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.