U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE CONTRACT APPEALS BOARD APPEAL OF MERCHANT SERVICE COMPANY Date: February 11, 1980 THOMAS O. MAGNETTI, Chairman DREW SPALDING, Member MEREDITH L. ARNESON, Member Panel 76-16 Mr. Samuel Soopper, originally the chairman of the Board adjudicating this appeal, was replaced by Mr. Arneson when he resigned from the GPO on June 22, 1979. Preliminary Statement This is a timely appeal entered by the appellant Merchant Service Company (hereinafter referred to as the contractor) and taken pursuant to the "Disputes" clause present in Contracts 373 and 374. (Section 9 of the General Provisions [Transportational Contracts] can be found in Exhibit A of the Appeal File, hereafter A.F. This exhibit consists of the contracts entered into between the GPO and the contractor.1/) The contracts required the contractor to provide hauling services to the Government. Following the decision of the Contracting Officer, Samuel L. Story, terminating for default the contractor, this appeal was filed with the Government Printing Office by letter dated December 3, 1976. On January 9 and 10, 1978, a hearing was held before the Government Printing Office Contract Appeals Board. The dispute centers around the contractor's performance under the contracts. The Government maintained that because of this performance the contractor was rightfully terminated for default while the contractor contended that it was prevented from continuing performance on the two contracts by actions of Government employees. This particular matter is somewhat complicated in that Merchant Services was represented throughout the appeal process not by counsel but by Mr. V. Jerome Wieman, the president of said company. 2/ Mr. Wieman made the decision to represent the contractor with full knowledge of the 1 complexity of this appeal. (See the prehearing statement in the A. F.) As the prehearing statement indicates, the decision which follows is based solely upon the evidence of the record which consists of the A. F., the hearing testimony and any documents submitted by the parties and accepted as relevant and material by the Board. Statement of Facts While some of the facts set forth below were disputed by the parties, the following provides the essentials of the contractual relationship between the GPO and the contractor. In July 1975 the contractor entered into two requirements contracts with the GPO to transport bulk paper and other related material to and from various locations in the Washington area._3/ During the administration of these contracts and until their final termination in April 1976, the contractor experienced difficulty in performing satisfactorily within the specifications of the contracts. This was supported by the testimony given by all the material witnesses at the appeal hearing as will be shown herein below. The precise nature of the Government's dissatisfaction with the contractor's compliance and performance is documented in Exhibit D of the A.F. Contract No. 374 was also a requirements contract for hauling services with the same duration as Contract 373. The material covered by this contract was roll and flat paper stock, envelopes and knocked down cartons. This was to be hauled from the Franconia Warehouse, the Central GPO plant and the GPO warehouse on North Capitol Street to various Government agencies in the D.C. area. Provision was also made for occasional hauling of unweighed material between the GPO and the GSA Warehouses. It should also be noted that both Contract 373 and Contract 374 contain the standard GPO "Changes'' clause (Article 2 of the General Provisions, Exhibit A of A.F.) and the standard GPO "Disputes" clause (Article 9 of the General Provisions, Exhibit A of A.F.). The contractor complained that its poor performance was a result of a deteriorating working relationship between it and GPO employees. It claimed that these difficulties were due to actions of GPO employees, and alleged that it was the target of acts of sabotage and misconduct on the part of Franconia Warehouse employees. Some of these purported acts supposedly resulted in damage to the contractor's equipment. The alleged damage was discussed at a meeting in October 1975 attended by Mr. Wieman, the Chief of the GPO Stores Division and the Director of the GPO Materials Management Service. At that time it was decided that in the future the GPO would supervise its employees more closely, but that any compensation for any future incidents would be forthcoming only upon showing of the proper notification to the GPO and verification of the damage incurred (Contracting Officer's Final Decision, Contract No. 374, pg. 7, Ex. I of the A.F., No. 374). The contractor also claimed in its appeal letter and later, at the hearing, that it was required to haul approximately 38 extra- contractual loads between the period of January 1, 1976, through March 31, 1976, from the North Capitol Street