BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, DC 20401 In the Matter of ) ) the Appeal of ) VENTURE, LTD. ) Docket No. GPOBCA 01-96 Jacket No. 676-382 ) Purchase Order M-4152 ) For the Appellant: Venture, Ltd., Baltimore, Maryland, by Chris Cabello, pro se. For the Government: Kerry L. Miller, Esq., Associate General Counsel, U.S. Government Printing Office. Before FOSS, Administrative Judge. DECISION AND ORDER I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE By letter dated December 28, 1995, Venture, Ltd. (Appellant or Contractor),1 920 West Patapsco Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21230, filed a timely appeal of the final decision of Contracting Officer Raymond Macdonald, dated September 27, 1995,2 of the U.S. Government Printing Office's (Respondent or GPO or Government), Denver Regional Printing and Procurement Offices, Denver Federal Center, Building 53, Room D-1010, Denver, Colorado 80225-0347, terminating the Appellant's contract, identified as Jacket No. 676-382, Purchase Order M-4152, for default, and assessing excess reprocurement costs in the amount of $4,987.00 (R4 File, Tabs I and M).3 See Board Rules, Rules 1(a) and 2. For the following reasons, the Contracting Officer's final decision is hereby AFFIRMED, and the appeal is DENIED. II. BACKGROUND 1. This dispute involves a small purchase contract for 2,000 cover and tab divider sets for a publication entitled "JTAO Handbook" which GPO procured for the Defense Printing Service (DPS) (R4 File, Tab C). Under the contract, the sets were to be delivered complete to the DPS by August 18, 1995. Id. 2. The contract incorporated by reference both GPO Contract Terms, Solicitation Provisions, Supplemental Specifications, and Contract Clauses, GPO Pub. 310.2, Effective December 1, 1987 (Rev. 9-88) (GPO Contract Terms), and GPO Contract Terms, Quality Assurance Through Attributes Program for Printing and Binding, GPO Pub. 310.1, Effective May 1979 (Revised November 1989) (QATAP) (R4 File, Tab C). Insofar as QATAP applied, the cover and tab divider sets were a Quality Level 2 job. Id. 3. On August 11, 1995, after completing its small purchase procedures,4 the Respondent issued Purchase Order M-4152, awarding the contract to the Appellant for $3,150.00 (R4 File, Tab C). 4. On August 15, 1995, the Contractor telephoned GPO and said that its Heidelberg press had broken down during the printing process after only 500 sets had been run, and it could not be fixed until August 22, 1995 (R4 File, Tab D). Based on this telephone call, the Respondent extended the delivery date to August 25, 1995. Id. 5. On August 24, 1995, GPO telephoned the Appellant to check on its progress, and was told that the Contractor thought the new delivery date was August 28, 1995 (R4 File, Tab D). 6. When the sets were not delivered by September 1, 1995, the Contracting Officer sent the Appellant a "Show Cause Notice" warning of a possible default unless the Appellant could show, in writing, extenuating facts proving that it was not at fault (R4 File, Tab E). Again, the only reason given by the Appellant for the delay was the problem with its press (R4 File, Tab H). 7. The Respondent took no further action, and the Appellant eventually delivered the cover and tab divider sets. The DPS inspected the sets, and discovered two major defects under QATAP; i.e., trim size (F-1) and color match (P-9) on both the covers and tabs (R4 File, Tab F). GPO's own evaluation of the sets confirmed these findings, and the product was determined to be rejectable (R4 File, Tab G). 8. On September 18, 1995, the Contracting Officer sought the concurrence of GPO's central office Contract Review Board (CRB) to terminate the contract for default (R4 File, Tab H).5 See GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, � 20 (Default). The CRB gave its approval on September 21, 1995, and on September 27, 1995, the Contracting Officer issued a "Notice of Termination Complete," defaulting the contract because of a "failure to deliver an acceptable quality product in a timely manner" (R4 File, Tabs H and I). 9. Thereafter, on September 29, 1995, following the same small purchase procedures used to make the original award, the Respondent issued Purchase Order M-4432, reprocuring the contract from Seagull for $7,900.00 (R4 File, Tabs J, K, and L). On October 2, 1995, the Contracting Officer notified the Office of the Comptroller of the reprocurement, and asked that $4,987.00 in excess costs be recovered from the Appellant (R4 File, Tab M). The record shows that Seagull completed the work, and was paid $7,742.00 ($7,900.00 minus the 2% prompt payment discount) by Check No. 30,750,454 on November 1, 1995. See Jones Declaration, � 3. Furthermore, excess reprocurement costs of $4,987.00 ($4,750.00 plus a 3% or $237.00 rush surcharge on $7,900.00) were assessed against the Contractor. Id. 10. The Contractor timely appealed the Contracting Officer's final decision on December 28, 1995 (R4 File, Tab N). III. ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Could the Respondent properly hold the Appellant responsible for producing Quality Level 2 work under QATAP since it was known that the Appellant was only a Quality Level 4 contractor? 2. Did the Contracting Officer properly default the Appellant for failure to deliver an acceptable quality product in a timely manner? Stated otherwise, is the Appellant's reason for not meeting the delivery schedule, namely that its press broke down and took time to fix, such an excuse as would forgive its failure to perform? 3. Assuming that the default termination was not erroneous, is the Respondent also entitled to reimbursement of excess reprocurement costs from the Appellant in the amount of $4,987.00? IV. SUMMARY POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES6 A. Appellant The Appellant does not dispute the Respondent's finding that the product it delivered had quality defects. See SRPTC, at 4. Nor does the Contractor deny that it delivered the job late. Id. Nonetheless, the Appellant claims that it was without fault for two reasons. First, the Heidelberg press which was used to produce the cover and tab dividers developed a problem with the ink ductor system after about 500 sets had been run. See SRPTC, at 4-5. Since the manufacturer's service personnel told it that to fix the press would take five to seven workdays, the Contractor asked GPO to take the job back because it was apparent that the sets could not be delivered within the tight schedule established by the agreement. See SRPTC, at 5. However, the Respondent insisted that the Appellant finish the contract, which it eventually did. Id. Second, the Contractor alleges that GPO made a mistake in its award because the covers and tab sets were a Quality Level 2 job and it only had a Quality Level 4 rating. Id. Indeed, the Appellant's charge that the Respondent "forced a level two job down a level four contractor's throat," amounts to an allegation of bad faith. Id. The Contractor also objects to GPO's assessment