Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
 
                       _________________________
 
                       DENIED:  November 30, 1999
                       _________________________
 
 
                              GSBCA 14136
 
 
                               ROWE INC.,
 
                                           Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                           Respondent.
 
        Stanley  V. Campbell, Jr.,  President of Rowe  Inc., Fairfax
   Station, VA, appearing for Appellant.
 
        Michael  J.   Noble,  Office  of  General  Counsel,  General
   Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges PARKER, BORWICK, and DeGRAFF.
 
   DeGRAFF, Board Judge.
 
        This   appeal   arises   out   of   the   General   Services
   Administration s decision  to terminate the  contract performance
   of Rowe  Inc.  Because the contractor  did not deliver within the
   time required by the contract,  and did not establish either that
   the  termination  action  was  flawed  or  that  the  agency  was
   responsible  for delaying  the contractor s performance,  we deny
   the appeal.
 
                            Findings of Fact
 
        In  early 1996,  the  General Services  Administration (GSA)
   issued a solicitation to purchase  vehicles.  The contract was to
   be  a definite  quantity,  firm fixed  price contract,  and would
   require the contractor  to deliver two  items.  Item  001 was  an
   Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service   (INS)  detention  and
   deportation van, and  Item 002 was an INS border patrol van.  Ex.
   3   at  1,   15,   17.[foot #] 1     The   contractor  would   be
   required  to ship  the vans  within  180 days  after it  received
   orders for them.  Ex. 5 at 2.  
 
 
        The solicitation described itself as one for the procurement
   of commercial  items, and contained  the clauses applicable  to a
   commercial  item contract.   Ex.  3.   For example,  the contract
   contained  a  clause,  standard  in  commercial  item  contracts,
   stating that GSA could terminate  the contract "for cause" in the
   event of  a default.  Ex. 3 at  12.  Nonperformance constituted a
   default, unless the nonperformance was caused by something beyond
   the contractor's control.  The contractor was required  to notify
   the contracting  officer in  writing of any  excusable delays  as
   soon as possible after the delays occurred.  Ex. 3 at 11.  
 
        The solicitation  required  the use  of a  Standard Item  34
   vehicle chassis.  Ex.  3 at 18, 23.  Standard Item  34 is a cargo
   van.   Ex. 4 at 14.   Before a contract was  awarded, GSA amended
   this requirement to  permit the use of either a  Standard Item 34
   or Standard Item 24 vehicle chassis.  Ex. 5.  Standard Item 24 is
   a passenger  van.   Ex. 4  at  10.   If a  contractor supplied  a
   Standard Item  24 chassis, it  was required to furnish  vans with
   the original equipment  manufacturer's maximum available  chassis
   Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR), including the "one up" spring
   rating option, if  that option was available.   Ex. 5 at  2.  The
   GVWR is  the value  specified by the  manufacturer as  the loaded
   weight of  a vehicle.  Ex. 607  at 6.  A window  sticker on a van
   will show that van s GVWR, but it will not show what  the maximum
   available GVWR is for that type of van.  T. 241, 1508.
 
        The solicitation stated that  GSA wanted seventy-three vans,
   and gave GSA  the option to increase this quantity.  Ex. 3 at 17,
   43.  The solicitation explained that if GSA exercised its option,
   the contractor would be obligated to deliver  the additional vans
   within  the same  number of  days after  receiving the  notice of
   increase as  it had to  deliver the initial  contract quantities.
   Ex. 3 at 43. 
 
        The vans had to meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety (FMVS)
   standards.   Ex. 4  at 60.   The contractor  had to  install foam
   insulation in  the rear  compartment ceiling  and walls, and  the
   insulation had to be fire resistant per FMVS Standard 302.  Ex. 3
   at  20, 25.  The contractor  had to supply operator, service, and
   parts manuals.   Ex. 3 at 18,  23; Ex. 4 at 74.   Seat belts were
   required for  all seating positions and had to be mounted to meet
   FMVS Standards 208, 209, and 210.  Ex. 3 at 18, 23.  Rustproofing
   was required for areas affected by  the contractor's work.  Ex. 3
   at  21, 26.   The  contract required  two tamper  resistant power
   exhaust type roof ventilators.  Ex. 3  at 19, 24.  The vans  were
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1 "Ex.  __" refers to  an exhibit contained  in the
   record of this appeal.  "T. __" refers to a page from the hearing
   transcript.  
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   supposed to  be free from  workmanship defects, such as  rough or
   sharp  edges;  incomplete  or  improper  welding,   riveting,  or
   bolting;  and interference of chassis components, body parts, and
   doors.  Ex. 4 at 75.
 
 
        The vans were to contain two front seats with arm rests, and
   fiberglass bench seats in the  rear for thirteen passengers.  Ex.
   3 at  18-19, 23-24.  The  solicitation did not specify  any color
   for the fiberglass seats.  Ex. 3.  If the contractor was going to
   retrofit the  original equipment manufacturer's seat  frames with
   fiberglass  seats,  the  solicitation  required  that  the   seat
   attachment  be "in  a  manner  equal to  a  seat furnished  as  a
   complete assembly  by a  seat manufacturer."   Ex. 5  at 2.   The
   seats had to  be attached to the floor and  the floor attachments
   had  to include "tamper resistant mechanisms to prevent loosening
   and removal of seats by occupants."  Ex. 5 at 2. 
 
        The solicitation  permitted the  spare tire  assembly to  be
   placed under  the vehicle with  a locking  device.  The  jack was
   required  to  be stored  and  secured  to  the floor  behind  the
   driver's seat,  and had to  be capable of  raising the  van, when
   fully loaded to its  maximum GVWR, to  a height that would  allow
   someone to change a flat tire.  Ex. 3 at 21, 26.
 
        The  rear doors  and side  windows of  the vans  were to  be
   inoperable and covered  with mesh attached with  vandal resistant
   fasteners.  Ex. 3 at 20, 25.  Each van had to have a sliding side
   door, and  the contractor  had to install  some type  of limiting
   device to prevent the  sliding door from opening  beyond one-half
   of its normal opening distance.  The solicitation did not specify
   exactly how large the  opening had to be.  Ex. 3 at  20, 25.  The
   rear compartment was to be lined with aluminum that was installed
   so that the  occupants could not pull down  or damage the ceiling
   or  the walls.  Ex. 3 at 20,  25.  The contract required a tamper
   resistant interior dome light in the rear compartment of at least
   twenty-one candle power.  Ex. 3 at 20, 24.  
 
        The  solicitation's air  conditioning  requirements were  as
   follows:  
 
        Air  conditioning  is  required per  specification  and
        shall  be  the chassis  manufacturer s  dual evaporator
        system, with  the rear  evaporator  located behind  the
        partition, with multiple  outlet ducts.  The  auxiliary
        rear      floor      heater[foot #] 2      and      air
        conditioner  including outlets  in  the rear  passenger
        compartment  shall be made tamper resistant by means of
        security  screens/guards,  or  other  tamper  resistant
        means.
 
   Ex.  3 at  19,  24.   The   specification   referred  to in  this
   requirement is Federal  Standard 307, which is  a document issued
   by GSA for  use by any federal  agency that orders vehicles.   It
   establishes  classifications  for   various  types  of   vehicles
   generally   acquired  by  the   Government,  and  sets   out  the
   characteristics, components, equipment, and options available for
   each classification.  Ex. 4; T. 267-69. 
 
        The  solicitation required  the driver's  compartment  to be
   separated  from the rear compartment by a full-width, full-height
   partition.   The partition was  to be permanently secured  to the
   side, roof,  and floor of  the body  of the  van.  It  was to  be
   fabricated  of "No. 9  woven mesh, (1 to  1/4) inches on centers,
   and pinned to a  one (1) inch channel  frame."  Ex. 3 at 20,  25.
   The contractor was to attach  a transparent shield of clear Lexan
   from ceiling to floor  and from side to side on  the forward side
   of the partition.   The Lexan panel  had to be cut  to conform to
   the sides  of the van, and where  the panel met the  sides of the
   van, the  gap could not  exceed 0.75 inches.   A  ten-inch square
   window was to be  cut in the Lexan, but not in  the mesh, so that
   the driver  could see the passengers in the rearview mirror.  Ex.
   3 at 21,  25.  The  contract did not  require that the  partition
   between the passengers and the  drivers be placed at any specific
   spot.  The placement of the partition was  to be the contractor s
   choice.  Ex. 3; T. 298.   There are many ways of constructing the
   partition to meet the requirements  of the contract, and it would
   be  up  to  the  contractor   to  decide  which  method  to  use.
   T. 1440-45, 1449.
 
        The  solicitation stated that  a stripe "shall  be furnished
   and applied" to the side of each  Item 002, the INS border patrol
   van, and contained a drawing  to show where the stripe  should be
   placed.   Ex.  3  at  26,  27.   The  solicitation  required  the
   contractor to install an adjustable flood light above the sliding
   side door  of each  Item 001, the  INS detention  and deportation
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 2 The  requirement  for  the  border  patrol   vans
   actually reads "auxiliary  rear door heater," and  not "auxiliary
                                   ____
   rear floor heater."   Ex. 3 at  24.  Neither party  contends that
   this discrepancy has any bearing upon the outcome of this appeal.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   van.  The lamp  was to be housed in an "ABS type plastic housing,
   measuring  approximately 4 in.  x 6 in."   Ex. 3 at  21.  A flood
   light disperses  light in a  pattern different from a  fog light.
   T.  1419.   ABS  (acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene) is  a  plastic
   resin, and ABS  type plastic is  a durable plastic that  has good
   resistance to weather, stains, and chemicals.  Ex. 66; T. 313. 
 
 
        The solicitation required the contractor to produce a "first
   production vehicle"  that GSA would inspect in order to determine
   whether  it  conformed  to  the  contract's  requirements.    The
   contractor was required to give GSA  fifteen days' written notice
   prior to the day that the first production vehicle would be ready
   for inspection.  After GSA approved the first production vehicle,
   the contractor was supposed to keep  that van for the duration of
   the  contract as  an approved  sample.   If the  first production
   vehicle did not meet the requirements of the specifications, this
   did not relieve the contractor from meeting all of the contract's
   requirements, and GSA could  refuse to accept all vehicles  until
   the  contractor took  corrective  action.   Ex.  3  at  32.   The
   contractor  was also  required  to  weigh  the  first  production
   vehicle and  to calculate  the imposed loading  on the  front and
   rear axles, and then to use those calculated imposed load figures
   to  determine whether  the  suspension,  axles,  and  tires  were
   adequate to meet  the requirements of the contract.  Ex. 4 at 80.
 
 
        The  solicitation provided  that all  vans  supplied by  the
   contractor would be inspected at their source.  Ex. 3 at  29, 31.
   The contractor was to perform all inspections and tests needed to
   substantiate the  fact that the  vans conformed  to the  contract
   requirements.     GSA   was  allowed   to  perform   verification
   inspections in order to determine the adequacy and reliability of
   the  contractor's inspection.    GSA's  acceptance  of  vans  was
   normally  to be  made  based  upon  the  contractor's  inspection
   records,  provided that they showed full compliance with contract
   requirements  and provided that GSA s inspections showed that the
   contractor s inspections  were adequate and  reliable.  Ex.  3 at
   31.  GSA was also allowed to inspect any vans that the contractor
   tendered to GSA for acceptance.  GSA could require the contractor
   to repair  or to  replace any vans  that did  not conform  to the
   requirements of the  contract.  Ex. 3 at 10. GSA  was required to
   inspect  vehicles within seven working days after being requested
   to do so by the contractor.  Ex. 3 at 29.  
 
        Rowe   Inc.  had  produced  vehicles  for  GSA  under  other
   contracts, and the  relationship between Rowe and  GSA had worked
   well.   One  year,  Rowe  was selected  as  GSA s small  business
   contractor of  the  year.   T. 350.   The  president  of Rowe  is
   Stanley  Campbell, who  testified that  he is  a physicist  and a
   former Navy  test pilot.   T.  832.   Mr.  Campbell's office  was
   located in Springfield, Virginia.  T. 2235.
 
        On March 27, 1996, Thomas Mould conducted a survey of Rowe s
   facility in  Powhatan, Virginia, which  is where Rowe  planned to
   produce the vans.  Ex. 7; T. 19.  Mr. Mould, a  quality assurance
   specialist,  had been employed  by GSA since  approximately 1986,
   and  had  inspected  vehicles  that  Rowe  produced  under  other
   contracts.  T. 8-10, 15.   During his survey, Mr. Mould  reviewed
   with Rowe all  of the specification requirements contained in the
   solicitation,  and  Rowe  said  that  it  had  no  problems  with
   understanding or completing any of  those requirements.  T.  159-
   62, 1839-40.   In his report  of the March  27 survey, Mr.  Mould
   said that Rowe's past performance had been adequate and that Rowe
   was producing  similar items  in a satisfactory  manner.   Ex. 7.
   Mr. Mould also said in his report that Rowe had a quality control
   system in place that he found  to be adequate to comply with  the
   inspection clause set out in the solicitation.  Ex. 7. 
 
 
        When Mr. Mould performed this pre-award survey, he evaluated
   Rowe s capability of supplying a total of seventy-three vehicles.
   Ex. 7; T. 1833.     Based upon Rowe s records, Mr. Mould believed
   that  Rowe could  convert seventy-three  vans  within sixty  days
   after it received  the chassis.  Ex.  7; T. 136-37.  A  review of
   Rowe s  previous production records  indicated to Mr.  Mould that
   Rowe could perform  approximately forty  vehicle conversions  per
   month.   Ex. 7;  T. 131.   The  plans that  Rowe provided to  Mr.
   Mould, however, showed that Rowe  could produce well in excess of
   forty vans  per month, and  Rowe anticipated delivering  the vans
   within 120 days, instead of the 180 days allowed by the contract.
   Ex. 7; T. 131, 155. 
 
        In the  report of his  March 27 pre-award survey,  Mr. Mould
   stated that Rowe  had made arrangements to obtain  Ford vans from
   Richmond  Motor  Company.    He  also  stated  that  Rowe  had  a
   commitment  letter from  Richmond Motor  which  stated that  Ford
   Motor Company would need to have the  order for the vans by April
   10, 1996,  and that Rowe  could anticipate delivery  within sixty
   days.   Ex.  7.    Because of  the  Richmond Motor  deadline  for
   ordering vans, a GSA employee  spoke with officials at Ford Motor
   Company in  order to ensure that  Rowe would receive the  vans it
   needed for the contract.  T. 2184-85.  
 
        On  April 16, Rowe agreed to  extend its proposal, including
   price,   through  April   23.  Ex.   8.     The   Small  Business
   Administration  granted Rowe a certificate of competency on April
   19, 1996,  nine days after  the April 10 deadline  established by
   Richmond Motor for ordering vans from Ford Motor Company.  Ex. 9.
   Also on April 19,  1996, GSA awarded  Rowe the INS van  contract,
   contract  number  GS-30F-96150,  and   exercised  its  option  to
   increase the quantity  of vans to a  total of 219, which  was the
   maximum quantity allowed by the contract.   Ex. 8, 10.  That same
   day, Rowe ordered 219 model  year 1996 Ford Club Wagon vans  from
   Powhatan Ford, and not from Richmond Motor.  Ex. 505. 
 
        A few  days later,  on April 25,  1996, GSA ordered  all 219
   vans.  The  delivery orders showed that  the vans were due  to be
   delivered on October 19, 1996, which was 183 days after April 19,
   and  177  days  after  April  25.    Ex.  12.[foot #] 3    We  do
   not  know when  Rowe  received  either the  notice  that GSA  had
   increased the quantity  of vans or the delivery  orders.  Neither
   GSA nor Rowe has argued that the October 19 delivery date set out
   in the delivery orders is incorrect.  
 
 
        The  procuring   contracting  officer  who   awarded  Rowe's
   contract, K.D.  Pickeral, worked  in GSA's  automotive center  in
   Crystal City, Virginia.   Ex. 8-11.  On May 1, 1996, Mr. Pickeral
   delegated administration of the contract to GSA s regional office
   in  Atlanta, Georgia.   A contract specialist,  Deborah McIntosh,
   signed  the delegation memorandum "for" Mr.  Pickeral, but it was
   Mr.   Pickeral's  decision  to  delegate  administration  of  the
   contract.  Mr. Pickeral's delegation memorandum provided that the
   Atlanta  office  did not  have  the  authority to  terminate  the
   contract without  the  concurrence of  the procuring  contracting
   officer.  The  memorandum also provided  that the Atlanta  office
   had the authority to issue cure notices and show cause notices in
   accordance  with  Federal  Acquisition Regulation  (FAR)  49.402-
   3(b).[foot #] 4 
 
        On May 24, 1996, Rowe wrote to GSA in Crystal City and asked
   whether Rowe could provide one power exhaust type ventilator that
   would  move more  air through  the van  than the  two ventilators
   specified in the contract.  Rowe provided GSA with specifications
   concerning a vent made by Fan-Tastic.  Ex. 15.  Rowe's letter was
   received  by Ms.  McIntosh.    On May  28,  she forwarded  Rowe's
   information to the  INS and to Steve  Dellinger, a transportation
   operation  specialist in GSA's automotive center in Crystal City.
   Ex. 17;  T. 660-61.  Also on  May 28, Ms. McIntosh  contacted Mr.
   Campbell and  he agreed  to send GSA  in Atlanta  the information
   concerning the Fan-Tastic vent.  Ex. 17.
 
        In late  May, Rowe asked GSA if it could use gray fiberglass
   seats.  Ex.  17.  On  June 5, 1996, before  Rowe heard from  GSA,
   Rowe  wrote to  GSA in  Crystal City  and recommended  using gray
   fiberglass seats.  Rowe said that if it heard nothing from GSA by
   June 10, it would  proceed to choose a color for  the seats.  GSA
   in Crystal City forwarded this letter to GSA in Atlanta.  Ex. 16.
   Gray  was  the  color  that  Rowe had  used  for  seats  on prior
   contracts.   T. 213.   Mr. Mould  would have  accepted fiberglass
   seats in any color, because there was no contract requirement for
   any particular  seat color.  Also, as far  as Mr. Mould knew, the
   Government did not have  a preference as to seat color.   T. 210-
   11. On June  6, the INS told GSA that gray seats were acceptable.
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 3 On May  1, 1996, GSA  ordered one more van.   Ex.
   12.  GSA's error  in ordering one more van than  was permitted by
   the contract did not affect the events at issue in this appeal.  
 
        [foot #] 4 The  cited regulation in  effect at the  time the
   delegation letter was sent is found at 48 CFR 49.402-3(b) (1997).
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   Ex. 17.   Rowe had ordered the seats on  April 23, 1996.  Ex. 188
   at 5.
 
