BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, DC 20401 In the Matter of ) ) The Appeal of ) ) GOLD COUNTRY LITHO ) Docket No. GPO BCA 22-93 Jacket No. 338-583 ) Purchase Order 88703 ) DECISION AND ORDER By letter dated June 20, 1993, Gold Country Litho (Appellant or Contractor), 3391-C Fitzgerald Road, Rancho Cordova, California 95742-6831, filed a timely appeal from the final decision of Contracting Officer John W. Adams, Chief, Section 1, Contracts Branch, Purchase Division of the U.S. Government Printing Office's (hereinafter Respondent or GPO or Government), Printing Procurement Department (PPD), Washington, DC 20401, dated March 31, 1993, terminating the Appellant's contract identified as Purchase Order 88703, Jacket No. 338-583, for default because it was unable to perform in accordance with the specifications. See R4 File, Tab L.1 For the reasons which follow, the Contracting Officer's default decision is hereby AFFIRMED, and the appeal is DENIED. Furthermore, the Respondent is entitled to excess reprocurement costs to the extent indicated. I. BACKGROUND2 1. On January 25, 1993, the Respondent issued an Invitation for Bid (IFB) for the production of 10,200 pads of 50 Data Descriptor Labels (HZ813), Form SF 711, 1-87 (hereinafter DDLs), for the General Services Administration (GSA). See R4 File, Tab A.3 Among other things, the contract specifications stated: * * * * * * * * * * Any contract which results from this Invitation for Bid will be subject to the applicable articles of GPO Contract Terms, GPO Pub. 310.2 (effective December 1, 1987, Rev. 9-88) [hereinafter GPO Contract Terms], and Quality Assurance Through Attributes Program, GPO Pub. 310.1 (effective May 1979, Rev. 11-89). * * * * * * * * * * PRODUCT: Sheets of labels with permanent, pressure-sensitive adhesive, padded. Bar code marking required on shipping containers. * * * * * * * * * * CONTRACTOR TO FURNISH: All materials and operations, other than those listed under "Government to Furnish," necessary to produce the product(s) in accordance with these specifications. * * * * * * * * * * PROOFS: 5 sets of Dylux, or similar proofs, plus not less than 5 samples of the adhesive label materials to be used in the production of the contract requirements. Submit proofs and vinyl adhesive label material together with copy, to the U.S. Government Printing Office, Contract Management Division, Contract Compliance Section (PPSC), Washington, D.C. 20401. Furnished proof label must be filled in by the contractor and used on all proof packages. The contractor must not print prior to receipt of an "OK to print." STOCK: The specifications of all stock furnished must be in accordance with those listed herein. Labels: White Opaque Vinyl equal in all respects to Fasson's "TamperFas" Destructible Vinyl, G-70651. Backing sheet: Extruded Polyolefin Film (or equal) with suitable release coating for label removal from liner. Liner must be moisture resistance, and must lay flat regardless of change in humidity. Material must be appropriate to the adhesive and permit easy release of label from backing sheet with no adhesive residue. * * * * * * * * * * CONSTRUCTION: Back of labels to be coated with a permanent type, pressure-sensitive, acrylic adhesive equal in all respects to Fasson's S-730. Adhesive must adhere to automated data processing (ADP) media, such as floppy disks, cassette and reel tapes, Winchester disks, and other removable storage media. Labels must remain so firmly affixed that they cannot be removed, and are tamperproof. Labels must stay firmly affixed to backing sheet during storage and processing, until removed by hand. Adhesive must have a shelf life of at least 2 years. * * * * * * * * * * QUALITY ASSURANCE RANDOM COPIES: In addition to the Departmental Random Copies (Blue Label), the contractor may be required to submit quality assurance random copies to test for compliance against specifications. The purchase order/specifi-cations will indicate the number required, if any. When ordered, the contractor must divide the entire order into equal sublots and select a copy from a different general area of each sublot. The contractor will be required to execute a statement furnished by GPO certifying that copies were selected as directed. Copies will be paid for at the running rate offered in the contractor's bid and their cost will not be a consideration for award. A copy of the purchase order/specifications must be included. * * * * * * * * * * SCHEDULE: Furnished material will be available for pick up at the U.S. Government Printing Office, 27 G Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20401, on February 16, 1993. Submit proofs as soon as the contractor deems necessary in order to comply with the shipping schedule. Proofs will be withheld 7 workdays from receipt in the GPO until they are made available for pick up by the contractor. * * * * * * * * * * Ship complete on or before March 19, 1993. See R4 File, Tab A, at 1-4. 2. The IFB was publicly advertised and 32 IFBs were sent to potential bidders. See Respondent's Filing, Declaration of Contracting Officer Adams, �� 2, 4 (hereinafter Adams Declaration). 3. Eight (8) bids were submitted, including the Appellant's, who submitted the lowest offer. See Respondent's Filing, Adams Declaration, � 3. The bids, in rank order from the lowest to the highest, were: BIDDER BID a. Gold Country Litho $34,610.00 b. Pres-tige Label $46,716.00 c. Morris Industries $49, 358.00 d. Hub Labels $54,134.00 e. American Printing Converters $59,058.00 f. PH Ink LTD $62,250.95 g. Precision Printing Co. $74,062.95 h. Standard Register Co. $83,283,00 See Respondent's Filing, Adams Declaration, � 3. 4. In light of the $12,106.00 difference between the Appellant's offer and the next low bidder (Pres-tige), the Respondent twice asked the Contractor to review and confirm its bid price. See Respondent's Filing, Adams Declaration, �� 4, 5. On each occasion, Don Sternick, the Appellant's owner, responded by orally confirming his quote. Id. See also R4 File, Tab B. Sternick also confirmed the bid in writing, by letter dated February 11, 1993, stating that the Contractor could do the job, and saying that its bid was low because it manufactured its own label stock.4 See Respondent's Filing, Adams Declaration, � 4. See also R4 File, Tab C. 5. On February 12, 1993, GPO issued Purchase Order 88703, Jacket No. 338-583, awarding the contract to the Appellant at its bid price of $34,610.00. See R4 File, Tab D. 6. On March 4, 1993, after waiting three (3) weeks for the pre-production proofs and not receiving them, the Charles H. Homer, Jr., a Printing Specialist in the Contract Compliance Section, of the PPD's Contract Management Branch, telephoned the Contractor to inquire about the status of the order and spoke to Sternick. See R4 File, Tab E. During this conversation, Sternick told Horner that the Appellant had returned the job to GPO. Id. When the Contracting Officer later called the Contractor for an explanation, Sternick said that the job had been returned because the sample was different from the specifications, and the Appellant could not do the work. Id. In response, the Contracting Officer reminded the Appellant that he had assured the Respondent at least three times (twice orally and once in writing) that it could do the work, that as far as the Government was concerned it had a contract