Hoedads, AGBCA No. 82-278-3, 83-2 BCA ¶ 16,707. In that regard, the relevant FAR provision states, in pertinent part: (a) The Government shall deliver to the Contractor, at the time and locations stated in this contract, the Government- furnished property described in the Schedule or specifications. If that property, suitable for its intended use, is not delivered to the Contractor, the Contracting Officer shall equitably adjust affected provisions of this contract in accordance with the "Changes" clause . . . FAR § 52.245-4 (Government-Furnished Property (Short Form)). [Emphasis added.] However, the "Government Furnished Property" clause in GPO Contract Terms, which is incorporated by reference in the Appellant's contract, is more limited in scope. It states, in pertinent part: The contractor is required to examine the furnished property immediately upon receipt. If at that time there is disagreement with the description or requirements as presented in the specification . . ., and prior to the performance of any work, the contractor shall contact [GPO], . . . and contest the description. . . . The Contracting Officer will then investigate and make a determination which will be final. If the decision is reached that the original description is proper, the contractor will be required to proceed with the work. . . . If the decision is reached that the description is erroneous, the Contracting Officer will proceed in one of the following manners: (a) In the case of sealed bids, either an equitable adjustment will be negotiated with the contractor or the order will be terminated. (b) In the case of a print order placed through a term contract, an equitable adjustment will be negotiated and a supplemental agreement issued. GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶¶ 7 (Government Furnished Property (GFP)). [Emphasis added.] By its terms, the GPO clause only authorizes an equitable adjustment in cases where there is a difference between the GFM, as described in the specifications and as actually delivered to the Contractor. Although the word "description" is not defined in the clause, or elsewhere in GPO Contract Terms, it usually refers to a statement that paints a word picture of what a particular item or thing should look like. See, WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY 372 (3d ed. 1988). Thus, for the pamphlets involved in this dispute, the "description" would include such things as the type of paper stock for both the text and cover, the number of pages, the identification number, the margin dimensions, the type of binding, the location of drill holes, and the quality level of the product; i.e., the printing specifications. When the GFM for Pamphlet Nos. 1, 19 and 20 was delivered to the Appellant, the only "description" change concerned a variation in the number of pages for each booklet, for which the Contractor received an equitable adjustment (Factual Finding No. 7).27 See, R4 File, Tabs F, J and K. There is nothing in GPO's "Government Furnished Property" clause comparable to the Government promise in the FAR to deliver the GFM to the Contractor, "at the time and locations stated in this contract," which is necessary to support an equitable adjustment for any downtime costs associated with a delay in the GFM. Instead, as the Respondent contends, such matters are addressed and controlled by the "Extension of Schedules" provisions of the "Notice of Compliance with Schedules" clause. GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 12(c). See, Graphics Image, Inc., GPO BCA 13-92 (August 31, 1992) Sl. op. at 23. Since it is uncontroverted in the record that the GFM delay was accommodated by revising the delivery schedule for the last four pamphlets, the Contractor received only remedy authorized by its contract with the Respondent. See, R4 File, Tabs G, H and K. As a final observation, it seems to the Board that the only other theory of recovery available to Appellant is that somehow the Respondent breached its implied duty to cooperate with the Contractor in performance of the contract. See, Stephenson, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 38-39. Accord, Finesilver Manufacturing Company, ASBCA No 28955, 86-3 BCA ¶ 19,243 (Government continually failed over the term of the contract to timely furnish the fabric needed by the contractor to make the number of trousers ordered by the government, and its failure to do so constituted a breach of its implied