 
        On June 6, GSA in  Crystal City learned that GSA in  Atlanta
   had never received  any information from Rowe concerning the roof
   ventilators,  so GSA  in  Crystal City  sent  the information  to
   Atlanta.  On that date,  Mr. Dellinger was waiting for additional
   information  from Rowe concerning the ventilators before he could
   make a decision  concerning Rowe's proposal.   Ex.  17.  Also  on
   June 6, GSA in Crystal City sent Rowe a  handwritten note stating
   that GSA in Atlanta had been  delegated responsibility for Rowe's
   contract, and that any changes  to the contract would be  made by
   Atlanta.     Although  GSA's   handwritten  note  refers   to  an
   administrative  contracting  officer named  Margaret  Graham, the
   record does not  show that Ms. Graham ever took any action as the
   administrative contracting officer for Rowe's contract.  Ex. 544.
 
 
        On  June  14,  1996,  Carol Huddleston  wrote  to  Rowe  and
   explained that the  contract had been assigned to  her office for
   administration and that  she was  the administrative  contracting
   officer.   She explained to Rowe that correspondence or inquiries
   other than  to schedule  inspections should  be directed to  her.
   Finally,  she  explained that  Mr.  Mould  would be  the  quality
   assurance specialist for the contract.  Ex. 14.  Ms. Huddleston s
   job  title is contract  administrator.  T. 1641-42.   This is how
   GSA refers to contracting  officers in the Atlanta office,  which
   is a  contract administration office.   T. 1731.   Ms. Huddleston
   holds an unlimited warrant.  T. 1641-42, 1732.  
 
        On June  19, 1996, GSA  modified the contract to  state that
   gray was  an acceptable  color for the  fiberglass seats,  and to
   permit the use of  one power exhaust  type roof ventilator.   Ex.
   20.  Rowe ordered Fan-Tastic vents on June 27, 1996.  Ex. 188  at
   5.  
 
        Mr. Mould  explained that  a contractor  could have  a first
   production vehicle ready for inspection one or two weeks after it
   obtained  a chassis  if, at  the  time of  award, the  contractor
   ordered the  components that  it was going  to need.   T. 135-36,
   143, 148.  Mr. Mould anticipated  that while Rowe was waiting for
   delivery of the vans,  it would order all of the  components that
   it was initially going to need in order to  manufacture the vans.
   T. 148-49.   In the opinion of  Mel Globerman, a GSA  employee in
   Crystal  City, Rowe  should have  had a first  production vehicle
   ready for inspection two weeks  after it received delivery of the
   vans.   He  would  have expected  Rowe to  use  the time  between
   contract  award and delivery  of the  vans to  design all  of the
   interior items and  have all of the necessary  materials on hand.
   Mr. Globerman  has a  degree in  electronics engineering and  has
   worked as an engineer in  the field of automotive engineering for
   nearly twenty-five years.  He is  the chief of engineering in one
   of GSA s automotive division branches. T. 1375, 1501-02.  
 
        Mr. Mould visited Rowe's facility  on July 10, 1996, and saw
   that Rowe had received  forty-nine vans.  This was the first time
   that Mr. Mould saw vans for  the INS contract at Rowe's facility.
   Ex. 21; T. 130-31.   Inspection records indicated that these vans
   arrived  in early June.  T. 134, 153.   Rowe was using a Standard
   Item 24 chassis,  and not a Standard Item 34 chassis.  T. 72, 88.
   Rowe said that  it would have the first  production vehicle ready
   in two or three weeks.  Ex. 21.  Because Rowe received its  first
   vans  in early  June,  Mr. Mould thought  that  Rowe should  have
   completed  its first production vehicle by approximately June 22,
   1996.  T. 151-54. 
 
        During his July 10,  1996 visit, Mr. Mould saw that the vans
   did not have arm rests on the  drivers' seats.  In addition, Rowe
   stated  that the  rear  compartment would  contain  only one  air
   conditioning outlet  duct,  and not  multiple ducts.   Mr.  Mould
   advised Rowe that  it should write to Ms.  Huddleston about these
   items so  that any  necessary action could  be taken  before Rowe
   submitted its  first production vehicle  for inspection.   In his
   report to Ms. Huddleston  regarding this visit, Mr.  Mould stated
   that due  to the increase  in the number of  vehicles required by
   the contract,  he did  not see how  Rowe could  deliver the  vans
   within  the  time required.    Mr.  Mould  recommended  that  Ms.
   Huddleston consider establishing new delivery  dates.  Ex. 21; T.
   139-40.  Mr. Mould also  told Ms. Huddleston that delivery orders
   for five vans required power  locks and windows, which was not  a
   contract requirement.   He recommended deleting  this requirement
   from these delivery orders.  Ex. 12, 21.
 
        Mr.   Mould  testified  that  he     also  reported  to  the
   contracting officer  that Rowe had  not yet purchased all  of the
   parts that it would need and  that there was going to be a  delay
   in performance.   T.  143.  Rowe's  responses to  GSA's discovery
   requests show that Rowe ordered  some lights on June 27  and some
   paint  on June 15, 1996.  Rowe  ordered head liners, wall panels,
   Lexan and metal for the partitions, metal for the window screens,
   paint, striping, some lights, wall reinforcement  material, inner
   vent covers, rear light  covers, and the air  conditioning covers
   in early to mid- July 1996.  Ex. 188 at 4-5; Ex. 200.  
 
        Mr.  Mould's  record of  his  July  10  visit says  that  an
   apparent  typographical error was  noted regarding the  mesh hole
   size, and that the requirement should have been 1 to 1-1/4 inches
   on  center.    He  advised  Rowe  that  it  should  write  to Ms.
   Huddleston about this so that any necessary action could be taken
   before Rowe submitted its first production vehicle.  Ex. 21.  Mr.
   Mould testified that he recognized that  the mesh size set out in
   the specification, "1 to 1/4 inches," was a  typographical error,
   and that  he discussed  this  with Rowe  during his  visit.   Mr.
   Campbell  told  Mr.  Mould  that  prior  INS  van  contracts  had
   specified 1 to  1-1/4 inch mesh and that Rowe had already ordered
   its mesh.  T. 278-79, 1895.  Rowe ordered 1-1/4 inch wire mesh in
   mid-July  1996.  Ex. 188 at 5; Ex.  200.  Mr. Mould said that  "1
   to 1/4  inches" looked like a typographical error because numbers
   are  usually stated  as going from  a smaller number  to a larger
   number.  T. 1895.   Mr. Mould testified that Rowe recognized that
   the reference to  1 to 1/4 inches  was a typographical error.  T.
   290.   Mr. Dellinger  testified that  a  reference to  "1 to  1/4
   inches" is  an "obvious"  typographical error.   T. 716-17.   Mr.
   Globerman explained  that he  realized that  the reference  was a
   typographical error because  when dimensions are specified,  they
   go from the smaller to the  larger dimension, and not vice versa.
   In addition,  1-1/4 inches is typically the standard dimension of
   No. 9 wire mesh, which is what was specified in the contract.  T.
   1436-39.  Mr. Campbell testified that Rowe  thought that the mesh
   size was  supposed to be 1-1/4 inches, but that Mr. Mould thought
   that the size  was supposed to be 1/4  inch.  T. 923.   Mr. Mould
   testified that mesh size was never an issue between Rowe and GSA.
   T. 289. 
 
 
        Mr. Campbell  testified that, during the July  10 visit, Mr.
   Mould ordered Rowe  to change the placement of the partition in a
   van.   T.  1178-79.   Mr. Mould's  contemporaneous report  of the
   visit does  not mention that  any van contained a  partition, and
   other documentation in the record  says that Rowe did not provide
   a  van  with a  partition  installed  for  GSA to  inspect  until
   September.  Ex. 21, 50, 54, 77.   There are no documents to  show
   that Rowe had a van with a partition in place in July.
 
        Mr.  Campbell testified that, around July 12, Ms. Huddleston
   suggested  that Rowe  be given  a  120-day extension  of time  to
   perform the  contract, and later  said that she would  modify the
   contract to give Rowe a  ninety-day extension.  Mr. Campbell said
   that  Ms. Huddleston  made  this  statement  during  a  telephone
   conversation  with him  and Mr. Mould.   T.  1224-25, 1228.   Mr.
   Mould testified  that, as far  as he  knew, there  was never  any
   conversation in  which Ms.  Huddleston recommended  that Rowe  be
   given  an additional  ninety days  to  perform.   T. 141.     Ms.
   Huddleston  testified that  she  never  suggested  that  she  was
   willing to authorize  a ninety-day extension to  Rowe s contract,
   and  that  she  was  not  aware  of  anyone  discussing  such  an
   extension.  T. 1650-51, 1704-05.  
 
        On  July 12,  1996, Rowe  wrote to  Ms. Huddleston.   In its
   letter, Rowe said that the power lock option set  out in a few of
   the delivery orders  should be deleted by  contract modification.
   Rowe  also said  that  it would  like  to  meet with  Mr.  Mould,
   representatives from GSA's  automotive center, and the  INS about
   "final vehicle  configuration."   Rowe recommended  adding ninety
   days to the delivery schedule.  Rowe stated that "the Government"
   had  suggested extending  the  contract's  performance period  by
   ninety days due to the increased quantity and  "the clarification
   of  configuration."  Rowe pointed out that the mesh specification
   was incorrect and should read "1 to 1 1/4 [inches]" instead of "1
   to 1/4 [inches]."  Rowe suggested that GSA modify the contract to
   reflect  the  correct  specification.   Rowe  suggested  that GSA
   modify the contract  to "standardize the insulation  material" so
   that it was the same as  that used in other contracts.   Finally,
   Rowe said  that it  thought  that GSA  was  going to  supply  the
   stripes for the vans, and that the contract should be modified if
   GSA wanted  Rowe to supply  the stripes.   Ex. 22.   Mr. Campbell
   testified that he thought that  GSA would furnish the stripes and
   that Rowe would apply them to the vans.  T. 882.
 
 
        On July 22, 1996, Rowe informed Ms. Huddleston that it would
   be prepared for  inspection of its  first production vehicle  ten
   days "from finalization of vehicle  configuration."  Ex. 25.  Mr.
   Mould visited  Rowe's facility on  July 22, in order  to evaluate
   the  progress  that  Rowe  was  making on  its  first  production
   vehicle.   Although Rowe anticipated  that the  vehicle would  be
   ready  for inspection during the week of  July 29, Mr. Mould felt
   that this was "questionable," because  the vans were still in the
   planning and fabrication  stages.  Mr. Mould noted  that Rowe was
   still waiting for delivery of the mesh and striping.  Ex. 24. 
 
        Part  of  Mr.  Mould s function  was  to  read  the contract
   specifications  and to audit  Rowe s compliance with  any federal
   motor  vehicle safety  standards included in  the specifications.
   Mr.  Mould would  do  this by  first  asking  Rowe what  kind  of
   documentation  it had  to substantiate  its  compliance with  the
   standards,  and then evaluating  that documentation.   T. 115-16.
   During Mr. Mould's July  22 visit, he noticed  that the label  on
   the Celotex insulation material that  Rowe planned to use  stated
   that it would ignite and  cause harmful vapors.  Mr. Mould  noted
   this in his inspection report, and stated that Rowe did  not have
   any evidence that the insulation complied with FMVS Standard 302.
   Mr.  Mould stated that the insulation material was unsatisfactory
   and he  advised Rowe to  provide corrective action  as necessary.
   Ex. 24; T. 185-86. 
 
        Mr. Campbell testified  that Rowe had used  Celotex on prior
   contracts, including a prior contract that required  Rowe to meet
   all applicable Federal safety standards.   Ex. 531; T. 867, 1169.
   Mr. Mould did  not recall Rowe using Celotex  insulation on prior
   GSA contracts.  T. 182-83.   Mr. Globerman did not remember  Rowe
   using Celotex on prior contracts.  T. 2180.  The  record contains
   a  copy  of some  of  the  requirements  for the  prior  contract
   referred to by  Mr. Campbell.  That contract specified the use of
   a  type of insulation that  is different from Celotex insulation.
   Ex. 531; T. 2211-14.
 
        During Mr. Mould's  July 22 visit, Rowe advised  him that it
   anticipated  problems  regarding  mounting the  jack  behind  the
   driver's  seat, because the  installed partition would  not leave
   sufficient space for mounting the  jack there.  Mr. Mould advised
   Rowe to inform Ms. Huddleston of this problem.  Ex. 24.  
 
        The opening width of a sliding side door on a 1996 Ford Club
   Wagon is 39.6 inches.  Ex. 197, 609; T. 1006.  During his July 22
   visit, Mr.  Mould saw that Rowe had a door  stop in place so that
   the sliding side door was opening one-half of its normal distance
   and a  person could fit  through the  opening and  so, Mr.  Mould
   testified,  he was not concerned about this contract requirement.
   T.  236-37.  Mr. Mould's inspection report  for his July 22 visit
   does not mention  any problem with the width of  the sliding door
   opening.   Ex.  24.   As  far as  Mr. Mould was  concerned,  Rowe
   fulfilled the requirement.  T.  233.  Mr. Campbell testified that
   Mr. Mould  rejected the  placement of the  door stop  because the
   opening was  too narrow.   T. 845.   According to  Mr. Campbell s
   testimony, GSA subsequently ordered three changes to the size  of
   the  door opening,  and  this  affected  Rowe s  fabrication  and
   installation of roof panels.  T. 1003-04, 1010.  
 
 
        On  July  25,  1996,  Rowe  wrote to  GSA  in  Crystal  City
   concerning the Celotex insulation and the arm rests.  Rowe stated
   that  this insulation  had been  approved  for use  in other  GSA
   contracts,    and   met   the   standards   set   out   in   ASTM
   E84.[foot #] 5    Rowe  asked  that   GSA  approve  the  use   of
   Celotex on the INS  van contract.  Regarding the  arm rests, Rowe
   stated,  "Discussions with the Contracting Officer prior to award
   indicated that  armrest .  . .  would not  be available  on these
   units.    The  inspector  has  requested a  modification  to  the
   contract prior to inspection of the units."  Rowe  also said that
   it  was unable to proceed without clarification of these matters.
   Ex. 28. 
 
         Mr. Campbell  testified  that it  would  be obvious  to  an
   engineer who reviewed the standards set out in ASTM E84 and those
   set out in  FMVS Standard 302, that  a product that met  the ASTM
   standard  would also  meet the  FMVS standard.   T. 921-22.   Mr.
   Globerman, who  is an engineer  with many years of  experience in
   the  field of automotive  engineering, explained that  a material
   that  meets one standard  would not automatically  meet the other
   standard.  T. 1398. 
 
        Mr. Campbell  testified that  the  contracting officer  told
   him, pre-award,  that Rowe would  get its vans from  Ford's final
   production  run, and  that Rowe  would  get whatever  was in  the
   pipeline.  If Ford could put arm rests on the vans, it would.  If
   Ford could not put arm rests on the vans, then the vans would not
   have  arm rests.  T.  1136-37.  Mr.  Campbell also testified that
   Rowe provided Mr. Mould with information, pre-award, to show that
   the vans would not have arm rests.  T. 1137-38.  There is no such
   information in the record of this case.   
 
        On July 29, 1996, Mr. Mould contacted Rowe to ask about  the
   status of  Rowe's first production vehicle, and learned that Rowe
   was not going to be ready for inspection during the week  of July
   29.    Rowe advised  Mr.  Mould  that  it was  having  difficulty
   verifying   that the  insulation it planned  to use  met the fire
   resistant requirement  contained in  the contract.   Rowe  stated
   that it had  asked for a deviation from  the contract requirement
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 5 ASTM is an  acronym for the American  Society for
   Testing and Materials.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   on July 25, and that it would send Mr. Mould a copy  of some test
   certifications from the  insulation supplier.  Mr.  Mould advised
   Rowe to continue  with performance and to inform him  when it was
   ready for inspection of the first production vehicle.  As of July
   29, no vehicles were ready for inspection, and final installation
   of insulation,  panels, and  other items  was still  in progress.
   Ex.  29.   Mr. Campbell  testified  that Rowe  presented a  first
   production vehicle to  Mr. Mould for inspection in  early to mid-
   July,  but  that  Mr.  Mould  never  documented  the  inspection.
   T. 1032, 1034.   Mr. Mould  testified that Rowe  "absolutely" did
   not have a first production vehicle ready for inspection in July.
   T. 1854.  The record does  not contain any notice from Rowe  that
   it had a  first production vehicle ready for  inspection in July,
   and  none of  Mr. Mould's  reports  state that  Rowe  was in  any
   position to present a vehicle for inspection.
 
 
        On July  30, Mr.  Mould,  Mr. Globerman,  and Mr.  Dellinger
   contacted the manufacturer of  Celotex insulation to find out  if
   it  had  ever  tested  Celotex   in  accordance  with  FMVS  test
   procedures.   The manufacturer's representative said that she did
   not   know  whether  Celotex   would  pass  FMVS   standards  for
   flammability.  Ex. 31; T.  172-74, 189, 1399.  The representative
   was not familiar with the  requirements of FMVS Standard 302, and
   asked GSA to send her a copy of the standard, which GSA did.  Mr.
   Campbell believed  that Celotex  would meet  the requirements  of
   FMVS Standard 302, and GSA advised him to obtain certification of
   compliance from the manufacturer or to arrange for the insulation
   to be tested in order  to see whether it complied.  Ex.  31.  Mr.
   Globerman explained  that GSA  was willing to  accept the  use of
   Celotex, so long  as GSA had data to show that the performance of
   the Celotex would be at least equivalent  to the performance of a
   material  that met  the requirements  of FMVS  Standard 302.   T.
   1399-1400.  On  July 30, Rowe said that the Celotex issue was the
   only problem  that needed to  be resolved, and Mr.  Mould advised
   Rowe to proceed with the contract while GSA evaluated the Celotex
   issue further.  Ex. 31; T. 189-92.
 
        Mr.  Campbell testified  that Ms.  Huddleston was  basically
   working  out of  her  house  because the  Olympics  were held  in
   Atlanta  during the summer  of 1996.   He said that  Rowe did not
   have an  e-mail address,  a home telephone  number, or  a mailing
   address for her, and that this  caused a large part of the  delay
   to Rowe s progress.  T. 837.  Ms. Huddleston said that she worked
   at home  for a few days and was on vacation for one week in July.
   She  also  said that  her  telephone  calls  at work  were  being
   forwarded directly to her house when she was working at home.  T.
   1703.  
 
        On  August  5,   Rowe  wrote  to  GSA's   automotive  center
   concerning the Celotex issue.  Rowe stated that the "notice" from
   Mr.  Mould that  the Celotex  insulation  was "unacceptable"  had
   caused Rowe to stop work until this matter was "clarified."  Rowe
   suggested that  it be allowed  to use Reflectex insulation.   Ex.
   32.  
 
