BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, DC 20401 In the Matter of ) ) the Appeal of ) ) K.C. PRINTING COMPANY ) Docket No. GPO BCA 02-91 Jacket Nos. 278-448, 278-449 ) and 278-450 ) Purchase Order 54958 ) DECISION AND ORDER This appeal, timely filed by K.C. Printing Company (Appellant or Contractor), 968 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11238, is from the final decision of Contracting Officer James L. Leonard, of the U.S. Government Printing Office's (Respondent or GPO or Government) Printing Procurement Department, Washington, DC 20401, dated January 9, 1991, assessing excess reprocurement costs following a default of its contract for failure to meet the delivery schedule (R4 File, Tab E).1 For the reasons which follow, the Contracting Officer's decision is AFFIRMED, and the appeal is DENIED.2 I. BACKGROUND The facts in this appeal are essentially undisputed and are briefly set out here only to the extent necessary for the purposes of this decision. 1. On November 2, 1990, the Respondent issued Purchase Order 54958 to the Appellant awarding it a contract to produce three sets of pamphlets for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) (R4 File, Tab A).3 The estimated cost of the contract was $5,124.00, based on the Contractor's bid (R4 File, Tab A). 2. Under terms of the contract, the Appellant was to complete delivery of the pamphlets to the COE by November 30, 1990 (R4 File, Tab A). However, on December 13, 1990, the COE notified GPO that the pamphlets had not been received as of that date (R4 File, Tab B). 3. On December 18, 1990, after obtaining the concurrence of GPO's Contract Review Board, the Contracting Officer terminated the Appellant's contract for default because of the Contractor's failure to meet the delivery schedule (R4 File, Tabs C and D). The termination notice also advised the Appellant that it would be liable for any excess reprocurement costs (R4 File, Tab D). It is undisputed that the contract was defaulted without affording the Appellant an opportunity to "cure" the delinquent delivery. 4. Almost immediately the Contracting Officer solicited new bids for the work (R4 File, Tab D-1). Although the Contracting Officer contacted six potential contractors, he received only two bids-one from West Shore Printing for $19,255.00 and the other from Hiller Industries for $18,764.00 (R4 File, Tab D-1). On January 8, 1991, the Contracting Officer awarded the repurchase contract to Hiller at its bid price (R4 File, Tabs D-1 and K).4 Hiller completed the work and was paid by Government check on February 27, 1991 (Check No. 30537679) (R4 File, Tab M).5 Meanwhile, on January 9, 1991, the Contract Officer notified GPO's Financial Management Service (FMS) of the reprocurement and asked it to recover the additional costs incurred by the Government ($13,640.00) from the Appellant (R4 File, Tab E). 5. When the Appellant was informed of the repurchase action, its response was to write a letter to the Board, dated January 28, 1991, challenging the Contracting Officer's reprocurement award to Hiller on the ground that the contract price of $18,764.00 was "excessively high", and asking the Board to make "an inquiry into the procedure of the new award" (R4 File, Tab E-1). The Contractor argued that since the second lowest bid on the original contract was $6,800.00 (submitted by American Litho), while the third lowest was for $8,760.00 (submitted by West Shore Printing), there was no justification for awarding the repurchase contract to Hiller at a price of $18,760.00 (R4 File, Tab E-1). 6. On being informed that the Appellant had filed an appeal with the Board,6 the Contracting Officer reviewed his repurchase decision. Thereafter, by letter dated February 27, 1991, the Contracting Officer informed the Contractor that upon re-examination of the contract file, he was reducing the excess reprocurement cost liability from $13,640.00 to $4,201.00,7 based on the price quotation of K.S. Press, the fourth lowest bidder on the original contract, but the next lowest responsible offeror, who had bid $9,325.00 for the job (R4 File, Tab G). As explained by the Contracting Officer: This determination was made to mitigate the contractor's costs. On the original solicitation, award [could not have been] made to American Litho. American Litho had a compliance and quality problem. The next contractor was Westshore [sic] Printing who wanted to revise his price by a considerable increase. This was reflected in the new solicitation. See, R4 File, Tab H. 7. On March 1, 1991, the Contracting Officer told FMS to recover the lower amount (R4 File, Tab I). Thereafter, on March 4, 1991, the Contracting Officer issued GPO Contract Modification No. 1 reflecting the change and sent it to the Appellant (R4 File, Tab J).8 II. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Was the default action defective because the Contracting Officer failed to provide the Appellant with an opportunity to "cure" the delinquency before terminating the contract? 2. Is the Appellant's reason for not meeting the delivery schedule, namely that it lacked the funds to buy supplies until its bank completed a merger with another financial institution, such an excuse as would forgive its failure to perform? 3. Has the Government proved its entitlement to recover excess reprocurement costs in the amount of $4,201.00? III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES The Appellant does not dispute that it failed to deliver the pamphlets to the COE by the contract "due date." Instead, the Contractor maintains that the default termination was procedurally defective because it was entitled to a "Cure Notice" to correct the delivery problem, and the Contracting Officer neglected to provide one. See, RPTC, pp. 5-6. Furthermore, the Appellant believes that the delivery delay was excused by the fact that during the time set for performance its bank was the subject of a takeover by another financial institution,9 and it had no access to the money in its account because the account was frozen.10 RPTC, p. 6. Consequently, until the bank reorganization was completed, the Appellant was without the wherewithal to order supplies. See, Appellant's Brief on Order Requiring Dismissal of Motion to Dismiss, dated October 12, 1992, p. 2. The Contractor asserts that if the shipping date had been extended 10 days by the issuance of a proper "Cure Notice", it could have produced and delivered the pamphlets because the funding problem would have been resolved. RPTC, p. 6. Finally, at the presubmission conference on January 26, 1993, the Appellant stated that it would accept the Contracting Officer's lower figure regarding its excess reprocurement cost liability, as reflected in Contract Modification No. 1, if the Board determined that the contract was properly terminated. Id. The Respondent, on the