with the Contractor, and that the Appellant could not simply "walk away" from the agreement without being defaulted and held liable for excess reprocurement costs. Id. The Contracting Officer ended the conversation by saying that he would call back once he received the Contractor's package. Id. 7. On March 12, 1993, the PPD's Purchase Division received samples of the label and backing stock from the Appellant, but not the Dylux or similar proofs. See R4 File, Tab G. The same day, the Respondent also received a letter from the Contractor stating that it "[would] not set type or order materials to produce [the] job until samples [were] approved or o.k. to print." See R4 File, Tab F. The PPD immediately sent the prior- to-production samples to GPO's Quality Control and Technical Department (QCTD) for testing, requesting the results by March 15, 1993. See R4 File, Tab H. 8. However, since the Dylux proofs had not been sent with the stock samples, the Contracting Officer issued a "Show Cause" notice to the Appellant on March 15, 1993, informing the Contractor that it would be defaulted because it "failed to perform the schedule requirements" of the contract, and affording it an opportunity to explain the reasons why, in writing, within five (5) days from the receipt of the notice. See R4 File, Tab I. By letter, dated March 16, 1993, Sternick responded to the "Show Cause" notice, stating, in pertinent part: Originally, Gum Papers of America (Manuel Cordova) said they would give Gold Country Lithography (my company), "terms" with the cost of materials to produce [the] job. Therefore, I was able to bid on this job (& [it] was also awarded). I was then referred (by Mr. Cordova) to the credit department when I was awarded the contract. At that point, Juan (credit mgr.) denied my credit. I could not get the monies to do [the] job so I got another supplier to send samples of another material that was simular [sic] & sent samples to Charles Washington to be approved. Mr. Washington said he cannot accept samples without proof of copy. Gold Country Lithography does not see [the] reason to submit proofs with copy change if paper will not be o.k.'d to start manufacturing. I was relying on the second paper company (Zellerbach Paper Company) to issue credit & was waiting for approval of the paper (of simular [sic] or equivalent stock) which has still been unapproved. See R4 File, Tab J. 9. In the meantime, QCTD inspected the sample stock submitted by the Contractor and determined that it was not equal to the specifications. See R4 File, Tab H. The reason for its finding was explained by the QCTD in its test report, dated March 24, 1993: Specifications required materials of labels to be vinyl (destructible). Samples tested are not vinyl, maybe [sic] a mylar or plastic base product. Labels can be removed 24 hours after affixed to substrate without destroying, and may [be] used again, hence labels are not permanent. Labels are not equal to Fasson's S-730 Tampas [sic] Destructible Vinyl. Id. 10. In light of this report, on March 30, 1993, the Contracting Officer sought the approval of the Respondent's Contract Review Board (CRB) to terminate the contract for default.5 See R4 File, Tab K. Termination was requested because the Appellant's samples did not meet the requirements of the contract, and moreover, the Contractor had admitted that it ". . . could not perform per specification." Id. The Contracting Officer also asked the CRB to concur in his decision to repurchase the contract from Pres- tige, the second low bidder, and charge the Appellant with the excess reprocurement costs.6 Id. The CRB gave its approval to both the Contracting Officer's default and reprocurement proposals the same day. Id. 11. Accordingly, by letter dated March 31, 1993, expressly titled "Notice of Termination-Complete," the Contracting Officer terminated the Appellant's contract for default because of its "inability to perform per specifications (stock not equal to Fasson's S-730 Tampas [sic] Destructible Vinyl)." See R4 File, Tab L. The termination notice also informed the Appellant that in the event the Government exercised its right to repurchase the same or similar items, the Contractor would be liable for excess reprocurement costs. Id. 12. The same day, after negotiating a delivery schedule that would meet GSA's needs, the Contracting Officer reprocured the DDLs from Pres-tige at its original bid of $46,716.00. See R4 File, Tab M; Respondent's Filing, Adams Declaration, �� 6, 7; Purchase Order 88872. The repurchase resulted in excess reprocurement costs of $12,106.00. Id. The record indicates that Pres-tige satisfactorily performed the contract and was paid for its work on June 30, 1993, by check number 30644648 in the amount of $44,622.62 (billed amount of $45,073.35 minus $450.73 for the 1 percent prompt pay discount). See Respondent's Filing, Declaration of Hurley Eborn, � 3; Adams Declaration, � 7; Financial Management Services (FMS) Computer Printout. 13. On April 1, 1994, the Contracting Officer notified the Appellant that the defaulted job had been reprocured for $46,716.00, and that the amount of any excess reprocurement costs would be deducted from its account. See R4 File, Tab O. That same day, he also informed the FMS that the Appellant's contract had been defaulted and reprocured from Pres-tige. See R4 File, Tab N. Accordingly, the FMS was asked to withhold payment to the Appellant, and recover any additional costs for the reprocurement from the Contractor. Id. 14. By letter dated June 20, 1993, the Appellant timely appealed the Contracting Officer's default termination decision to the Board, claiming that its failure to perform was the fault of its stock supplier.7 Thereafter, in its Complaint, dated September 3, 1993, the Contractor also protested the Government's assessment of excess reprocurement costs. II. ISSUES PRESENTED8 Two questions require resolution in this case: 1. Was the Contracting Officer's decision terminating the contract for default proper and correct, or has the Appellant 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 suppliers, Gum and/or Zellerbach? 2. Has the Government proved its claim of entitlement to excess reprocurement costs in this case, and if so, in what amount? III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES Although the Appellant did not file a written brief, the record fully discloses its defense. In essence, the Contractor says that it is not responsible for its failure to perform the contract, and instead fixes the blame on Gum, its original supplier of label stock. See RPTC, at 5; Complaint, at 2. First, Gum assured the Appellant that its product was equivalent to Fasson's "TamperFas" Destructible Vinyl, even though the sample did not look the same to the Contractor. See Complaint, at 1. Second, Gum refused to extend credit to the Contractor or supply the label stock after the contract was awarded. See RPTC, at 5; R4 File, Tab J. Third, by reason of Gum's actions, the Appellant went to a backup supplier, Zellerbach, who assured the Contractor that its substitute stock was equivalent to Fasson's "TamperFas" Destructible Vinyl, which turned out not to be true. See RPTC, at 5 (citing R4 File, Tab H); Complaint, at 1. Finally, the Contractor states that it attempted to obtain proper quality stock from Fasson itself in sufficient time to meet the required delivery