        On  August 7,  1996,  Mr.  Globerman sent  a  letter to  Ms.
   Huddleston about the Celotex insulation.   He stated that the use
   of Celotex  was acceptable in  lieu of  insulation that  complied
   with FMVS  Standard 302,  and that where  body parts  intruded, a
   Mylar  bubble  type insulation  should  be used.    Ex. 33.   Mr.
   Globerman  explained that his letter amounted to a recommendation
   to Ms. Huddleston that she allow  Rowe to deviate from the  terms
   of the contract by supplying  an insulation material that did not
   meet the requirements  of FMVS Standard  302.   T. 1401-02.   His
   letter also said that the INS would not agree to an  extension of
   ninety days to the  contract term, but that GSA would  agree to a
   ten day  extension, due to the time required to respond to Rowe's
   request for additional time.   Mr. Globerman also stated that Mr.
   Campbell   had  informed  the   GSA  automotive  center   of  the
   typographical error concerning the size  of the mesh.  Concerning
   striping, Mr. Globerman said that it was Rowe's responsibility to
   furnish and  to apply the  striping.  Ex. 33.   On August  8, Mr.
   Dellinger sent  a letter to Ms. Huddleston concerning Rowe's July
   25  and August  5 letters,  and stated  that either  Reflectex or
   Celotex, with Reflectex  used in areas where  flexible insulation
   was required,  would be acceptable.   He also stated  that if arm
   rests  were required under  the contract and  were not furnished,
   GSA should receive some monetary consideration.  Ex. 34. 
 
        Until mid-August,  Rowe's plant manager  was George Fleming,
   who  had  been  at  Rowe  during its  performance  of  prior  GSA
   contracts.   When  Mr. Fleming  left  Rowe in  mid-August,   Rowe
   replaced him with Tom Muncie and Lynwood Jackson.  T. 1837-38.  
 
        On August  13, 1996, Mr.  Mould advised  Mr. Dellinger  that
   Rowe's  first production vehicle would be ready for inspection on
   August  20.  He asked Mr.  Dellinger whether he and INS personnel
   wanted to be present for the inspection.  Ex. 35.
 
        On August 14,  1996, Ms. Huddleston  told Mr. Globerman  and
   Mr. Dellinger that she had not  received copies of Rowe's July 25
   and August  5, 1996 letters, and she asked  for copies.  She also
   asked what the difference in cost was  between a seat with an arm
   rest and a seat without an arm rest, so that she would  have some
   idea of the consideration that  GSA should receive if it accepted
   seats without  arm rests.   Mr. Dellinger  informed her  that the
   difference  was  approximately $50  per van.   Ex.  36.   Also on
   August 14, Ms. Huddleston asked  Mr. Pickeral and Ms. McIntosh to
   let her know what agreement had been reached with Rowe about  the
   arm rest requirement.  Ex. 37. 
 
        On August  19, 1996, Ms.  Huddleston wrote a letter  to Rowe
   concerning its July 12 letter to her and its July 25 and August 5
   letters to  the GSA Crystal  City automotive center.   She stated
   that GSA  would incorporate  several items  into the contract  by
   modification.   Specifically,  she agreed  that  power locks  and
   windows would  not be required.   She  agreed that the  mesh size
   should be changed to  read "(1 to 1-1/4) inches on  the centers."
   She  agreed that  either  Celotex  or  Reflectex  insulation  was
   acceptable;  she  also  said that  Mylar  bubble  type insulation
   should  be used  in areas  where, due  to the  intrusion  of body
   parts,  foam insulation  could not  be used.   She  denied Rowe's
   request  for a ninety-day extension to the performance period and
   stated  that GSA  would be willing  to extend  the period  by ten
   days.   She also stated  that GSA would  consider a greater  time
   extension only if Rowe provided  some form of consideration.  She
   said that  Rowe and GSA in  Crystal City had concluded  that Rowe
   would  furnish the  striping.    She agreed  to  accept the  vans
   without arm rests  on the front seats  in exchange for a  $50 per
   van  credit  from  Rowe.   She  asked  Rowe to  let  her  know if
   additional performance time would be needed and, if so, to submit
   an offer  of consideration.  She also asked  Rowe to let her know
   what its intentions were concerning the arm rests.  Ex. 38. 
 
 
        Mr. Mould was at Rowe's plant on August 19.  Although he was
   not there for  an inspection of the  INS vans, he saw  an INS van
   with the striping  applied for the first time  during this visit.
   Ex. 40; T. 227.  Mr.  Mould was not happy with the appearance  of
   the stripe,  but Rowe had  applied the stripe in  accordance with
   the  contract s requirements and so Mr. Mould  did not reject it.
   T. 224, 1891-92.  Mr. Mould told Ms. Huddleston that the contract
   needed  to be  changed to lower  the placement of  the stripe, so
   that the words  on the stripe would be readable and so the stripe
   would look nicer.   Ex. 40; T. 228-29, 1894.   Mr. Mould observed
   during this visit that Rowe would not be  ready for an inspection
   of an INS van on August 20.  Ex. 40.
 
        On August 19, Mr.  Mould told Ms. Huddleston,  Ms. McIntosh,
   and  Mr.  Dellinger that he planned to visit Rowe during the week
   of August 26  to inspect Rowe's first production  vehicle, and he
   asked them whether they wanted to attend.  Ex. 40.  On August 21,
   Mr.  Mould  advised   Mr.  Dellinger,  Mr.  Globerman,   and  Ms.
   Huddleston that  he planned to be at Rowe's facility on August 28
   at approximately 9:30 in the morning.  Ex. 41. 
 
        On August 28, Ms. McIntosh  informed Ms. Huddleston that the
   contracting officer had  never approved the acquisition  of front
   seats without arm  rests.  The INS said that it would accept vans
   without arm rests only if  arm rests were not actually available.
   Ex. 43, 44.   Ms. McIntosh testified that she  asked Mr. Pickeral
   whether he had ever waived the arm rest requirement for Rowe, and
   that Mr. Pickeral told her that he had never said that Rowe could
   provide a van without arm rests.  T. 1323.  
 
        Mr. Mould's scheduled visit to Powhatan on August 28 did not
   occur.   In  an August 28  letter to  GSA's automotive  center in
   Crystal City,  Rowe  said that  this was  the third  time that  a
   meeting had been scheduled and then canceled.  Rowe said  that it
   needed clarifications  concerning outstanding issues and needed a
   contract modification concerning issues that had been resolved so
   that Rowe  could proceed.  Rowe said that it  had all of the vans
   and "much of the parts" on site.  Ex. 42.  Mr. Campbell testified
   that Rowe repeatedly  asked for meetings with  GSA officials, but
   GSA refused to meet with Rowe s representatives.  T. 847. 
 
 
        On August 30,  Ms. Huddleston responded to Rowe's  August 28
   letter.    Ms. Huddleston said  that  the  August  28  visit  was
   canceled because  Rowe did  not have  a first  production vehicle
   ready for  inspection.   Ms. Huddleston stated  that she  and Mr.
   Mould called  Rowe's facility at  8:00 and that Mr.  Mould called
   again at 8:45,  when he spoke with  Mr. Muncie.  Mr.  Muncie said
   that the van was not completed, and that Mr.  Campbell would call
   Mr. Mould to  tell him whether  there were any  open items.   Mr.
   Mould waited until 10:00 for  Mr. Campbell to call and,  when Mr.
   Mould did not  receive a call, he scheduled  another appointment.
   Mr. Mould's travel  time to visit Rowe's facility  was two hours,
   and  Ms. Huddleston explained  that if  a van  was not  ready for
   inspection, there  was no need to make  the trip.  Ms. Huddleston
   reminded Rowe that Mr.  Mould had visited Rowe on  July 11 (sic);
   on July 22,  Rowe said that its first production vehicle would be
   ready within ten days; on July 29, Rowe said that its vehicle was
   not ready  for inspection, and  on August 19, Mr. Mould  saw that
   the van  was not even  close to being completed.   Ms. Huddleston
   reminded Rowe that it  had never notified  GSA that it was  ready
   for inspection of  its first production  vehicle, as required  by
   the contract.  She  also referred Rowe to  her August 19  letter,
   which  said that  the  mesh  size and  Celotex  changes would  be
   incorporated into the  contract by modification, and  which asked
   Rowe  what  it wanted  to  do concerning  arm  rests  and a  time
   extension.  She reminded Rowe that it had never responded to this
   letter.   She  said that  the  only pending  issue concerned  the
   placement of  the stripes, and that  this had been raised  by Mr.
   Mould and  not by Rowe.  Ms. Huddleston  asked Rowe to respond by
   September 4 and  let her  know of  any issues that  had not  been
   addressed by GSA.  Ex. 46.  
 
        On September 3, 1996, Mr. Mould went to Rowe's plant and saw
   an Item 001 van.  Ex. 50; T. 310.  Rowe was  not completely ready
   to  submit  the   vehicle  for  inspection  at   that  time,  and
   documentation  to  substantiate  compliance   with  all  contract
   requirements  was not  available.   Also,  there  were some  open
   issues that Rowe  had not brought to Ms.  Huddleston's attention.
   Mr. Mould advised  Rowe to respond to Ms.  Huddleston's August 19
   and 30 letters, to let her know about all open items, and to give
   her a date when Rowe expected to have a  first production vehicle
   ready  for  inspection.    Rowe  asked Mr.  Mould  to  perform  a
   preliminary  inspection of  the van,  which  he did.   Mr.  Mould
   discussed several items with Rowe.  He noted that the front seats
   did not have arm rests.  The rear air conditioning evaporator did
   not  have  multiple outlet  ducts,  and  the  one duct  that  was
   provided  did not  have screening  that  was adequate  to prevent
   tampering.  The sliding  door opened approximately  three-fourths
   of its normal  opening distance, which was wider  than allowed by
   the contract.  The light that was mounted on the roof was 5-1/2 x
   3-1/8 inches and  the light  was not  adjustable.  Ex.  50.   Mr.
   Mould testified that  the light was not mounted  tightly, and the
   housing appeared to be cheap  plastic.  T. 311-12.   Mr. Campbell
   testified that Mr. Mould twisted  the light off the van.  T. 860,
   1146.   Mr. Mould said  that the light did not  come off the van.
   T. 311-12, 1927.  Mr. Mould asked Rowe  for documentation to show
   that  the housing was ABS  type plastic, because no documentation
   had been made available to him.   Ex. 50; T. 312.  The  partition
   mesh was spot welded to L-frame,  not pinned to channel frame  as
   required by the contract.  Rowe was to address these items in its
   response to  Ms. Huddleston.   Ex. 50.   During this  visit, Rowe
   agreed that  several other  items would be  resolved.   All rough
   edges  would  be filed  smooth.   Protective  coverings  would be
   mounted with a  sufficient number of rivets so  that people could
   not insert their fingers between adjoining pieces.  Documentation
   would be provided to show that the vans had the maximum available
   GVWR, the alternator  required by the contract,  and a twenty-one
   candle power lamp.  Installed switches would be labeled.  Ex. 50.
   Mr.  Campbell testified  that on  September 3,  Rowe had  one van
   ready to be inspected and another that could have been made ready
   in two hours.  T. 1235.  
 
 
        On September 4, Mr. Mould  and GSA in Crystal City discussed
   the concerns  that he  raised during his  September 3  visit   to
   Rowe's plant.  Rowe had already submitted a request for deviation
   concerning the arm rests.  Mr. Mould and GSA employees in Crystal
   City   decided  that   the   specifications  required   the  rear
   compartment to  have multiple  air conditioning  ducts, that  the
   sliding  door stop  should be  placed  to achieve  an opening  of
   between  twenty  and  twenty-four inches,  that  the  flood light
   required  by  the contract  should  be installed,  and  that mesh
   welded to L-frame would be acceptable  if it proved to be durable
   during inspection of the first production vehicle.  Ex. 50. 
 
        Also  on September  4,  Mr.  Mould, Rowe,  INS,  and GSA  in
   Crystal City discussed several items.  GSA was not happy with the
   roof  vent  cover  that  Rowe  proposed  to  use.   Mr. Globerman
   explained that most roof vents have  a collar around them to keep
   water on the roof of the van from flowing down into the vent, and
   they have a  fixed cover screwed  over the vent.   The roof  vent
   cover  that Rowe installed was designed to swing up, and it could
   be tampered with from outside the van.  T. 1412-13.  Also, it had
   a detachable  knob and it  had to  be opened and  closed manually
   from inside the passenger compartment.  Ex. 50. 
 
        Another topic of discussion on September 4 was the fact that
   Rowe was securing  the partition to the floor  with rivets, which
   was determined to be  unacceptable.  GSA told  Rowe to mount  the
   partition  with nuts  and  bolts  in areas  where  that could  be
   achieved, and  with screws  in other areas.   Also,  the contract
   specified the  installation  of  seat  belts.    Rowe's  van  had
   shoulder  harnesses,  which  could be  hazardous  considering the
   intended use of  the vans.  GSA in Crystal City agreed to discuss
   this with the  INS and let Rowe  know whether the INS  wanted the
   shoulder harnesses removed.  Ex. 50. 
 
        On  September 5,  Ms. Huddleston  called Mr.  Mould and  Mr.
   Campbell to talk about existing problems.  Mr. Campbell said that
   he would send a response to her earlier letters.  Ex. 51.  
 
        On September 6, Rowe responded to Ms. Huddleston's August 30
   letter.  Rowe said that  the specifications were defective.  Rowe
   also  said  that  a  stop   work  order  had  been  issued,  that
   constructive  changes had  been made,  and that  GSA had  made it
   impossible  for Rowe  to proceed  because GSA  would not  issue a
   contract  modification.   Rowe said  that it  would be  ready for
   inspection on the date that GSA issued a contract modification to
   address open items.  Regarding the arm rest issue, Rowe said that
   GSA prevailed  upon Ford  Motor Company to  provide vans  for the
   contract from Ford's last production run, and GSA knew that these
   vans would  not have arm  rests because it  received a copy  of a
   Ford  order sheet.  Rowe said that it would not give a $50 credit
   for the arm rest and would treat the disapproval of the extension
   of time as an acceleration.  Ex. 52.  The record does not contain
   a copy of a Ford order sheet.  
 
        On September 6, Ms. Huddleston asked Mr. Mould and employees
   at GSA's automotive  center in Crystal City to  comment on Rowe's
   September 6 letter.   Ms. Huddleston  was concerned because  Rowe
   was still contacting GSA in  Crystal City about the contract, and
   she asked that  no more discussions be held with  Rowe unless she
   or Mr. Mould was involved.  Ex 53.
 
        Mr.  Mould responded to Ms. Huddleston's September 6 request
   that   same   day.     He  reviewed   the  requirements   of  the
   specifications and  did not agree  that they were defective.   He
   said that  no stop  work order had  been issued.   Rowe  had said
   several  times that it would be  ready for inspection, but it had
   never had a completed van that was actually ready for inspection.
   On August  19, none of  the major components had  been installed.
   On September 3, Rowe  said that the van was  not completely ready
   for inspection,  but Mr. Mould  did a preliminary  inspection and
   noted a  number of problems.  Mr. Mould said that he did not know
   that the vans would not come equipped with arm rests, and that he
   noted this  discrepancy during his  initial visit after  vans had
   been delivered.   He noted that the  absence of arm  rests should
   not have prevented  Rowe from performing  other work required  by
   the contract.   In Mr. Mould's  view, Rowe  had not hired  enough
   additional  personnel  and  would  not be  able  to  complete the
   contract requirements in a timely  manner.  Mr. Mould agreed that
   some  discussions  and  clarifications were  needed  in  order to
   ensure that a satisfactory product  was delivered to the INS, but
   the specifications did not delay submission of a first production
   vehicle.   Ex. 54.
 
        Rowe  responded  to  Ms. Huddleston's  August  19  letter on
   September 6.   Rowe  said that the  contract and  delivery orders
   should be modified to state that power windows and locks were not
   required.  Rowe  took no exception to  what the August 19  letter
   said about the  mesh size.  Rowe  said that it took  exception to
   what the letter said about insulation, and that requiring a Mylar
   bubble type insulation  constituted an engineering change.   Rowe
   also said  that it was delayed  because GSA would not  accept the
   Celotex   insulation  even   though   the  insulation   met   the
   requirements of  FMVS Standard 302,  and that Rowe had  ordered a
   laboratory test to establish that the Celotex insulation complied
   with   the   standard.[foot #] 6      Rowe    said   that   GSA's
   refusal to extend the contract's performance period constituted a
   direction to accelerate.   Rowe said that it would start  using a
   second shift of workers to meet the delivery schedule.  Rowe also
   said that it still did not believe that the contract required  it
   to furnish striping.   Rowe said that it read the contract to say
   that multiple air  conditioning ducts were required in  the vans,
   and that  Rowe met  this requirement  by having  one duct  in the
   passenger  compartment in  addition  to  ducts  in  the  drivers'
   compartment.   Ex. 55.  As for the vent cover, Rowe said that its
   ventilator met the requirements of  the contract.  Rowe said that
   it expected a contract  modification concerning the width of  the
   sliding door opening.   Concerning the partition,  Rowe said that
   the method that it wanted to use to attach the partition had been
   approved for  use in other  contracts, and so  GSA would  need to
   modify the contract if it wanted to use some other method.   Rowe
   said that  pinning 1-1/4 inch mesh  to a channel  frame would not
   work, and that was why it elected to weld the mesh to angle iron.
   Rowe said that GSA would have  to issue a modification telling it
   what to  do regarding  fabrication  of the  partition.   Finally,
   regarding  the striping,  Rowe said  that GSA  needed to  tell it
   where to place the stripes.  Ex. 55.  Mr. Campbell explained that
   the stripes could  be applied at any  time, while other  work was
   ongoing.  T. 1121.  
 
 
        Mr.  Campbell testified  that  Rowe  read  the  contract  to
   require  only  one  duct  in the  rear  compartment  because  the
   solicitation originally referred to a  Standard Item 34, a  cargo
   truck, which had  only one outlet in  the rear.  T.  872-73, 892.
   The  Standard   Item  24  vans   used  by  Rowe,   however,  were
   manufactured   by  Ford  with   multiple  outlets  in   the  rear
   compartment.   The ducts  were part of  the molded  plastic piece
   that comprised  the ceiling panel  in the rear compartment.   Ex.
   88; T. 267, 1392-95.  As part of Rowe's work on the vans, it  had
   to remove the  headliner, which removed all ducts  and outlets in
   the rear compartment.  Ex. 77, 88; T. 267, 942.  
 
        On  September 10, Mr. Pickeral, Ms. McIntosh, Mr. Globerman,
   Mr. Dellinger,  and Mr. Mould  met to discuss Rowe's  September 6
   letter.  They decided  that the contract was  clear and that  its
   requirements should be  met.  They noted that  Rowe had submitted
   three  requests  for deviation  to  the contract's  requirements.
   One, dated May 24,  was granted on June  19.  The July 12  and 25
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 6 On September 4, the  manufacturer of Celotex told
   Rowe that its  insulation met the  requirements of FMVS  Standard
   302.  Ex. 511.  
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   requests were  evaluated and,  as explained  in Ms.  Huddleston's
   August  19 letter to Rowe, some of  the requests were granted and
   others were not.   The only open item at that point concerned arm
   rests, and Rowe  waited until September 6 to  address that issue.
   The  Government personnel noted that  Rowe did not take exception
   to that requirement  before award.  They decided  that they would
   consider an  alternative means  of fabricating  the partition  if
   Rowe made a request for deviation from the contract requirements.
   They also recommended that the administrative contracting officer
   modify the contract to say that power windows and  locks were not
   needed and to state the correct mesh size.  Ex. 57.
 