installation to the Farrington Warehouse, and that some of these loads consisted of surplus metal desks and other furniture (Transcript, Vol. I, pg. 75, Vol. II, pg. 141). In addition to this atmosphere of contention between the contractor and the GPO, there was some testimony alluding to gratuities paid to certain employees at the Franconia Warehouse by Mr. Wieman. This was documented by a report of a security investigation conducted by the GPO Security Service (Exhibit H of the A.F.). This investigation was initiated in response to a complaint lodged against these employees by the contractor. There was also direct hearing testimony of three witnesses who were materially involved in the alleged misconduct (Mr. Wieman, Mr. Charles Bugg, Jr., Assistant Chief of the Franconia Warehouse, and Mr. Roger King, Chief of the Franconia Warehouse) and Mr. Brito, Director of Security Service, who directed the investigation. 4/ Moreover, the testimony of Mr. King and Mr. Bugg indicated that contractor's performance was marred by incidents of labor unrest, both at the outset of the contract and immediately preceding the termination of the contract by the GPO in April 1976. While there was differing speculation as to the cause and effect of this unrest, it is not really determinative of the basic issues of this appeal. It would seem, however, that it was a strike by the local Teamsters Union that triggered the events leading up to and resulting in the termination of the contracts (Transcript, Vol. II, pp.. 54-56). On April 2, 1976, the contractor failed to appear with his equipment at the Franconia Warehouse. That same day a TWX was sent by the Contracting Officer, Samuel L. Story, to the contractor directing it to contact the GPO. GPO employees noticed on April 4, 1976, that the contractor's trucks and equipment usually kept on the site had been removed. With no response from the contractor forthcoming, a cure notice was transmitted by telegram to the contractor on April 5, 1976, stating that the contracts were endangered by the contractor's failure to make deliveries. The contractor was given 24 hours to cure this state of affairs (Exhibit C of the A.F.). On the fifth of April, the GPO received a TWX from the contractor dated April 4, 1976, stating that the contractor was unable to perform under the contract (Exhibit B of the A.F.). This inability to perform was defended on the grounds that the alleged actions of GPO employees "had run the contractor off the job", making further performance impossible. After receiving no notification from the contractor that it intended to comply with the terms of the contracts 5/, on April 6, 1976, the GPO notified the contractor that it was being held in default pursuant to Provision No. 8 of the contracts. The Government's action was based upon the contractor's unilateral abandonment of performance under the contracts. In support of this, the Contracting Officer, in a letter to the Chairman of the GPO Contract Review Board, stated that: "The contractor, Merchant Service Company, has breached the contracts [373 & 374] by their [sic] actions in breaking off points of contact, and failed to perform the contracts in accordance with the contract terms as of April 1, 1976. The Government has been unable to contact the contractor to establish further delivery due to all telephone numbers previously established for contact being either changed to an unlisted number or disconnected entirely." (Exhibit C of the A.F.) On April 30, 1976, the contractor wrote to the Public Printer transmitting a claim for monetary damages amounting to over $88,000 against the GPO in connection with the terminated contracts. This claim was broken down into 22 separate claims that were individually dealt with in the Contracting Officer's two final decisions. (See Exhibit I of the A.F., Nos. 373 and 374) As this letter was outside the proper administrative channels, the contractor was advised by letter on September 14, 1976, that it must reconstitute this letter as if it were a claim submitted to the Contracting Officer in accordance with the "Disputes" clause of the contract. The contractor did this by letter dated September 20, 1976. The Contracting Officer then issued his final decision on November 9, 1976, holding that the terminations were proper (Exhibit I of the A.F.)and rejecting all the claims submitted by the contractor arising out of these terminated contracts. On December 3, 1976, the contractor, through counsel, provided the required notice of appeal. A hearing on the appeal was held before the GPO Contract Appeals Board on January 9, and 10, 1978, at which time the contractor was not represented by counsel. Issues The two issues as formulated in the prehearing statement are as follows: 6/ 1. Whether the contractor's performance on Contracts 373 and 374 was satisfactory, or whether the Government properly terminated the contracts for default? 