other hand, contends that a "Cure Notice" was not required prior to the termination of the contract for default in this case, because the Appellant had failed to deliver the pamphlets within the time specified in the contract. See, Res. Brf., pp. 5-6; RPTC, p. 6. As for the issue of excess reprocurement costs, GPO submits that the Contracting Officer repurchased the defaulted pamphlets in accordance with accepted legal precepts so that the Appellant is liable for the Government's extra costs in the amount of $4,201.00.11 Res. Brf., p. 7. First, the Respondent notes that Hiller's reprocurement contract was for the identical supplies, and contained the same terms and conditions as the Appellant's original contract. Res. Brf., pp. 8-10 (citing, B & M Construction, Inc., AGBCA No. 90-165-1, 93-1 BCA ¶ 25,431; Old Dominion Security, Inc., GSBCA No. 9126, 90-2 BCA ¶ 22,745; Luis Martinez, AGBCA Nos. 86-1-148-1, 86-270-1, 87-3 BCA ¶ 20,219; Marmac Industries, Inc., ASBCA No. 12158, 72-1 BCA ¶ 9,249). Second, GPO argues that the Contracting Officer reprocured the terminated items within a reasonable time following the default. Res. Brf., pp. 10-11 (citing, John L. Hartsoe, AGBCA No. 88-116-1, 93-2 BCA ¶ 25,614; Birken Manufacturing Company, ASBCA No. 32590, 90-2 BCA ¶ 22,845; Sequal, Inc., ASBCA No. 30838, 88-1 BCA ¶ 20,382; Disan Corporation, ASBCA Nos. 21297, 22221, 79-1 BCA ¶ 16,677). Third, the Respondent claims that it used the most efficient method of reprocurement under the circumstances and acted reasonably to minimize the excess costs. Res. Brf., pp. 11-13 (citing, Ketchikan Pulp Company v. United States, 20 Cl.Ct. 164 (1990); Puroflow Corporation, ASBCA No. 36058, 93-3 BCA ¶ 26,191; Barrett Refining Corporation, ASBCA Nos. 36590, 37093, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,566; Mid-America Painters, Inc., ENG BCA No. 5703, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23.367; American Photographic Industries, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 29272, 29832, 90-1 BCA ¶ 22,491). Finally, the Government states that it has presented evidence of Hiller's final payment so that the Appellant's excess reprocurement cost liability is based upon a sum certain. Res. Brf., pp. 13-14 (citing, Sterling Printing, Inc., GPO BCA 20-89 (March 28, 1994); Patty Armfield, AGBCA Nos. 91-185-1, 92-141-1, 92-143-1, 93-1 BCA ¶ 25,235; Pyramid Packing, Inc., AGBCA No. 86-128-1, 92-2 BCA ¶ 24,831). Accordingly, the Respondent urges the Board to uphold the default termination, and allow the excess reprocurement cost assessment against the Contractor.12 Res. Brf., p. 14. IV. CONCLUSIONS13 Fundamentally, this appeal asks the Board to decide whether or not the Appellant's contract was erroneously defaulted, and if the termination was proper, is the Contractor nonetheless excused from liability for excess reprocurement costs? Therefore, it is worthwhile to repeat the applicable legal principles at the outset. First, GPO's "Default" clause provides that a contracting officer may, upon written notice of default to the contractor, terminate a contract, in whole or in part, if the contractor fails to: (1) deliver the supplies or perform the required services within the time specified or any extension which may have been granted; (2) make progress on the work, so as to endanger performance of the contract; or (3) perform any of the other provisions of the contract. See, GPO Contract Terms, Solicitation Provisions, Supplemental Specifications, and Contract Clauses, GPO Publication 310.2, Effective December 1, 1987 (Rev. 9-88), Contract Clauses, ¶ 20(a)(1)(i), (ii),(iii) (Default) (hereinafter GPO Contract Terms). Further, where a contract is terminated for default and the work must be reprocured, the contractor will be held responsible for excess procurement costs and possible liquidated damages. GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶¶ 20(b), 22(d). However, the contractor is excused from paying such reprocurement costs or damages if the failure to perform or to deliver on time results from causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the contractor.14 GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶¶ 20(c), 22(e), 23. Such causes include, but are not limited to, acts of God or of the public enemy, acts of the Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes, and unusually severe weather-but in each case, the failure to perform must be beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the contractor. GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 20(c). See, Printing Unlimited, GPO BCA No. 21-90 (November 30, 1993), Sl. op. at 16; Shepard Printing, GPO BCA 23-92 (April 23, 1993) Sl. op. at 11; Chavis and Chavis Printing, GPO BCA 20-90 (February 6, 1991), Sl. op. at 11. Where the failure to perform is caused by the default of a supplier or subcontractor, the cause of the default must be beyond the control of both the contractor and subcontractor, and without the fault or negligence of either, in order for the contractor not to be liable for any excess costs for failure to perform, unless the subcontracted supplies or services could have been secured from other sources in sufficient time to meet the required delivery schedule. GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 20.(d). See, Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, Sl. op. at 11. Second, because a default termination is a drastic action which may only be taken for good cause and on the basis of solid evidence,15 see, Shepard Printing, supra, Sl. op. at 10-11; R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Company, GPO BCA 31-90 (February 6, 1992), Sl. op. at 25, aff'd, Richard C. Swanson, T/A R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Company, No. 92-128C (U.S. Claims Court, October 2, 1992);16 Stephenson, Inc., GPO BCA 02-88 (December 20, 1991), Sl. op. at 20 (citing, Mary Rogers Manley d/b/a Mary Rogers Real Estate, HUDBCA No. 76-27, 78-2 BCA ¶ 13,519; Decatur Realty Sales, HUDBCA No. 75-26, 77-2 BCA ¶ 12,567), the Government has the burden of proving the basis for the default, while the contractor has the burden of showing that its failure to perform was excusable, see, Shepard Printing, supra, Sl. op. at 11; R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Company, supra, Sl. op. at 28; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, Sl. op. at 11. Accord, Lisbon Contractors v. United States, 828 F.2d 759 (Fed. Cir. 1987)); Switlik Parachute Company v. United States, 216 Ct.Cl. 362 (1978); J.F. Whalen and Company, AGBCA Nos. 83-160-1, 83-281-1, 88-3 BCA ¶ 21,066; B. M. Harrison Electrosonics, Inc., ASBCA No. 7684, 1963 BCA ¶ 3,736. If the Government fails to meet its burden of proof, then the termination is converted into one of convenience and the contractor is allowed to recover for the work