 
        On  September  16, Mr.  Mould  told  Mr.  Dellinger that  he
   planned to  visit Rowe's plant  on September  19.  He  noted that
   there  were   problems  concerning   the  roof  ventilator,   air
   conditioning,  partition, flood light, and striping, and he hoped
   that  if Mr.  Dellinger  visited  the plant  with  him, it  would
   expedite decisions concerning these  items.  He also stated  that
   it appeared that Rowe would  have difficulty meeting the delivery
   schedule.  Ex. 58.  
 
        Also on  September 16, Rowe  wrote to Ms. Huddleston.   Rowe
   stated that it had expected  her to convene a conference  call to
   try to resolve outstanding issues, but that no call had occurred.
   Rowe said that  the stop work order in place  plus GSA's "failure
   to achieve  a  final resolve"  had forced  Rowe to  lay off  some
   workers.  Rowe also gave "final notice" that the first production
   vehicle  was ready for  inspection.  Ex.  59.  The  next day, Ms.
   Huddleston spoke with Rowe about its letter.  She explained that,
   in  lieu  of a  conference  call,  she  was preparing  a  written
   response to Rowe concerning outstanding issues.  They agreed that
   a  September 19 inspection would  be conducted.  Ms. Huddleston's
   record of this telephone conversation states that Rowe offered to
   supply  the  vent cover  that  GSA  wanted  in exchange  for  GSA
   accepting seats without arm rests.  Ex. 60.  
 
        Rowe  wrote  a letter  to  Ms.  Huddleston on  September  17
   following their discussion, and stated that it would accept a $50
   per van  deduction to  the contract  price  for the  lack of  arm
   rests, and  a $50  per van  increase to  the  contract price  for
   supplying  a  different  roof  vent  cover.   Rowe  also  sent  a
   suggestion  for  where to  apply  the  striping.   Ex.  61.   Mr.
   Campbell explained  that Rowe had  gone to the company  that made
   the stripes and asked it to superimpose the striping pattern onto
   a  Ford  van.   T.  999.    On September  18,  Mr.  Campbell, Ms.
   Huddleston, and Mr. Dellinger spoke regarding Rowe's September 17
   letter.  Mr. Dellinger  said that he would ask the  INS if Rowe's
   planned  vent cover and striping placement  were acceptable.  Ex.
   63.  Also on September 18, Rowe wrote to Ms. Huddleston and asked
   for  a  clarification  regarding the  requirement  for  "ABS type
   plastic housing" for the flood lights.   Rowe stated that it  had
   agreed to change the light to one that was more acceptable to Mr.
   Mould, and set out the specific model  that it proposed to use, a
   Signal Stat model 512WD.  Ex. 64.
 
        On  September  19,  Ms.   Huddleston  responded  to   Rowe's
   September 6 letters.  She mentioned that on Mr. Mould's August 19
   and September 3 visits to Rowe's facility, no vans were ready for
   inspection.   She stated that the allegations concerning canceled
   meetings  were unfounded, as no  meetings had been scheduled with
   anyone other  than Mr.  Mould.   Ms. Huddleston pointed  out that
   Rowe  had provided an  Item 001  van for  preliminary inspection,
   that no components  or options had been installed on  an Item 002
   van, and  that documentation  was not  available to  substantiate
   compliance with  all contract  requirements.   She reminded  Rowe
   that her  August 19  letter stated that  a modification  would be
   issued  concerning four  items, and  that  she had  waited for  a
   response from Rowe regarding other issues.  Ex. 67.  
 
        In her September 19 letter,  Ms. Huddleston addressed all of
   the  open  items  identified  by  Rowe.    She  stated  that  the
   specifications  were  not  defective  and  she  summarized  GSA's
   responses to Rowe's requests for deviation.  She pointed out that
   as of August 19, the only open item concerned arm rests, and that
   Rowe did  not provide  a response about  this until  September 6.
   She said that because Rowe took exception to her August 19 letter
   regarding  insulation, Rowe's  request  for deviation  concerning
   insulation was denied and that the insulation would have to be in
   accordance with the contract's requirements.  Ms. Huddleston said
   that GSA would  agree to extend the delivery  schedule by thirty-
   eight days,  the time  between Rowe's July  12 request  and GSA's
   August   19  reply.    Ms.  Huddleston  repeated  the  contract's
   requirement that the sliding door  open not more than one-half of
   its  normal opening  distance.    She told  Rowe  that GSA  would
   consider  an alternate to  the partition fabrication  required by
   the  contract  if Rowe  asked  for a  deviation.   She  said that
   striping placement would be evaluated during the first production
   vehicle inspection.  Ex. 67.  
    
        GSA modified  the contract on September 19,  1996, to delete
   the requirement for power windows and locks for five vans, and to
   say that the mesh should be 1 to 1 and 1/4 inches on center.  The
   modification also extended the shipping  date for all of the vans
   required by the contract to November 26, 1996.  Ex. 69. 
 
        On September 19,  Mr. Mould arrived at Rowe's  plant for the
   scheduled  inspection,  and  Rowe  said  that  it  would  not  be
   submitting   any  vans  for   inspection.    After   a  telephone
   conversation among Mr.  Mould, Mr. Campbell, and  Ms. Huddleston,
   Rowe agreed to the inspection.  An Item 002 van was not available
   for inspection,  because it needed  to have all  major components
   installed.  Mr. Campbell said that an Item 002 van would be ready
   at the end of  the next week.  Ex. 70, 72.  Mr. Mould recommended
   to Ms.  Huddleston that GSA accept the  striping for the Item 002
   vans proposed by Rowe  in its September 17 letter.   Ex. 72.  Mr.
   Campbell testified that Rowe did not want to make a van available
   for inspection because the van  would have failed the  inspection
   because GSA  had not  modified  the contract  to address  changes
   imposed by  GSA, such  as the requirement  for an  arm rest.   T.
   1237-39. 
 
 
        Rowe submitted an Item 001 van for first article inspection,
   and Mr. Mould  rejected that van  for several reasons.   Ex.  72.
   First, the label on the van said that the vehicle's GVWR was 9300
   pounds, but  there was  no documentation  to substantiate  either
   that this was the maximum available  GVWR or whether the "one up"
   spring  option was  available.   Second,  Rowe  had attempted  to
   install after-market  arm rests on  the drivers' seats,  but they
   were not attached in a satisfactory manner.  Third, the rear  air
   conditioner evaporator was  located in the rear  compartment, but
   all ducts and outlets had been removed.  Fourth, the van  had the
   spare  tire assembly  placed under  the vehicle,  but it  did not
   appear to have a locking device as required by the contract.  Ex.
   72.  Mr.  Mould asked a  Rowe employee where  the locking  device
   was, and the employee  said that he was not aware  of any locking
   device.  T. 303-04.   Fifth, there were some workmanship problems
   with the van.  The floor covering was not properly secured.  Rowe
   advised Mr. Mould that it would move the partition forward, which
   would eliminate  the problem with  the floor  covering and  which
   would  also decrease  the space  between the  rear and  the front
   compartments near the  assistant driver's seat.  The Lexan shield
   had  not been attached with tamper proof  bolts, as had all other
   items.  The jack handle  was loosely attached to unfinished rough
   blocks of  wood,  and the  rivets  on the  side panels  were  not
   uniform and even.   Mr. Mould  noted that Rowe had  relocated the
   sliding door  stop to correct the size of  the door opening.  Ex.
   72. 
 
        Mr. Mould also rejected the van due to its partition and its
   roof light.  He considered these to be the two major open issues,
   and  he advised  Rowe  to  write to  Ms.  Huddleston about  them.
   Instead of pinning  the partition to a one-inch  channel frame as
   required by the  contract, Rowe had spot welded  the partition to
   one-inch L-frame.   The distance  between the spot welds  was not
   uniform, so there  was no assurance of  consistent durability and
   strength.   Mr. Mould thought that Rowe's partition configuration
   was an acceptable  alternative to the contract's  requirement and
   recommended that  Ms. Huddleston approve Rowe's  configuration if
   Rowe asked for  approval, provided that Rowe could  show that the
   partitions would be fabricated consistently, and that the maximum
   distance between spot welds was four inches.  Ex. 72.  As for the
   roof light, the van that Mr. Mould inspected had a fog light, and
   not a flood light as required  by the contract.  Also, there  was
   no evidence that the light had an ABS type plastic housing.   Ex.
   72; T. 308.   In  addition, the  light was three  inches by  five
   inches.   Ex. 77.  The light was  the same light that had been on
   the van on September 3.  T. 1885.  
 
        Mr. Dellinger spoke with Mr.  Campbell and they identified a
   light  that appeared to  meet the  requirements of  the contract.
   The light was  a Signal Stat model  629WD, which is described  in
   the manufacturer's literature as being four inches by six inches.
   Ex. 71,  501.   In Mr. Dellinger's  view, a  light that  is three
   inches by  five inches  is not approximately  four inches  by six
   inches.  He  pointed out that the smaller light is more than one-
   fourth  smaller than the  larger light.   T.  783-84.   Mr. Mould
   thought that  the  model  that Mr.  Dellinger  and  Mr.  Campbell
   identified appeared to  comply with the  contract's requirements,
   and  Rowe said  that it  would  look into  obtaining that  light.
   Because Rowe had a request pending to use a different Signal Stat
   light, Rowe was to let Ms. Huddleston  know when it decided which
   light to offer.  Ex. 71, 72, 77. 
 
 
        Mr. Mould provided a copy  of his inspection report to Rowe,
   and Rowe sent a letter to Mr. Mould on September 23 responding to
   the report.  Rowe  said that it did  not realize that it had  not
   provided  Mr. Mould with  information concerning the  van's GVWR,
   and  also said  that it  was  attaching that  information to  its
   September 23 letter.  The letter as it appears in the record does
   not  have an  attachment.    Rowe  said  that  it  unsuccessfully
   attempted to  install an  after-market arm  rest on  the drivers'
   seats  because  it did  not receive  a modification  deleting the
   requirement for arm rests before the September 19 inspection took
   place.[foot #] 7    Rowe   stated  that  it  did  not   read  the
   contract  to   require  multiple   outlet  ducts   in  the   rear
   compartment,  and it asked  for a contracting  officer's decision
   concerning this  issue.  Rowe said  that pinning the mesh  to the
   channel frame did not provide "the most secure unit available for
   the cost."  Rowe said that it built  both a partition as required
   by  the contract and a partition with the mesh welded to L-frame,
   and found that  the latter  method of  fabrication was  superior.
   Rowe said that  it needed to know which method GSA wanted to use.
   Concerning the locking device for  the spare tire, Rowe said that
   Ford  did  not   make  a  locking   device,  but  Ford's   design
   "incorporates the function of  a lock."   Rowe also said that  it
   would provide a "separate device."   Rowe said that the  light it
   offered met the  contract's requirement for  an ABS type  plastic
   housing.  Concerning the workmanship problems noted by Mr. Mould,
   Rowe said  that it would remove an extra  piece of carpet that it
   had installed in the van;  that it believed its mounting hardware
   was sufficient; that  the wood blocks would be  removed; and that
   it would attempt  to place rivets uniformly.   Finally, Rowe said
   that it remained  in "limbo" due to  open items that had  not yet
   been addressed by a contract modification.  Ex. 73. 
 
        Mr. Mould stated in his inspection report that Rowe  advised
   him that the partition would  be moved up closer to  the drivers'
   seats in order to eliminate a problem with the floor covering and
   to make it more difficult  for passengers in the rear compartment
   to have  access to the assistant driver's seat.   Ex. 72.  In its
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 7 Despite this  statement  in  Rowe's  letter,  Mr.
   Campbell testified that there is no such thing as an after-market
   arm rest, and that Rowe hired a company to fabricate the arm rest
   that Rowe attempted to install.  T. 1131-33. 
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   September 23 response to Mr. Mould's inspection report, Rowe said
   that it  initially installed the  partition so that it  would not
   interfere with  movement of the  seats, but  suggested that  "the
   unit" be  moved  forward by  1.5  inches.   Rowe  said  that  its
   "design"  was rejected,  and  that  it was  ordered  to move  the
   partition toward the back of the van.  Rowe then stated, "The new
   request  is now  to move  the  partition forward  of the  initial
   contractor selected  position, which  is forward  of the  current
   position by approximately 4.5 inches."   Rowe said that Mr. Mould
   had also asked Rowe to add a section to the partition by the door
   track on the driver's  side.  Rowe said that it  would modify the
   partition and ask for a modification concerning the  placement of
   the partition.  Ex. 73. 
 
 
        When  Mr.  Mould received  a  copy  of Rowe's  September  23
   response to the inspection report, he did not believe that all of
   the statements  made in the response were  complete and accurate,
   and so he called Mr. Campbell.   Mr. Campbell said that only  Mr.
   Mould had received  the September 23 letter.   Mr. Campbell asked
   that the letter be rescinded,  and said that another letter would
   be sent to Ms. Huddleston on September 25.  Mr. Mould advised Mr.
   Campbell to  address open  issues and to  include any  corrective
   actions that Rowe had taken.  Ex. 74. 
 
        Rowe sent  a letter  to Ms. Huddleston  on September  25, in
   response  to  Mr.  Mould's  inspection  report.    The  letter is
   different  from Rowe's September  23 letter in  several respects.
   Rowe said that it  was being asked to move  the partition forward
   by 3.5 inches, and not 4.5 inches.  As for the spare tire locking
   device, Rowe said that it would  provide a device attached to the
   left rear  door which would  restrict access to the  Ford system,
   and that the operator would require the key to the van to use the
   mechanism that lowered the spare tire.  Ex. 75.  Although  Rowe's
   September 23 letter did not  specify a model number for  the roof
   light that it wanted to use, Rowe's September 25 letter said that
   Rowe wanted  to use a  model 612WD,  which is different  from the
   model   that  Mr.  Dellinger  and  Mr.  Campbell  had  previously
   identified as meeting  the contract's requirements, and  which is
   described in the manufacturer's literature as being a  three inch
   by five inch fog light.  Ex. 75, 501. Rowe's letter enclosed some
   information concerning the GVWR of the vehicle.  Ex. 75.   
 
        On September 26, at the request of Ms. Huddleston, Mr. Mould
   provided  comments  on Rowe's  September  25 letter.    Mr. Mould
   explained that labels  on the vans said  that they had a  GVWR of
   9300  pounds.   During Mr.  Mould's September  3 visit  to Rowe's
   plant, Rowe provided him with a  1995 Ford brochure said that the
   maximum  available GVWR  was 9400  pounds.   Mr. Mould  still had
   nothing to show what the maximum available GVWR was for  the 1996
   model year  vans that Rowe  acquired for the  INS contract.   Mr.
   Mould said that on September 19,  he told Rowe that he would  not
   reject the  vans for lacking arm  rests because he knew  that GSA
   was evaluating  Rowe's request for a deviation  from the contract
   requirement.  Rowe then installed after-market arm rests, but did
   not do so in a satisfactory manner.  Mr. Mould continued  to read
   the contract to say that  multiple outlet ducts were required for
   air conditioning in  the rear compartment of the van.  Ex. 77; T.
   1873.  He did not understand Rowe's explanation of the spare tire
   locking  device at  that time,  but  he testified  that he  later
   understood the explanation  and the locking device  was no longer
   an issue.   Concerning the mounting of the jack handle, Mr. Mould
   said that the problem  was that it was not mounted  securely.  As
   for rivet  placement, Mr.  Mould said that  the problem  was that
   some had been installed with their heads hanging over the edge of
   the aluminum panel, which reduced the strength of the attachment;
   Rowe said that it had taken steps  to correct this problem.   Ex.
   77, T. 306-07.
 
 
        Mr.  Mould's   September  26  comments  also  addressed  the
   fabrication  of the  partition.    He stated  that  Rowe had  not
   formally presented its alternative method of fabrication until it
   submitted its first production  article for inspection.  He  said
   that Rowe had never presented  him with a partition fabricated as
   required  by  the   contract,  and  had  not   substantiated  its
   conclusion  that welding  the  mesh to  L-frame  was better  than
   pinning  it to channel  frame.  He  also said that  the partition
   that he was shown on September 19 had weak areas  due to the fact
   that welds were  not evenly spaced.  Also, even though Rowe had a
   sketch that  showed that the welds  were to be placed  every four
   inches, it proposed to place  them every five inches.  Mr.  Mould
   acknowledged that  the contract did  not require Rowe to  use any
   particular type of  mounting hardware to secure the  Lexan to the
   partition, but it  did require the Lexan to be mounted forward of
   the  partition.   Ex.  77.   Mr. Mould  testified  that he  never
   rejected Rowe's partition design.  T. 298-300.  
 
        Also  on September  26, Mr.  Mould  said that  he had  never
   rejected the partition location.  He explained that a van with an
   installed partition was  not even available for him  to see until
   September 3,  and that he  could not  verify the adequacy  of the
   placement of the partition until  September 19, when he conducted
   his inspection of  the first  production vehicle.   He  explained
   that  Rowe  decided  to place  the  partition  approximately four
   inches  into  the  passenger compartment,  and  that  this caused
   problems with the sliding door hardware and also left a gap which
   a passenger could  reach through and possibly  grab the assistant
   driver.    This would,  of  course,  defeat  the purpose  of  the
   partition.  Mr. Mould said  that this problem could be eliminated
   by moving  the partition forward.   Ex. 77.   Mr. Mould testified
   that  the contract did not specify where  the partition had to be
   installed, so there was no need  to change the contract to permit
   a change to the partition location.   T. 298.  He also  testified
   that  he never rejected  the partition because  of its placement.
   T. 318.  Mr.  Muncie testified that Mr. Mould  was concerned that
   the partition had to be placed  so that the passengers could  not
   reach  the drivers.   He said that  Mr. Mould told  Rowe that the
   partition  would  have   to  be  moved  in  order   to  meet  the
   requirements of  the contract,  but Mr. Mould  did not  tell Rowe
   where to locate the partition.   T. 1544-46, 1628-29.   Mr. Mould
   testified that  he never ordered  Rowe to move the  partition and
   that he did not know of  any other GSA employee ordering Rowe  to
   move  the partition.    T.  1910.   Mr.  Campbell testified  that
   Mr. Mould required Rowe to move the partition numerous times.  T.
   1178-82.
 