2. Whether extra-contractual services were required of the contractor by the Government Printing Office and performed by the contractor, and whether an equitable adjustment is necessary for any such work? Discussion I. Termination for Default It is the decision of this Board that the contracts (Nos. 373 & 374) were properly terminated in accordance with the procedures set forth in the contracts. Therefore the contractor's appeal from the Government decision to terminate for default is hereby denied. It is undisputed in the evidence that the contractor did abandon its performance of the contracts. On April 2, 1976, the contractor failed to appear for work as scheduled; it had withdrawn its equipment from the Franconia Warehouse by April 4, 1976, and on April 5, 1976, the GPO received a telegram dated April 4, 1976, from the contractor stating that it was no longer able to perform under the contracts. This action was clearly a violation of the Default Clause of the Contract (Provision 8 of the General Provisions of Contracts 373 & 374) which reads in part as follows: "(8) Default (a) The Government may, . . . terminate the whole or any part of this contract in any one of the following circumstances: (1) If the Contractor fails to pick up the commodities or perform services, including delivery of services, within the time specified herein. (2) If the Contractor fails to perform any of the other provisions of this contract or so fails to make progress as to endanger performance of this contract in accordance with its terms, and in either of these two circumstances does not cure such failure within a period of 24 hours . . .." The contractor justified this abandonment on the grounds that Government mismanagement was making performance impossible. Mr. Wieman, throughout his testimony (Transcript, Vol. I, pp.. 120-154, Vol. II, pp.. 3-82), alleged that the Government mishandled the scheduling of deliveries and material pickup making it impossible for the contractor to comply with the contracts' requirements. However, regardless of any dispute that might arise under the contract between the contractor and the Government, these contracts entitle the Government, as a matter of procurement policy, to an almost unqualified right to obtain timely performance. The "Disputes" clause (Provision 9 of the General Provisions) provides that ". . . any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this contract shall be decided by the Contracting Officer. . .. Pending final decision of a dispute hereunder, the contractor shall proceed diligently with the performance of the contract and in accordance of [sic] the contract . . .." (Emphasis added.) This obligation to "proceed diligently" pending the resolution of any dispute binds the contractor to continue performance without interruption or delay. Sterling Electronics, Inc., ASBCA No. 8450, 1964 BCA ¶ 4092.; Stitching Systems, Inc., ASBCA No. 10924, 66-2 BCA ¶ 5732. Under certain extenuating circumstances abandonment may be excused if it is clear that Government prevented the contractor from doing what it agreed to do. George Leary Construction Co. v. United States, 63 Ct. Cl. 206, 225-226 (1927). In the instant case there was no credible evidence presented that indicated that continued performance was actually prevented by Government interference. Therefore, any disagreement between this contractor and the GPO should have been resolved through the "Disputes" clause procedure as provided for in the contract. Since it is indisputable that abandonment of work without any justification or excuse is an appropriate grounds for termination, this contract was properly terminated for default. 7/ H.& H Manufacturing Company, Inc., 168 Ct. Cl. 873, 879 (1964); Yukon Service, Inc. v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 942 (1977); (Opinion of Trial Judge can be found in 24 CCF ¶ 81827). As for the issue of alleged damage caused to the contractor's equipment by employees of the GPO which the contractor raised as part of its justification for abandoning the contracts, Mr. Wieman, under cross-examination, admitted that he did not know when such damage occurred or how it occurred, or who was responsible for it (Transcript, Vol. II, pp.. 35 and 76-79). Without more substantial evidence of this alleged sabotage and vandalism, the contractor has failed to sustain its burden of proof as to this part of the claim that its abandonment was justifiable. Empire State Tree Service, VACAB No. 949, 71-1 BCA ¶ 8716, at pg. 40,500. II. Extra-Contractual Services We must now determine whether the contractor is entitled to an equitable adjustment for the alleged extra-contractual work performed by it at the request of certain GPO employees. This Board decides the contractor does not deserve such adjustment. The basis of the contractor's claim is that the GPO allegedly required the contractor to haul 38 extra-contractual loads during the period from January 1, 1976, through March 31, 1976, and that some of these loads consisted of surplus metal desks and other furniture. Mr. Wieman testified at the hearing that while he 'vigorously" protested this extra-contractual work, the GPO threatened to default the contractor if the work was not accomplished (Transcript, Vol. 1, pg. 140-142). Extra-contractual work, such as is claimed here, is usually compensated for under a change order. Each of these contracts provides in Provision 2 of the General Provisions for a procedure for obtaining a change order to accommodate any change under the contract. 