obligation under the contract to deliver fabric in sufficient time and quantity to enable the contractor to manufacture the specified pairs of trousers by the contract completion date); 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 and causing the contractor to incur additional costs resulting from performance in winter weather and from inability to schedule work in the most efficient sequence). Although the Board has ruled that it is without jurisdiction to entertain "pure" breach of contract claims, see, The Wessel Company, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 46, R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Company, supra, Sl. op. at 41, 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, Sl. op. at 46-47 (contractor's breach of duty allegation considered and rejected by the Board). However, it is unnecessary to reach that question in this case. As already mentioned, settled law holds that breach of contract damages are not recoverable if the contract itself provides a remedy.28 See, Banta Company, supra, Sl. op. at 31, fn. 40 (citing, Triax-Pacific, A Joint Venture, supra, 91-2 BCA ¶ 23,724). See also, R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Company, GPO BCA 31-90 (February 6, 1992), Sl. op. at 46, aff'd Civil Action No. 92-128C (Cl.Ct. October 2, 1992). Accord, Dave Hakala, supra, 85-3 BCA ¶ 18,382. In this case, the automatic extension of the shipping schedule authorized by the "Extension of Schedules" clause, GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 12(c), is the contractual remedy so provided for the late delivery of the GFM to the Appellant. Therefore, even if the Board, as a theoretical matter, had breach jurisdiction over a failure by the Respondent to cooperate with the Appellant in the performance of the contract, damages would not lie in this case, in any event. Accordingly, for all of these reasons, the Board AFFIRMS the decision of the Contracting Officer and DISMISSES the appeal. ORDER From the foregoing analysis, the Board finds and concludes that: (1) the Appellant is not entitled to an equitable adjustment for the late delivery of the revised GFM on Pamphlet Nos. 1, 19 and 20 under the "Changes" clause of GPO Contract Terms; (2) no other provision of the contract authorizes such an equitable adjustment; and (3) the automatic extension of the shipping schedule allowed by the "Extension of Schedules" clause, GPO Contract Terms, which the Appellant received, is the exclusive contractual remedy for the delayed delivery of the GFM which occurred in this case. THEREFORE, the Contracting Officer's decision rejecting the Appellant's claim for reimbursement in the amount of $2,000.00, for the Government's delay in the supplying the GFM, is AFFIRMED and the appeal is DISMISSED. It is so Ordered. November 4, 1994 STUART M. FOSS Administrative Judge _______________ 1 During the prehearing telephone conference held on June 14, 1994, Counsel for the Appellant stated that although the Appellant had initially claimed $2,000.00 , it did so only to settle the matter. Since the Contractor's actual loss due to the Government delay was $4,020.92, Counsel for the Appellant said that the Contractor was now seeking full reimbursement for its costs. See, Report of Prehearing Telephone Conference, dated September 2, 1994, p. 3 (RPTC). In the Board's view, the Appellant's assertion of a new legal theory of recovery on appeal (compensation for actual delay costs, in contrast to the "bottom line" settlement figure given the Contracting Officer) does not constitute a new claim requiring a final decision from the Contracting Officer before the Board can exercise its jurisdiction, see, Shepard Printing, GPO BCA 37-92 (January 28, 1994), Sl. op. at 28; Epco Associates, GPO BCA 26-93 (November 18, 1993), Decision and Order Granting Appellant's Motion Under Rule 1(c) and Staying Proceedings Under Rule 1(d), Sl. op. at 3, because it is based upon the same operative facts underlying the original claim, see, Blaze Construction Company, Inc., IBCA No. 2863, 91-3 BCA ¶ 24,071, at 120,503 (citing, Placeway Construction Corporation v. United States, 910 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Trepte Construction Company, ASBCA No. 38555, 90-1 BCA ¶ 22,595, at 113,385-86; Flores Drilling & Pump Company, AGBCA No. 82-204-3, 83-1 BCA ¶ 16,200, at 80,484). Furthermore, despite the different approach taken by the Appellant before the Board, the Contracting