 
        On  September  26,  Mr. Campbell  called  Ms.  Huddleston to
   discuss the  seat belt/shoulder harness issue.  Mr. Campbell said
   that one of his workers found a way for Rowe to attach both belts
   to the  floor instead of to the roof, and that Rowe could do this
   at  no cost  because Rowe would  have to detach  and reattach the
   belts in any event.  Ms. Huddleston asked Mr. Campbell why he had
   not raised this issue months earlier,  and told him to submit his
   request in  writing and to  include any effect this  change would
   have  on Rowe's "liability with Ford."  Ex. 78.   At the hearing,
   Mr. Campbell testified that Rowe moved the seat belt  attachments
   at GSA's direction.  T. 909-10, 943-44.  
 
        On September 27,  Ms. Huddleston  and Mr.  Mould called  Mr.
   Campbell to  confirm that Mr.  Mould would be at  Rowe's plant on
   September 30 to  inspect Item 002.   Ex. 79, 86.   They discussed
   the forthcoming modification  that would address arm  rests, vent
   covers, and  striping.   They also  talked about  the requirement
   that the flood light have an ABS type plastic housing.   Rowe was
   going  to submit a  letter asking  to allow  it to  fabricate the
   partition by spot welding the mesh to an L-frame, and  this would
   be addressed in a modification.  They also discussed the need for
   Rowe to maintain a standard vehicle  for each item until the  end
   of the contract.  Ex. 79.  Also on September 27, Rowe asked to be
   allowed  to  weld the  mesh to  an L-frame,  with the  welds four
   inches apart.  Ex. 80.  
 
        On September 30, 1996, GSA  modified the contract to  delete
   the requirement for an  arm rest in exchange for Rowe providing a
   specified vent cover, to provide striping on the Item 002 vans in
   accordance with Rowe's September 17 letter, and to permit Rowe to
   spot weld the  partition mesh to  L-frame with a maximum  of four
   inches between  welds, instead of  pinning the mesh to  a channel
   frame.   Ex. 82.   Also  on September 30, Ms. Huddleston wrote to
   Rowe  concerning the  roof lights.   She  said that  an ABS  type
   plastic  would be strong,  long-wearing, and resistant  to stains
   and chemicals.   She also  reminded Rowe that a  flood light, and
   not a fog light, was required.  Ex. 81. 
 
        Mr. Campbell explained  that Rowe could not  put a completed
   van together without  the modification concerning the  vent cover
   because the  cover had to  be installed before the  interior head
   liner was  installed, unless  the vent cover  was installed  with
   cutting  screws.  Mr. Campbell did  not think that Rowe's workers
   used cutting screws to install the vent cover.  T. 1086, 1098-99.
   Mr. Globerman explained how the vent cover that Rowe supplied was
   supposed to be  attached to the  van.  He  concluded that if  the
   vent itself was properly installed,  there would be no reason for
   anyone to  have to do anything inside the  van in order to attach
   the vent cover.   T. 1415-16.  Mr. Muncie also  explained how the
   vent cover  was attached, and  testified that the cover  could be
   installed  even if  the interior  of the  van had  been installed
   previously.  T. 1581-82.  Mr. Mould did not believe that Rowe had
   to go inside  the vans in order  to install the vent covers.   T.
   1879.  
 
 
        On  September 30,  Mr. Mould  arrived at Rowe's  facility to
   conduct  an inspection of  an Item 002  van, but the  van was not
   ready  for  inspection.   The  partition,  seats,  seat brackets,
   ventilator cover, and other items  had not been installed, and it
   appeared to Mr. Mould that there was at least a full  day's worth
   of work that needed  to be done to  the van.  Mr. Mould  saw that
   Rowe had installed rear air conditioner ducts and outlets, and it
   appeared to  him that  they were acceptable.   Mr.  Mould advised
   Rowe  to  tell Ms.  Huddleston  that  it  would comply  with  the
   contract  requirement  by  providing  these  ducts  and  outlets.
   During this visit,  Mr. Mould noticed that Rowe  had several vans
   with several  different configurations  of installed  components.
   He told Rowe to finalize two  vans and use them as standards  for
   all of  the other vans that it would  produce.  Rowe said that it
   might relocate the seat belt/shoulder harness so that it would be
   mounted on the  floor.  Mr. Mould  advised Rowe that if  it moved
   the seat belt/shoulder harness mount, it needed to make sure that
   the mounting met FMVS standards.  Ex. 86.  
 
        On  September  30,   Ms.  Huddleston  responded  to   Rowe's
   September  25 letter concerning Mr. Mould's reasons for rejecting
   Rowe's first  production  vehicle.    First, she  said  that  the
   enclosure to  Rowe's letter did  not establish that the  vans had
   the maximum  GVWR available.   She recounted that the  1996 model
   year vans had a GVWR of  9300 pounds, and that Rowe had  provided
   Mr. Mould with information to show that a 1995 model year van had
   a maximum available  GVWR of 9400 pounds.   Second, she explained
   why Rowe's  attempt to install  an after-market arm rest  had not
   been acceptable, but stated that  the requirement for an arm rest
   had since been  deleted by modification.   Third, Ms.  Huddleston
   said that  she would  issue a decision  concerning the  number of
   outlet  ducts  required   in  the  rear  compartment.     Fourth,
   concerning fabrication  of the  partition, she  stated that  Rowe
   formally presented its proposal to Mr. Mould on September 19, and
   on September  27 asked GSA to approve welding  the mesh to the L-
   frame.   GSA  approved this fabrication  method on  September 30.
   Ex. 83.  
 
        Ms.  Huddleston's September 30 letter to Rowe also addressed
   partition  requirements.   She  said that  GSA's records  did not
   substantiate  Rowe's claim that GSA either rejected Rowe's design
   or ordered Rowe  to move the partition.   She pointed out  that a
   van  with a  partition installed  was not  even available  to GSA
   until  September 3, and  formal verification of  the placement of
   the partition  did not occur  until September 19.   She recounted
   the problems  that arose with  the sliding door hardware  and the
   gap in the partition, and stated that the contract's requirements
   were  clear  regarding the  partition.   She  stated  that Rowe's
   position concerning  the locking device  for the  spare tire  was
   unclear  and  contradictory.    Regarding  the  roof  light,  she
   recalled that  Rowe had installed a fog  light instead of a flood
   light.   Rowe proposed using  another light which  was also a fog
   light and,  while  that proposal  was pending,  proposed using  a
   light  that  appeared  to   meet  the  contract's   requirements.
   Regarding the  carpeting, Ms. Huddleston pointed out that if Rowe
   moved  the partition  forward,  this  issue  would  be  resolved.
   Finally, she discussed the  problems with attaching the  Lexan to
   the  partition, the  installation  of the  jack handles,  and the
   problems with rivet placement.  Ex. 83.
 
 
        In her September  30 letter, Ms. Huddleston  told Rowe that,
   in  accordance with the  requirements of the  contract, it should
   notify  her  in  writing  when   Item  001  would  be  ready  for
   reinspection  and when  Item 002  would be ready  for inspection.
   Ex.  83.  Rowe  told Mr. Mould on  September 30 that  it would be
   ready for inspection  of Items  001 and  002 on October  3.   Mr.
   Mould asked Rowe to provide a notification that it  was ready for
   inspection when the vans were actually completed.  Ex. 91.  
 
        On September 30, Rowe wrote to Ms. Huddleston concerning the
   multiple  outlet  duct  issue.    Rowe  said  that  the  contract
   "requires rear evaporator with multiple outlet ducts in the  rear
   vehicle  compartment."   Rowe went  on to  describe how  it would
   comply  with this requirement.  Ex. 85.  Ms. Huddleston said that
   she had forwarded Rowe's proposed method  for complying with this
   contract  requirement  to  Mr. Mould  for  evaluation  during his
   inspection of the first production vehicles.  Ex. 88. 
 
        On October 2, Rowe sent  Ms. Huddleston a weight analysis of
   the type of van  that it was using for  the contract.  Rowe  said
   that Mr. Mould  had asked  for this  analysis.  Ex.  89; T.  893.
   According to Mr.  Mould, he did not ask for this information.  He
   explained  that  during his  September  30  visit to  Rowe,  Rowe
   provided him with  this weight analysis and he  explained to Rowe
   the contract required  Rowe to weigh one of its vans.  The weight
   analysis did not establish that  Rowe had actually weighed a van.
   Mr. Mould intended  to follow up on this issue  when he conducted
   his  next inspection.  Ex. 93; T. 249.  At some point in October,
   Rowe provided  Mr. Mould with  the information that he  needed to
   determine that Rowe's  vans met the contract's  GVWR requirement.
   T. 243-44, 252, 265.
 
        Also on October  2, Mr. Mould spoke with  Mr. Campbell about
   scheduling a visit regarding another  contract.  In the course of
   that conversation,  Mr. Campbell  said that he  thought that  the
   first production vehicles for the  INS contract would be ready on
   October  3.   Mr. Mould  asked Mr.  Campbell to check  the actual
   status  of the vehicles  with Rowe's quality  control manager and
   then call Mr. Mould by the end of the day.   Mr. Campbell did not
   call  Mr. Mould.    Mr. Mould  telephoned  Rowe on  October 3  at
   approximately 10:30 in the morning, and asked about the status of
   the  first production  vehicles.   Rowe  said that  Item 002  was
   completed and Item  001 would be completed by the end of the day.
   Mr.  Mould said  that  he  would be  there  concerning the  other
   contract on October 8, and that he  would inspect the INS vans on
   that date.  Ex. 91.  
 
 
        On October 3, Alice E. Ross wrote to Rowe and explained that
   she had replaced Ms. Huddleston as the administrative contracting
   officer.   In her letter, Ms.  Ross said that she understood that
   Rowe was not ready to  have a first production vehicle inspected,
   but would  be ready  on October 8.   She also  said that  she was
   concerned  that the  delay  would  affect  the  revised  delivery
   schedule for the vans.  She asked Rowe to contact her immediately
   if it  anticipated any delay.   Ex. 90.   Rowe responded  to this
   letter on October  4, stating that it  had two Item 002  vans and
   three  Item 001  vans completed, and  that Rowe  was "comfortable
   with the  vehicle as it has evolved."   Rowe did not  say that it
   anticipated a delay.  Ex. 92.  
 
        On October 8, Mr. Mould  went to Rowe's facility in Powhatan
   to inspect  Items 001 and 002.  He first  looked at Item 001.  He
   saw right away that one front seat had an arm  rest and the other
   did not.   In addition, there were  no records to show  when Rowe
   had  corrected the deficiencies  that Mr. Mould  had noted during
   his first inspection of this same van.   Rowe also said that Item
   001 did  not represent its  intended vehicle configuration.   Mr.
   Mould explained  that the  purpose of  having a  first production
   vehicle  was to  establish a  standard that  all of  the vehicles
   would meet.  Rowe withdrew Item 001 from inspection.  Ex. 94.
 
        Mr. Mould inspected the Item 002 van that Rowe had available
   on October  8.   He saw that  there were  substantial differences
   between the  Item 001 van and the Item  002 van.  Mr. Mould noted
   several defects in  the Item  002 van that  he inspected, and  he
   discussed these with Rowe.  Rowe advised him that the van was not
   representative of Rowe's final product, and that it was currently
   initiating other design changes while working on another vehicle.
   Mr. Mould  explained the purpose  of a first  production vehicle.
   Rowe said that  it expected to be  ready for inspection  again on
   October 15.  Mr. Mould  told Rowe to provide  him and Ms. Ross  a
   written  confirmation that the  vans were completed  and actually
   ready for inspection.  Ex. 94.
 
        Among the defects that Mr.  Mould noted on the Item  002 van
   on October 8  were the following:   The partition did not  have a
   side mounting.  No information was available to substantiate that
   the  jack complied  with  the contract's  requirements.   The gap
   between  the  Lexan  panel  and  the van  was  greater  than  the
   tolerance  permitted by  the contract.    Rowe did  not have  the
   required  operator, service, and  parts manuals.   The attachment
   for the front seat belt harness had been moved so that it  was in
   the drivers' compartment, and there was no documentation to  show
   that this complied with FMVS Standards 208, 209, and 210.  All of
   the rustproofing required by the  contract was not done.   So far
   as Mr. Mould knew,  the vehicle had not been weighed.   The seats
   in the  rear compartment were  mounted on their frames  with only
   two rivets  at the front  and two rivets on  the top, and  so the
   seats exhibited too much movement in the center.  Mr.  Mould sent
   a copy of his inspection report to the contracting officer and to
   Rowe.   Ex. 94.   Mr.  Campbell testified  that Mr. Mould  used a
   clipboard to pry up  the front of one seat, which  popped off one
   of  the rivets.    T. 861.    Mr. Mould  denied this.    T. 1927.
   Mr. Globerman explained  that because fiberglass is  flexible and
   these  seats are  several feet  long,  using only  two rivets  to
   secure the front of a seat would allow the seats to be vandalized
   and would not be acceptable.  T. 1486.  
 
 
        Mr. Mould  asked for  documentation that  Rowe was  using an
   approved seat attachment procedure that  met FMVS standards.   T.
   412.  Rowe provided  him with a sheet of paper  that contained an
   installation procedure for the seats, including using four rivets
   to attach  the seats  to the frames.   The  paper, which  did not
   contain  any company s  letterhead, contained a  handwritten note
   from an  employee of  C.E. White, the  company that  supplied the
   fiberglass  seats, who  said that  he agreed  with the  number of
   rivets, and that "typing errors"  were being corrected.  Ex. 513.
   Mr. Mould  had dealt with  C.E. White in  the past and  knew that
   company usually issued its certifications on company  letterhead.
   T. 1920.  Mr. Mould asked Rowe to provide a certification without
   errors, or  to identify the  errors in the certification  that it
   had in  hand.   T. 412.   Mr.  Campbell testified  that Rowe  had
   completed more than 100 seats by October 8, but had not installed
   all of the seats into the vans.  T. 1198-99. 
 
        During  his October  8  inspection,  Mr.  Mould  also  noted
   several workmanship  defects on  the Item 002  van.   Among these
   were rough and sharp edges on some of the components in  the rear
   compartment; an inoperable seat belt retraction device; walls and
   vent cover  not mounted flush;  one window cage was  not securely
   mounted; and the  main electrical wiring harness  on the driver's
   side of  the van was located behind  the partition where it would
   be  accessible to  the passengers.   Ex. 94.   Rowe  notified Mr.
   Mould  on October  9 that  it  was correcting  the defects  noted
   during his October 8 inspection, and that Items 001 and 002 would
   be ready for inspection on October 15.  Ex. 95.   
 
        On  October  11,  Rowe  provided  Ms.  Ross  with  a written
   response to  Mr. Mould's  inspection report.   Rowe said  that it
   would include side  mount brackets on all  of the vans.   It said
   that  documentation concerning the  jack was available  at Rowe's
   facility.  The partition had  been re-designed to comply with the
   tolerance set  out in  the contract.   Rowe would  prepare wiring
   diagrams for the  equipment that it  installed and would  provide
   these with parts  and service manuals.   Rowe said that  it would
   use eight rivets, instead of four, to secure the rear compartment
   seats  to  their frames.    It  said that  it  would  perform the
   rustproofing required  by the contract.   Rowe also said  that it
   had weighed  one of its vans on October  2, but had misplaced the
   weight  ticket  and  so  would  weigh another  van.    Concerning
   workmanship, Rowe  said that it  would correct  the problems  and
   would also take care to  ensure that its employees understood the
   need for  quality workmanship.  Rowe said  that it had designed a
   cover for the  part of the wiring harness that was exposed in the
   rear compartment,  and  that this  problem was  created when  the
   partition was moved.   Ex. 97.   Rowe did,  in fact, correct  the
   problem with the exposed wiring harness by installing a four-inch
   plate on the left side wall to contain the wires.   T. 416, 1969-
   70.  Rowe was correct that it had weighed a van on October 2; the
   van was  the Item 002 van  that Rowe presented  for inspection on
   October 8.  Ex. 94, 196.
 
 
        Rowe s October 11 letter also  addressed the front seat belt
   harness issue.  Regarding the  attachment for the front seat belt
   harness, Rowe  said that its original configuration  had the belt
   mounted to the Ford mount, with the "D" ring on the drivers' side
   of the partition.   Rowe said that "the  government ordered" Rowe
   to move the partition forward, and that  this resulted in the "O"
   ring being  in the rear  compartment.  The  Government "indicated
   that  this option was  not the best,"  so Rowe found  a seat belt
   manufacturer,  Kenidyne, that provided a kit that Rowe "certified
   as   meeting   the   necessary  safety   standard."      Ex.  97.
   Mr. Globerman explained  that, typically, the  partition would be
   constructed so that it would enclose the shoulder harness  anchor
   point, so that the passengers could neither damage the seat belts
   nor put  their hands through  to attack the driver  and assistant
   driver.  The anchor point could be boxed in or else the partition
   could be sloped to eliminate problems with exposed anchor points.
   T. 1468-69.
 
        Meanwhile, on October 10, Ms.  Ross sent Rowe a cure notice.
   The notice incorrectly stated that the contract required delivery
   within 150  days after receipt of an order.   Ms. Ross went on to
   say that  Rowe had failed  to make progress toward  providing GSA
   with an acceptable first production vehicle, and that unless this
   situation was cured  by October  21, GSA  might terminate  Rowe's
   right to  proceed with the  contract for  default, in  accordance
   with FAR 52.249-8.   Ex. 96.  This  FAR clause does not apply  to
   commercial item contracts, and was not a part of Rowe's contract.
 
 
        Rowe responded to the cure notice on October 15.  Rowe  said
   that the contract specifications were more suited for a Dodge van
   than for  a Ford van.  Rowe explained  that Dodge vans are shaped
   more like  a rectangle,  and Ford  vans are  shaped more  like an
   oval.   This  difference  in shape  affected,  for instance,  the
   amount of  work required to  move the partition back  or forward.
   Ex  99.    Mr.  Campbell   testified  at  the  hearing  that  the
   specifications  were  flawed  because  they  were  based  upon  a
   Chrysler van, and not  a Ford van.  T. 847.   He pointed out that
   there are a  number of differences between  the vans made by  the
   two manufacturers.  But,  despite the differences, Rowe was  able
   to  use a  Ford van to  satisfy the contract  specifications.  T.
   986-99.    Mr. Globerman testified  that the specifications  were
   not based upon a Chrysler van, and that the shape of a particular
   van did not render the specifications defective.  T. 1387-90.  In
   fact,  the specifications  were written  to require  a  GVWR that
   would exclude  a Chrysler  van from being  used on  the contract.
   Ex. 2; T. 1387-88, 1507.  
 