of excess reprocurement costs on the ground that the repurchase price, which was 135% more than the original contract price, is unreasonable. Id. Finally, the Appellant alleges that since the 2,000 sets it delivered were not returned despite the fact that it twice asked for them back, and thus most likely the sets have been used by the DPS, it is entitled to be paid for the original contract. Id. Accordingly, the Appellant requests that the default action be set aside, and that it be excused from any liability for excess reprocurement costs. Id. The Contractor also asks compensation for the cost of producing the job. Id. B. Respondent The Respondent believes that the default was justified in this case. See SRPTC, at 5. GPO notes that the Appellant admits that its delivery of the cover and tab sets was untimely (over two weeks late), and that the product failed to measure up to QATAP standards for trim size and color match. See Res. Brf., at 3; SRPTC, at 3. Indeed, the Respondent says that the Contractor delivered late despite the fact that it had already been given one extension for its press problems. Id. GPO believes that neither of the excuses offered by the Appellant-equipment breakdown and misaward-have merit. First, the Government states that it is well-settled that the breakdown of machinery is not an acceptable excuse under the "Default" clause. See Res. Brf., at 5 (citing Fulton Shipyard, IBCA No. 735-10-68, 71-1 BCA � 8,616; Rex Systems Corp., ASBCA No. 11327, 66-1 BCA � 5,597; Gillespie, Inc., IBCA No. 415, 65-1 BCA � 4,756; Meyer Machine, Inc., IBCA No. 593-10-66, 68-1 BCA � 6,770. SRPTC, at 3. Similarly, a contractor is not entitled to additional time to cover a period of delay caused by repair of equipment due to the unavailability of repair parts, see Res. Brf., at 5-6 (citing Netz Glove & Mitten Co., ASBCA No. 23275, 82-1 BCA � 15,664; Volco Brass & Copper Co., P.O.D. BCA No. 161, 67-1 BCA � 6,290; Universal Steel Strapping Co., ASBCA No. 10673, 65-2 BCA � 5,066; Aero Space Co., ASBCA Nos. 19047, 19048, 75-1 BCA � 11,040; Schultz Construction Co., AGBCA No. 455, 79-2 BCA � 13,890), even if the breakdown occurs at a subcontractor's plant, see Res. Brf., at 6 (citing Utopia Precision Machine Service, ASBCA No. 11177, 67-1 BCA � 6,100). As for the quality defects in the delivered sets, the Respondent states that they showed that the Contractor was not capable of meeting the QATAP requirements of the contract. See SRPTC, at 5-6. In that regard, GPO rejects the Contractor's contention that by awarding a Quality Level 4 contractor a Quality Level 2 job, the Government has lost its right to complain. See Res. Brf., at 6. The Respondent argues that the very nature of the Appellant's allegation amounts to an attack on the Contracting Officer's responsibility determination, over which the Board has no jurisdiction. See Res. Brf., at 7-9 (citing Rose Printing, Inc., GPO BCA 32-95 (December 16, 1996), 1996 GPOBCA LEXIS 34; Big Red Enterprises, supra; PPR, Chap. I, Sec. 5, �� 1-5; GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, � 5(a) (Disputes); Board Rules, Preface to Rules, � I (Jurisdiction)) . Likewise, GPO asserts that the record lacks the requisite "well-nigh irrefragable proof" to prove the Government acted in bad faith in this case. See Res. Brf., at 9-10 (citing Big Red Enterprises, supra; MPE Business Forms, Inc., GPO BCA 10-95 (August 16, 1996), 1996 GPOBCA LEXIS 31; New South Press & Assoc., Inc., GPO BCA 14-92 (January 31, 1996), 1996 WL 112555; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., GPO BCA 06-95 (August 29, 1995), 1995 WL 818784, reconsid. denied, 1996 WL_____ (February 13, 1996); accord Brill Brothers, Inc., ASBCA No. 42573, 94-1 BCA � 26,352; Karpak Data and Design, IBCA No. 2944, 93-1 BCA � 25,360; Local Contractors, Inc., ASBCA No. 37108, 92-1 BCA � 24,491). Thus, the Respondent says that nothing in the record shows that the Contracting Officer specifically set out to harm the Appellant. See Res. Brf., at 10 (citing Big Red Enterprises, supra; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra; Stephenson, Inc., GPO BCA 2-88 (December 20, 1991), 1991 WL 439274). The Government relies on "black letter" law which holds that it is entitled to strictly enforce compliance with its specifications as the basis for its belief that the contract was properly terminated in this case.7 See Res. Brf., at 10 (American Electric Contracting Corp. v. United States, 579 F.2d 602 (Ct. Cl. 1978); Red Circle Corp. v. United States, 185 Ct. Cl. 1 (1968); Jefferson Construction Co. v. United States, 151 Ct. Cl. 75 (1960); Fry Communications, Inc., GPO BCA 1-87 (June 1, 1989), 1989 WL 384980; Copigraph, GPO BCA 20-86 (May 25, 1989), 1989 WL 385174; Vogard Printing, GPOCAB 7-84 (January 7, 1986), 1986 WL 181498;8 Dependable Printing Co., Inc., GPO BCA 5-84 (September 12, 1985), 1985 WL 154847). The Respondent says that here in the quality deficiencies in the Appellant's product are well-documented, and, in fact, unchallenged. See Res. Brf., at 11 (citing R4 File, Tab G). Furthermore, insofar as the Contractor seems to raise the so-called "substantial compliance" defense by alleging that it was not asked to reprint the cover and tab divider sets prior to being defaulted, GPO asserts that the so-called "substantial compliance" rule enunciated in Radiation Technology does not apply because the sets were untimely shipped, and the defects were not minor. See Res. Brf., at 11-12 (citing Radiation Technology, Inc. v. United States, 177 Ct. Cl. 227, 366 F.2d 1003 (1966)).9 Finally, the Government contends that it has satisfied the legal requirements entitling it to excess reprocurement costs; i.e., it repurchased the same work, the reprocurement was timely, it used small purchase procedures for both the repurchase and the original contract, the reprocurement price was reasonable despite being 135% higher than the original cost, and Seagull completed the work and has been paid. See Res. Brf., at 12-13 (citing Univex International, supra; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra; K.C. Printing Co., GPO BCA 2-91 (February 22, 1995), 1995 WL 488531; Sterling Printing, Inc., GPO BCA 20-89 (March 28, 1994), 1994 WL 275104, reconsid. denied, 1994 WL 377592 (July 5, 1994); R4 File, Tabs C, I, J, L; Jones Declaration); SRPTC, at 6. Accordingly, the Respondent asks the Board to deny the appeal, and affirm the Contracting Officer both as to the default and excess reprocurement costs. See Res. Brf., at 14; SRPTC, at 6. V. DECISION In this case, it is undisputed that the Appellant failed to perform the contract, and that there was adequate justification for the Contracting Officer to terminate the contract for default. The only question remaining, therefore, is has the Contractor presented a legally sufficient excuse so that the Board may hold it blameless for the default, and forgive its liability for excess reprocurement costs? At the outset, therefore, it is worthwhile to repeat the legal principles which apply to these issues. 