Officer certainly had no misapprehension about the basic factual allegations in reaching his decision to deny the claim. See, Contract Cleaning Maintenance, Inc. v. United States, 811 F.2d 586, 592 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Paragon Energy Corporation v. United States, 645 F.2d 966, 976 (Ct.Cl. 1981); Cerberonics, Inc. v. United States, 13 Cl.Ct. 415, 418 (1987); Holk Development, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 40579, 40609, 90-3 BCA ¶ 23,086 at 115,938 ("Adequate notice" requires a sufficient statement "to enable the contracting officer to undertake a meaningful review of the claim."). Moreover, no useful purpose would be served by requiring resubmission of the claim to the Contracting Officer and asking for his final decision, since Counsel for GPO neither objected to the amendment at the prehearing conference nor in his brief, the parties have already briefed the threshold issue, and besides it is clear from the record that whether the Appellant's claim had been for $2,000.00, $4,020.92, or 100 times those amounts for that matter, the Contracting Officer would still have denied it because he was acting on his understanding that the "Extension of Schedules" clause in the contract only authorized an adjustment of the delivery schedule for a Government delay. See, GPO Contract Terms, Solicitation Provisions, Supplemental Specifications, and Contract Clauses, GPO Pub. 310.2, Effective December 1, 1987 (Rev. 9-88), Contract Clauses, ¶ 12(c) (Extension of schedules) (GPO Contract Terms). See also, So-Pak-Company, Inc., ASBCA No. 38906, 93-3 BCA ¶ 26,215, at 130,469 (citing, ACS Construction Company, ASBCA No. 365535, 89-1 BCA ¶ 21,406; Emerson Electric Company, ASBCA No. 31184, 86-2 BCA ¶ 18,979; cf., Continental Products, Inc., ASBCA No. 45293, 93-2 BCA ¶ 25,879). Thus, under the circumstances of this case, which shows that the same or related evidence is involved in connection with the original claim and the claim as amended at the prehearing conference, that there is no prejudice to the contracting officer from the Board's consideration of the revised claim, and that no useful purpose would be served by requiring resubmission of the claim to the Contracting Officer, the Board concludes that it has jurisdiction to decide the issue presented by the parties. 2 The Contracting Officer's appeal file, assembled pursuant to Rule 4 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, was delivered to the Board on December 29, 1992. GPO Instruction 110.12, Subject: Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedure, dated September 17, 1984, Rule 4(a) (Board Rules). It will be referred to hereinafter as the R4 File, with an appropriate Tab letter indicated thereafter. The R4 File consists of 13 documents identified as Tabs A through M. 3 By facsimile transmission dated June 3, 1994, the Appellant advised the Board that it had elected to have a hearing on its appeal. Board Rules, Rules 8 and 17 through 25. However, during the prehearing telephone conference, the parties agreed that the Board's decision on the threshold issue-whether or not the contract's "Extension of Schedules" clause, see, GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 12(c), provided the exclusive remedy available to the Appellant in this case?-could be dispositive of the appeal. See, RPTC, pp. 2-3. Therefore, the Board said that it would reserve judgment on whether a hearing was necessary until it had decided the threshold question, and directed them to file briefs on the question of remedy. Id., p. 4. 4 The factual description of this case is based: (a) the Appellant's Notice of Appeal, dated November 16, 1992; (b) the Appellant's Letter, dated December 14, 1992, stating that the Government's delay was the direct cause of its loss of $2,000.00 in lost press time; (c) the R4 File; (d) the Appellant's Letter, dated January 8, 1993, submitting additional information in accordance with Rule 4(b); (e) the Respondent's Answer, dated April 28, 1994; and (f) the Report of Prehearing Telephone Conference, dated September 2, 1994 (RPTC). The facts, which are essentially undisputed, are recited here only to the extent necessary for this decision. 5 Subsequently, the Contractor asked for an additional extension to July 29, 1992, because of a delay in the delivery of its cover stock, but its request was denied by the Contracting Officer (R4 File, Tab C). 