performed. See, GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 20(g). Cf., Stephenson, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 17-18; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, Sl. op. at 9. Third, where, as here, the default termination is based on untimely performance, the contractor's burden of proof is four-fold: (1) to prove affirmatively that the delay was caused by or arose out of a situation which was beyond the contractor's control and it was not at fault or negligent; (2) to show that performance would have been timely but for the occurrence of the event which is claimed to excuse the delay; (3) to show that it took every reasonable precaution to avoid foreseeable causes for delay and to minimize their effect; and (4) to establish a precise period of time that performance was delayed by the causes alleged. See, Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, Sl. op. at 12 (and cases cited therein). This burden must be carried by substantial evidence- unsupported reasons by way of explanation are not enough-and the contractor must also show that the delay in contract performance was due to unforeseeable causes beyond its control and without any contributory negligence on its part. See, Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, Sl. op. at 12-13 (and cases cited therein). Finally, a default termination is a discretionary act which can be challenged on an abuse of discretion standard. See, Graphics Image, Inc., GPO BCA 13-92 (August 31, 1992), Sl. op. at 24-28; Shepard Printing, supra, Sl. op. at 12. Accord, Darwin Construction Company, Inc. v. United States, 811 F.2d 593 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Quality Environment Systems v. United States, 7 Cl.Ct. 428 (1985); Schlesinger v. United States, 390 F.2d 702 (Ct. Cl. 1968); Executive Elevator Service, Inc., VABCA No. 2152, 87-2 BCA ¶ 19,849, mot. for reconsider. denied, 87-3 BCA ¶ 20,083. The burden is on the contractor to prove abuse of discretion. See, Shepard Printing, supra, Sl. op. at 12. Accord, Kit Pack Company, Inc., ASBCA No. 33135, 89-3 BCA ¶ 22,151; Lafayette Coal Company, ASBCA No. 32174, 89-3 BCA ¶ 21,963; Quality Environment Systems, Inc., ASBCA No. 22178, 87-3 BCA ¶ 20,060. Applying these principles to the facts in the record, the Board reaches the following conclusions: A. The Contracting Officer was not required to issue a "Cure Notice" before terminating the Appellant's contract for default. 1. It could not be clearer that the Appellant's contract was defaulted by the Contracting Officer for a failure to "[d]eliver the supplies or to perform the services within the time specified or any extension, thereof;. . .". GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶ 20(a)(1)(i).17 Indeed, the Contracting Officer's termination letter said as much (R4 File, Tab D ("You are notified that your contract . . . is hereby terminated for default because of your failure to meet our specification (schedule).") The Appellant does not dispute the Contracting Officer's finding in that regard. Rather, the Contractor contends that the Contracting Officer's termination action was procedurally defective because he failed to issue a "Cure Notice" affording it an opportunity to correct the delivery problem before the contract was defaulted. See, RPTC, pp. 5-6. 2. The Appellant is mistaken. As a general rule, no "cure notice" is required where a contract is to be terminated because of the contractor's failure to timely deliver or perform. See, B. P. Printing and Office Supplies, GPO BCA 22-91 (February 5, 1993), Sl. op. at 12; Shepard Printing, supra, Sl. op. at 13; Stephenson, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 19-20. Accord, Chambers-Thompson Moving and Storage, Inc., ASBCA No. 43260, 93-3 BCA ¶ 26,033, at 129,408; Sonico, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 31110, 34269, 89-2 BCA ¶ 21,611. The law does provide a limited exception to this principle when a contractor has timely shipped nonconforming goods which deviate from the specifications in only minor respects, see, Radiation Technology, Inc. v. United States, 177 Ct.Cl. 227, 366 F.2d 1003 (1966), but such is not this case.18 In light of the Appellant's admission that it did not meet the contract delivery date in this case, the Board concludes that the Contracting Officer did not commit procedural error by failing to issue a "Cure Notice" to the Appellant before terminating the contract for default, and therefore, the Appellant's contentions to the contrary are without merit.19 See, B. P. Printing and Office Supplies, supra, Sl. op. at 15; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, Sl. op. at 13. B. The Appellant's reason for not meeting the delivery schedule, namely that it lacked the funds to buy supplies until its bank completed a merger with another financial institution, is not such an excuse as would forgive its failure to perform. 1. As indicated above, under the "Disputes" clauses a defaulting contractor is excused from the consequences of its failure to perform or make timely deliveries in accordance with the contract terms, if it can demonstrate that its delinquency results from causes beyond its control and without its fault or negligence. GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, ¶¶ 20(c), 22(e), 23. In this case, the Appellant offers as an excuse for its failure to deliver the pamphlets, the fact that it was without the funds to order supplies during the time set for performance because its bank was merging with another financial institution and its account was frozen. RPTC, p. 6. This excuse is without legal merit. 2. It is "black letter" law that a contractor is responsible for having the labor, plant, equipment, material and finances adequate for contract performance prior to making a contract commitment with the Government. See, Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, Sl. op. at 14-15. The reason for this rule is simple-implicit in a contractor's promise to perform is its assurance that it has the ability to perform. Id., Sl. op. at 14. 