8/ This provision reads as follows: "(1) The Contracting Officer may, at any time, by a written order . . ., make changes within the general scope of the contract in any one or more of the following: (a) Specifications, (b) work services, (c) the place of origin, (d) the place of delivery, (e) tonnage to be shipped, or (f) amount of Government-furnished property. If any such change causes an increase or decrease in the cost of, or in the time required for, performance of any part of the work or services under this contract, whether changed or not changed by any such order, an equitable adjustment shall be made in the contract price, or time of performance, or both and the contract shall be modified in writing accordingly. Any claim by eth [sic] Contractor for adjustment under this clause must be asserted within 30 days from the date of receipt by the Contractor of the notification of change: Provided, however, That the Contracting Officer, if he decides that the facts justify such action, may receive and act upon any such claim asserted at any time prior to final payment under this contract. Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be dispute concerning a question of fact within the meaning of the clause of this contract entitled 'Disputes'. However, nothing in this clause shall excuse the Contractor from proceeding with the contract as changed.'' (Emphasis added.) The purpose of this clause is to reserve to the Government, through the Contracting Officer, the right to make whatever changes in the contract as are required by changed circumstances. An important function of the "Changes" clause is to require the contractor to proceed with work pending a resolution of any dispute arising from the claim while providing an administrative remedy to the contractor in order to compensate it for additional costs. If, however, a contractor refuses to perform due to an impasse developing over the invocation of the "Changes" clause, it becomes subject to termination for default. D. H. Dave & Gerben Contr. Co., ASBCA No. 6257, 1962 BCA ¶ 3493; Max M. Stoeckert dba University Brick & Tile Co. v. United States, 183 Ct. Cl. 152 (1968). This procedure was, in fact, invoked early in the term of contract No. 373 (See Footnote 3). By change order approved by the Contracting Officer, the contractor had the contract amended to reflect the difficulty encountered by the contractor in hauling roll stock to the Senate Office Building. The increase in the overall cost of the contract for the period covered by this change order was estimated to be over $8,888 (Exhibit A of the A.F., No. 373). Although the contractor had used the change order procedure once before, there were no change orders requested by it or submitted to the GPO to adjust the contract terms to reflect the extra- contractual work which the contractor allegedly was required to perform (Transcript, Vol. II, pp.. 227-228). Assuming, arguendo, that there were extra-contractual services that added to the contractor's cost but went uncompensated, can this Board order some adjustment be made? In the Court of Claims case, General Bronze Corporation v. United States, 338 F.2d 117 (1964), the court stated that because the Contracting Officer did not order in writing any changes during the term of the contract, the contractor could not subsequently invoke the "Changes'' clause to receive compensation. As in the instant case, the plaintiff in General Bronze was also aware of the contractual requirement of the "Changes" clause since it had requested and received in writing permission to deviate from the specifications of the contract. The court in Globe Indemnity Company, 102 Ct. Cl. 21 (1944), citing Plumley v. United States, 226 U.S. 545 (1913), stated at pg. 37: "[i]t is seen . . . that there has been a complete failure to comply with the provisions of article 4 [changed conditions] and of article 3 [changes]. Both this court and the Supreme Court have held that there can be no recovery for additional work performed where there has been a failure to comply with these provisions of the contract, or a similar provision contained in article 5 [Extras]." Therefore, in light of the above cases and since the contractor was aware of the procedure and did not comply with the contractual terms, it can not recover for any extra-contractual work under this theory of recovery. There is, however, a separate