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, Contract Clauses, � 20(a)(1) (i),(ii),(iii).10 Furthermore, 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. See 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 its control and without its fault or negligence.11 See 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. See GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, � 20(c). See also Rose Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 18; Gold Country Litho, supra, slip op. at 14; A & E Copy Center, supra, slip op. at 15; Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 24; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 16; Univex International, supra, slip op. at 17; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 9; Printing Unlimited, GPO BCA 21-90 (November 30, 1993), slip op. at 16, 1993 WL 516844; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip. 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. See GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, � 20(d). See also Rose Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 19; Gold Country Litho, supra, slip op. at 14-15; A & E Copy Center, supra, slip op. at 15; Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 24; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 16; Univex International, supra, slip op. at 17; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 10; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip op. at 11. Second, a default termination is a drastic action which may only be taken for good cause and on the basis of solid evidence.12 See Rose Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 19; Gold Country Litho, supra, slip op. at 15; A & E Copy Center, supra, slip op. at 16; Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 24; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 16; Univex International, supra, slip op. at 17; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 10; Shepard Printing, GPO BCA 23-92 (April 29, 1993), slip op. at 10, 1993 WL 526848; R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Co., GPO BCA 31-90 (February 6, 1992), slip op. at 25, 1992 WL 487874, aff'd, Civil Action No. 92-128C (U.S. Claims Court, October 2, 1992) (unpublished); Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip 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). Consequently, 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 Rose Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 19; Gold Country Litho, supra, slip op. at 15; A & E Copy Center, supra, slip op. at 16; Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 25; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 16-17; Univex International, supra, slip op. at 18; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 10; Shepard Printing, supra, slip op. at 11; R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Co., supra, slip op. at 28; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip op. at 11. Accord Lisbon Contractors v. United States, 828 F.2d 759 (Fed. Cir. 1987)); Switlik Parachute Co. v. United States, 216 Ct. Cl. 362 (1978); J.F. Whalen and Co., 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. A failure by the Government to meet its burden of proof converts the default into a termination for convenience, and the contractor is allowed to recover for the work performed. See GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, � 20(g). See also Rose Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 20; Gold Country Litho, supra, slip op. at 16; A & E Copy Center, supra, slip op. at 16-17; Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 25; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 17; Univex International, supra, slip op. at 18; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 11; Graphics Image, Inc., GPO BCA 13-92 (August 31, 1992), slip. op. at 24-28, 1992 WL 487875; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 17-18; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip op. at 9. Third, where 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 that 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 Rose Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 20; Gold Country Litho, supra, slip op. at 16; Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 26; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 17; Univex International, supra, slip op. at 18-19; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 11; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip op. at 12. 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 Rose Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 21; Gold Country Litho, supra, slip op. at 16-17; Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 26; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 18; Univex International, supra, slip op. at 19; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 11; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip op. at 12-13. Finally, a default termination is a discretionary act which can be challenged on an abuse of discretion standard. See Rose Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 21; Gold Country Litho, supra, slip op. at 17; A & E Copy Center, supra, slip op. at 17; Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 26; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 18; Univex International, supra, slip op. at 19; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 12; Graphics Image, Inc., supra, slip op. at 24-25; Shepard Printing, supra, slip op. at 12. Accord Darwin Construction Co., Inc. v. United States, 811 F.2d 593 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Quality Environment Systems v. United States, 7 Cl. Ct. 428 (1985); Jamco Constructors, Inc., VABCA Nos. 3271, 3516T, 94-1 BCA � 26,405, reconsid. denied, 94-2 BCA � 26,792; Walsky Construction Co., ASBCA No. 41541, 94-1 BCA � 26.264, reconsid. denied, 94-2 BCA � 26,698. The burden is on the contractor to prove abuse of discretion. See Rose Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 21; Gold Country Litho, supra, slip op. at 17; A & E Copy Center, supra, slip op. at 18; Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 26; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 18; Univex International, supra, slip op. at 19; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 12; Shepard Printing, supra, slip op. at 12. Accord Kit Pack Co., Inc., ASBCA No. 33135, 89-3 BCA � 22,151; Lafayette Coal Co., ASBCA No. 32174, 89-3 BCA � 21,963. Applying these principles to this record, the Board reaches the following conclusions: A. The Board has no jurisdiction over the Appellant's challenge to the Contracting Officer's "responsibility" determination that a Quality Level 4 contractor was capable of producing Quality Level 2 work. Moreover, the Contractor has not shown that the Contracting Officer was acting in bad faith when he awarded the contract. Aside from its allegations concerning the actual merits of the default