3. The basic rule with regard to contractor finances was stated in a recent decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA). In Dependable Metal Products, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 41446, 41449, 94-3 BCA ¶ 26,963, the contractor's failure to provide evidence from its bank that the bank's negative financing decision was based on Government action or inaction, as contended by the contractor, resulted in the ASBCA's rejection of the contractor's attempt to excuse its default based on its financial problems. As the ASBCA observed: While we hear appellant argue that repudiation was compelled, in part, by a decision of a lender not to provide additional financing, the general rule is that a contractor assumes the risk of assuring adequate financing to perform the work. Southeastern Airways Corporation v. United States [29 CCF ¶ 82,261], 673 F.2d 368 (Ct.Cl. 1982); International Equipment Services, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 21104, 23170, 83-2 BCA ¶ 16,675. There is an exception where the contractor can show that financing was denied because of Government wrongdoing. TGC Contracting Corporation v. United States [32 CCF ¶ 73,655], 736 F.2d 1512 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Dependable Metal Products, Inc., supra, 94-3 BCA ¶ 26,963, at 134,264. Compare, Litchfield Manufacturing Corporation v. United States, 338 F.2d 94 (Ct.Cl. 1964) (bank vice president testified that bank declined financing because of the Government's failure to timely deliver necessary tooling). Similarly, as another contract appeals board noted: It is fundamental that the contractor assumes the risk of providing funds to perform the contract. Consequently, neither undercapitalization nor insolvency (actual or impending) will excuse a failure to perform. Consolidated Airborne Systems, Inc. v. United States [10 CCF ¶ 73,125], 172 Ct.Cl. 588, 597, 348 F.2d 941, 946 (1965); Willems Industries, Inc. v. United States [8 CCF ¶ 71,693], 155 Ct.Cl. 360, 295 F.2d 822 (1961); International Equipment Services, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 21104, 23170. 83-2 BCA ¶ 16,675; Medical Fabrics Company, ASBCA No. 1148, 66-2 BCA ¶ 5,887. See, El Greco Painting Company, ENG BCA No. 5693, 92-1 BCA ¶ 24,522, at 122,379. See also, Sierra Tahoe Manufacturing, Inc., GSBCA No. 12679, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,771; Centennial Leasing, GSBCA No. 12037, 94-1 BCA ¶ 26,398; Swiss Products, Inc., ASBCA No. 40031, 93-3 BCA ¶ 26,163; Local Contractors, Inc., ASBCA No. 37108, 92-1 BCA ¶ 24,491; Ralcon, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 38059, 38191, 40398, 41376, 92-2 BCA ¶ 24,971. 4. In the Board's view, the general rule is dispositive of this case. It was the Appellant's obligation to have proper and adequate financial resources to perform the contract. See, Ralcon, Inc., supra, 92-2 BCA ¶ 24,971, at 124,435. The Contractor's inability to acquire sufficient funds for performance is not such an excuse "beyond its control and without its fault or negligence" within the meaning of the "Disputes" clause, unless it could show that its financial incapacity was Government caused. See, Local Contractors, Inc., supra, 92-1 BCA ¶ 24,491, at 122,235-36 (and cases cited therein). Financial problems not caused by wrongful Government action do not form the basis to excuse a failure to deliver. Midwest Satellite Equipment, Inc., ASBCA No. 40713, 91-2 BCA ¶ 23,907, at 119,759; Unimach Manufacturing, ASBCA No. 39883, 90-3 BCA ¶ 22,968, at 115,348. The Appellant has not shown any improper conduct on the part of the Government affecting its ability to acquire sufficient funds. While it is unfortunate that the Appellant was denied access to its bank account at the time it was expected to produce and deliver the pamphlets, there is not a scintilla of proof that the Government was responsible for freezing the account, nor has the Contractor even suggested such a thing. Furthermore, despite the Board's direction to the Appellant at the presubmission telephone conference that it obtain a letter from its bank corroborating the fact that it had no access to its bank account during the contract performance period, see, RPTC, pp. 7-8, the Contractor has failed to provide any evidence from its bank whatsoever to support its contention that its account was frozen. See, Dependable Metal Products, Inc., supra, 94-3 BCA ¶ 26,963, at 134,264. Accordingly, the Appellant has not met its burden of proof with respect to excusing its failure to make a timely shipment of the pamphlets under Purchase Order 54958, and the Contracting Officer was justified in terminating the contract for default. See, Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, Sl. op. at 15. Accord, Midwest Satellite Equipment , Inc., supra, 91-2 BCA ¶ 23,907, at 119,759. C. The Respondent has sustained is burden of proof with regard to the Appellant's liability for excess reprocurement costs. 1. The assessment of excess reprocurement costs is considered a Government claim. See, Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 50-51 (and cases cited therein). Consequently, the Government has the burden of demonstrating the propriety of the repurchase and proving its entitlement to the amount of excess costs it claims. Id., Sl. op. at 51 (and cases cited therein). In doing so, the Government must satisfy five criteria to establish an entitlement to recovery against a defaulting contractor, namely, it must show that: (a) the reprocurement contract was performed under substantially the same terms and conditions as the original contract; (b) it acted within a reasonable time following default to repurchase the supplies; (c) it employed a reprocurement method which would maximize competition under the circumstances; (d) it obtained the lowest reasonable price; and (e) the work has been completed and final payment made so that the excess costs assessment is based upon liability for a sum certain.20 Id., Sl. op. at 52-53 (and cases cited therein). Furthermore, the Government claim must be supported by evidence in the record as to each element of the claim. Id., Sl. op. at 53 (and cases cited therein). Failure to satisfy even one criterion may result in a reduction of the excess costs claimed. Id., Sl. op. at 53-54 (and cases cited therein). Measuring the repurchase action in this case against the above standards, the Board concludes that the Respondent has satisfied all of the elements necessary to sustain an entitlement to excess reprocurement costs. 2. First, the Board's own comparison of the original and reprocurement contracts leaves no question but that the reprocurement contractor, Hiller, was asked to produce and deliver the identical pamphlets, under essentially the same terms and conditions, as those in the Appellant's original contract. Compare, R4 File, Tabs A and L. The Appellant does not allege otherwise. Both contracts procure pamphlets with the same functional purpose and use, and there is no significant difference between their terms and conditions. Indeed, the only observable difference between the two contracts was the assignment of three new Jacket numbers to the repurchase contract. Accordingly, the Board concludes that the Respondent has met the first condition for excess reprocurement costs, namely, that the reprocurement contract purchased the same or similar items, and was performed under substantially the same terms and conditions as the original contract. See, Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 62-63. Accord, B & M Construction, Inc., supra, 93-1 BCA ¶ 25,431; Zan Machine Company, ASBCA No. 39462, 91-3 BCA ¶ 24,085; Boston Pneumatics, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 26188, 26190, 26825, 26984, 27605, 27606, 87-1 BCA ¶ 19,395. 