line of cases which have sought to soften what is considered the harsh Plumley doctrine. See, Eldon H. Crowell, "Changes & Differing Site Conditions", Section F, Federal Publications Inc., Concentrated Course in Government Contracts, Volume II (1975). In an effort to avoid the Government's unjust enrichment from uncompensated work, the courts in these cases have helped develop the "constructive change" doctrine. A constructive change order is defined as: "Any conduct by a C. 0. [Contracting Officer] (or other Government representative authorized to order changes) which is not a formal change order, but which has the effect of requiring you [the contractor] to perform work different from that prescribed by the original terms of your contract, constitutes a constructive change order . . . entitling you to relief under the 'Changes' clause." vom Baur, Constructive Change Order, Edition II, Briefing Papers, No. 73-5, Govt. Contractor (1973) at pg. 2. 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. In Lippincott & Margulies, Inc. (1968) GSBCA No. TD-2, 68-2 BCA ¶ 7367, the Board denied a contractor's claim for additional compensation because the extra work performed was not ordered orally by anyone authorized to act for the Contracting Officer. In the instant case there has been no convincing evidence presented that the Contracting Officer, or someone authorized by the Contracting Officer to make such a request, directed the contractor to perform the alleged extra-contractual work. The Board can conclude that under these facts the "constructive change" doctrine cannot be invoked by the contractor. The contractor did argue that it was threatened with default if the extra-contractual work was not performed and because of this the contractor performed the services without informing the Contracting Officer. If the Board were to accept this as true, the contractor still would not recover any further compensation since it has failed in its burden of proving by substantial evidence the validity and amounts of added cost incurred by the extra-contractual work. A A A Construction Company, IBCA-55, 57-2 BCA ¶ 1510. In light of this lack of documentation, this Board adopts the statement made by the contracting office that: "It is true that the commodities said to have been hauled (subject to GPO verification) are not set forth in the contract; however, you would have to demonstrate that such change . . . increased the cost of performance of any part of the services required under the contract. You did not provide documentation which would substantiate an increase in cost." (Tab I of the A.F. for No. 373, pg. 5.) Based upon the above reasoning the claim for equitable adjustment is hereby denied. III. Admissability of Certain Evidence The contractor has sought to introduce three separate documents into evidence contending that both are relevant and material to the determination of its appeal. The Board, at the prehearing conference, accepted the first document for identification only as the Board's Exhibit I and reserved for a later date the determination of admissibility. The contents of the handwritten note allude to the necessity for the contractor to obtain specific 1 information as basis for some sort of unidentified investigation and also of the necessity of reporting incidents of damage at the time of their occurrence. The decision of the Board is to exclude this evidence. At the hearing the contractor failed to establish by any formal proof, whether direct or indirect, the authentication of the document and its author. Authentication or "ownership" of the writing is required before the introduction of any writing into evidence. McCormick on Evidence, 2nd Ed., Chap. 22 (1972). Normally, the lack of proper authentication might not be sufficient reason to exclude a document since this Board is less rigid in its evidentiary requirements than a Federal court. However, in this particular case, when the contents of the note are taken into account, the document has little probative value or relevance to the issues of this particular appeal. Thus, since any relevance the unauthenticated note might have for the contractor's defense or Board's decision is minimal, it is hereby excluded. The second document in question was identified at the prehearing conference as "Exhibit J" and is a diagram drawn up by the contractor referring to the successor carrier's performance. It is the Board's decision that this document is irrelevant and immaterial. Materiality deals with the relationship between the issues of the case and the particular fact that the evidence tends to prove. Relevancy deals with the requirement that the evidence must logically tend to prove a material fact. Azimow's Estate.v. Azimow, 230 N.E.2d 450 (1967). In the instant case this document does not relate at all to the issues of the contractor's abandonment and subsequent default or the extra-contractual services alleged to have