6 The facsimile message contained two blank lines-"Confirm Above" and "Not Confirmed"-for the Contracting Officer to indicate his approval or disapproval of the requested payment (R4 File, Tab D). 7 As indicated previously, see note 4 supra, the Appellant's Letter, dated January 8, 1993, submitted certain additional information, namely copies of three facsimile messages it sent to the Contracting Officer concerning this contract. Specifically, the three messages related to: (a) the Appellant's request for an additional day's extension of the delivery date on the first eight pamphlets, see note 5 supra; (b) the Contractor's request that the shipping date on Pamphlet Nos. 19 and 20 be scheduled for September 18, 1992 (which the Contracting Officer approved); and (c) the Appellant's message, dated November 2, 1992, confirming the delivery date of November 2, 1992, for the last two pamphlets, and informing the Contracting Officer of additional costs for extra pages on one of the pamphlets, see note 8 infra. These messages, which were relevant to this appeal, were not in the Contracting Officer's R4 File, although clearly they should have been included. (Indeed, also missing from the R4 File are copies of the Appellant's bid and Purchase Order F-1491.) While the Board believes that their omission was unintentional, it must reaffirm its view that: ". . . the Government's obligation in preparing the appeal file is to search its records diligently so that it submits to the Board as complete a file as may be assembled under the circumstances. It goes without saying that the Government may not, with respect to those documents actually reviewed during compilation of the appeal file, limit inclusion only to those documents which support its position. It should be emphasized that selective omission of pertinent documents is contrary to the requirements of Rule 4 of the Board Rules." See, Universal Printing Company, GPO BCA 9-90 (June 22, 1994), Sl. op. at 14, fn. 15 (citing, P.J. Dick Contracting, Inc., VABCA No. 3177R-82R, 93-1 BCA ¶ 25,263; Bethlehem Steel Corporation, ASBCA No. 29459, 86-3 BCA ¶ 19,159). 8 There is nothing in the record to show on what basis the Contracting Officer calculated these contract price adjustments. However, the Board assumes for the purposes of this decision, especially insofar as Pamphlet No. 1 is concerned, that the Contractor's bid contained a rate for additional pages. See, R4 File, Tab A, p. 8 (Offers). 9 As in its facsimile message of August 13, 1992, the Appellant provided "Confirm Above" and "Not Confirmed" lines for the Contracting Officer to indicate his approval or disapproval of the requested payment. See, note 6 supra. 10 Because the parties agreed to limit this proceeding to the "entitlement" question, the Appellant has made no effort to prove the merits of its claim, reserving that matter for discovery procedures and a hearing if the Board agrees with its reading of GPO Contract Terms. RPTC, p. 3. See, Board Rules, Rules 14, 15 and 17 through 25. 11 Both parties submitted written briefs setting forth their respective positions on the threshold issue in this appeal. On July 14, 1994, the Board received the Appellant's Brief (App. Brf.) Similarly, on July 15, 1994, the Board received the Respondent's Brief on Entitlement (Res. Brf.). Thereafter, on July 29, 1994, the Board received the Respondent's Reply Brief on Entitlement (Res. R. Brf.). The Appellant did not file a reply brief. The Board's understanding of the positions of the parties is based on the Appellant's Notice of Appeal, the Appellant's letter of December 14, 1992, the Respondent's Answer, the formal briefs filed by the parties, and the discussions at the prehearing telephone conference on June 14, 1994. 12 The Appellant distinguishes this situation from one where there is merely a delay, unaccompanied by any changes in the work, in which case the Courts and boards of contract appeals leave the contractor to pursue a breach of contract claim under the contract. App. Brf., p. 3 (citing, John Cibinic, Jr. and Ralph C. Nash, Jr., Administration of Government Contracts, 2d ed. (The George Washington University, 1985), pp. 522-24) (hereinafter Cibinic and Nash). 