3. Second, the Board has no trouble in concluding that the reprocurement was accomplished in a timely fashion. See, Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 63. The record in this case shows that the Appellant's contract was terminated for default on December 18, 1990 (R4 File, Tab D). The reprocurement contract was awarded to Hiller 21 days later, on January 8, 1991 (R4 File, Tabs D-1 and K). Accordingly, considering that this time frame included both the Christmas and New Year's holidays, on this record the Board finds that the Respondent acted with reasonable dispatch and without undue delay to reprocure the three defaulted pamphlets, and thus it has satisfied its evidentiary burden. See, Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 64-65. Accord, Astro-Space Laboratories, Inc. v. United States, 200 Ct.Cl. 282, 470 F.2d 1003 (1972); Puroflow Corporation, supra, 93-3 BCA ¶ 26,191; John L. Hartsoe, supra, 93-2 BCA ¶ 25,614; Sequal, Inc., supra, 88-1 BCA ¶ 20,382; Disan Corporation, supra, 79-1 BCA ¶ 16,677. 4. Third, it also seems clear that in reprocuring the defaulted contract, the Respondent chose a method which was designed to maximized competition and obtain the best or lowest reasonable price for the Government under the circumstances. See, e.g., Scalf Engineering Co. and Pike County Construction Co., A Joint Venture, IBCA No. 2328, 89-3 BCA ¶ 21,950, at 110,425 (citing, Techcraft Systems, VABCA Nos. 1894, 2027, 86-3 BCA ¶ 19,320); Sequal, Inc., supra, 88-1 BCA ¶ 20,382, at 103,067. The test used in determining the adequacy of a repurchase solicitation is one of reasonableness, and "the principal criterion is that a sufficient number of potential contractors are contacted in the reprocurement solicitation to assure competitive prices in order to discharge the Government's obligation to mitigate the excess costs of the defaulted contractor." See, Century Tool Company, GSBCA No. 4007, 78-1 BCA ¶ 13,050, at 63,735, mot. for reconsid. denied, 78-2 BCA ¶ 13,345. The burden is on the Government to prove that the reprocurement method it selected was conducive to obtaining full and open competition, and that it acted reasonably to mitigate or minimize excess costs.21 Cf., Sam's Electric Company, GSBCA Nos. 9359, 10044, 90-3 BCA ¶ 12,128; Fancy Industries, Inc., ASBCA No. 26578, 83-2 BCA ¶ 16,659. In most cases, the Government satisfies this burden by showing that it used sealed bid advertising to repurchase defaulted supplies and services.22 See, e.g., H & H Manufacturing Company v. United States, 168 Ct.Cl. 873 (1964); Lester Brothers, Inc. v. United States, 151 Ct.Cl. 536 (1960); Star Food Processing, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 34161, 34163, 34164, 34165, 35544, 35545, 35546, 35547, 90-1 BCA ¶ 22,390; Fancy Industries, Inc., supra, 83-2 BCA ¶ 16,659, at 82,842; Erickson Enterprises, AGBCA 77-168, 79-1 BCA ¶ 13,628. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for the Government to solicit those firms which bid on the original procurement.23 See, e.g., American Marine Upholstery Company v. United States, 170 Ct.Cl. 564, 345 F,2d 577 (1965); Mid-America Painters, Inc., supra, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,367. Indeed, such a mitigation step is considered presumptively reasonable, even if the reprocurement price itself seems unreasonable. See, e.g., Mid-America Painters, Inc., supra, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,367 (the Government acted reasonably in taking the second low bid in the original solicitation despite the fact that the reprocurement price was 174 percent above the original contract). The record with respect to the mechanics of the reprocurement in this case contains the following: (a) a copy of the Government's post-default estimates, dated January 7, 1991, for printing the three pamphlets (R4 File, Tab L); (b) a copy of the abstract of bids for the reprocured work showing that the Respondent solicited six potential contractors, including West Shore Printing, the third lowest bidder on the original contract, and received two bids, of which Hiller's was the lowest (R4 File, Tab D-1); (c) a copy of the reprocurement purchase order (R4 File, Tabs D-1 and K); and (d) a computer printout showing that the Government paid Hiller for completing the job (R4 File, Tab M). On the evidence before it, the Board is satisfied that the reprocurement method chosen by the Respondent was reasonable in that a sufficient number of potential contractors were contacted to assure competitive prices, see, Century Tool Company, supra, 78-1 BCA ¶ 13,050, at 63,735, and that further solicitation of other firms would not have resulted in lower prices and therefore would have been unnecessary, cf., Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 73. Accordingly, the Board believes that the Respondent has met its burden with respect to the third criterion necessary to establish an entitlement to recovery of excess reprocurement costs against a defaulting contractor. Cf., Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 73. 5. Fourth, mitigation of damages also requires the Government to show that it obtained the lowest reasonable reprocurement price.24 See, e.g., Sequal, Inc., supra, 88-1 BCA ¶ 20,382; Fancy Industries, Inc., supra, 83-2 BCA ¶ 16,659. However, the mere fact that there is a significant price increase in the reprocurement does not render it unreasonable in the face of Government due care and diligence.25 See, Foster Refrigerator Corporation, ASBCA No. 34021, 89-2 BCA ¶ 21,591; Boston Pneumatics, Inc., supra, 87-1 BCA ¶ 19,395; Fancy Industries, Inc., supra, 83-2 BCA ¶ 16,659. Thus, while it is true in this case that Hiller's successful reprocurement bid ($18,764.00) was more than three times the Appellant's original offer ($5,124.00), it was still lower than West Shore Printing's bid of $19,255.00 (R4 File, Tabs A and D-1). Besides, the Contracting Officer's obligation was to obtain the best or lowest reasonable price for the Government under circumstances, see, e.g., Scalf Engineering Co. and Pike County Construction Co., A Joint Venture, supra, IBCA No. 2328, 89-3 BCA ¶ 21,950, at 110,425; Sequal, Inc., supra, 88-1 BCA ¶ 20,382, at 103,067, not the defaulted Contractor.26 See, Barrett Refining Corporation, supra, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,566, at 118,145. On the other hand, basing the Appellant's excess cost liability solely on Hiller's reprocurement offer would have created a problem for the Board in this appeal because the law is also clear that the mere selection of the low bid, either on a reprocurement or the original contract, in and of itself, does not establish a reasonable price for the purposes