 
        In its response to  the cure notice, Rowe also said  that it
   had been ordered  to move the partition  "nine documented" times,
   which  had  caused  Rowe   to  have  to  build   seven  different
   partitions, because  as the partition  was moved up or  back, its
   size  and shape had  to be changed  due to the  oval shape of the
   van.  If the partition was moved,  other items inside the van had
   to move  also, which meant  fabricating new parts  and initiating
   new  installation  procedures.    Rowe  said  that  it  had  "six
   different  prototype submissions" because a one-inch shift in the
   position of  the partition  resulted in  the  "total redesign  of
   approximately 90% of the upfitted  parts."  Rowe said that, three
   months earlier, it  had asked GSA for a  fixed partition position
   approximately one inch forward of its initial position,  but that
   GSA  ordered Rowe  to move  the  partition back  by approximately
   three inches.   Now, Rowe said,  the partition was  approximately
   one inch  forward of where  Rowe had suggested placing  it, which
   meant a net of five inches of  movement in nine moves.  Rowe said
   that it had repeatedly asked someone from  GSA or the INS to come
   to the facility to  see the van or to allow Rowe to bring the van
   to the  agency.  Rowe  said that both agencies  scheduled visits,
   but  never  came.   Finally,  Rowe  alleged  that GSA  had  begun
   negotiations with Rowe s vehicle supplier  to build out a van for
   the  INS  van   contract.    Rowe  said  that   this  was  Rowe's
   "understanding,"  but did not provide  any facts to establish how
   it  had  reached  that  understanding.   Ex.  99.    Mr. Campbell
   testified  that a representative  of Powhatan Ford  told him that
   Mr. Mould had authorized  Powhatan Ford to  build  a truck.    T.
   863. 
 
        Mr.  Mould provided Ms. Ross with comments concerning Rowe's
   October 15 response to the cure notice.  Mr. Mould said that Rowe
   never "formally"  asked for  any meetings with  GSA and INS.   He
   also said that Rowe's allegation that it had been ordered to move
   the partition  nine times was  not true.   He said that  Rowe was
   never directed by the Government  to install the partition in any
   particular  location, and  that the  contract  permitted Rowe  to
   install  the partition  wherever  it wanted.    He recounted  his
   visits to Rowe's facility as follows.  On July 22, Rowe was still
   in the planning stage.  Rowe  advised Mr. Mould that its intended
   partition  location would  hinder mounting  the  jack behind  the
   driver's  seat, and  Mr. Mould  advised  Rowe that  the partition
   location  was Rowe's option, so long as it did not interfere with
   the driver's seat adjustment path.   Mr. Mould next evaluated the
   partition on September 19, for Item  001.  He noted a workmanship
   defect, which was  that a section of  the floor covering was  not
   secured  in front  of  the partition.    He also  noted that  the
   location of the  partition allowed a passenger to  reach into the
   front compartment  by the  assistant driver's   seat.   Rowe said
   that  it  would  move  the  partition  forward  to resolve  these
   problems.  When Mr. Mould went to Rowe's facility on September 30
   to inspect an Item 002 van, the  partition was not installed.  On
   October 8, Rowe did  not present an Item 001  van for inspection.
   Rowe  said that the  Item 002 van  that it had  available on that
   date did not represent its final configuration.  Ex. 105.  In the
   course of this  appeal, Rowe produced no  records of any kind  to
   show  that  GSA  directed  Rowe   to  move  the  partition  "nine
   documented" times, as  Rowe asserted in its response  to the cure
   notice. 
 
 
        On October 15,  Mr. Mould made a quality  assurance visit to
   Rowe's  facility and inspected  an Item 001  van and  an Item 002
   van.  Mr.  Mould informed Ms.  Ross that Rowe  had made  progress
   regarding  compliance  with specifications  and  workmanship, and
   that although deficiencies were noted during the inspection, Rowe
   either corrected them on the spot or began corrective work.  Rowe
   still needed to provide  information to show that  its fiberglass
   seat mounting  had been done  in an acceptable manner.   Ex. 100.
   Mr.  Mould  determined that  the  location  and  mounting of  the
   partition was adequate.  Ex. 105.  That same date, Mr. Mould sent
   Rowe a letter concerning his visit.  Mr. Mould stated that two of
   the  deficiencies he  identified  (seat  belt  mounting  for  the
   assistant driver  had been moved to the  drivers' compartment and
   the  mounting  was unacceptable;  allowing  passengers access  to
   wiring behind the driver's side  partition) were resolved by Rowe
   during his  visit.  During  his visit, Rowe began  correcting two
   other  deficiencies (seat  frames  in the  first  three rows  had
   exposed holes in  the rear of  the frame  which had sharp  edges;
   passenger   seat   attachments   were   not  tamper   resistant).
   Documentation  was  missing  for two  items  (inspection  records
   showed work done in June when it had been done in  October; there
   was no documentation concerning the fiberglass seat attachments).
    Ex. 101.   On October 15, Rowe  provided a flood light  that met
   the requirements of the contract and GSA accepted  the light.  T.
   315-16. 
 
        On   October  18,  Rowe  provided  Mr.  Mould  with  quality
   inspection  sign-off sheets, and notified  him that it would have
   two vans ready  for inspection on October  22, and two more  vans
   ready on October 25.   Ex. 102.  Rowe did  not say anything about
   the fiberglass seats, and the quality sign-off sheets did not say
   anything  about installing  tamper resistant  seat mechanisms  or
   covering  the rough exposed holes in the  rear of the seat frame.
   Mr. Mould called  Rowe on October 23 to speak  with Mr. Campbell,
   but he  was not available.  Ex. 107.   Mr. Mould told Mr. Jackson
   that  Rowe  needed to  provide  documentation  to  show that  the
   fiberglass seat attachment  was acceptable.  Ex. 104.   Mr. Mould
   said that he  intended to visit Rowe's facility on October 29 for
   an inspection, and Rowe said that it would possibly have eight to
   ten vans ready.   Ex. 107.   In Mr. Campbell's view,  Mr. Mould's
   concern about the exposed holes in the rear of the seat frame was
   an aesthetic concern because there  were other pieces of metal in
   the van with edges just as rough as those on the holes.  T. 1203-
   04.     Mr. Globerman   explained  that   Federal  Standard   307
   specifically states that one reason for rejection of a vehicle is
   rough, sharp, or unfinished edges.  T. 1494-95.  
 
 
        On  October 25, Rowe  sent Mr.  Mould information  from C.E.
   White concerning the attachment of the fiberglass seats to  their
   frames.  The cover sheet stated that the information consisted of
   amended  installation instructions.    The  instructions said  to
   install three  rivets across  the top of  the seat,  three rivets
   across the bottom of the seat, and  one rivet on each side of the
   seat,  for a total  of eight rivets.   Ex. 107,  192; T. 1919-27.
   Mr. Campbell testified that Rowe had to install additional rivets
   at Mr. Mould s insistence, and  that this delayed Rowe because it
   had to add  rivets to seats  that were otherwise  completed.   T.
   861-62.  Mr.  Mould testified that he  did not order Rowe  to use
   additional  rivets in  each  seat.   T.  413,  1927.   Mr. Muncie
   testified that  he was sure  that Rowe  made the decision  to add
   rivets when Mr. Mould  pointed out that the seat  was not secured
   to the frame.  T. 1552.  
 
        On October 29, Mr. Mould and Don Conklin from GSA in Atlanta
   went to Rowe's facility  in Powhatan.  The  purpose of the  visit
   was  to  perform  a  final  evaluation  of the  first  production
   vehicles and to evaluate Rowe's intended quality controls for the
   remainder of the  vans to be produced.   Ex. 106.   They reviewed
   and  discussed  inspection documentation  with Mr.  Campbell, Mr.
   Muncie, and Mr. Jackson.  They agreed that the inspection records
   would  show  that  all  of  the  vans'  characteristics had  been
   examined  in accordance with documented quality procedures.  They
   examined  the  first  production  vehicles.    Tamper   resistant
   mechanisms to  prevent seat removal  had been installed,  and the
   rear seats had aluminum covers riveted over the open holes in the
   seat  frames.     Both  of  these  actions   had  been  performed
   satisfactorily.   The seat  belt mountings on  the floor  had not
   been installed in  a consistent manner, and  Rowe corrected this.
   The driver's seat belt would become  binding after minimal usage,
   and Rowe said that  it would evaluate the design  and location of
   the  mounting  bracket.    Rowe  said that  five  vans  had  been
   produced.   Looking  at  these vehicles,  Mr.  Mould  noted  that
   workmanship deficiencies  were apparent.   GSA  told Rowe  that a
   follow-up visit would be expedited and accomplished on October 31
   to   verify  Rowe's  corrective  actions  and  to  determine  the
   acceptability of the first production vehicles.  Ex. 107.
 
        During the October 29 visit, Mr.  Conklin asked Mr. Campbell
   if he could support his allegation that Rowe had been directed to
   produce a  variety of  partitions.  Mr.  Campbell's response  was
   "vague."   He indicated that GSA in Crystal City had directed the
   partition to be  moved, but did not  say who gave  such direction
   and had no  documentation to back up his assertion.   Mr. Conklin
   concluded   that  there   might   be  two   different   partition
   configurations,  but  that  these  were  attributable  to  Rowe's
   failure  to  establish  the partition  location  before  it began
   trying  to produce vans.  Ex. 130.   Mr. Globerman testified that
   he never  told Rowe where  to place  the partition.   He recalled
   that, at some point, GSA  told Rowe that the partition could  not
   be  placed  where it  would  interfere  with  the travel  of  the
   drivers   seats,  because  this  would not  comply  with  a  FMVS
   standard.    T.  1460,  1463,  1465-66.   Mr. Conklin  could  not
   understand why Rowe  did not develop a pattern  for the partition
   before it  actually began  producing the  partitions.   Ex.  130.
   Similarly, Mr. Globerman  testified that Rowe should  have had no
   difficulty  constructing  the  partition  if  it  had  created  a
   template  or a pattern before actually  beginning production.  T.
   1434-35.  Mr. Mould also said that he would have expected Rowe to
   make a  template and adjust  the template until the  location was
   correct.  T. 1856.  
 
 
        On October 30, Rowe wrote to Mr.  Mould and told him that it
   would provide  GSA with  a firm  production  schedule within  ten
   days.  Rowe  also said that it had devised a way to eliminate the
   binding  problem with  the  driver's  seat belt.    It said  that
   quality control worksheets were being revised in order to reflect
   all  of  the  characteristics  of  the  vans.    Ex. 108.    Rowe
   eliminated the  binding problem  with the  driver's seat belt  by
   tack  welding an oval clip to the  upper corner of the partition.
   T. 1917, 1973.
 
        On  October  31,  Mr.  Mould  went  to  Rowe's  facility  in
   Powhatan.    He  inspected  and  approved  the  first  production
   vehicles for Items 001 and 002.  Ex. 109, 110.  He also inspected
   six other vans which needed some minor corrective work before Mr.
   Mould could approve  them.  That  work was  in progress when  Mr.
   Mould  left Powhatan.   Mr. Mould's contemporaneous  records show
   that  Mr. Campbell  telephoned him  that evening,  said that  the
   corrections had  been made and that all of the paperwork had been
   completed concerning the vans, and  asked if Mr. Mould could come
   back to Powhatan  and approve the vans the next  day, November 1,
   because Rowe could  make arrangements to ship the  vans that day.
   Mr. Mould was  not scheduled to work on  November 1, and the next
   date  that he had available to return to Powhatan was November 6.
   Mr.  Mould agreed  to meet  with Mr. Campbell  on the  evening of
   October  31.   Mr.  Mould  and Mr.  Campbell  met at  a  hotel in
   Fredericksburg, Virginia, and Mr. Mould reviewed the records that
   Mr. Campbell  brought, which were  for five of the  six vans that
   Mr. Mould had inspected  that day and one van that  Mr. Mould had
   not inspected.  The  records needed some corrections, which  were
   made, and Mr. Mould approved the five vans that he had inspected.
   Ex. 109, 112.  
 
        On  October 31,  when  Mr.  Campbell and  Mr.  Mould met  in
   Fredericksburg,  Mr. Mould  provided   Mr.  Campbell  with   some
   literature concerning  a hotel that  was for sale.   Mr. Campbell
   says that Mr. Mould asked him to look at the literature  and call
   the real estate agent.   T. 858.  Mr. Mould said that he provided
   Mr.  Campbell with  the  literature  as a  result  of an  earlier
   conversation he had  with Mr. Campbell and Mr.  Jackson about the
   lack of hotels in  the Powhatan area.   Mr. Mould mentioned  that
   there  was a hotel for sale in the area, and Mr. Campbell and Mr.
   Jackson expressed some interest in  it, so Mr. Mould picked up  a
   sales brochure and  gave it to  Mr. Campbell on  October 31.   T.
   1962-63.  
 
 
        Mr. Campbell testified  at the hearing  that on October  31,
   Mr. Mould directed Rowe  to move the partition up toward  the top
   of  the  van  so  that  the  carpet  could  be pushed  under  the
   partition.  T. 1181-82.   He also  testified that, on that  date,
   Rowe had not moved the  drivers' seat belt attachment points, and
   that  Rowe moved  the mounts  later after  telling GSA  that Ford
   would not accept Kenidyne's attachment method.  He testified that
   Mr.  Muncie  submitted  something  to  Ford  and  to  C.E.  White
   concerning  the  Kenidyne  fixture, and  that  Ford  responded by
   rejecting the fixture.   T. 1208-09, 1215, 1217, 1233.   There is
   nothing else in the record to establish that Rowe ever asked Ford
   about the Kenidyne attachment, that Ford rejected the attachment,
   or that Rowe  informed GSA that Ford would  not accept Kenidyne's
   attachment method.  Mr. Globerman testified that if  a contractor
   moved  a seat  belt  attachment  point, he  would  have wanted  a
   certification that the  van met FMVS standards because he doubted
   that Ford would  have approved moving the attachment  points.  T.
   1470-71.  Mr.  Mould testified that before he  approved the first
   production vehicle, Rowe provided him with information concerning
   a  Kenidyne  fixture  and   said  that  it  complied  with   FMVS
   requirements.    T.  1915-16.     In  Mr.  Mould s  opinion,  the
   documentation that  Rowe provided concerning compliance with FMVS
   standards  for seat  belt modifications  was  adequate.   T. 118,
   1916-18. 
 
        According to Mr.  Campbell, Rowe intended to  start "ramping
   up"  to full production  after GSA approved  the first production
   vehicle.  Mr.  Campbell explained that Rowe had  the equipment it
   would  have  needed   to  manufacture  parts  until   an  outside
   manufacturer could begin supplying Rowe  with parts.  Some of the
   equipment  was never  installed, however,  because  Rowe did  not
   obtain  access  to  the  three-phase  power  needed  to  run  the
   equipment.   T.  1242-46.    Mr. Mould  explained  that Rowe  had
   acquired its  equipment a month or  two earlier, but that  it was
   not installed, so  Rowe's workers were trying  to fabricate metal
   parts  by hand.  This was  made more difficult because there were
   no production drawings  that the workers  could use to  fabricate
   the  parts in  a consistent  manner.   Instead, the  workers were
   using one panel as  a guide to shape  another.  T. 1936-37.   Mr.
   Mould testified that he never saw any design drawings, such as he
   would have  expected  a manufacturer  to  have.   T. 1858.    Mr.
   Mould's testimony is consistent with that of Mr. Muncie, who said
   that one reason  Rowe was unable to complete  the contract within
   the required time  was because it did  not have drawings  so that
   Rowe could make parts repetitively  and accurately.  He said that
   Rowe basically used  a trial and error method  for developing its
   vehicle.    T. 1540-41.    Rowe  never  intended to  produce  the
   component parts for  the vans.  Instead, it  intended to purchase
   those parts from  others and then install  them in the vans.   T.
   838.  Early  in the contract, perhaps in late June or early July,
   Rapid  Motor Sports  built  one  partition and  one  set of  side
   panels,  but Rapid  did not  build  any more  partitions or  side
   panels.   T. 820-21, 825-26,  1024.  Mr. Campbell  testified that
   GSA rejected some  of Rapid s parts prior  to the time  that Rowe
   provided a van to Mr. Mould in July, but there is nothing in  the
   remainder of the record to support this statement.  T. 1024. 
 
 
        On  November  1,  Ms.  Ross  replied to  Rowe's  October  15
   response to the cure notice.   Ms. Ross recounted the  history of
   Mr. Mould's visits  to Powhatan, and denied that  GSA had ordered
   Rowe to move the  partition.  Ms. Ross said that vans were due to
   be  delivered on  November 26,  and  that she  would monitor  the
   contract closely  to assure that Rowe met  the delivery date.  As
   for  Rowe's allegation that the Government had approached someone
   else to purchase  vans, she said that her office was not aware of
   any other procurement.  Ex. 111.
 
        Mr.  Mould returned  to Powhatan  on November  8.   He noted
   during this visit that the five vans that he had approved  on the
   evening of October  31 had not been  shipped.  Rowe said  that it
   was making  arrangements to have  the vans delivered and  that it
   expected they would be picked up  soon.  Rowe presented Mr. Mould
   with the necessary documentation concerning the sixth van that he
   had  inspected  on October  31,  and  he  approved that  van  for
   delivery.  Ex. 112.
 
        On November 8, Rowe also  presented Mr. Mould with four vans
   (three Item  001 vans and one Item 002  van) for inspection.  Mr.
   Mould  rejected these  vans because  they  had numerous  defects,
   which he detailed  in a  written report.   Ex. 112.   One of  the
   defects concerned the seats in  the rear compartment, which  were
   supposed  to  be attached  to  the floor  using  tamper resistant
   mechanisms  to prevent the  passengers from releasing  the seats.
   Ex. 5  at 2; Ex.  112.  During  Mr. Mould s  inspection of Rowe s
   first production  vehicles on  October 31, he  saw that  Rowe had
   tightened a bolt that restricted  the seat release handle so that
   it could  not be  pulled up  to release  the seats.   During  the
   November 8 inspection,  Mr. Mould found that some  seats could be
   released by  pulling the handle,  and he rejected three  vans for
   not having seats that were securely mounted.  Ex. 112; T. 404-05.
 
 
        Before leaving Powhatan  on November 8, Mr.  Mould talked to
   Mr. Campbell and Mr. Jackson about Rowe's obligation to perform a
   thorough inspection  of vans before  they were submitted  to GSA.
   Also, they discussed  the continuing problem with manuals.   Rowe
   had only a Ford parts manual available.  It did not have a manual
   for the parts  that it had installed or a Ford service manual, as
   required by the contract.  Rowe  said that it was having problems
   obtaining manuals from  Ford, and that it  was in the process  of
   completing the  documentation concerning  the parts  that it  had
   installed.    Mr.  Mould noted  in his  report to  Ms. Ross  that
   Rowe's  current production rate  was approximately five  vans per
   week, and that he expected that Rowe would not be able to deliver
   the vans as required by November 26.  Ex. 112.
 