13 The Board was established by the Public Printer in 1984. GPO Instruction 110.10C, Subject: Establishment of the Board of Contract Appeals, dated September 17, 1984. Prior to the Board's creation, appeals from decisions of GPO Contracting Officers were considered by ad hoc contract appeals boards. R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Company, GPO BCA 15-90 (March 6, 1992), Sl. op. at 28, fn. 30. While it is the Board's policy to follow the holdings of these ad hoc panels where applicable and appropriate, it does not regard those decisions as legally binding precedent; indeed, the Board differentiates between its decisions and the opinions of the ad hoc panels by citing the latter as GPOCAB. See, The Wessel Company, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 25, fn. 25. See also, Sterling Printing, Inc., GPO BCA 20-89 (July 5, 1994) (Decision on Motion for Reconsideration), Sl. op. at 10, fn. 6; Chavis and Chavis Printing, GPO BCA 20-90 (February 6, 1991), Sl. op. at 9, fn. 9; Stephenson, Inc., GPO BCA 02-88 (December 20, 1991), Sl. op. at 18, fn. 20. 14 The Respondent also notes that the Appellant asked for and received additional compensation for the changes in the number of pages of the publications. Res. Brf., p. 3, fn. 1 (citing, R4 File, Tab K). See, Factual Finding No. 7. 15 Of course, whether or not such a nexus exists is a question of fact which is beyond the scope of this proceeding. However, establishing a causal connection between such a delay and any increased costs would be part of a claimant's burden of proof on the merits. See, Banta Company, supra, Sl. op. at 35, fn. 44 (citing, Cooper Mechanical Contractors and Continental Engineering, IBCA Nos. 2744-2749, 2692, 2706-2713, 2714, 92-2 BCA ¶ 24,821; Gerald Miller Construction Company, IBCA No. 2292, 91-2 BCA ¶ 23,829). 16 The record on which the Board's decision is based consists of: (a) the Appellant's Notice of Appeal, dated November 16, 1992; (b) the Appellant's Letter, dated December 14, 1992; (c) the R4 File; (d) the Appellant's Letter, dated January 8, 1993, and the additional information enclosed; (e) the Respondent's Answer, dated April 28, 1994; (f) the Report of Prehearing Telephone Conference, dated September 2, 1994; (g) the Appellant's Brief, dated July 14, 1994; (h) the Respondent's Brief on Entitlement , dated July 15, 1994; and (i) the Respondent's Reply Brief on Entitlement, dated July 29, 1994. See, Board Rules, Rule 13(a). 17 GPO's "Changes" clause 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." See, GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 4. 18 To the extent that the Respondent also contends that the Appellant's demand for reimbursement is really a disguised breach of contract claim which cannot be considered under the "Changes" clause, see, R. Brf., p. 1, that argument was rejected by the Board in Banta Company. See, Banta Company, supra, Sl. op. at 31, fn. 40, where the Board said: "As a rule, breach of contract damages are not recoverable if the contract itself provides a remedy. See, Triax-Pacific, A Joint Venture, ASBCA No. 36353, 91-2 BCA ¶ 23,724. However, even though the Board has no jurisdiction to hear breach of contract claims, it has stated that breach of contract damages and contract provisions for extensions of time are not mutually exclusive; i.e., in the appropriate forum, the fact that the contract includes a provision for extension of time to perform does not exclude the possibility that recovery may also be had in the form of damages for breach of contract. See, The Wessel Company, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 27, fn. 29 (citing, The Kehm Corporation v. United States, 93 F.Supp. 620, 624-25 (Ct.Cl. 1950)). The simple holding of Wessel Company, another case involving the impact of Government delays, is that the Board is not an appropriate forum to resolve "pure" breach of contract claims; i.e., breach claims not redressable under a specific contract provision. See, The Wessel Company, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 46.]" See also, R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Company, GPO BCA 15-90 (March 6, 1992), Sl. op. at 41. 19 The total contract price for this work was $950,808.00. See, Banta Company, supra, Sl. op. at 2-3. 20 These steps were found to be reasonable by GPO's Plant Planning Division (PPD); indeed, the PPD staff could not suggest anything better. Banta Company, supra, Sl. op. at 8-9. 21 The record showed that the revised GFM was two days late, for which the contractor claimed combined downtime costs and lost paper profits on two presses totalling $51,281.00. See, Banta Company, supra, Sl. op. 7-8, fn. 8. 