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.


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

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.


Inasmuch as there is no contractual basis for a delivery schedule
extension, this appeal must be denied.