 
        Mr. Mould returned to Powhatan  on November 18, to reinspect
   the  four  vans  that  he  had rejected  on  November  8.   Minor
   workmanship  problems existed, but  were corrected by  Rowe while
   Mr. Mould was there and Mr.  Mould approved the vans.  Rowe  also
   presented three more vans for  inspection, and Mr. Mould approved
   them after  Rowe corrected some  minor problems.  Mr.  Mould told
   Ms. Ross  that Rowe was producing  four vans per  week, which was
   not sufficient to enable Rowe to deliver within the time required
   by the  contract.  Mr.  Mould recommended  that Ms. Ross  issue a
   "show cause" notice  to Rowe.  Mr. Mould also noted that Rowe had
   not set up  the equipment that it  had acquired to use  for metal
   fabrication.    Mr.  Mould  had  approved  thirteen  vans  to  be
   delivered, but  all of the  vans were still sitting  in Powhatan.
   One of Rowe's employees told Mr. Mould that Rowe had invoiced GSA
   for all of these  vans, plus the first production articles.   Mr.
   Mould discussed this with the Rowe employee, because the contract
   provided that invoices  were supposed to contain  shipping dates.
   The  employee  told Mr.  Mould  that  Mr.  Campbell  handled  the
   invoicing, and Mr. Campbell was not there.  Ex. 115.  
 
        During Mr. Mould's  November 18 visit, Mr.  Muncie explained
   that tightening  the bolt that restricted the seat release handle
   for  the rear seats would not always prevent the seats from being
   released.   Mr. Mould  testified that, at  that time,  Mr. Muncie
   decided to tack weld the handle  so that it could not be  pulled.
   Mr. Mould  stated that  he did  not tell  Rowe to  tack weld  the
   handles.  Mr. Muncie testified that Rowe said that  it would tack
   weld the handles and Mr. Mould said that this would be fine if it
   made the seat  secure.  Ex. 115;  T. 404-05, 1553-54, 1933.   Mr.
   Campbell testified that  Mr. Mould recommended welding  the seats
   in place, and  that Rowe thought that welding the seats was a bad
   idea.  T. 896-98.  Mr. Campbell, however, was not at the November
   18  inspection.   Ex.  115;  T.  1941.   Mr. Mould  recalls  that
   approximately five vans  plus two first production  vehicles that
   had been previously inspected and approved contained handles that
   Rowe would have needed to tack weld.  T. 408-09, 1935.  Mr. Mould
   saw  Rowe   employees  perform  the   tack  weld,  and   it  took
   approximately  two to three minutes per  weld, for a total of ten
   minutes per  van.   Mr. Mould  believed that,  shortly after  his
   November  18 visit,  all of  the  tack welding  was completed  on
   vehicles that  had been  previously inspected  and approved.   T.
   421-22, 2009-10.   Mr. Campbell  finds it unlikely that  the bolt
   could be sufficiently tightened on some seats, and not on others,
   because the vans as they arrived from Ford were uniform.  T. 964.
   Mr. Globerman testified  that vans  are built  within a range  of
   tolerances,  and that  all vehicles  are not  exactly alike.   T.
   1474.  
 
        Mr. Mould  returned to Powhatan  on November 25 in  order to
   inspect six vans.  Mr. Mould found minor deficiencies, which Rowe
   corrected, and  Mr. Mould approved  the vans for delivery.   Rowe
   still had  not  delivered any  of  the vans  that Mr.  Mould  had
   previously  approved.  Mr. Mould  again recommended that Ms. Ross
   issue a "show cause" notice, because Rowe was producing only four
   vans per week.  Mr.  Mould reached Mr. Campbell by telephone, and
   Mr. Campbell said that Rowe  had encountered a problem having the
   vans picked up due to the holiday week.  Ex. 116.
 
        On November 25, Mr. Campbell wrote to Ms. Ross and told  her
   that Rowe was having to compete with Christmas  shipping traffic,
   and wanted to use a method of delivering the vans other  than the
   method specified in  the contract.  Also, Mr.  Campbell said that
   Rowe had all  219 vans on hand  and parts to complete  almost 100
   vans.   He asked for the contract s  payment terms to be changed.
   Ex. 117.  
 
        On November 26,  Mr. Mould informed Mr. Conklin  that he had
   been making  weekly trips to  Rowe's facility, but that  Rowe had
   not shipped any  vans.  Mr. Mould felt that time was being wasted
   traveling   to  Powhatan  every  week,  without  any  vans  being
   delivered.   Mr. Mould  said that  he  planned to  stop going  to
   Powhatan until  Rowe delivered some  vans, and asked  Mr. Conklin
   whether he agreed with this decision.  Ex. 118.  
 
        On December 2,  Rowe wrote to Alice Ross.  Rowe said that an
   inspection had been scheduled for  either that day or December 4.
   Ex.  120.   There  is  nothing in  the  record to  show  that any
   inspection was, in fact, scheduled  for December 2.  According to
   a December 3 memorandum written by Mr.  Mould, Rowe called him on
   December  2  and told  him  that it  had  four vans  ready  to be
   inspected.  Rowe also said that no arrangements had been made  to
   ship vans.   Mr. Mould  told Rowe to  call him  when it had  vans
   ready to be inspected  and when arrangements had been made with a
   trucking company to pick up the vans, so that he could schedule a
   visit and inspect all completed vans at one time.  Ex.  122, 135.
   In its letter  to Ms. Ross,   Rowe said that vans  would be ready
   for inspection on December 4, 10, 17, and 24, and Rowe asked when
   Mr. Mould would resume his inspections.  Ex. 120.
 
        On December 2,  Ms. Ross sent a  show cause notice to  Rowe.
   The notice said that all of the vans were to have  been delivered
   on November 26,  but that no vans  had been delivered.   Ms. Ross
   said that, because Rowe had failed to deliver vans as required by
   the  contract, GSA  was  considering terminating  Rowe's contract
   pursuant to the default clause set out in FAR 52.249-8.  Ms. Ross
   said  that, "[p]ending  a  final decision  in this  matter," Rowe
   would have  the opportunity to  show that its failure  to perform
   arose from circumstances beyond its  control.  Ms. Ross asked for
   a written response  by December 13.  She said that any assistance
   given  by  GSA  concerning  the  contract  or any  acceptance  of
   delinquent   deliveries  would  be  solely  for  the  purpose  of
   mitigating  damages, and that GSA did  not intend to waive any of
   its contract  rights.  Although Ms. Ross sent  a copy of her show
   cause notice to the GSA contracting office in Crystal City, there
   is no evidence that she had  the prior approval of the office  to
   send the notice.  Ex. 121.  
 
 
        Also on December  2, Ms. Ross sent a letter to Rowe.  In it,
   she responded to Rowe's November  25 request to change the method
   of  delivering  the  vans,  and  said  that  this  would  not  be
   practical.  In response to  Rowe's inquiry as to when inspections
   would resume, Ms. Ross said that GSA would be glad  to inspect  a
   substantial number of vehicles when they are ready for shipment. 
   Ms.  Ross also  said that she  was concerned about  vans that had
   been approved, but were still sitting in Powhatan, because damage
   to those vans could occur before  they left Rowe's facility.  She
   noted that the delivery date had passed and that she had issued a
   show cause notice.  Ms. Ross then asked Rowe to provide  her with
   a schedule for  delivery of vans, and  said that if Rowe  and GSA
   did not agree upon a firm  schedule, GSA might have to  terminate
   Rowe's contract.  Ex. 123.   
 
        On  December 3,  Rowe  responded to  Ms.  Ross's December  2
   letter.   Rowe said  that all vans  previously approved  "are and
   have been scheduled  for shipment."  Rowe said  that its problems
   with  shipment  were due  to  the  holiday  season, but  that  it
   expected some trucks  to arrive to pick up vans  later that week.
   Rowe said that it had provided a  timely notice to Mr. Mould that
   vans would be  ready for inspection,  but that Mr. Mould  had not
   arrived to perform the inspection.  As for making shipments, Rowe
   said that it had scheduled   shipments three times, and that  the
   shipments had to be canceled  because Mr. Mould would not approve
   vans for shipment.  Rowe asked Ms. Ross what she considered to be
   a "substantial number" of vehicles.  Ex. 124.
 
        On December  4,  Ms. Ross  responded  to Rowe's  December  3
   letter.   She  said that  Mr. Mould  was willing  to inspect  and
   accept vans,  but that  it was  not cost  effective to  travel to
   inspect one or two vans,  which would then sit for weeks  without
   being delivered.  She  said that if Rowe was ready  to ship vans,
   Mr. Mould would be there to inspect within seven days after being
   asked to do so  by Rowe, as required  by the contract.  Ms.  Ross
   explained that  Mr. Mould had  not stopped  his inspections,  but
   merely asked that Rowe have a number of vans ready for inspection
   before calling  him.   She  also  pointed out  Rowe's  difficulty
   shipping vans due to the holiday season  was due to the fact that
   Rowe was not  ready to ship vans sooner.  Ms. Ross also said that
   Rowe  had  attempted to  "cloud  the  issue"  of its  failure  to
   deliver,  and  that this  "will not  prevent termination  of this
   contract unless your company moves very quickly to  construct and
   present the  entire number  of vehicles to  GSA for  inspection."
   She  reminded Rowe  that  GSA  was  considering  terminating  the
   contract.   Ms. Ross  reminded  Rowe  that she  had  asked for  a
   delivery schedule.   She said  that if  Rowe could not  provide a
   realistic, firm schedule, she would conclude that Rowe would  not
   be able to perform.  Ex. 125.  
 
        On  December  5, Mr.  Mould  told  Ms.  Ross that  he  could
   schedule a visit to Rowe's plant during the week of December 9 in
   order to  inspect any  vans that were  ready, to  evaluate Rowe's
   progress, and to provide Ms.  Ross with the status of deliveries.
   Mr. Mould also said  that it was not true that  Rowe had arranged
   for  vans to be shipped  three times, and  that the shipments had
   been delayed.  Mr. Mould  also said that it was time  for Rowe to
   begin  fulfilling its obligations,  or else GSA  should terminate
   the contract for cause.  Ex. 128.
 
        Concerning Rowe's arrangements for shipping, Rowe provided a
   letter  written in  January 1997,  by  a trucking  company.   The
   letter  said that on  July 2, Rowe  said that it  would have vans
   ready to ship in three  to four weeks.  On July 24,  Rowe and the
   trucking company agreed that the  company would transport vans as
   soon as they  were released by  GSA for delivery.   The  trucking
   company was at Rowe's  facility on July 29, ready  to transport a
   van, which had  to be inspected by GSA before it was released for
   shipment on  July 31.   The trucking  company said that  it again
   began  transporting  vans for  Rowe  on  December  2.   Ex.  155.
   Whatever  van the  trucking  company transported  on July  31, it
   could  not  have been  one  of  the  vans produced  for  the  INS
   contract, because the  first production article was  not approved
   until  October 31.   Also, so  far as  the record of  this appeal
   shows,  no van  produced  for  the INS  contract  was shipped  on
   December 2.  
 
        Rowe notified GSA on December 5 that one van had been picked
   up from Powhatan for  delivery to the INS.  Rowe  also asked when
   GSA would resume its inspections.  Ex. 129. 
 
        On Friday, December  6, around noon, Rowe sent  a letter via
   telefacsimilie to Ms. Ross stating that the shipper for vans that
   Rowe  expected to  be inspected  on December  2  or 4  arrived on
   December  5, but was unable  to load any vans  due to the lack of
   inspection.  Rowe said that it had two other trucks at its plant,
   and asked that it be allowed to ship two vans to Pennsylvania and
   two to  Maryland, even  though those vans  had been  approved for
   shipment to Florida.  Ex. 131.  Ms. Ross was not in the office on
   December 6.   At approximately  4:10 p.m. that day,  Mr. Campbell
   spoke with Ms. Huddleston concerning his letter to Ms. Ross.  Ms.
   Huddleston told Mr.  Campbell to send her  information right away
   to  show that the  vans he wanted  to ship had  been approved for
   shipment.    At  4:30,  Ms. Huddleston  had  not  heard  from Mr.
   Campbell, so she called him.   He said that he could not  provide
   the information  that she requested  and that the  truckers could
   not wait  to load the vans  any longer.   Ex. 133.  In  fact, the
   vehicle identification  numbers of the  vans that  Rowe asked  to
   ship did not  match any of the vehicle  identification numbers of
   the vans that Mr. Mould had approved for shipment.  Ex. 112, 114-
   16,  131.   Contrary to  the  statements made  in Rowe's  letter,
   Rowe's records show that it shipped five vans on December 4 or 5.
   Ex. 141, 606. 
 
        On December 9,  Rowe received a telephone call  from one INS
   employee who  had received  Rowe's vans.   The INS  employee made
   several complaints  about the vans.   Ex. 519.   Apparently, Rowe
   told  Mr.  Mould about  the  conversation,  and  he reviewed  the
   contract requirements with  the INS employee  and then told  Rowe
   that, for the most part,  the INS employee's complaints reflected
   his own  preferences, and  not contract  requirements.   Ex. 137.
   The record  does not contain  any other INS complaints  about the
   vans.
 
        On December 10, Rowe sent Ms. Ross what it termed a "partial
   response"  to her  December 4 letter.   Rowe asked  for a meeting
   within  seven days  to establish  an  appropriate and  reasonable
   inspection and delivery schedule.  Rowe said that it would expect
   to   "convert  its  weekly  performance  schedule  into  a  daily
   performance schedule" within thirty days after the  meeting.  Ex.
   134.  
 
        Mr. Mould made his last  visit to Rowe's plant regarding the
   INS  van  contract on  December  10.   December 10  is  the sixth
   workday after December 2, which is when Rowe told  Mr. Mould that
   it  had vans  ready to  be  inspected, so  Mr. Mould's  visit was
   within the time  that the contract required him  to inspect after
   being asked to do so.  Ex. 3 at 29; Ex. 137.  Mr. Mould inspected
   and approved seven vans, after Rowe corrected a few deficiencies.
   Mr. Muncie told Mr. Mould that  it would be two weeks before  any
   more vans would be  ready.  Mr. Mould told him to give seven work
   days' notice  when he  was ready for  an inspection.   Ex.  137. 
   Rowe shipped four vans on December 9 or 10.  Ex. 140,  141.  Rowe
   shipped five vans  on December 11, and five vans  on December 12.
   Ex. 140-43.   Mr. Campbell testified that GSA was  making changes
   to the  vans' configuration  up until December  10.   T. 1254-55.
   Mr. Campbell  also testified that  Mr. Muncie never said  that it
   would be  two weeks  before  any more  vans  would be  ready  for
   inspection.   T.  1256.   Mr. Campbell, however,  was not  at the
   December 10 inspection.  Ex. 137; T. 1941.  
 
        On  December  11, Ms.  Ross received  a telephone  call from
   someone  who identified himself  as a representative  of Powhatan
   Ford.  The  person said that Mr. Mould had inspected and approved
   a van that Powhatan Ford had built.   The person also inquired as
   to the status of Rowe's contract.   Ms. Ross said that she  could
   not discuss  Rowe's contract,  and suggested that  if he  had any
   finished vans, he should offer them to Rowe.  Ex. 138.  Mr. Mould
   said that he had never  inspected any vans at Powhatan  Ford, but
   he had conducted a pre-award  survey there in October for another
   contract.  In the course of  his survey, Powhatan Ford showed him
   a van that had been stripped  and explained how the van would  be
   finished.  As a result of his pre-award survey of  Powhatan Ford,
   Mr. Mould recommended  that Powhatan Ford  not receive the  other
   contract.  Ex. 139; T. 1954-56. 
 
        On  December 13,  Rowe responded to  the show  cause notice.
   Rowe's   response  listed  numerous  reasons  for  the  delay  in
   performance, none  of which Rowe believed  to be its  fault.  For
   the first time, Rowe set out the  number of days that it believed
   it had been delayed by GSA's actions.  Rowe said that GSA had (1)
   required Rowe to use eight rivets to hold the fiberglass seats to
   their frames,  and  that  this delayed  Rowe  by  fourteen  days,
   beginning  on October 22; (2) required Rowe to cover the holes in
   the rear of the fiberglass seats,  and that this delayed Rowe  by
   seven days, beginning on October 22; (3) required Rowe to install
   a vent cover, and that this  delayed Rowe by 104 days, from  June
   19  until  September  30,  plus an  added  twenty-five  days  for
   ordering, manufacturing, receiving,  installing, and testing  the
   vent cover; (4) would not  permit Rowe to use Celotex insulation,
   and that this  delayed Rowe by ninety-two days  beginning in mid-
   July; (5) required  Rowe to provide  eight different options  for
   the size of the sliding door opening, and  that this delayed Rowe
   by  thirty-six  days  at  some unspecified  time;  (6)  moved the
   partition nine  times, and that this delayed  Rowe by thirty-nine
   days  at some  unspecified time;  (7) required  Rowe to  move the
   stripe on the  Item 002 vans, and  that this delayed Rowe  by 120
   days  at some  unspecified  time;  and (8)  made  changes to  the
   contract, and that these changes delayed Rowe by 115 days between
   April 23 and December 12.  Ex. 144.  Mr. Campbell  testified that
   the response to the show cause notice accurately stated that Rowe
   experienced a total  delay of 129 days  due to the time  that GSA
   took to issue the vent cover modification.  T. 1087-88.
 
 
        In its  response to  the show cause  notice, Rowe  also said
   that  its  current  production  rate was  22%  faster  than  "the
   proposed transition  from prototype  to full  production."   Rowe
   said  that it  was "on  pace for  double production  and delivery
   capacity within 2 weeks and to double  again within the two weeks
   following  that  time period."    Rowe  said  that it  had  begun
   training an evening  shift that would offer its  first van within
   five days.  Rowe explained  that it intended to build  an average
   of twenty-five vans per week beginning on January 1, 1997, and to
   continue at  that rate through  the third week in  February 1997.
   Rowe  said  that  its shipping  schedule  should  accelerate from
   thirty vans in December to  eighty-nine vans in January, with the
   final 100 vans shipped by the  end of February.  Rowe attached  a
   three-page  chart showing Rowe's sequence of work and the typical
   duration  of that  work.    Rowe said  that  if  GSA needed  more
   details, Rowe would provide  them.  Rowe did not explain  what it
   would  do differently in  order to  achieve the  production rates
   that it  set out  in  its letter.   Ex. 144.     In  Mr.  Mould's
   opinion, based upon his observations, Rowe could not have met the
   schedule  that it  proposed in  its  response to  the show  cause
   notice.  Rowe did not have the capacity to convert more than four
   or five vans per week.  T. 1952.  
 
        Rowe shipped one van on December 13, and one van on December
   17.  Ex. 148, 606. Also on December 17, Rowe called Mr. Mould and
   told  him that  it would  have three  or four  vans completed  on
   December 18, and asked that Mr. Mould  come to Powhatan that day.
   Mr. Mould  reminded Rowe that the contract required seven working
   days' notice that Rowe was ready for an inspection.  Ex. 149.
 
