IN THE UNITED STATES CLAIMS COURT No. 92-128C (Filed: October 2, 1992) ________________________________________ ) RICHARD C. SWANSON, T/A R.C SWANSON ) PRINTING AND TYPESETTING CO., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) THIS OPINION WILL ) NOT BE PUBLISHED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) IN THE UNITED ) STATES CLAIMS Defendant. ) COURT REPORTER. ________________________________________) Richard C. Swanson, Baltimore, Maryland, Pro Se. Peter Mulhern, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. for defendant. OPINION HODGES, Judge. The Government Printing Office Board of Contract Appeals upheld defendant's decision to terminate for default a contract with plaintiff Swanson Printing. Plaintiff appealed the GPO decision to this court, and defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. FACTS Defendant awarded plaintiff a contract to print bulletins in April 1990. All of the following events occur in that same year. Plaintiff contract was to last approximately on year starting in May. In late June, defendant first notified plaintiff that orders were behind schedule. Plaintiff advised the Contracting Officer that he had "machine problems." The CO issued a cure notice on July 2. By July 3, approximately twenty print orders, or nearly half of all orders placed to date, were due or past due. Defendant telephoned plaintiff twice to express dissatisfaction, and on July 6, sent a second cure notice. Plaintiff telephoned defendant on July 9, to establish new dates by which he would bring the orders current. Plaintiff later responded to defendant in writing, referencing the July 2, cure notice. In this letter plaintiff again cited machine problems, specifically that his printing press had unexpectedly broken down and that a second press that he had ordered was late in arriving. Plaintiff also stated that the large number of orders compounded his problems. Plaintiff did believe, however, that he could be back on schedule by July 23. By the end of July, plaintiff was still behind in his deliveries; he was late on 43 of 69 orders placed. Defendant sent a third cure notice on August 3, to which plaintiff did not respond in writing. On August 23, defendant sent plaintiff notice of termination for default. Plaintiff petitioned to the Government Printing Office Board of Contract Appeals (the Board) to have the termination for default changed to a termination for convenience. The Board denied the petition. DECISION The Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613 (1988), applies only to contracts entered into by executive agencies. 41 U.S.C. § 602(a) (1988). Because the GPO is a congressional agency, the CDA does not apply. Fry Communications, Inc. v. United States, 22 Cl. Ct. 497, 502 (1991) (relying on Tatelbaum Creditors of A. Hown & Co. v. United States, 749 F.2d 729 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). We have jurisdiction because plaintiff seeks money damages for breach of contract with the United States under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (1988). Fry Communications, 22 Cl. Ct. at 503. The applicable standard of review is expressed in the Wunderlich Act, which states in part that any decision by a board of contract appeals is final unless it is "capricious or arbitrary or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith, or not supported by substantial evidence." 41 U.S.C. § 321 (1988). While this court is not bound by a board's decision, legal interpretations by such boards are considered helpful even if not compelling, and will be given great weight if reasonable and based on the particular board's expertise. Flexible Metal Hose Mfg. v. United States, 4 Cl. Ct. 522, 527 (1984). Thus, plaintiff bears a heavy burden with its claim in this court. He has not met this burden. Plaintiff alleges that defendant placed orders that were too large and too frequent and that machinery problems caused him to fall behind in the orders. However, plaintiff admitted during oral argument that if the second machine had been delivered on time, he could have handled the contract "without any problem," even with the unexpected heavy volume. Plaintiff's admission eliminates his first argument concerning the volume or orders. We need consider only plaintiff's difficulty in obtaining the machinery necessary to fulfill the contract. An alleged breach by a supplier does not excuse the contractor's default. Industrial Design Labs. v. United States, 228 Ct. Cl. 904, 905 (1981). Boards of contract appeals have routinely reached the same conclusion. See e.g., Sonora Mfg., Inc., ASBCA No. 31589, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,444 at 117,630; HMC Mach. Co., ASBCA No. 38636, 90-3 BCA ¶ 23,170 at 116,284; Fleetwood Portable Bldg. Co., ASBCA No. 31711, 90-2 BCA ¶ 22,843 at 114,702. Thus, plaintiff's argument that his supplier's delay in furnishing the new machine caused a legally excusable delay in performance is without merit. As a general rule, the unexplained breakdown of machinery is not excusable, either. Chavis and Chavis Printing, GPO BCA 20-90 slip op. at 13-14 (Feb. 6, 1991). A contractor has an obligation to assure itself of the availability of necessary supplies and machinery. Id. Plaintiff's defective machinery and plaintiff's inability to correct the problem caused delayed performance here. Neither of these problems was of defendant's making, so defendant cannot be burdened with the difficulties they created. A.B.G. Instrument & Eng'g v. United States, 593 F.2d 394, 405 (Ct. Cl. 1979). CONCLUSION Finding no evidence that the legal conclusions by the Board were capricious or arbitrary or grossly erroneous, we affirm the Board's decision. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. No costs.