United States Government Printing Office Contract Appeals Board Control Data Corporation April 25, 1975 Vincent T. McCarthy, Chairman Alan S. Zuckerman, Member Paul R. Boucher, Member Panel 75-4 This is an appeal filed by Control Data Corporation of Greenwich, Connecticut, hereinafter also referred to as the Contractor, under the "Disputes" clause of GPO Contract Terms No. 1 governing purchase orders 76206, 76212 and 76822. Facts All contracts were awarded to the Contractor as low bidder under formal advertising. Purchase Order 76206, J 715-207, in the amount of $2,631.12 was awarded to your firm on May 14, 1974, for the production and delivery of 150,000 stock forms. The delivery date specified in the contract was May 31, 1974. Delivery was 79 days late. Purchase Order 76212, J 715-215, in the amount of $5.492.00 for 140,000 forms was awarded of May 15, 1974, with a delivery date of May 31, 1974. Delivery was made on September 24, 1974, or 80 working days late. Purchase Order 76822, J 715-316, in the amount of $46,408.60 for 720.000 continuous stock forms was awarded of June 14, 1974, with a delivery date of July 31, 1974. Half of the job was delivered November 8, 1974, or 69 working days late, and the balance on November 13, 1974, or 72 working days late. Decision of Appeals Issues All contracts had extremely short delivery schedules based upon the requiring agencies' stated requirements, and all contracts provided for liquidated damages with a maximum assessment of 50% of the contract price. All payments were reduced by 50%, or the maximum liquidated damages as required by the terms of the contract. Officers of the Government are only authorized to set with regard to contract matters under specific contract provisions. Under the circumstances, the only relief available under the contract with regard to liquidated damages, would be the extension of the delivery schedule for causes generally categorized as "excusable delays," as provided in paragraph 2.19, GPO Form 1026, which states in pertinent part that: "Damages shall not be applied against the contractor for delays . . . occasioned by unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of tho contractor . . ." (emphasis added) There is no contract authority to remit such damages except to the extent that a showing of entitlement to a delivery schedule extension under the provisions of the contract would result in such reduction. The reasons specified in this appeal for the delay would not entitle the Contractor to a delivery schedule extension under the clause mentioned. Decision Inasmuch as there is no contractual basis for a delivery schedule extension, this appeal must be denied.