action, the Appellant has raised two ancillary matters which need to be addressed beforehand because they relate to the Board's jurisdiction. The first is triggered by the Contractor's contention that the Contracting Officer's "responsibility" finding was erroneous, and therefore, his award of the contract to it was improper. Specifically, from the very outset the Appellant has maintained that the Contracting Officer knew, or should have known, that it only had a Quality Level 4 rating, and therefore, it should not have been awarded the contract, which required Quality Level 2 work. In effect, the Contractor is challenging the Contracting Officer's responsibility determination in this case. However, the Board believes that it has no jurisdiction to decide such pre-award determinations. Id. See PPR, Chap. I, Sec. 5, �� 1-5; GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, � 5(a) (Disputes); Board Rules, Preface to Rules, � I (Jurisdiction). The Appellant's "responsibility" claim is not novel or unique. The lead case is Big Red Enterprises, cited by the Respondent in its brief, which is factually similar to this dispute. In Big Red Enterprises, a "Quality Level 4" contractor bid on and was awarded a "Quality Level 3" job, which it ultimately could not produce, and was defaulted. On appeal from the termination decision, it argued, inter alia, that as "Quality Level 4" contractor, it could not be held liable for its inability to produce "Quality Level 3" work. The Board found the contractor's position "easily disposed of." See Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 36. In rejecting the contractor's contentions, the Board reasoned: . . . [T]he Contractor is basically asking the Board to review the Contracting Officer's responsibility determination. Stated otherwise, the Appellant is in effect protesting its own award. However, Federal Government contract appeals boards, as a rule, have no jurisdiction over bid protests, but rather are limited to hearing post-award and not pre-award disputes. [Footnote omitted.] See Carolina Oil Distributing Co., Inc., ASBCA No. 48093, 95-2 BCA � 27,797; Dill's Star Route, Inc., PSBCA No. 3699, 95-2 BCA � 27,608; C & J Associates, VABCA No. 3924, 94-2 BCA � 26,628. This is especially true in this case because the Board is not a creature of statute, but rather derives all of its powers from the "Disputes" clause of the contract itself, and thus its jurisdiction is narrowly defined. See Graphicdata, Inc., [GPO BCA 35-94 (June 14, 1996)], slip op. at 57; R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Co., GPO BCA 15-90 (March 6, 1992), slip op. at 26-27, 1992 WL 382924; The Wessel Co., Inc., GPO BCA 8-90 (February 28, 1992), slip op. at 32, 1992 WL 487877; Automated Datatron, Inc., GPO BCA 20-87 (March 31, 1989), slip op. at 4-5, 1989 WL 384973; Bay Printing, Inc., GPO BCA 16-85 (January 30, 1987), slip op. at 9, 1987 WL 228967; Peak Printers, Inc., GPO BCA 12-85 (November 12, 1986), slip op. at 6, 1986 WL 181453. See generally, Matthew S. Foss, U.S. Government Printing Office Board of Contract Appeals: The First Decade, 24 PUB. CONT. L. J. 579, 584-85 (1995) (hereinafter Foss, The First Decade). Specifically, as the Board interprets GPO Instruction 110.10C, Subject: Establishment of the Board of Contract Appeals, dated September 17, 1984-its "enabling statute"-and the jurisdictional provisions of its rules of practice and procedure, see Board Rules, Preface to Rules, � I (Jurisdiction), it sees its authority as purely derivative and contractual, and has consistently confined the exercise of its remedial powers to the contract before it. See GraphicData, Inc., supra, slip op. at 57; Shepard Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 9, fn. 8; R.D. Printing Associates, Inc., GPO BCA 2-92 (December 16, 1992) slip op. at 9, 13, fns. 9, 15, 1992 WL 516088; Peak Printers, Inc., supra, slip op. at 6. See also Automated Datatron, Inc.,supra, slip op. at 4-5 ("The Public Printer has not under the provision of paragraph 5 of GPO Instruction 110.10C delegated authority to this Board to consider legal questions existing outside the contract itself."). Accord Wehran Engineering Corp., GSBCA No. 6055-NAFC, 84-3 BCA � 17,614. See generally, Foss, The First Decade, at 585-86. Furthermore, the Respondent's printing regulations clearly state that protests of GPO contracts must be taken to either the agency's Office of the General Counsel or General Accounting Office-the Board has been assigned no role in this process. See PPR, Chap. X, Sec. 2, �� 1.(b), 2-3. . . . [T]o the extent that it can be said that the Appellant's allegation may be "related to" the contract, much like a "mistake in bid" claim, see e.g., Web Business Forms, Inc., GPO BCA 16-89 (September 30, 1994), slip op. 27,1994 WL 837423; Peak Printers, Inc., supra, slip op. at 6; Great Lakes Lithograph Co., GPO BCA 18-84 (May 22, 1985), slip op. at 18, 1985 WL 154849, the well- settled rule is that if a determination with respect to a contractor's reliability and dependability is made in good faith and is reasonable under the applicable law and regulations, it should be upheld. See Wright Industries, Inc., ASBCA No. 18282, 78-2 BCA � 13,396, at 65,492 (citing Warren Brothers Roads Co. v. United States, 173 Ct. Cl. 714, 720-21 (1965); Coastal Cargo Co., Inc. v. United States, 173 Ct. Cl. 259 (1965); Brown & Son Electric Co. v. United States, 163 Ct. Cl. 465 (1963)). It has also been held with respect to determinations of responsibility and responsiveness that a contracting officer has authority, when acting in good faith and in a manner reasonable under the circumstances, to make a valid award to an otherwise unqualified bidder. See Wright Industries, Inc., supra, 78-2 BCA at 65,492 (citing John Reiner & Company v. United States, 163 Ct. Cl. 381 (1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 931 (1964); 46 Comp. Gen. 275 (1966); 44 Comp. Gen. 221 (1964)). The Board has just found that the record in this case contains no evidence of bad faith on the part of the Respondent in its dealings with the Contractor. Nor can it be said, under all of the circumstances in this appeal, that the Contracting Officer was arbitrary or capricious in deciding that the Appellant was qualified for award of the contract. Accordingly, for these reasons, the Board agrees with the Government that once the Contractor submitted its offer and accepted the contract, which clearly showed that it was expected to produce a Quality Level 3 product, it was obligated to perform in accordance with the specifications, and it is no excuse for the Appellant to now claim that it was only a Quality Level 4 contractor. See Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 37-39. [Emphasis added.] See also RIM Advertising, GPO BCA 38-94 (September 24, 1997), slip op. at 7, n. 8, 1997 WL_____; Rose Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 23-25. For the reasons stated in Big Red Enterprises, the Board's limited jurisdiction prevents it from reviewing the