22 The OIG had looked at the contractor's claim two ways; i.e., under the so-called "specific cost" or "actual cost" approach, and under the "total cost" method. Banta Company, supra, Sl. op. at 10. The OIG auditors preferred the use of the "total cost" technique because they thought it best preserved the contractor's loss position under the contracts. Id., Sl. op. at 11-12, fn. 15. The contracting officer agreed. Id., Sl. op. at 12, fn. 16. 23 The key to the Board's opinion on this issue was its rejection of the contracting officer's use of the "total cost" method to decide the contractor's equitable adjustment claim. The record Banta Company showed that the OIG auditors had allowed the claim for downtime expenses resulting from the late delivery of the GFM when they examined the contractor's evidence under the "actual cost" method. OIG Audit Report, dated October 23, 1990, Jacket No. 245-004, Summary of Contractor's Claim and Results of Audit, Specific Cost Method, pp. 5 (Idle Resources, ¶¶ II.A, B), 8 (Explanatory Notes, ¶¶ 9, 11). See, GPO Procurement Directive 306.2, Subject: Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, dated April 1, 1988, p. 22, ¶ 25(b)(2) (Idle facilities and idle capacity costs) (hereinafter GPO Contract Cost Principles). However, the contractor's separate delay claim was completely submerged by the Government's use of the "total cost" approach. Banta Company, supra, Sl. op. at 41-43. When the Board rejected the "total cost" technique, the contractor's request for an equitable adjustment because of the Government's late delivery of the revised camera copy resurfaced as an independent item within the overall claim. 24 The record establishes that the number of text pages in Pamphlet No. 18 remained unchanged. Consequently, the late delivery of the GFM for this booklet by the Government was a delay, pure and simple. Under the principles enunciated by the Board in Banta Company, any additional costs experienced by the Appellant regarding Pamphlet No. 18 would not be recoverable under the "Changes" clause, in any case. Banta Company, supra, Sl. op. at 31-32. Accord, Nello L. Teer, ENG BCA No. 4376, 86-3 BCA ¶ 19,326. 25 The core concept in the Government's argument was its assumption that reducing the number of printed pages for each tax booklet "undoubtedly" lowered the level of production effort, because less raw materials would be needed to perform the contracts, and thus there was a "dramatic" reduction in the Appellant's potential losses. However, GPO not only offered no evidence to support this premise, but to the contrary, it stipulated to facts which tended to show that the contractor's level of effort was increased because of the changes, and the record failed to disclose any evidence which would contradict that stipulation. Banta Company, supra, Sl. op. at 52-53. See also, Universal Printing Company, GPO BCA 09-90 (June 22, 1994), Sl. op. at 45. Accord, Celesco Industries, ASBCA No. 22251, 79-1 BCA ¶ 13,604. In that regard, the authors of the book "Getting It Printed: How to Work with Printers and Graphic Arts Services to Assure Quality, Stay on Schedule, and Control Costs", have observed that: "The cost of alterations varies from almost free to very expensive, depending on the nature of the changes and at what stage they occur. We use the rule of thumb that a change that costs $5 at the pasteup stage will cost $50 at the negative stage and $500 on press [in other words, at multiples of 1, 10 and 100]. . . . After negatives are stripped, any change in format such as a revised page count, a new trim size, or a different number of colors means major alteration costs. New formats require at least partial restripping and may require refiguring the entire job." Mark Beach, Steve Shepro, and Ken Russon, Getting It Printed: How to Work with Printers and Graphic Arts Services to Assure Quality, Stay on Schedule, and Control Costs, (Coast to Coast Books, Portland, Oregon, 1986), pp. 90-91. [Emphasis added.] 26 See, footnote 23 supra. 27 In the absence of a challenge by the Appellant, or any evidence in the record whatsoever to the contrary, the Board accepts the Contracting Officer's determination that increasing the contract price of Pamphlet No. 1 by $1,790.00, and decreasing the contract price for Pamphlet Nos. 19 and 20 by a total $639.95, for Pamphlet Nos. 19 and 20 (R4 File, Tab K), was a reasonable equitable adjustment in this case. McDonald & Eudy Printers, Inc., GPO BCA 25-92 (April 11, 1994), Sl. op. at 24, fn. 20. 28 See, note 18 supra.