schedule, but was unsuccessful. See RPTC, at 5-6. In that regard, the Appellant's problem with Fasson as a supplier was not so much the availability of the stock as its price; i.e., the stock would have cost the Contractor as much as it bid for the entire job and it would have had to send the material to a subcontractor to convert it into sheets. See Complaint, at 1. In summary, the Appellant asserts that it is not a manufacturer of label stock, but rather a printer of finished products such as the DDLs, and thus it should not be charged with the inability of its supplier to provide it with acceptable material. See RPTC, at 5; Complaint, at 1-2. Accordingly, for these reasons, the Appellant argues that its failure to perform in this case arose from causes beyond its control and without its fault or negligence, and therefore it is not in default. See RPTC, at 6; Complaint, at 2. Consequently, the Contractor also contends that it should not be held liable for excess reprocurement costs because it would be unfair to do so under these circumstances. See RPTC, at 6; Complaint, at 1. The Respondent, on the other hand, asserts that the Appellant's contract was properly terminated for default, and the Government was entitled to recover the excess reprocurement costs from the Appellant, as provided for under the terms of the contract. See RPTC, at 5; R. Brf., at 8. GPO asserts that the Contractor's default is undisputed, thus entitling the Government to terminate the contract immediately, and that the only issue in this case is whether or not the failure to perform was excusable. See R. Brf., at 4-5 (citing GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, �� 20(c),(d); R4 File, Tab E; Riggs Engineering Co., ASBCA No. 26509, 82-2 BCA � 15,955; M.H. Colvin Co., GSBCA No. 5209, 79-2 BCA � 13,981; National Farm Equipment Co., GSBCA No. 4921, 78-1 BCA � 13,195). In the Respondent's view, neither of the two excuses advanced by the Appellant is sustainable on this record. See R. Brf., at 4. First, the Government claims that the Contractor has not shown that its paper supplier was responsible for the default for reasons beyond the control of both of them, and without the fault or negligence of either, as required by the contract's "Default" clause. See R. Brf., at 5-6 (citing GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, �� 20(c),(d)). Rather, the Respondent notes that the Appellant has admitted that its paper suppliers were either unable to produce stock matching the specifications (Gum, Zellerbach), or the matching stock was too costly (Fasson). See R. Brf., at 6. Consequently, GPO contends that the Contractor has failed to carry its burden of proving that its failure to perform is excused for reasons beyond its control and without its fault or negligence. Id. (citing Lee K. Geiger Construction Co., GSBCA Nos. 2152, 2164, 67-1 BCA � 6189; American Construction Co., GSBCA No. 1097, 65-2 BCA � 4964). Second, the Government argues that the Appellant's poor financial condition will not excuse its default. See R. Brf., at 7 (citing Summitt Group, ASBCA No. 45138, 93-3 BCA � 26,240; KARPAK Data and Design, IBCA No. 2944, 93-1 BCA � 23,360). The Respondent says that a contractor's financing is a matter solely within its control, and that when a contractor enters a contract with the Government it is obligated to ensure that it has adequate financial resources to perform. Id. (citing Southeastern Airways Corp. v. United States, 230 Ct. Cl. 47, 673 F.2d 368 (1982); Marwel Engineering Co., ASBCA No. 17758, 74-2 BCA � 10788; Schaecher-Kux Lumber Co., ASBCA No. 1390 (1953)). Indeed, GPO states that the law will not excuse a contractor from default based on a claim that its supplier will not ship the raw materials unless paid in advance. Id. (citing National Equipment, Inc., GSBCA Nos. 5643, (5104)-REIN, 5309, 81-2 BCA � 15365; Boyd Tools, Inc., GSBCA Nos. 3804, 3805, 73-2 BCA � 10148; National Export Packing Company of Virginia, GSBCA No. 2691, 69-1 BCA � 7422; Mountain States Label Corp., GSBCA No. 2555, 68-2 BCA � 7132). Likewise, the inability to obtain credit from its supplier, as here, is not such a ground as would excuse a contractor from its failure to perform. See R. Brf., at 7-8 (citing Douglas Chemical Division, DEICO Industries, Inc., ASBCA No. 15047, 70-2 BCA � 8469; Geofabrics, Inc., ASBCA No. 13512, 69-1 BCA � 7629). Accordingly, the Respondent contends that on the matter of finances as well, the Appellant has not sustained its burden of proof to show that its failure to obtain the proper supplies was due to causes beyond its control. See R. Brf., at 8 (citing Beco, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 9702, 9734, 1964 BCA � 4493). Therefore, the Government states that it is entitled to judgment in its favor, and urges the Board to deny the appeal. Id. IV. DISCUSSION In the Board's view, as it mentioned during the prehearing conference, there is no doubt that the Appellant failed to perform the contract, and that there was adequate justification for the Contracting Officer to terminate the contract for default. See RPTC, at 6. The only question remaining, therefore, is whether the Contractor has 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). 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.9 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 Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 24; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., GPO BCA 06-95 (August 29, 1995), slip op. at 16, 1995 WL 818784, reconsid. denied, February 13, 1996; Univex International, supra, slip op. at 17; K.C. Printing Co., GPO BCA 02-91 (February 22, 1995), slip op. at 9, 1995 WL 488531; Printing Unlimited, GPO BCA 21-90 (November 30, 1993), slip op. at 16, 1993 WL 516844; Chavis and Chavis Printing, GPO BCA 20-90 (February 6, 1991), slip. op. at 11, 1991 WL 439270. 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 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.10 See 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);11 Stephenson, Inc., GPO BCA 2-88 (December 20, 1991), slip op. at 20, 1991 WL 439274 (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 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. 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). See also Graphics Image, Inc., supra, slip. op. at 24-28. Cf. 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; 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 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 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 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 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 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 its suppliers. Therefore, the Contracting Officer's termination of the contract for default was not in error. As previously indicated, the Appellant's default in this case is not even in question; indeed, the Contractor candidly admits that was unable to perform in accordance with the contract specifications See R4 File, Tabs E and P; Notice of Appeal, at 1; Complaint, at 1. However, it offers two excuses for its failure: (1) its paper supplier could not provide stock equivalent to Fasson's "TamperFas" Destructible Vinyl, G-70651; and (2) its poor financial condition precluded it from purchasing the label stock from Fasson itself. The Board agrees with the Respondent that none of these reasons fall within the range of acceptable occurrences or events which would excuse the Contractor's failure to perform. See Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip op. at 13; Jomar Enterprises, Inc., GPO BCA 13-86 (May 25, 1989), slip op. at 3-5. The Board will discuss each of the Appellant's proferred excuses seriatim. 