Contracting Officer's determination that the Appellant was a responsible contractor in this case. Similarly, the Board also finds nothing in this record which would support the conclusion that the Respondent acted in bad faith in dealing with the Contractor, or that the Contracting Officer arbitrarily or capriciously decided that the Appellant was qualified for award of the contract. In that regard, the Board has said on numerous occasions that an allegation of bad faith must be established by "well-nigh irrefragable proof" because there is a strong presumption that Government officials properly and honestly carry out their functions.13 See Rose Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 25; Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 36-37; MPE Business Forms, Inc., supra, slip op. at 27-28, fn. 34; New South Press & Assoc., Inc., supra, slip op. at 36; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 12, fn. 16; Professional Printing of Kansas, Inc., GPO BCA 2-93 (May 19, 1995), slip op. at 43, fn. 58, 1995 WL 488488; Universal Printing Co., GPO BCA 09-90 (June 22, 1994), slip op. at 24, fn. 24, 1994 WL 377586; B. P. Printing and Office Supplies, GPO BCA 14-91 (August 10, 1992), slip op. at 16, 1992 WL 382917; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 54; The Standard Register Co., GPO BCA 4-86 (October 28, 1987), slip op. at 12-13, 1987 WL 228972. Accord Brill Brothers, Inc., supra; Karpak Data and Design, supra; Local Contractors, Inc., supra. As the Respondent indicates, the key to such evidence is that there must be a showing of specific intent on the part of the Government to injure the Contractor. See Rose Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 26; Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 37; MPE Business Forms, Inc., supra, slip op. at 27-28, fn. 34; New South Press & Assoc., Inc., supra, slip op. at 36, fn. 52; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 54. Accord Claude R. Smith v. United States, 34 Fed. Cl. 313, 322 (1995); Kalvar Corp. v. United States, 211 Ct. Cl. 192, 199, 543 F.2d 1298, 1302 (1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 830, 98 S.Ct. 112, 54 L.Ed.2d. 89. See also Solar Turbines, Inc. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 142 (1991). In the Board's view, no such "irrefragable proof" of the Respondent's bad faith exists in this record. Certainly, there is absolutely no evidence which would show that GPO by itself, or in concert with the DPS, specifically set out to harm the Appellant. See Rose Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 26; Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 37; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 12, fn 16; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 57. Accordingly, the Board finds no merit in the Contractor's assertion that the Contracting Officer's decision to award it the contract was erroneous, or made in bad faith. B. The Contractor has not shown that its failure to perform arose from causes beyond its control and without its fault or negligence, or beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of its press manufacturer. The Appellant's reason for not meeting the delivery schedule, namely that its press broke down and took time to fix, is not such an excuse as would forgive its failure to perform. Therefore, the Contracting Officer's decision to terminate the contract for default was not in error. In this case, the basis for default-the Appellant's failure to deliver an acceptable quality product in a timely manner-is not in question. Instead, the Contractor advances as the reason for excusing the default the ink ductor problem with the Heidelberg press which was used to produce the cover and tab dividers. See SRPTC, at 4-5. However, the Appellant has misinterpreted the law in this regard. 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 Gold Country Litho, supra, slip op. at 22-23; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 15; R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Co., supra, slip op. at 33; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip op. at 13-14; Scanforms, Inc., (GPOCAB, September 24, 1975), slip op. at 4, 1975 WL 22916 (citing Woodhull Construction Co., ASBCA No. 3628, 57-1 BCA � 1,260; First Dominion Corp., GSBCA No. 2659, 69-1 BCA � 7,488). Indeed, as a general rule the unexplained breakdown of machinery is not excusable per se; in fact, the difficulty attending the performance of a contract is not an excusable cause of delay. See R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Co., supra, slip op. at 33; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip op. at 14. Accord Fulton Shipyard, supra; Rex Systems Corp., supra; Meyer Machine, Inc., supra. The reason for these rules is simple-implicit in a contractor's promise to perform is its assurance that it has the ability to perform. See Gold Country Litho, supra, slip op. at 23; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 15; R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Co., supra, slip op. at 33; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip op. at 14. That means that the contractor must have the available machinery and replacement parts so that performance will not be delayed because of an equipment failure. See R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Co., supra, slip op. at 33; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip op. at 14; Jomar Enterprises, Inc., supra, slip op. at 3. Therefore, the mechanical break down of the Appellant's Heidelberg press in this case is not an acceptable excuse which, under the law, would allow the Appellant to escape the consequences of its lack of performance under the contract. See R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Co., supra, slip op. at 35. Similarly, although the Appellant blames Heidelberg's service personnel for the delivery delay because they could not make the repairs on the press any sooner, it has offered no evidence which would show that the manufacturer's failure was due to its negligence or reasons beyond its control. See R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Co., supra, slip op. at 35. Cf. Loose Leaf Devices Co., (GPOCAB, June 30, 1977), slip op. at 7, 1977 WL 25619 (citing Williamsburg Drapery Co. v. United States, 177 Ct. Cl. 776, 799, 369 F.2d 729 (1966)). In the Board's opinion, the Appellant's reliance on the delay of Heidelberg's repair personnel to excuse its own failure to perform under Purchase Order M-4152, affords it no protection under the law. The Appellant had an obligation under the contract to plan for its performance, including, prior to submitting its bid and binding itself to the delivery terms of the contract, assuring that essential materials and machinery would be available, and in proper condition. In the absence of any evidence from the Appellant that the Heidelberg press broke down because of the negligence on the part of the manufacturer, the Board must conclude that