of the mitigation rule. See, Marine Engine Specialties Corporation, ASBCA No. 20521, 76-1 BCA ¶ 11,891. That is, a contracting officer cannot "blindly accept" a reprocurement contractor's price and be said to have acted in a reasonable and prudent manner; some inquiry by the contracting officer is required. See, Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 76-77. Accord, B & M Construction, Inc., supra, 93-1 BCA ¶ 25,431, at 126,669 (citing, Wise Instrumentation and Control, Inc., NASA BCA Nos. 1072-12, 673-7, 75-2 BCA ¶ 11,478, mot. for reconsid. denied, 76-1 BCA ¶ 11,641); Marine Engine Specialties Corporation, supra, 76-1 BCA ¶ 11,891. In this case, such an inquiry was made by the Contracting Officer following the Contractor's appeal to the Board. As a result of his review of the reprocurement file, the Contracting Officer reduced the Appellant's excess reprocurement cost liability from $13,640.00 to $4,201.00, based on the $9,325.00 bid of K.S. Press, the fourth lowest bidder on the original contract, but next lowest responsible offeror, and issued a Contract Modification to that effect (R4 File, Tabs G and J). Furthermore, the Contracting Officer promptly notified FMS that his earlier request to recover additional costs of $13,640.00 from the Appellant was rescinded, and the lower amount should be recovered instead (R4 File, Tabs E and I). The Board is fully satisfied that the Contracting Officer, by conducting a post-appeal examination of the contract file and deciding to lower the Appellant's obligation for excess costs based on K.S. Press's bid on the original contract, was acting in a reasonable and prudent manner and fully met his responsibility "on behalf of the original contractor . . . [to] not unnecessarily do or not do things which result in an increased cost to the defaulted contractor." See, William A. Hulett, supra, 93-1 BCA ¶ 25,389, at 126,459. Moreover, the Board believes that the revised excess reprocurement cost figure represents the lowest reasonable reprocurement price, and warrants the conclusion that the Government has met its responsibility to mitigate its damages. See, Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 84-85 (". . . the most common method used for recalculating excess costs is simply to take the difference between the original contract price and the second low bid on the original contract."). Accord, Mid- America Painters, Inc., supra, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,367; Birken Manufacturing Company, supra, 90-2 BCA ¶ 22,845; Sequal, Inc., supra, 88-1 BCA ¶ 20,382; Fancy Industries, Inc., supra, 83-2 BCA ¶ 16,659; Zero-Temp, Inc., ASBCA No. 215, 78-1 BCA ¶ 13,212. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Respondent has carried its burden of proof of showing that the excess reprocurement costs assessed reasonably minimized the liability of the Appellant. Cf., Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 77. 6. Finally, in order to establish a right to excess reprocurement costs, the Government must demonstrate that the repurchased work has been completed, and final payment made to the reprocurement contractor so that the excess costs assessment is based upon liability for a sum certain. Whitlock Corporation v. United States, 141 Ct.Cl. 758, 159 F.Supp. 602 (1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 815 (1958). See also, e.g., John L. Hartsoe, supra, 93-2 BCA ¶ 25,614; Lafayette Coal Company, ASBCA Nos. 32174, 33311, 87-3 BCA ¶ 20,116. Where the Government fails to offer evidence that a reprocurement contract was awarded, performed, or paid for, the assessment of excess costs against a defaulted contractor will be denied. See, Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 85. Accord, Patty Armfield, supra, 93-1 BCA ¶ 25,235; Pyramid Packing, Inc., supra, 92-2 BCA ¶ 24,831; Scalf Engineering Co. and Pike County Construction Co., A Joint Venture, supra, 89-3 BCA ¶ 21,950. Here, the relevant documentation presented by the Respondent consists of the reprocurement contract and a computer printout of the payment history for the three Jacket numbers concerned (R4 File, Tabs D-1, K and M). In the Board's view, this evidence is sufficient to prove that Hiller was awarded the contract, produced and delivered the pamphlets, and received final payment for the work. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Respondent has carried its burden of proof with respect to the last element necessary to establish its entitlement to excess reprocurement costs. Cf., Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 83. Also cf., Patty Armfield, supra, 93-1 BCA ¶ 25,235; Pyramid Packing, Inc., supra, 92-2 BCA ¶ 24,831; Scalf Engineering Co. and Pike County Construction Co., A Joint Venture, supra, 89-3 BCA ¶ 21,950. ORDER Considering the record as a whole, the Board finds and concludes that: (1) no "Cure Notice" was required before the Appellant's contract could be terminated for default; (2) the Appellant's lack of funds because of the merger of its bank with another financial institution is not such a reason as would excuse its failure to deliver the pamphlets by the contract due date; and (3) the Respondent has sustained is burden of proof with regard to the Appellant's liability for excess reprocurement costs. THEREFORE, the Contracting Officer's decisions terminating the Appellant's contract for default and assessing excess reprocurement costs, as set forth in Contract Modification No. 1, are hereby AFFIRMED, and the appeal is DENIED. It is so Ordered. February 22, 1995 STUART M. FOSS Administrative Judge _______________ 1 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 March 19, 1991. GPO Instruction 110.12, Subject: Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedure, dated September 17, 1984 (Board Rules), Rule 4(a). It will be referred to hereafter as the R4 File, with an appropriate Tab letter also indicated. As originally submitted, the R4 File consisted of thirteen (13) documents identified as Tabs A through J, and Tabs D-1, E-1 and E-2. However, before the record was settled Counsel for GPO sought leave to add three (3) additional documents to the R4 File on the issue of excess reprocurement costs namely: (1) the reprocurement contract; (2) the Government's estimates for printing and binding; and (3) a Declaration from Robert D. Colvin, with a computer printout showing payment to the reprocurement contractor. See, Respondent's Second Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Additional Documentation Relating to the Issue of Excess Reprocurement, dated September 23, 1994; Notice of Filing, dated October 13, 1994. The Respondent's request was granted by the Board. See, K.C. Printing Company, GPO BCA 02-91, Order Granting Respondent's Second Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Additional Documentation and Establishing a Revised Briefing Schedule, dated November 25, 1994 (Order Granting Respondent's Second Motion). The three (3) added documents appear in the R4 File, as Tabs K, L and M, respectively. 