1. The Government did not breach its implied warranty of commercial availability with respect to the paper stock for the labels. Setting aside the fact that the Appellant did not produce the prior-to-production Dylux or similar proofs, as required by the specifications, giving as its reason that it wanted the samples of the paper stock approved first, see R4 File, Tabs F, G and J, a situation which also exposed the Contractor to liability under the contract, see e.g. Hurt's Printing Company, Inc., supra, slip op. at 23 (no excuse to default that Government refused to inspect the contractor's artwork before the prior-to-production samples were prepared and submitted for approval); Editor's Press, Inc., GPO BCA 3-90 (September 4, 1991), slip op. at 18-19, 1991 WL 439271 (Government not liable for delay costs caused by contractor's seeking a retesting of the paper stock by GPO), from the Appellant's description of its attempts to acquire the label stock, it seems clear to the Board that its principal allegation is that somehow there has been a breach of the Government's implied warranty of commercial availability in this case. The specifications in the disputed contract required the Appellant to provided paper stock for labels that was ". . . equal in all respects to Fasson's "TamperFas" Destructible Vinyl, . . .". Where, as here, the Government writes its specifications in terms of a "brand name or equal" product: [I]t is the obligation of the Government to ascertain and assure bidders the commercial availability of the component from its manufacturer before it employs it as a purchase description, or failing that, to provide bidders with a sufficient description of the physical specifications and performance characteristics so that it may be duplicated by the bidders either by in-house fabrication or by purchase from suppliers. See Aerodex, Inc. v. United States, 189 Ct. Cl. 344, 354, 417 F.2d 1361 (1969). See also S & D Construction Co., VABCA No. 3885, 95-2 BCA � 27,609 (although the Government is not precluded from writing specification around the design features of a particular manufacture, when it does so without informing the bidders or mentioning the manufacturer's name, the specifications will be treated as calling for a brand name or equal, necessitating a description of the salient characteristics); Ocean Electric Corp., NASABCA 371-8, 73-2 BCA � 10,335 (the lack of a commercially available equal meeting the salient characteristics may enable the contractor to substitute a nonconforming product). See generally, John Cibinic, Jr. & Ralph C. Nash, Jr., Administration of Government Contracts 3d ed., (The George Washington University, 1995), at 284-86 (hereinafter Cibinic & Nash). Here, the salient characteristics are described in both the "STOCK" and "CONSTRUCTION" clauses of the contract. See R4 File, Tab A, at 2. See also R4 File, Tab H (QCTD's Miscellaneous Materials Test Report). Furthermore, where a contract specifies a particular product, such as Fasson's "TamperFas" Destructible Vinyl, the Government only warrants that the product existed at the time of solicitation, and the contractor assumes the risk that the product may become unavailable. See James Reeves Contractor, Inc., ASBCA No. 44065, 95-2 BCA � 27,718; Parker's Mechanical Constructors, Inc., ASBCA No. 29020, 84-2 BCA � 17,427; Omega Construction Co., ASBCA No. 22705, 78-2 BCA � 13,425. Similarly, the Government does not thereby become an a insurer that the product will be available within the time period contemplated for performance under the contract, see Franklin E. Penny Co. v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 842, 524 F.2d 668 (1975), or at a price and location which is less costly for the contractor, see Callison Construction Co., AGBCA No. 88-309-1, 92-3 BCA � 25,071. In no case, however, does the implied warranty rule extend to unspecified equal products; i.e., the Government makes no promise that acceptable substitutes are available. See M.S.I. Corp., IBCA 554-4-66, 68-1 BCA � 6983. See also WRB Corp. v. United States, 183 Ct. Cl. 409 (1968); James Walford Construction Co., GSBCA No. 6498, 83-1 BCA � 16,277 (no warranty of commercial availability for generically described products or products of listed manufacturers). Stated otherwise, the law places on the contractor's shoulders the responsibility for determining the availability of the supplies, materials, and products necessary for performance prior to bidding, see Interstate Coatings, Inc. v. United States, 7 Cl. Ct. 259 (1985); ACS Construction Co., ASBCA No. 33832, 87-3 BCA � 20,138, aff'd, 848 F.2d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 1988); DeLaval Turbine, Inc., ASBCA No. 21797, 78-2 BCA � 13,521; Datametrics, Inc., ASBCA No. 16086, 74-2 BCA � 10,742; Therm-Air Manufacturing Co., ASBCA No. 17128, 74-2 BCA � 10,652, and the risk is not shifted to the Government just because the contractor experiences difficulty in that regard, see Pioneer Enterprises, Inc., ASBCA No. 43739, 93-1 BCA � 25,395; Toyad Corp., ASBCA No. 26785, 85-3 BCA � 18,354. See also Alabama Dry Dock & Shipbuilding Corp., ASBCA No. 39215, 90-2 BCA � 22,855 (Government only warranted that the supplier could manufacture a conforming item, not that it would do so, and thus it was not liable when the supplier delivered defect items). When these principles are applied to the facts of this case, the Board has little difficulty concluding that the Respondent did not breach its implied warranty of commercial availability. In that regard, the record shows that the Contractor's first supplier of choice, Gum, said that its product was equivalent to Fasson's "TamperFas" Destructible Vinyl, but would not extend credit to the Appellant to buy it. The second paper company, Zellerbach, assured the Contractor that its stock was also equivalent to Fasson's "TamperFas" Destructible Vinyl, but the samples it supplied failed GPO's quality control tests. The Appellant also contacted Fasson which said it could supply the required paper stock, but only at a price which was prohibitive as far as the Contractor was concerned. Clearly, to the extent that the specifications warranted that "TamperFas" Destructible Vinyl existed at the time of solicitation, and indeed, was still available from Fasson, the Respondent met the requirements of the law. See James Reeves Contractor, Inc., supra; Parker's Mechanical Constructors, Inc., supra; Omega Construction Co., supra. It was not obligated to promise that label stock equal to Fasson's "TamperFas" Destructible Vinyl would be available from other suppliers, see WRB Corp. v. United States, supra; James Walford Construction Co., supra; M.S.I. Corp., supra, or that Fasson would sell the named material to the Appellant at a price it was willing to pay, see Callison Construction Co., supra. Rather, it was the Contractor's duty to determine the availability of equal paper stock at a price it could afford (if it did not want to or could not purchase "TamperFas" Destructible Vinyl from Fasson) prior to submitting its bid. See Interstate Coatings, Inc. v. United States, supra; ACS Construction Co., supra; DeLaval Turbine, Inc., supra; Datametrics, Inc., supra; Therm-Air Manufacturing Co., supra. The Respondent is not responsible for any difficulties or frustrations experienced by the Appellant in its efforts to obtain label stock which would satisfy the requirements of the contract. See Pioneer Enterprises, Inc., supra; Toyad Corp., supra. Accordingly, the Board holds that the Government did not breach its contractual obligations under the circumstances herein, and thus, the failure to obtain acceptable label stock prior to default is wholly charged to the Contractor. 