the untimely delivery of the ordered sets under the disputed contract was attributable to the Appellant's own failure to properly plan for its performance. See R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Co., supra, slip op. at 35-36. The Appellant has the burden of proof to demonstrate that its failure to perform was due to causes beyond its control and without its fault or negligence. However, in the Board's opinion, the reasons offered by the Appellant to excuse its delay were not unforeseeable and beyond its control and without its fault or negligence. Accordingly, as to this aspect of its defense, the Appellant has not met its burden of proof with respect to excusing its failure to make timely shipments under Purchase Order M-4152. See R.C. Swanson Printing and Typesetting Co., supra, slip op. at 36. Therefore, the Contracting Officer's termination of the contract for default was not in error. C. Since the default termination was not erroneous, the Respondent is entitled to reimbursement of excess reprocurement costs from the Appellant. Moreover, the Government has proved its claim in the amount of $4,987.00. In K.C. Printing, Co., the Board summarized the legal principles governing questions concerning excess reprocurement costs: The assessment of excess reprocurement costs is considered a Government claim. See Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, [slip op.] at 50-51 (and cases cited therein). [Sterling Printing, Inc, GPO BCA 20-89 (March 28, 1994),1994 WL 275104, reconsid. denied, July 5, 1994, 1994 WL 377592.] 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., [slip 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. [Footnote omitted.] Id., [slip 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., [slip op.] at 53 (and cases cited therein). Failure to satisfy even one criterion may result in a reduction of the excess costs claimed. Id., [slip op.] at 53-54 (and cases cited therein). See K.C. Printing, Co., supra, slip op. at 18-19. [Original emphasis.] 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 Rose Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 43; Gold Country Litho, supra, slip op. at 26-27; A & E Copy Center, supra, slip op. at 27; Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 41; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 28; Univex International, supra, slip op. at 33; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 19, fn. 20; Sterling Printing, Inc, supra, slip op. at 50 (citing Cable Systems and Assembly Co., ASBCA No. 17844, 73-2 BCA � 10,172, at 47,892). The Board finds that the Respondent has satisfied all of the necessary elements in this case. There is no question that GPO has met is evidentiary burden with respect to the matter of "timeliness;" i.e., the repurchase contract was awarded within two days of the default action. See Rose Printing, supra, slip op. at 43; Gold Country Litho, supra, slip op. at 29; Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 43; Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 6; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 29-30; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 20; Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 63-65. Accord Astro-Space Laboratories, Inc. v. United States, 200 Ct. Cl. 282, 470 F.2d 1003 (1972); Puroflow Corp., ASBCA No. 36058, 93-3 BCA � 26,191; John L. Hartsoe, AGBCA No. 88-116-1, 93-2 BCA � 25,614; Sequal, Inc., ASBCA No. 30838, 88-1 BCA � 20,382; Disan Corp., ASBCA Nos. 21297, 22221, 79-1 BCA � 16,677. Nor is there any doubt that the reprocurement is "finalized;" i.e., the work has been completed and paid for (Jones Declaration, � 3). See Rose Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 44; Gold Country Litho, supra, slip op. at 35; Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 49-50; Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 13; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 37; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 26. Cf. Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 83. Furthermore, the repurchase was for exactly the same product as the original contract (R4 File, Tabs C and L). See Rose Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 45; Gold Country Litho, supra, slip op. at 28; Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 42; Univex Supp., slip op. at 5-6; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 29; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 19; Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 62-63. Accord B & M Construction, Inc., AGBCA No. 90-165-1, 93-1 BCA � 25,431; Zan Machine Co., ASBCA No. 39462, 91-3 BCA � 24,085; Boston Pneumatics, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 26188, 26190, 26825, 26984, 27605, 27606, 87-1 BCA � 19,395. Moreover, the Board believes that the Contracting Officer's decision to follow the same small purchase procedures for repurchasing the defaulted contract was reasonable under the circumstances. See Rose Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 46; Gold Country Litho, supra, slip op. at 33; Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 43; Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 6-7; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 30; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 20-23. Cf. Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 73. The only open question relates to the matter of a "reasonable price." In the Board's view, the Respondent has successfully carried its burden on that element, as well. The Government is also required to show that it obtained the lowest reasonable reprocurement price-the lowest reasonable price for the Government under circumstances, not the defaulted Contractor.14 See Rose Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 49; Gold Country Litho, supra, slip op. at 33; Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 46; Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 10; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 35; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 23-24. Accord Barrett Refining Corp., supra; Scalf Engineering Co. & Pike County Construction Co., Joint Venture, IBCA No. 2328, 89-3 BCA � 21,950; Sequal, Inc., supra. The record in this case reveals that the Respondent's estimated cost for the original contract was $3,150.00 (R4 File, Tab C). On repurchase, the work was secured from Seagull for $7,900.00 (R4 File, Tab L). After the Respondent took the prompt payment discount, it assessed excess reprocurement costs against the Appellant in the amount of $4,987.00. See Jones Declaration, � 3. By the Board's calculations, that means the repurchase contract cost approximately 135% more than the original agreement. See SRPTC,, at 5. However, it is well-settled that even a significant price increase in the reprocurement does not render it unreasonable in the face of Government due care and diligence. See Rose Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 50; Gold Country