2 As indicated in the Board's Order of November 25, 1994, the Board was tempted to exercise its authority under Rule 31, sua sponte, to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute because its efforts to contact the Appellant by mail and telephone since April 13, 1993, have been unsuccessful, nor has the Contractor communicated with the Board in that time, and thus it seems clear that the appeal has been abandoned. Board Rules, Rule 31. See, Order Granting Respondent's Second Motion, at 4, fn. 3. In the past, the Board, on its own initiative, has exercised its discretion to dismiss appeals for want of prosecution. See, e.g, Rosemark, GPO BCA 30-90 (April 22, 1994); Bedrock Printing Company, GPO BCA 05-91 (April 10, 1992). Accord, The Work Force Reforestration, Inc., AGBCA No. 88-215-1, 89-1 BCA ¶ 21,373. However, the Board also noted that since the crucial issue in this case involves a Government claim, which is still outstanding, namely one for the recovery of excess reprocurement costs against the Appellant, and in its opinion the Respondent was entitled to a ruling on the merits of its claim. Hence, the Board did not exercise its Rule 31 authority in this case. See, Order Granting Respondent's Second Motion, at 4, fn. 3. 3 Each pamphlet was covered by a separate GPO Jacket number, namely, 278-448, 278-449 and 278-450, respectively (R4 File, Tab A). 4 The work was reprocured under three new Jacket numbers, namely, 286-863, 286-864 and 286-865 (R4 File, Tabs D-1 and L). It should be noted that the Government's total estimate for all three jobs was $21,424.00 (the estimates for Jacket Nos. 286-863, 286-864 and 286-865 were $10,778.00, $5,823.00, and $5,823.00, respectively) (R4 File, Tab L). 5 In that regard, the actual costs of Jacket Nos. 286-863, 286-864 and 286-865 turned out to be $4,073.60, $9,393.60, and $4,358.60, respectively (R4 File, Tab M). 6 The appeal was docketed by the Board on February 15, 1991. Board Rules, Rule 3. 7 At the presubmission telephone conference conducted by the Board on January 26, 1993, Counsel for GPO stated that the reduced excess reprocurement cost amount was $4,111.00. See, Report of Presubmission Telephone Conference, dated April 30, 1993, p. 4 (hereinafter RPTC). In her brief to the Board on November 18, 1994, Counsel for GPO used both $4,201.00 and $4,111.00 as excess reprocurement cost figures. See, Respondent's Brief, November 18, 1994, pp. 7, 14 (hereinafter Res. Brf.). The Board's own calculations confirm that $4,201.00 is the correct amount of excess reprocurement costs in this case. In any event, the difference between the two figures-$90.00-is de minimis. 8 Although the Contract Modification stated that it would become effective when signed by both parties, the R4 File file copy only bears the Contracting Officer's signature. Moreover, during the preliminary stages of this appeal, the Appellant expressly denied that the Contracting Officer had furnished it with a copy of the Contract Modification. See, Order Requiring Dismissal of Default, dated July 30, 1991, p. 2. Accordingly, during the presubmission telephone conference on January 26, 1993, the Board directed the Respondent to furnish a copy of the Contract Modification signed by both parties. See, Report of Presubmission Telephone Conference, dated April 30, 1993, p. 7 (RPTC). The Respondent was unable to locate such a copy in its files. Consequently, from an evidentiary standpoint, the Board is essentially dealing with a unilateral modification. 9 The Board takes judicial notice of the fact that the banks in question, the Banco de Ponce and the Banco Popular, were located in Puerto Rico. 10 At the presubmission telephone conference held on January 26, 1993, the Appellant was asked to furnish the Board with a letter from its bank corroborating that the Contractor had no access to its bank account during the contract performance period. RPTC, pp. 7-8. However, the Appellant never complied with the Board's request. 11 See, note 7 supra. 12 Both at the presubmission conference and in her brief, Counsel for GPO maintained that the Contracting Officer's decision to reduce the amount of excess reprocurement costs after the appeal was filed, mooted the issues raised in the appeal. See, RPTC, pp. 5, 7; Res. Brf., p. 6. In light of its decision in this case, the Board finds it unnecessary to address the Government's "mootness" argument. 13 The record on which the Board's decision is based consists of: (a) the Appellant's letter, dated January 28, 1991, noting an appeal from the Contracting Officer's decision; (b) the document submitted by the Contractor, dated July 30, 1991, entitled "Order Requiring Dismissal of Default", dated July 30, 1991, which the Board deemed to meet the requirements of a Complaint, see, Order Requiring Respondent to File [an] Answer, dated November 4, 1991; (c) the R4 File, Tabs A-M; (d) the Respondent's Answer, dated November 14, 1991; (d) the document submitted by the Appellant, dated October 12, 1992, entitled "Appellant's Brief on Order Requiring Dismissal of Motion to Dismiss"; (e) the Report of Presubmission Telephone Conference, dated April 30, 1993; and (f) the Respondent's Brief, dated November 18, 1994. 14 While the excusable events listed in the "Default" clause, all of which must be beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the contractor, are set forth in the context of relieving the contractor from responsibility for excess reprocurement costs, it is well-settled that the same occurrences extend the time available for performance and make termination prior to that time improper. See, e.g., FKC Engineering Company, ASBCA No. 14856, 70-1 BCA ¶ 8,312. 15 Default terminations-as a species of forfeiture-are strictly construed. See, D. Joseph DeVito v. United States, 188 Ct.Cl. 979, 413 F.2d 1147, 1153 (1969). See also, Murphy, et al. v. United States, 164 Ct.Cl. 332 (1964); J. D. Hedin Construction Co. v. United States, 187 Ct.Cl. 45, 408 F.2d 424 (1969). 16 On October 29, 1992, certain provisions of the Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-572, 106 Stat. 4506 (1992), became effective. Pursuant to Title IX, the United States Claims Court was renamed the United States Court of Federal Claims. 