2. The fact that the Appellant was having financial difficulty does not furnish it with such an excuse as would forgive its failure to perform. As previously indicated, the "Disputes" clause excuses a defaulting contractor 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. See GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses, �� 20(c). Here, the Appellant offers its poor financial condition, which limited its options with respect to purchasing proper label stock, as another ground for its failure to perform. In the Board's view, this second excuse identifies the real reason the Contractor was unable to perform the contract in this case. However, this excuse is also without legal merit. 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 K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 15; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip 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. See K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 15; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip op. at 14. The basic rule with regard to contractor finances was stated by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) in Dependable Metal Products, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 41446, 41449, 94-3 BCA � 26,963. In that case, 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). See Dependable Metal Products, Inc., supra, 94-3 BCA � 26,963, at 134,264. See also K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 16. Compare Litchfield Manufacturing Corp. 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 Co., ENG BCA No. 5693, 92-1 BCA � 24,522, at 122,379. See also K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 17. Accord 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. In the Board's view, the general rule is dispositive of this case. Here, the undisputed facts permit the Board draw but one conclusion-the Appellant was undercapitalized. Evidence of the Appellant's shortage of funds to perform the contract, all of which is admitted by the Contractor, simply worms its way through the record. First, even before the contract was awarded, the Appellant asked the Respondent for a "letter of credit" to guarantee payment for the finished job, which in effect was a request for payment in advance.12 See R4 File, Tab C. Second, the Contractor tells us that bid on the contract after its paper supplier, Gum, had assured it of "terms" regarding the cost of the stock, and that when Gum reneged on its commitment for credit, it was without ". . . the monies to do [the] job . . .". See R4 File, Tab J. Third, although the Appellant obtained free samples of paper stock from a second paper company, Zellerbach, which it submitted to GPO for approval, it was ". . . relying on [Zellerbach] to issue credit . . .". Id. Finally, the Contractor rejected the option of purchasing "TamperFas" Destructible Vinyl from the manufacturer, Fasson, because ". . . the stock was as much as [the Appellant} bid the job for." See Complaint, at 1. It was the Appellant's obligation to have proper and adequate financial resources to perform the contract. See K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 17 (citing 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 caused by the Government. Id. (citing Local Contractors, Inc., supra, 92-1 BCA � 24,491, at 122,235-36). Furthermore, financial problems not caused by wrongful Government action do not form the basis to excuse a failure to deliver. Id. (citing 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). Here, the Appellant has not shown any improper conduct on the part of the Government affecting its ability to acquire sufficient funds. Accordingly, the Contractor has not met its burden of proof with respect to excusing its failure to make a timely shipment of the DDLs under Purchase Order 88703, and the Contracting Officer was justified in terminating the contract for default. See K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 18; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip op. at 15. Accord Midwest Satellite Equipment , Inc., supra, 91-2 BCA � 23,907, at 119,759. B. The Government has proved its claim of entitlement to excess reprocurement costs in the amount indicated. The last issue concerns the scope of the Appellant's liability for excess reprocurement costs, if any. 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 A & E Copy Center, GPO BCA 38-82 (September 25, 1996), slip op. at 27, 1996 WL_____; 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. First, the Board's own comparison of the original and reprocurement contracts leaves no question but that the reprocurement contractor, Pres-tige, was asked to produce and deliver the same DDLs, in the same quantity, and under the same terms and conditions as the Appellant's original contract. Compare R4 File, Tab D, Purchase Order 88703 and Respondent's Filing, Purchase Order 88872. Indeed, the Contractor does not allege otherwise. In fact, except for an adjustment in the deliver date to account for the repurchase and a few administrative changes (e.g., new contractor code, new jacket number, new area/state code, etc.), the two contracts are identical. Certainly, these changes are not a material alterations because they have no pecuniary impact; i.e., they are not such as would cause a substantial increase in the price of the reprocurement contract.13 See Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 41; Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 59-60 (citing AGH Industries, ASBCA Nos. 27960, 31150, 89-2 BCA � 21,637; Ace Reforestration, Inc., AGBCA No. 84-271-1, 83-2 BCA � 20,218; T.M. Industries, ASBCA No. 21025, 77-1 BCA � 12,545; Churchill Chemical Corp., GSBCA No. 4353, 77-1 BCA � 12,318, aff'd, 221 Ct. Cl. 284, 602 F.2d 358 (1979); Solar Laboratories, Inc., ASBCA No. 19957, 76-2 BCA � 12,115; Arjay Machine Co., ASBCA No. 16535, 73-2 BCA � 10,179; Marmac Industries, ASBCA No. 12158, 72-1 BCA � 9,249). Accord Schmalz Construction, Ltd., AGBCA No. 92-177-1, 94-1 BCA � 26,423; Meyer Labs, Inc., ASBCA No. 19525, 87-2 BCA � 19,810; Lester Phillips, Inc., ASBCA No. 20735, 77-1 BCA � 12,447. See generally Cibinic & Nash, at 1007-09, 1011-12. Cf. A & E Copy Center, supra, slip op. at 28 (the Board denied the Government's claim for excess reprocurement costs because the addition of identifiable quality standards and a substantial revision in the description of the Government- furnished materials in the repurchase contract, as well as other significant changes, warranted the conclusion that it was not the same or similar to the defaulted agreement). Accordingly, the Board concludes that the