Litho, supra, slip op. at 34; Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 47; Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 11; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 23. Accord Futura Systems, Inc., ENG BCA No. 6037, 95-2 BCA � 27,654; Foster Refrigerator Corp., ASBCA No. 34021, 89-2 BCA � 21,591; Boston Pneumatics, Inc., supra. There is no evidence in the record that the Contracting Officer, acting in the Government's best interest, failed to act with such care and due diligence in repurchasing the cover and tab sets from Seagull. Accordingly, the Board finds that GPO has carried its evidentiary burden and shown that the excess reprocurement costs assessed in this case mitigated the Appellant's liability and represented the lowest reasonable price for the Government under the circumstances. See Rose Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 50; Gold Country Litho, supra, slip op. at 34; Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 48; Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 12; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 36; K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 25. Cf. Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 77. Therefore, the Contractor is obligated to the Government for excess costs in the total amount of $4,987.00.15 ORDER Considering the record as a whole, the Board finds and concludes that: (1) it lacks jurisdiction over the Appellant's challenge to the Contracting Officer's "responsibility" determination; (2) the default was not in error because the Appellant has not shown that its failure to perform arose from causes beyond its control and without its fault or negligence, or beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of Heidelberg; and (3) the Respondent has sustained its burden of proof with regard to the Contractor's liability for excess reprocurement costs. THEREFORE, the Contracting Officer's default termination decision, and his assessment of excess reprocurement costs in the amount of $4,987.00, are hereby AFFIRMED, and the appeal is DENIED. It is so Ordered. September 26, 1997 STUART M. FOSS Administrative Judge _______________ 1 During the prehearing conference held by the Board on June 17, 1997, Counsel for GPO noted that while the contract was awarded to "Venture, Ltd.," the Appellant's post-appeal documents carried the letterhead "Classic Index & Tab Company, Inc." See Summary Report of Prehearing Telephone Conference, dated September 19, 1997, at 1, n. 1 (hereinafter SRPTC). The Appellant's representative explained that Classic Index & Tab Company, Inc., was the former name of Venture, Ltd., and it seemed to the Board that the company was merely using its old letterheads until the supply was exhausted. However, the Appellant's representative confirmed that the proper name of the company at the time of award was Venture, Ltd. In such cases, GPO's printing procurement regulation requires that the parties execute a simple change of name agreement. See Printing Procurement Regulation, GPO Publication 305.3 (Rev. 10-90), Chap. XII, Sec. 3, � 3 (hereinafter PPR). The Board assumes that such an agreement is on file with the Respondent. In any event, the Board's jurisdiction is certain because, despite the name change, there is no doubt but that the appeal was filed by the same entity with which the Government had contracted. See Professional Printing of Kansas, Inc., GPO BCA 28-93 (September 16, 1997, slip op. at 3, n. 3, 1997 WL_____ (citing Plum Run, Inc. d/b/a Plum Run Corp., ASBCA Nos. 46091, 49203, 49207, 97-1 BCA � 28,770; Adelaide Blomfield Management Co., GSBCA No. 13125, 95-2 BCA � 27,865). 2 At first, the Board had doubts about the timeliness of the appeal. See Order Directing Appellant to Show Cause Why Appeal Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute or as Untimely Filed, dated September 5, 1996, at 4 (Show Cause Order). However, the Appellant proved to the Board's satisfaction that the appeal was, in fact, timely filed. See Letter dated September 25, 1996, from John Dietrich, President, to Hon. Stuart M. Foss, Administrative Judge. Therefore, the Board vacated the Show Cause Order and scheduled at prehearing telephone conference. See Order to Vacate Rule to Show Cause Why Appeal Should Not Be Dismissed and to Schedule a Prehearing Telephone Conference, dated June 4, 1997, at 2. 3 The Contracting Officer's appeal file was assembled pursuant to Rule 4 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, and delivered to the Board on February 5, 1996. See 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 hereafter as the R4 File, with an appropriate tab letter also indicated. The R4 File contains 14 documents, identified as Tabs A-N. See SRPTC, at 2, n. 2. In addition, the Appellant supplemented the appeal file on March 3, 1996, by providing the Board with a set of the tab dividers produced under the contract. Board Rules, Rule 4(b). Thereafter, by letter dated July 3, 1997, the Contractor summarized its position for the Board. Furthermore, by Notice of Filing dated July 2, 1997, Counsel for GPO provided the Board with a declaration from Philip L. Jones, Chief, Examination & Billing Branch, Procurement Accounting Division, Office of the Comptroller, and supporting documentation, regarding the payment history of the reprocurement contract (hereinafter Jones Declaration). 4 See PPR, Chap. VII, Sec. 4, �� 1-4. Among other things, the Respondent's small purchase procedures require that "three or more quotations" be solicited to ensure adequate competition. Id., at � 2.b(5). In this case, GPO solicited bids from 11 printing firms, and received offers from two-the Appellant and Seagull Printing Services (Seagull) (R4 File, Tabs A and B). 5 Under the Respondent's printing procurement regulation, the Contracting Officer must submit a proposal to terminate a contract for default to the CRB for its review and concurrence. See PPR, Chap. I, Sec. 10, � 4.b.(i). See also Questar Printing, Inc., GPO BCA 14-94 (June 12, 1997), slip op. at 21, n. 35, 1997 WL_____; Gold Country Litho, GPO BCA 22-93 (September 30, 1996), slip op. at 8, n. 5, 1996 WL 812956, vacated in part, 1997 WL _____ (March 17, 1997); A & E Copy Center, GPO BCA 38-92 (September 26, 1996), slip op. at 6, n. 10, 1996 WL 812881; Big Red Enterprises, GPO BCA 07-93 (August 30, 1996), slip op. at 16, n. 15, 1996 GPOBCA LEXIS 26; Univex International, GPO BCA 23-90 (July 31, 1995), slip op. at 9; n. 12, 1995 WL 488438, reconsid. denied, 1996 WL 112554 (February 7, 1996), 1996 WL 812959 (July 5, 1996), Supplemental Decision on Excess Reprocurement Costs and Order (hereinafter Univex Supp.); Hurt's Printing Co., Inc., GPO BCA 27-91 (January 24, 1994), slip op. at 7, n. 10, 1994 WL 275098. 6 Only the Respondent filed a brief in this case. The brief was submitted to the Board on August 4, 1997, an shall be referred hereinafter as "Res. Brf.," with an appropriate page citation thereafter. 