17 Such clauses have uniformly been held to apply not only to late deliveries of the contracted goods, Stephenson, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 19 (citing, Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, Sl. op. at 12-15; Jomar Enterprises, Inc., GPO BCA 13-86 (May 25, 1989), Sl. op. at 3-5), but also to the timely delivery of nonconforming supplies. Id. (citing, KOPA Kopier Produckte, ASBCA No. 29,471, 85-3 BCA ¶ 18,367; Meyer Labs, Inc., ASBCA No. 18,347, 77-1 BCA ¶ 12,539). See also, Delta Industries, Inc., DOT BCA No. 2601, 94-1 BCA ¶ 26, 318; Industrial Data Link Corporation, ASBCA No. 315, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,382; Air, Inc., GSBCA No. 8847, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,352. The rationale for this dual application of the default clause is simple. As explained in a leading text on the subject of public contracts: "While these clauses explicitly make untimely performance the basis for the default action, it is important to recognize that nearly every Government contract spells out the contractor's required performance in terms of the nature of the product or service which is to be delivered or performed as well as the time by which these performance efforts are to be completed. Thus, in order for the contractor to render `timely performance,' two basic requirements must be satisfied. The product, service or construction work must conform to the required design/performance characteristics, and the product must be delivered or the work completed by the specified due date." [Emphasis added.] John Cibinic, Jr. & Ralph C. Nash, Jr., Administration of Government Contracts 2d ed., (The George Washington University, 1986), p. 677. 18 Under this so-called "substantial compliance" rule, a defaulting contractor is afforded an opportunity to correct minor defects in shipments to the Government. Cf., B. P. Printing and Office Supplies, supra, Sl. op. at 12; Stephenson, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 24, 48-54. Also cf., Air, Inc., supra, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,352, at 117,112. 19 It should be noted that GPO's printing procurement regulation, like the procurement rules of other Federal agencies, recommends the issuance of a show cause letter, "where practicable," prior to the default termination of a contract for failure to make timely deliveries or perform services within the time required by the contract. GPO Printing Procurement Regulation, GPO Publication 305.3 (Rev. 10-90), Ch. XIV, Sec. 1, ¶ 3(c)(1) (PPR). Accord, Lewis B. Udis v. United States, 7 Cl. Ct. 379, 385-86 (1985). The Contracting Officer did not issue a show cause letter prior to terminating the contract in this case. It seems to the Board that he simply made the determination that it was impracticable to issue such a show cause letter under the circumstances herein. That decision was within his discretion. Since the Appellant has not objected to absence of a show cause letter in this case, the Board will not disturb the Contracting Officer's judgment. Cf., Stabbe Senter Press, GPO BCA 13-85 and 19-85 (May 12, 1989), Sl. op. at 53. In any event, the omission of a "show cause notice" by the Government is not generally a procedural defect to a termination based on the contractor's failure to make timely deliveries or perform timely services. Stephenson, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 20, fn. 22. See also, Kit Pack Company, Inc., supra, 89-3 BCA ¶ 22,151, at 111,486-87 (citing, H. N. Bailey & Associates, ASBCA No. 21,300, 77-2 BCA ¶ 12,681, at 61,553). 20 Whether the Government's repurchase was improper, and if so, what is the amount of reasonable excess costs under the circumstances, are questions of fact. See, Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 50 (citing, Cable Systems and Assembly Company, ASBCA No. 17844, 73-2 BCA ¶ 10,172, at 47,892). 21 However, it should be noted that despite the general rule, the law allows a contracting officer to limit competition for the repurchase if the situation demands it- e.g., the Government's need to assure a quick award to a firm which could begin work almost immediately-since a reprocurement is technically a purchase for the defaulted contractor's account. See, e.g., William A. Hulett, AGBCA Nos. 91-230-3, 92-133-3, 92-196-3, 93-1 BCA ¶ 25,389, at 126,459; Old Dominion Security, Inc., supra, 90-2 BCA ¶ 22,745, at 114,165 (citing, Camrex Reliance Paint Company, GSBCA No. 6870, 85-3 BCA ¶ 18,376; Century Tool Company, GSBCA No. 3999, 76-1 BCA ¶ 11,850); Sequal, Inc., supra, 88-1 BCA ¶ 20,382, at 103,067. Thus, appeals boards usually apply a "reasonable person" standard when confronted with a challenge to a contracting officer's reprocurement of a defaulted contract. In other words, "[t]he duty the Government owes the defaulted contractor in reprocuring for its account is not one of perfection, but one of reasonableness and prudence under the circumstances." See, Barrett Refining Corporation, supra, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,566, at 118,145. See also, Mid-America Painters, Inc., supra, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,367, at 117,232. This duty is to be carried out within the confines of Federal procurement statutes, regulations, policies and directives, and in pursuit of the Government's own best interests, whether or not that results in a lower price for a defaulted contractor. See, Barrett Refining Corporation, supra, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,566, at 118,145. 22 GPO procedures are consistent with this general practice in Government reprocurements. See, PPR, Chap. XIV, Sec. 1, ¶ 3.f.(2). However, the printing procurement regulation also provides that if the Contracting Officer is repurchasing a quantity of items not in excess of the undelivered quantity terminated for default, he does not have to advertise; i.e., the reprocurement can be accomplished through negotiation. Id. That may have been the case here. 23 In fact, if the Government fails to make a reasonable effort at contacting the original bidders, the result may result in a denial or reduction of the excess cost assessment. See, e.g., Associated Cleaning, Inc., supra, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,360; Old Dominion Security, Inc., supra, 90-2 BCA ¶ 22,745; Barrett Chemical Company, Inc., supra, 77-2 BCA ¶ 12,625. 24 In fulfilling the obligation to secure the best price for the Government, a contracting officer must follow the same standard of reasonableness and prudence under the circumstances which he/she exercised in the timing and selecting of the method of reprocurement. See, William A. Hulett, supra, 93-1 BCA ¶ 25,389; Barrett Refining Corporation, supra, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,566; Mid-America Painters, Inc., supra, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,367. 25 On the other hand, in the absence of negotiations or some other explanation for the increase in the price of repurchased supplies, most appeals boards will reduce the amount of recoverable excess costs. See, e.g., Puroflow Corporation, supra, 93-3 BCA ¶ 26,191; Sequal, Inc., supra, 88-1 BCA ¶ 20,382; Solar Laboratories, Inc., ASBCA No. 19957, 76-2 BCA ¶ 12,115, at 58,195. 26 See, note 21 supra.