Respondent has met the first condition for excess reprocurement costs, namely, showing 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 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. Second, the Board has no trouble in concluding that the reprocurement was accomplished in a timely fashion. The record in this case shows that the Appellant's contract was terminated for default on March 31, 1993. See R4 File, Tab L. The reprocurement contract was awarded to Pres-tige the same day. See R4 File, Tab M; Respondent's Filing, Adams Declaration, �� 6, 7; Purchase Order 88872. Accordingly, on this record the Board finds that the Respondent acted with reasonable dispatch and without undue delay to reprocure the defaulted books, and thus it has satisfied its evidentiary burden for the second criterion. See 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. Third, the Board believes that the Contracting Officer chose a reasonable method to repurchase the books. See 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. As a rule, a contracting officer has very broad discretionary powers in reprocuring items on a defaulted contract, and the choice of which procurement method to use is one of them. See 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; Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 17, fn. 25 (citing Astro-Space Laboratories, Inc. v. United States, supra; Old Dominion Security, Inc., GSBCA No. 9126, 90-2 BCA � 22,745; Columbia Loose Leaf Corp., GSBCA Nos. 5805(5067)-REIN, 5806(5230)-REIN, 82-1 BCA � 15,464). See also Venice Maid Co., Inc. v. United States, 639 F.2d 690 (Ct. Cl. 1980); Zan Machine Co., supra. Although the Government has an obligation in reprocuring a defaulted contract to mitigate the defaulted contractor's excess cost liability by selecting a method that will maximize competition and obtain the best or lowest reasonable price 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) (hereinafter Scalf Engineering); Sequal, Inc., supra, 88-1 BCA at 103,067, the law also 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,14 see Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 44; Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 7; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 31; Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 67. Accord 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 at 114,165 (citing Camrex Reliance Paint Co., GSBCA No. 6870, 85-3 BCA � 18,376; Century Tool Co., GSBCA No. 3999, 76-1 BCA � 11,850); Sequal, Inc., supra, 88-1 BCA at 103,067. The test used in determining the adequacy of a repurchase solicitation is one of reasonableness, and the burden is on the Government to prove that it acted reasonably in selecting the reprocurement method and in mitigating the contractor's excess costs.15 See Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 44; Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 8; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 31; K.C. Printing, supra, slip op. at 21 (citing Sam's Electric Co., GSBCA Nos. 9359, 10044, 90-3 BCA � 12,128; Fancy Industries, Inc., ASBCA No. 26578, 83-2 BCA � 16,659); Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 67. However, the Government's obligation to mitigate costs "is not one of perfection, but one of reasonableness and prudence under the circumstances."16 See Mid-America Painters, Inc., ENG BCA No. 5703, 91-1 BCA � 23,367, at 117,232; Barrett Refining Corp., supra, 91-1 BCA at 118,145. This duty may be satisfied by a variety of repurchase methods, including soliciting those firms which bid on the original procurement. See Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 45; Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 8; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 32; K.C. Printing, supra, slip op. at 22 (citing American Marine Upholstery Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 564, 345 F.2d 577 (1965); Mid-America Painters, Inc., supra). Indeed, such a mitigation step is considered presumptively reasonable, even if the reprocurement price itself seems unreasonable.17 See Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 8; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 32; K.C. Printing, supra, slip op. at 22 (citing Mid- America Painters, Inc., supra);18 Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 69-70 (citing Zoda v. United States, 148 Ct. Cl. 49, 180 F.Supp. 419 (1980); United Microwave Co., ASBCA No. 7947, 1963 � 3,701). Cf. American Photographic Industries, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 29272, 29832, 90-1 BCA � 22,728 (the Government failed to mitigate damages because it did not contact the second low bidder on the original contract). See also Dillon Tool Maintenance, Inc. v. United States, 218 Ct. Cl. 732 (1978); AAA Janitorial Services, ASBCA No. 9603, 67-1 BCA � 6,091 (the law creates a rebuttable presumption that the repurchase could have been completed at the price previously quoted by a lower bidder if an effort had been made to do so). In this case, the Contracting Officer, not believing that further advertising would result in lower prices, simply returned to the bids on the original solicitation, which were relatively fresh (only a month and a half old) and were obtained through public advertising, and awarded the reprocurement contract to the second low bidder, Pres-tige, whose prices he determined to be fair and reasonable. See R4 File, Tab K; Respondent's Filing, Adams Declaration, � 6. See International Technology Corp., B-250377.5, 93-2 CPD � 102 (original offers satisfied competition requirement where only a few months had passed between the default termination and original competition for a hazardous waste management contract). While the repurchase price was approximately 35 percent more than the Appellant's original offer, the Board is satisfied, on the evidence before it, that the reprocurement method chosen by the Respondent was reasonable; i.e., the number of bidders on the original IFB assured competitive prices, and further solicitation of other firms would not have resulted in lower prices and therefore would have been unnecessary. See Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 46; Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 9; K.C. Printing, supra, slip op. at 22-23 (citing Century Tool Co., GSBCA No. 4007, 78-1 BCA � 13,050, at 63,735, reconsid. denied, 78-2 BCA � 13,345; Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip 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. See Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 46; Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 9; K.C. Printing, supra, slip op. at 23 (citing Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 73). Fourth, mitigation of damages also requires the Government to show that it obtained the lowest reasonable reprocurement price- the lowest reasonable price for the Government under circumstances, not the defaulted Contractor.19 See 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, supra; Sequal, Inc., supra; Fancy Industries, Inc., supra. In that regard, the Board has observed that ". . . 