been provided by the contractor. The evidence is not relevant in that it does.not tend to prove or disprove any material facts of the case. Since this is a requirements contract, the amount hauled daily by a successor contractor is not relevant to the amounts required of the defaulted contractor to haul. The third set of documents contains copies of GPO Form 2161 purportedly covering shipments from Franconia Warehouse to GPO Stores Division. Although these documents were not offered into evidence at the hearing, the contractor referred to the documents in its testimony, and over the objection of the Government requested the right to send this evidence to the Board. The Board reserved the right to rule on the admissibility of the documents after their submission. The Board now decides, in light of the policy to admit almost all relevant evidence, to admit these documents. However, in weighing our decision on this appeal, these documents have a rather limited use since there is no way to determine from their face exactly what is being hauled by the successor contractor and under what circumstances the material is being hauled. Due to this complete lack of foundation or authentication, the documents are of little help in shedding light on what actually occurred during the end of March and the beginning of April 1976 when the contractor halted its performance under the contracts. Decision This appeal is denied. _______________ 1/ There is an A. F. for each of these contracts with identical documents in each tab. The only essential difference between the two can be found in Exhibits A and I which reflect the minor distinctions between the two. A document referred to by exhibit letter can be found under that letter in either A. F. 2/ Because of this pro se representation and in an effort to afford due process to the contractor, the Board was not as rigid as could be expected in certain evidentiary matters during the course of this hearing. This leniency was graciously consented to by the Government's counsel. 3/ Contract No. 373 was a requirements contract for hauling services for the period of July 1, 1975 through September 30, 1976. The material to be hauled was flat paper, envelopes and knocked down cartons which were to be packed on skids and pallets and taken from the GPO Franconia Warehouse, Virginia to various Government agencies in the D.C. commercial zone. Occasional backhauls were also required. A change order (No. 300a), dated January 19, 1976, amended the contract to include the hauling of roll stock paper from the Franconia Warehouse to the Senate Office Building. 4/ It was never satisfactorily determined by the GPO Security Service whether these gratuities were solicited from Mr. Wieman by GPO employees or whether the gifts were offered by Mr. Wieman independent of any urging on the part of these employees. (Transcript, Vol. 1, pp.. 109 & 110.) During this appeal, both Messrs. Bugg and King claimed that, while they did accept the gifts from the contractor, the gifts were unsolicited and they did not alter their behavior towards the contractor. (Transcript, Vol. II, pp.. 139-140 and 177-180.) 5/ Although the cure notice was transmitted to the contractor at the same address used in all previous communications, Mr. Robert Armentrout, GPO Contract Specialist, noted at 11:45 on April 6, 1976, that he had been contacted telephonically by Western Union and had been told that the message was delivered but that there was no one there by the name of Jerome Wieman to receive the delivered telegram (Exhibit C of the A.F.). Western Union verified this on April 8th by telegram which stated that the April 5th telegram was undelivered.as the contractor was no longer at 9101 51st Place, College Park, Maryland, and Western Union was unable to obtain a new telephone number or new address (Exhibit C, supra.). 6/ The statement of issues was determined on Thursday, January 4, 1979, at the prehearing conference. Present at the morning meeting were the three Board members, Government counsel, the Contracting Officer and V. Jerome Wieman, proprietor of the Merchant Service Company. It should be noted that while the contractor had made 22 separate claims for money damages caused by various Government actions in his original claim against the GPO (dated April 26, 1976), these claims are addressed only as they are encompassed by the two issues as set forth and agreed to by all the parties at the prehearing conference. 7/ Mr. Wieman testified that he knew that any dispute arising under the contract had to be dealt with by the "Disputes" clause (Transcript, Vol. II, pg. 5). 8/ Provision 3 of the General Provision sets out the procedure for receiving compensation for "extras'' and reads as follows: "Except as otherwise provided in this contract, no payment for extras shall be made unless such extras and the price therefor have been authorized in writing by the Contracting Officer." (Emphasis added.)