7 The Respondent asserts that one of the purposes of this rule is to ensure that the integrity of the bidding system will not be compromised. See Res. Brf., at 10-11 (citing Ideal Restaurant Supply Co., VACAB No. 570, 67-1 BCA � 6237). 8 The Board was created by the Public Printer in 1984. See GPO Instruction 110.10C, Subject: Establishment of the Board of Contract Appeals, dated September 17, 1984. Before then, ad hoc panels considered disputes between contractors and GPO. Vogard Printing is such an ad hoc panel case. The Board cites the decisions of these ad hoc boards as GPOCAB. While the Board is not bound by ad hoc panel rulings, its policy is to follow them where applicable and appropriate. See e.g. Custom Printing Co., GPO BCA 28-94 (March 12, 1997), slip op. at 24, n. 38, 1997 WL _____; Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 22, n. 22; The George Marr Co., GPO BCA 31-94 (April 23, 1996), slip op. at 50, n. 40, 1996 WL 273662; New South Press & Assoc., Inc., supra, slip op. at 32, n. 45; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 18, n. 20; Chavis and Chavis Printing, GPO BCA 20-90 (February 6, 1991), slip op. at 9, n. 9, 1991 WL 439270. 9 The "substantial compliance" doctrine is a limited exception to the general rule applicable to situations where a contractor has timely shipped nonconforming goods which deviate from the specifications in only minor respects. See Radiation Technology, Inc. v. United States, supra. Under the doctrine a defaulting contractor is afforded an opportunity, by operation of law, to correct minor defects in shipments to the Government. Cf. Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 28, n. 27; Hurt's Printing Co., Inc., supra, slip op. at 17; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 24, 48-54. For the "substantial compliance" rule to apply to a particular shipment of nonconforming goods, the contractor must show that: (a) a timely delivery of goods was made; (b) he/she reasonably believed, in good faith, that the supplies conformed to the contract when shipped and that they would be acceptable; and (c) the defects are minor in nature and capable of correction within a reasonable period of time. See Radiation Technology, Inc. v. United States, supra. See generally John Cibinic, Jr. and Ralph C. Nash, Jr., Administration of Government Contracts, 912-17 (3d ed., 1995) (citing Kain Cattle Co., ASBCA No. 17124, 73-1 BCA � 9,999) (hereinafter Cibinic & Nash). A contractor who ships nonconforming goods is only protected by the Radiation Technology rule to the extent that he/she can satisfy all elements of the test. See Univex International, supra, slip op. at 21, fn. 21; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 51, fn. 55 (citing Norwood Precision Products, Textron, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 38095, 38196, 90-3 BCA � 23,200; Introl Corp., ASBCA No. 27,610, 85-2 BCA � 18,044 at 90,578; Environmental Tectonics Corp.,ASBCA No. 20340, 76-2 BCA � 12,134). The Radiation Technology doctrine is clearly an encroachment on the Government's right to terminate. Finally, whether a defect is minor is a question of fact, based upon a consideration of: (a) whether the items are usable; (b) the nature of the product; (c) the urgency of the Government's needs; and (d) the extent of repair and adjustment necessary to produce a fully conforming product. See Cibinic & Nash, at 915 (citing Kain Cattle Co., ASBCA No. 17124, 73-1 BCA � 9,999). 10 Clauses such as � 20(a)(1)(i), the operative clause in this case, have uniformly been held to apply not only to late deliveries of the contracted goods, see Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 27, n. 26; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 19; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip op. at 12-15; Jomar Enterprises, Inc., GPO BCA 13-86 (May 25, 1989), slip op. at 3-5, 1989 WL 384979, but also to the timely delivery of nonconforming supplies, see Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 27, n. 26; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 19 (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 Corp., ASBCA No. 31570, 91-1 BCA � 23,382. 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 this performance is to be completed. Thus, in order for the contractor to render 'timely performance,' two basic requirements must be satisfied: (1) the product, service or construction work must conform to the required design/performance specifications, and (2) the product must be delivered or the work completed by the specified due date. Citing Radiation Technology, Inc. v. United States, supra; Nash Metalware Co., GSBCA No. 11951, 94-2 BCA � 26,780; Air, Inc., GSBCA No. 8847, 91-1 BCA � 23,352." See Cibinic & Nash, at 908. 11 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 Co., ASBCA No. 14856, 70-1 BCA � 8,312. 12 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); Foremost Mechanical Systems, Inc., GSBCA Nos. 12335, 12384, 95-1 BCA � 27,382. 13 "Irrefragable" proof simply means evidence which is incapable of being refuted; i.e., indisputable evidence. See Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 54 (citing Webster's New World Dictionary, 714 (3d coll. ed., 1988). 14 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, AGBCA Nos. 91-230-3,92-133-3, 92-196-3, 93-1 BCA � 25,389, reconsid. denied, 93-2 BCA � 25,888; Barrett Refining Corp., ASBCA Nos. 36590, 37093, 91-1 BCA � 23,566; Mid-America Painters, Inc., ENG BCA No. 5703, 91-1 BCA � 23,367. However, the Government's obligation to mitigate costs "is not one of perfection, but one of reasonableness and prudence under the circumstances." See Barrett Refining Corp., supra, 91-1 BCA at 118, 145; Mid-America Painters, Inc, supra, 91-1 BCA 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 Corp., supra, 91-1 BCA at 118,145. 15 The Board notes that the Respondent did not reduce the Appellant's excess reprocurement cost liability by the amount of the prompt payment discount. However, the general rule, which the Board follows, is that the defaulted contractor is entitled to the benefit of the prompt payment discount taken on the repurchase contract. See Questar Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 74-75; Gold Country Litho, supra, slip op. at 36. Accord Futura Systems, ENG BCA Nos. 6037, 6058, 6099, 95-2 BCA � 27,654, at 137,874; Professional Window & House Cleaning, Inc., GSBCA Nos. 8268, 8775, 90-3 BCA � 22,982, at 115,402; Aerospace Components, Inc., ASBCA No. 28606, 84-3 BCA � 17,536, at 87,339-40; Industrial Fasteners of North America, GSBCA No. 3634, 72-2 BCA � 9761, at 45,581. On the other hand, the Board sees that the difference between the undiscounted and discounted excess cost figures is only $158.00. Therefore, the legal maxim de minimis non curat lex (the law does not take notice of trifles) clearly covers this situation, and the Board will leave the Respondent's figures undisturbed. See Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 48, n. 41; Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 12, n. 8.