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." See Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 84-85. Accord Mid-America Painters, Inc., supra; Sequal, Inc., supra; Fancy Industries, Inc., supra; Zero-Temp, Inc., ASBCA No. 21590, 78-1 BCA � 13,212. That is precisely what the Contracting Officer did in this case; i.e., subtract the Appellant's original bid of $34,610.00 from Pres-tige's second low bid of $46,716.00, to arrive at an excess reprocurement cost liability figure of $12,106.00. See R4 File, Tabs K and M; Respondent's Filing, Adams Declaration, �� 3, 6. This method of calculation is presumptively reasonable. Even though the repurchase price was approximately 35 percent more than the Appellant's bid on the original contract, it is well-settled that the mere fact of a significant price increase in the reprocurement does not render it unreasonable in the face of Government due care and diligence. See 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; Fancy Industries, Inc., supra. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Respondent has carried its evidentiary burden of showing 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 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. 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. See Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 49; Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 12; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 36 (citing Whitlock Corp. v. United States, 141 Ct. Cl. 758, 159 F.Supp. 602 (1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 815 (1958); John L. Hartsoe, supra; Lafayette Coal Co., ASBCA Nos. 32174, 33311, 87-3 BCA � 20,116). See also K.C. Printing Co., supra, slip op. at 25-26; Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 78. 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 Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 49; Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 12-13; Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 85. Accord, 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; Scalf Engineering, supra. Here, the relevant documentation presented by the Respondent consists of: (1) Pres- tige's reprocurement contract (Respondent's Filing, Purchase Order 88872); (2) the Contracting Officer's memorandum, dated April 1, 1993, informing the FMS that the Appellant's defaulted contract had been reprocured for $46,716.00 and asking that the excess costs be charged to the Contractor (R4 File, Tab N); (3) statements from an employee of the FMS' Examination and Billing Branch, as well as the Contracting Officer, that Pres-tige had been paid $44,622.62 for the completed work by check number 30644648 on June 30, 1993 (Respondent's Filing, Declaration of Hurley Eborn, � 3; Adams Declaration, � 7); and (4) a copy of the FMS' record of the payment (Respondent's Filing, FMS Computer Printout). In the Board's view, this evidence is sufficient to prove that Pres-tige was awarded the contract, produced and delivered the books, 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. See 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. Also cf. Patty Armfield, supra; Pyramid Packing, Inc., supra; Scalf Engineering, supra. Finally, in reviewing the record, the Board notes that while the Respondent apparently calculated excess reprocurement costs by subtracting the Appellant's undiscounted contract price ($34,610.00) from Pres-tige's undiscounted bid ($46,716.00). However, the reprocurement contractor was not paid $46,716.00. The Board's own calculations based on the discounted payment made to Pres-tige shows the Contractor's actual excess cost liability to be $10,012.62 (the $44,622.62 actually paid to Pres-tige minus the Appellant's winning bid of $34,610.00). The difference amounts to overcharging the Contractor for excess reprocurement costs by $2,093.38, and is a windfall to the Government in that amount. Since there is nothing in the record to show that the excess costs charged to the Appellant were later adjusted by GPO once Pres-tige had been paid, and as the amount involved is not de minimis, see Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 48, fn. 41; Univex Supp., supra, at 12, fn. 8, the Board will direct the Contracting Officer to refund $2,093.38 to the Contractor. ORDER Considering the record as a whole, the Board finds and concludes: (1) 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 its suppliers; (2) the Contracting Officer's termination of the contract for default was not in error; and (3) GPO has sustained is burden of proof with regard to the Contractor's liability for excess reprocurement costs. THEREFORE, the Contracting Officer's decision terminating the Appellant's contract for default, and his assessment of excess reprocurement costs is hereby AFFIRMED, and the appeal is DENIED. HOWEVER, for the reasons expressed in opinion above, the amount of excess reprocurement costs is MODIFIED, and the Respondent is directed to REFUND the amount of $2,093.38 to the Contractor. It is so Ordered. September 30, 1996 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 August 24, 1993. Board Rules, Rule 4(a). It will be referred to hereafter as R4 File, with an appropriate Tab letter also indicated. The R4 File consists of sixteen (16) documents identified as Tab A through Tab P. However, at the prehearing telephone conference held on November 30, 1993, the Board directed the parties to supplement the record with certain additional documentary evidence. See Report of Prehearing Telephone Conference, dated August 9, 1994, at 6 (hereinafter RPTC). Specifically, the Board asked the Appellant to supply: (a) letters from its original supplier of materials, Gum Papers of America (Gum), and its secondary supplier, Zellerbach Paper Company (Zellerbach), or any other communication addressed to the Contractor, offering to supply materials equivalent to Fasson's S-730 TamperFas Destructible Vinyl, the quantity offered and the price quoted; (b) Gum's letter, or any other communications from Gum, denying the Appellant credit and refusing to supply the required materials; (c) letters, or any other communication from Fasson or other potential suppliers, stating their inability to supply the specified materials in sufficient time for the Contractor to meet the required delivery schedule; and (d) an affidavit from the Appellant, setting forth its version of the chronology of events in this case. See RPTC, at 6-7. The Respondent, on the other hand, was required to furnish: (a) copies of letters, or other communications from the Appellant in support of GPO's assertion that the Contractor admitted that it could not perform in accordance with the contract specifications; (b) an affidavit from the Contracting Officer and/or the Contract Compliance Officer outlining GPO's view of the chronology of events in this appeal; and (c) copies of the relevant documents necessary to prove all elements of the Government's excess reprocurement cost claim of $12,106.00, including the reprocurement method used to establish a reasonable repurchase price and details of the final payment made to Pres- tige Label Corporation (Pres-tige), the reprocurement contractor. See RPTC, at 7. On September 16, 1994, Counsel for GPO submitted a Notice of Filing to the Board, attaching copies of the requested additional information (hereinafter Respondent's Filing). Despite the Board's directions at the prehearing conference, the Appellant never provided any further documents to the Board, and after waiting sixteen (16) months, it closed the record on February 14, 1996. See Order Settling the Record, dated February 14, 1996, at 3. 