U. S. Government Printing Office Office of the General Counsel Board of Contract Appeals Appeal of Stouse Sign and Display, Inc. Panel 78-1 February 24, 1978 Vincent T. McCarthy, Chairman Jay E. Eisen, Member Drew Spalding, Member This is an appeal filed on December 27, 1977, by Stouse Sign and Display, Inc., 3037 Main Street Kansas City, Missouri 64108, herein also referred to as the Contractor, under the disputes clause of the contract, Jacket 751-594, Purchase Order G9124, Article 29, U.S. Government Printing Office Contract Terms No. 1, Rev. July 15, 1970 and GPO Form 2459D, Special Terms and Conditions (Supplemental to the Basic Specifications). The Office of General Counsel is the Public Printer's representative for the determination of appeals under the disputes clause. I. Findings of Fact a. The contractor has appealed from the contracting officers decision of December 19, 1977, under which liquidated damages of $45.45 were assessed for delay in delivery of the production item (labels) called for by the contract. b. The contract is a fixed price agreement in the amount of $505.00 for the purchase of labels titled "Naval Reserve Command" requisitioned by the U.S. Navy from the Chicago Regional Printing Procurement Office. c. The contract, dated August 1, 1977, required GPO to furnish a color manuscript copy by August 3, 1977, and for the contractor to send two (2) sets of proofs and copy to GPO, Regional Printing Procurement Office, 610 Canal Street, Room 1051, Chicago,Illinois; and that the two (2) sets of proofs will be withheld not more than seven (7) working days from receipt at GPO and|then to be returned to the contractor. The contract required shipment to be completed on or before August 26, 1977. d. The contract incorporated by reference all the terms and conditions of GPO Form 2459 D, (Rev. 11-1-73) and U.S. Government Printing Office Contract Terms No. 1, (Rev. 7-15-70). In pertinent part, GPO Form 198 provides the following: "Liquidated Damages: Should the contractor default on shipping schedules . . . , the contractor will be assessed liquidated damages against that part or parts of an order which have not been shipped to the specified destination on the specified date . . . . The amount of damages will be computed at the rate of one percent (1%) of the contract price of the quantity not shipped in accordance with specifications for each working day the contractor is in default of the shipping schedule(s): . . . ." e. The proofs were shipped by the contractor and received by GPO on August 15, 1977, and returned to the contractor on August 22, 1977, a total of five (5) working days. The contractor failed to meet the scheduled shipping date of August 26, 1977; the actual shipping date on which complete delivery was made was September 9, 1977. The liquidated damages assessed in the amount of $45.45 represent the work days delayed by the contractor in failing to meet the scheduled delivery date. II. Opinion The appellant was furnished an opportunity to offer evidence in support of its appeal to show that the delays involved in furnishing the proofs were attributable to an excusable cause of delay but has failed to do so. In fact, the appellant has not offered any excusable cause of delay in the performance of the contract except that since it received the proofs back on August 22, 1977, the contractor was unable to meet the scheduled delivery date of August 26, 1977, and that the interim period of time, August 22, 1977 through August 26, 1977 was insufficient to meet the scheduled delivery date. It was the contractor's responsibility to furnish proofs in sufficient time to allow the necessary production time to meet the schedule set forth in the contract. The contractor's main contention in its appeal, is that the customer agency, the U.S. Navy, suffered no actual damage as a result of the late delivery of the decals. Both the courts and contract appeal boards have held that actual damages need not be shown in circumstances where, judged at the time of contracting, (i) the damages likely to result from delayed performance are uncertain in amount or are difficult to ascertain and (ii) the amount of liquidated damages provided for in the contract has been..established in a fair and reasonable attempt to fix just compensation for anticipated loss covered by breach of contract. (Zinsco Electrical Products, 66-1 BCA ¶ 5526; Priebe and Sons v. United States, 332 U.S. 407; Wise v. United States, 249 U.S. 361) III. Conclusion On the basis of the facts found and the authorities cited, the Board concludes that the appellant has failed to show that the liquidated damages assessed for delayed performance were improper. Accordingly, the appeal is denied.