2 The Board's decision is based on: (a) the Appellant's Notice of Appeal, dated June 20, 1993; (b) the R4 File; (c) the Appellant's letter, dated September 3, 1993, explaining the grounds for its failure to perform, protesting the Government's assessment of excess reprocurement costs, and otherwise meeting the requirements of a Rule 6(a) Complaint (hereinafter Complaint); (d) the Respondent's "general denial," dated October 22, 1993; (e) the Report of Prehearing Telephone Conference, dated August 9, 1994; (f) the Respondent's Filing; (g) the Respondent's Brief, dated October 14, 1994 (hereinafter R. Brf.). The Contractor did not file a brief. The facts, which are essentially undisputed, are recited here only to the extent necessary for this decision. 3 As indicated in the contract specifications, 10,200 pads of 50 DDLs was equal to 510,000 sheets of forms, plus or minus 1 percent (R4 File, Tab A, at 1). 4 Sternick's letter also asked the Government for a "letter of credit that will guarantee payment of [the] finished work." See R4 File, Tab C. 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 Printing Procurement Regulation, GPO Publication 305.3 (September 1, 1988), Chap. I, Sec. 10, � 4.b.(i) (hereinafter PPR). See also Big Red Enterprises, GPO BCA 07-93 (August 30, 1996), slip op. at 16, fn. 15, 1996 WL_____; Univex International, GPO BCA 23-90 (July 31, 1995), slip op. at 9; fn. 12, 1995 WL 488438, reconsid. denied, February 7, 1996, 1996 WL 112554, Supplemental Decision on Excess Reprocurement Costs and Order (July 5, 1996) (hereinafter Univex Supp.); Hurt's Printing Co., Inc., GPO BCA 27-91 (January 24, 1994), slip op. at 7, fn. 10, 1994 WL 275098; Graphics Image, Inc., GPO BCA 13-92 (August 31, 1992), slip. op. at 9, fn. 10, 1992 WL 487875. 6 The Contracting Officer believed that it was appropriate to repurchase the contract from Pres-tige because the bids, which were obtained through public advertising, were only a month and a half old, and he did not think that further advertising would result in lower prices. See Respondent's Filing, Adams Declaration, � 6. Furthermore, he felt that Pres-tige's price was fair and reasonable, inter alia, based on the general distribution of prices from all bidders. Id. 7 Specifically, in his letter Sternick said: "My failure to perform (default of contract) is caused by a supplier unable to produce the stock to match specifications at the cost that was given on the original bid, which is beyond my control. I could not find [a] comparable substitute." See Notice of Appeal, at 1. The Contracting Officer received an identically worded letter, also dated June 20, 1993. See R4 File, Tab P. 8 The Board framed three questions for disposition during the prehearing telephone conference. See RPTC, at 6. However, there are really only two issues in this case. In that regard, the separate questions about who is to blame for the Appellant's default-itself or its supplier-really amounts to a single issue; i.e., has the Contractor proven that its failure to perform was excusable? 9 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. 10 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. 11 Since October 29, 1992, the United States Claims Court has been known as the United States Court of Federal Claims. See Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-572, 106 Stat. 4506 (1992) (Title IX). 12 See note 4 supra. Although the request seems incongruous since the Government generally self-guarantees its own obligations, it seems clear that the Contractor was taking the same approach it would follow if this situation involved a commercial contract, despite the fact that it was acquainted with GPO's payment system from other contracts. See Complaint, at 1. In that regard, a "letter of credit" is defined as "a letter from a bank asking that the holder of the letter be allowed to draw specified sums of money from other banks or agencies, to be charged to the account of the writer of the letter." See WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY 775 (3rd coll. ed. 1988). As such, it would have allowed the Appellant to finance the contract even before it delivered the finished product. See Jesse S. Raphael, Uniform Commercial Code Simplified, 203-18 (Ronald Press Co. 1967). Indeed, the rules regarding such instruments require the issuer to honor a draft or demand for payment which complies with the terms of the letter of credit regardless of whether the goods conform to the underlying contract between the customer and the beneficiary. Id., at 215. 13 In any event, it was the Appellant's burden of proof to show that the Respondent's changes made the reprocurement contract "materially different" from the one it received by demonstrating that the increase in performance time also caused an unreasonable increase of a specified amount in the price of the repurchase. See Sterling Printing, Inc., supra, slip op. at 61 (citing Theodore R. Korotie, AGBCA No. 86-245-1, 89-3 BCA � 22,214; Ace Reforestration, Inc., supra; Solar Laboratories, Inc., supra); Knepper Press, GPOCAB Nos. 2-84 and 3-84 (October 2, 1984), slip op. at 4, 1984 WL 148107. The Contractor has not done so in this case. It should be further noted that Knepper Press was decided by one of the ad hoc panels which considered disputes between contractors and GPO before the Board's creation by the Public Printer in 1984. See GPO Instruction 110.10C, Subject: Establishment of the Board of Contract Appeals, dated September 17, 1984. The Board cites the decisions of these ad hoc boards as GPOCAB. While the Board is not bound by their decisions, its policy is to follow the rulings of the ad hoc panels where applicable and appropriate. See The George Marr Co., GPO BCA 31-94 (April 23, 1996), slip op. at 50, fn. 40, 1996 WL ______; New South Press & Assoc., Inc., GPO BCA 14-92 (January 31, 1996), slip op. at 32, fn. 45, 1996 WL 112555; Shepard Printing, supra, slip op. at 14, fn. 19; Stephenson, Inc., supra, slip op. at 18, fn. 20; Chavis and Chavis Printing, supra, slip op. at 9, fn. 9. 14 GPO procedures are consistent with the general theory and practice in Government reprocurements. See PPR, Chap. XIV, Sec. 1, � 3.f.(2). 15 In most cases, the Government satisfies this burden by showing that it used sealed bid advertising to repurchase defaulted supplies and services. See e.g., H & H Manufacturing Co. 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; Erickson Enterprises, AGBCA 77-168, 79-1 BCA � 13,628. 16 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., ASBCA Nos. 36590, 37093, 91-1 BCA � 23,566, at 118,145. 17 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 Big Red Enterprises, supra, slip op. at 45, fn. 38; Univex Supp., supra, slip op. at 8, fn. 6; Asa L. Shipman's Sons, Ltd., supra, slip op. at 32, fn. 32; K.C. Printing, supra, slip op. at 22, fn. 23 (citing Associated Cleaning, Inc., GSBCA No. 8320, 91-1 BCA � 23,360; Old Dominion Security, Inc., supra; Barrett Chemical Co., Inc., GSBCA No. 4544, 77-2 BCA � 12,625). 18 In Mid-America Painters, Inc., the contract appeals board for the Corps of Engineers held that 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 price. 19 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; Barrett Refining Corp., supra; Mid-America Painters, Inc., supra. 37