 
        On the morning of December 18, Ms. Ross sent a memorandum to
   Ms. McIntosh  and Mr. Pickeral  in Crystal City.   The memorandum
   recommended the termination  of Rowe s contract  performance, and
   Ms.  Ross  asked  Ms.  McIntosh  and Mr.  Pickeral  to  sign  the
   memorandum  if  they  concurred with  that  recommendation.   Mr.
   Pickeral  was retiring  and was  being replaced as  the procuring
   contracting officer by  Jim Compton.  Mr.  Pickeral, Mr. Compton,
   and  Ms.  McIntosh  signed the  memorandum  and  wrote the  date,
   December  18, after their signatures.   The memorandum contains a
   chronology of some of the  events that occurred during the course
   of the contract.   The memorandum also says  that Rowe s response
   to the show cause notice contained untrue allegations and excuses
   for the delay in production.  Ex. 147; T. 438-39. 
 
        On  December  20,  1996,  GSA  terminated  Rowe's   contract
   performance.  The  notice stated that GSA  was terminating Rowe's
   right to proceed  because Rowe did  not deliver  all of the  vans
   within  the time  required  by the  contract  and because  Rowe's
   failure to perform was not due to causes beyond Rowe's control or
   without Rowe's fault.  The  termination notice was signed by Joel
   Rogero,  whose position description  labels him as  a supervisory
   contract  administrator, which is  what a contracting  officer is
   called  in his office.   Ex. 152;  T. 1731.   The title under his
   signature on the termination notice is administrative contracting
   officer.   Ex. 152.    Ms.  Ross could  not sign  the termination
   notice  because  her warrant  was  limited to  $100,000,  and Mr.
   Rogero  was the  only contracting  officer in  the office  with a
   warrant large enough to sign the notice.  T. 1742, 1773.   Before
   Mr.  Rogero signed  the  termination  notice,  he  discussed  the
   contract with Ms. Ross and with his supervisor.  He also reviewed
   the entire contract  file, and a folder that  contained a summary
   of  events and backup documentation, including Rowe s response to
   the show  cause notice.  He  also made sure that  the contracting
   office  in  Crystal  City  had concurred  with  the  decision  to
   terminate Rowe s performance.  T. 1737-41.  Mr. Rogero decided to
   terminate Rowe s performance  because Rowe had failed  to deliver
   by the  due date.   T.  1741, 1745.   He  did  not accept  Rowe s
   explanation for why  it was unable to  deliver on time.   He went
   through the  file and researched  each of Rowe s  allegations and
   determined that its delays were not excusable.  T.  1745-48.  Mr.
   Rogero spent one  day reviewing the file and  making his decision
   to terminate Rowe s performance of the contract.  T. 1775-76. 
 
        In  reaching his decision, Mr. Rogero considered the factors
   set out in FAR 49.402-3(f).   T. 1754-69.  He explained that  the
   FAR did  not require him  to consider these factors  because this
   was a commercial item contract that contained the termination for
   cause clause.   Still, he used the  factors for guidance  when he
   made his  decision.  T. 1768-69.  He  did not believe that Rowe s
   performance up to  that time supported Rowe s  projected schedule
   for delivering all 219 vans.  T. 1761-64.   He did not notify the
   Small  Business Administration (SBA) of his decision to terminate
   Rowe s  performance.  Mr. Rogero explained that SBA s concurrence
   was not required  and, although the SBA might have  tried to help
   Rowe  resolve  its problems,  it  could  not  have performed  the
   contract for Rowe.  T. 1768.  Mr. Rogero explained that  Ms. Ross
   prepared  the termination  notice and  erroneously  labeled it  a
   "Termination for  Default" and  referred to  the Termination  for
   Default clause, instead of the  Termination for Cause clause.  He
   did  not notice  this  error  because he  was  interested in  the
   substance of the notice itself, and in determining whether Rowe's
   nonperformance was excusable.   He  surmised that  Ms. Ross  made
   this  error because  the commercial  item  Termination for  Cause
   clause  was  relatively  new,  and  this was  one  of  the  first
   terminations in his  office of a contract containing that clause.
   He testified  that his intent  was to terminate the  contract for
   cause.  T. 1743-44.
 
 
        Mr.  Campbell testified that after the termination, he spoke
   with Mr. Rogero, who said that he did not know anything about the
   contract, and that  someone had  just given  him the  termination
   notice  to sign.  T. 878-79,  1261.  Mr. Rogero recalled speaking
   with Mr. Campbell,  and  recalled many  of  the details  of  that
   conversation.   He  testified  that he  never  indicated  to  Mr.
   Campbell that he was not exercising his own independent judgment.
   T. 1772-74.  
 
                               Discussion
 
        Rowe  filed  this  appeal  from  the  contracting  officer's
   decision on March  19, 1997.  We  held a hearing in  this case on
   October  27-28, October 30, November 10, 1998, and February 8-12,
   1999.[foot #] 8    Near   the  conclusion  of  the   hearing  and
   again  in a  written order,  the  Board directed  the parties  to
   support  the statements of  fact contained in  their post-hearing
   briefs  with  citations  to  the  record.    T.  2120;  Order  on
   Proceedings  (Mar. 24,  1999).   Despite  this direction,  Rowe s
   post-hearing opening brief, which consists of  sixty-five single-
   spaced pages,  contains almost  no supporting  references to  the
   record.   The same  is true of  Rowe's post-hearing  reply brief,
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 8 On August 19,  1998, we set October  27-30, 1998,
   as the days that Rowe was to present its case, and February 8-11,
   1999,  as the days that GSA was to  present its case.  On October
   28, 1998, Mr.  Campbell explained that he would not be able to be
   present the next day,  so Rowe's third day of hearing was October
   30,  and its  fourth  hearing  day was  November  10,  1998.   On
   February 8, 1999, GSA's first day of hearing, no one appeared for
   Rowe, and  so GSA's hearing extended into  February 12, 1999.  We
   ordered Rowe to present  its case earlier than GSA  as a sanction
   for  Rowe's  persistent  failure to  cooperate  in  discovery, to
   comply  with the  rules  of the  Board, and  to  comply with  the
   Board's  orders.  Rowe  Inc. v. General  Services Administration,
                     ______________________________________________
   GSBCA 14136, 98-2 BCA   29,951.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   which consists of  sixty-three double-spaced pages.   Both briefs
   are filled with a myriad of conclusions and charges based upon no
   stated facts.  In the process of resolving this appeal, the Board
   viewed  the  unsupported  factual  allegations  and  the baseless
   conclusions and  charges as  lacking any  foundation, unless  the
   Board  happened to find support for them during its own review of
   the 320 exhibits and the 2,270  pages of hearing transcript.   In
   addition,  before the  hearing, Rowe raised  some issues  that it
   does not discuss  in either of its  post-hearing briefs.  To  the
   extent that  Rowe did not pursue an issue  in its briefs, we deem
   that Rowe abandoned the issue.
 
 
        GSA established that Rowe did not deliver 219 vans to GSA by
   November 26,  1996, and  that as  a result  of Rowe s  failure to
   deliver on time, GSA terminated Rowe s performance.  Rowe asserts
   that the  vans were not due to be  delivered on November 26, that
   the termination action  was flawed for a variety  of reasons, and
   that many  actions by GSA  delayed Rowe s performance.   Rowe did
   not  establish, by  a  preponderance of  the  evidence, that  its
   assertions are correct.  Rowe also  accuses several GSA employees
   and one employee of a Ford dealership of criminal  conduct and of
   altering and  manipulating documentary  evidence.   Rowe has  not
   established that there is any basis for its accusations.    
 
   I. GSA's prima facie case
 
        Rowe s  contract did not  contain a Termination  for Default
   clause.   Instead,  because the  contract was  a commercial  item
   contract, it contained a  clause that permitted GSA  to terminate
   the  contract   for  cause   in  the event  of  a  default.    In
   Wellington House v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 14665,
   99-1  BCA    30,279, and  in  Integrated Systems  Group, Inc.  v.
   Social  Security  Administration,  GSBCA 14054-SSA,  98-2  BCA   
   29,848,   we  stated  that   the  Government  must   prove  by  a
   preponderance of the  evidence that its  decision to terminate  a
   contract  for cause  is proper, just  as it  has to prove  that a
   decision to terminate  for default is proper.   If the Government
   presents a prima facie case  that its termination was proper, the
   burden shifts to  the appellant to come forward  with evidence to
   rebut the  Government s  case.   Wellington  House, 99-1  BCA  at
   149,733; Integrated Systems Group, 98-2 BCA at 147,742. 
 
        GSA  made  a  prima  facie  showing  that  its  decision  to
   terminate Rowe s contract was proper.   On December 20, 1996, the
   date of the  termination notice, Rowe had not  delivered the vans
   required  by  the  contract,  within the  time  required  by  the
   contract.  The  contract, as modified,  required Rowe to  deliver
   219 vans not  later than November 26,  1996.  As of  November 26,
   GSA had inspected and accepted twenty-one vans, including the two
   first  production vehicles, and Rowe  had delivered none of those
   vans.   As of  December 20,  GSA had  inspected  and accepted  an
   additional  seven vans, and  Rowe had delivered  twenty-one vans.
   GSA s decision  to terminate  Rowe s contract  based upon  Rowe s
   failure  to deliver  the vans  within  the time  required by  the
   contract was  proper unless  Rowe can  establish either  that its
   performance  was  not due  by November  26, that  the termination
   action was flawed, or that  its failure to make timely deliveries
   was excusable.  
 
   II.  Performance due date
 
 
        Rowe argues that the contract was not actually a  commercial
   item contract and so time cannot be of the essence.  Rowe's Reply
   Brief  at 20.    We reject  this argument  because Rowe  does not
   explain  why  the  contract,  which  said that  it  was  for  the
   procurement of commercial  items and which contained  the clauses
   peculiar  to commercial item contracts, was not a commercial item
   contract.   More  importantly,  Rowe does  not  explain  why  the
   November 26 delivery date would  not be essential if the contract
   were not  a commercial item contract.   Rowe also argues that the
   delivery date was not  important because GSA took a  long time to
   respond  to Rowe s requests for clarification and made unilateral
   changes to the  contract without changing the delivery  date.  We
   address  these  arguments  below, in  our  discussion  of whether
   Rowe s failure to deliver was excusable.  
 
        Rowe contends that  GSA waived the November 26 delivery date
   because it did not terminate  Rowe s contract within a reasonable
   time after that  date.  Rowe's Reply  Brief at 19.   As the Court
   explained  in DeVito  v. United  States, 413  F.2d 1147  (Ct. Cl.
   1969):
 
        The  necessary  elements  of an  election  by  the non-
        defaulting party to  waive default in delivery  under a
        contract  are   (1)  failure  to  terminate   within  a
        reasonable time after  the default under  circumstances
        indicating  forbearance,   and  (2)  reliance   by  the
        contractor  on the  failure to terminate  and continued
        performance  by  him  under  the   contract,  with  the
        Government s knowledge and implied or express consent.
 
   413  F.2d  at  1154.    The  DeVito  doctrine  applies  when  the
   Government fails to terminate within a reasonable time  after the
   default.   The  purpose  of  the doctrine  is  to protect  unwary
   contractors who,  due to  the Government's  failure to  terminate
   within a reasonable  time, are  led to  believe that  time is  no
   longer of the essence and  who undertake substantial efforts  and
   incur large costs after the performance date has passed.  If  the
   prospect  of a  termination  is clear  and  the contractor  makes
   little tangible  progress between the  delivery due date  and the
   date  of  the  termination, the  Government  has  not waived  the
   delivery date.   State of  Florida, Dept. of Insurance  v. United
   States, 81 F.3d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Olson Plumbing and Heating
   v.  United States,  602 F.2d  950  (Ct. Cl.  1979); Pelliccia  v.
   United States, 525 F.2d 1035 (Ct. Cl. 1975).   
 
        GSA  terminated Rowe s  right  to proceed  twenty-four  days
   after the  November 26 delivery  due date.  During  those twenty-
   four days, GSA sent Rowe a show cause notice, which said that GSA
   was considering terminating  Rowe s contract and which  gave Rowe
   the opportunity  to show that its  failure to perform was  due to
   circumstances beyond its  control.  GSA gave Rowe  eleven days to
   respond to the  show cause notice and stated  that any acceptance
   of  delinquent deliveries  by GSA  would  be for  the purpose  of
   mitigating damages.  In two  separate letters, GSA asked Rowe for
   a schedule  for delivering vans and  stated that if Rowe  and GSA
   could not agree upon a firm schedule, GSA might have to terminate
   Rowe s contract.  GSA did not promise to agree to a new schedule.
   GSA also said that it was willing  to inspect vans, but that Rowe
   would have to move quickly to present  all of the vans to GSA for
   inspection in  order to avoid  termination of the contract.   Mr.
   Mould made  one trip  to Rowe s  plant to  inspect vans.   During
   those same  twenty-four days,  Rowe presented  seven vans  to Mr.
   Mould  which he accepted,  and Rowe  delivered twenty-one  of the
   vans that Mr. Mould had previously  accepted.  Rowe also sent GSA
   a partial  response to  one of GSA's  inquiries about  a delivery
   schedule,  and  it  responded  to  the show  cause  notice.    On
   December 10, one of Rowe's employees told Mr. Mould that it would
   be two weeks before any more vans would be ready.  
 
 
        We  reject Rowe s  argument that  GSA s  actions waived  the
   November 26 delivery  date, because we conclude that  GSA did not
   take an unreasonable time to terminate after Rowe's default.  The
   delivery  due  date, November  26,  1996,  was  a Tuesday.    The
   following Monday, GSA  sent Rowe a show cause  notice and allowed
   Rowe  eleven days  to respond.   GSA  terminated Rowe's  right to
   proceed on December 20, one week after receipt of Rowe's response
   to the show cause notice.  GSA  was entitled to take some time to
   decide what  to do in response to Rowe's  default, and it was not
   unreasonable to take a total of twenty-four days to  issue a show
   cause notice, to receive a reply to the show cause notice, and to
   issue a termination notice.  
 
        Furthermore, the  circumstances do not  indicate forbearance
   by GSA.  GSA directed Rowe to show cause why its  contract should
   not be  terminated and stated  that GSA's acceptance of  any vans
   would be in order to mitigate its damages.  GSA asked Rowe  for a
   delivery schedule and  said that it was willing  to inspect vans,
   but cautioned Rowe that it would have  to present all of the vans
   to  GSA  quickly in  order to  avoid a  termination.   Instead of
   indicating to  Rowe  that GSA  had acquiesced  in Rowe's  breach,
   GSA's words made it clear that termination was a possibility.  In
   addition, there  is no  evidence to  establish  either that  Rowe
   undertook  substantial efforts and incurred large costs after the
   delivery date  passed, or that GSA  knew of any such  efforts and
   costs.   Between the delivery  date and the date  of termination,
   Rowe offered seven vans for inspection.  When GSA inspected those
   vans,  a Rowe employee told  the GSA inspector  that no more vans
   would be ready for  two weeks.  So far as  the record shows, Rowe
   made little tangible progress between  the delivery due date  and
   the date of  the termination.   Thus,  even if GSA  had taken  an
   unreasonable  amount of  time  to  terminate Rowe s  performance,
   which it  did not,  GSA did  not waive the  November 26  delivery
   date. 
 
   III.  Termination action
 
 
        Rowe argues that the termination action was flawed, and that
   the  flaws rebut GSA's  prima facie showing  that the termination
   was proper.  Specifically, Rowe asserts that the termination  was
   the result of  a plot between GSA  and a local Ford  dealer, that
   the true reason for the  termination was dissatisfaction with the
   end  product by  the  INS,  that the  decision  to terminate  was
   arbitrary  and capricious  because  the  person  who  signed  the
   termination notice  did  not  exercise  independent  judgment  in
   reaching his decision,  and that GSA made a  number of procedural
   errors in terminating the contract.  Rowe's Opening Brief at 2-4,
   11, 13-15, 40; Rowe's Reply Brief at 2, 11.  As  explained below,
   we reject each of Rowe's arguments.  
 
        The evidence  does not establish  that GSA and a  local Ford
   dealer devised a plan that led to the termination of Rowe's right
   to  perform.  On December 11,  Ms. Ross received a telephone call
   from  someone who  identified  himself  as  a  representative  of
   Powhatan Ford.   The person said that Mr. Mould had inspected and
   approved a van that  Powhatan Ford had prepared.  The person also
   inquired as to the status of Rowe's contract.  Ms. Ross said that
   she could not discuss Rowe's  contract, and suggested that if the
   caller had any  finished vans, he should offer them to Rowe.  Mr.
   Mould  never inspected  any vans  at  Powhatan Ford,  but he  did
   conduct a pre-award  survey there in  October in connection  with
   another contract.   In the  course of that survey,  Powhatan Ford
   showed him a van that had been stripped and explained how the van
   would be  finished.    As  a result  of  the  survey,  Mr.  Mould
   recommended  that Powhatan  Ford  not receive  a  contract.   Ms.
   Ross's admonition that the person who called her should offer any
   finished  vans to Rowe and Mr. Mould's unfavorable recommendation
   are  not consistent  with a  plot  against Rowe.   Although  Rowe
   contends that  there were rumors  in Powhatan that  Powhatan Ford
   was going to replace Rowe and perform the INS van contract, there
   is no evidence to establish  that these rumors had any foundation
   in fact. 
 
        The  evidence does  not establish  that  GSA terminated  the
   contract  due to  the INS's  dissatisfaction with  the vans.   On
   December 9, Rowe received a  telephone call from one INS employee
   who made  several complaints about  Rowe's vans.  When  Mr. Mould
   learned  about  this  conversation,  he  reviewed  the   contract
   requirements with the  INS employee and then told  Rowe that, for
   the most  part, the INS  employee's complaints reflected  his own
   preferences,  and not contract requirements.  There is nothing in
   the  record to show that anything more came of the INS employee's
   complaints, or  that any other  complaints were ever made  by the
   INS.   By the  time of the  INS employee's one  telephone call to
   Rowe, GSA had  already sent Rowe a  show cause notice.   There is
   nothing in  the record to  show that GSA's decision  to terminate
   Rowe's performance was  the result of INS's  dissatisfaction with
   the vans.
 
 
        Turning   to  Rowe's  next   allegation  of  flaws   in  the
   termination  procedure, we  conclude  that  Mr. Rogero  exercised
   independent  judgment in  reaching  his  decision  to  issue  the
   termination notice.   Before  Mr. Rogero  signed the  termination
   notice,  he discussed  the contract  with Ms.  Ross and  with his
   supervisor.  Mr.  Rogero also spent one day  reviewing the entire
   contract file and a folder that contained a summary of events and
   backup documentation, including Rowe s response to the show cause
   notice.  He researched each of Rowe s allegations  and determined
   that its  delays were not  excusable.  Mr. Rogero  considered the
   factors  set out  in FAR  49.402-3(f)  and used  the factors  for
   guidance when he made his decision.[foot #] 9  
 
        Mr. Rogero  decided to terminate Rowe s  performance because
   Rowe had failed to deliver by the  due date.   He did not  accept
   Rowe s explanation of  why it was unable to deliver  on time, and
   he   did  not  believe  that  Rowe s  performance  supported  its
   projected schedule  for delivering all  219 vans.   Mr.  Rogero's
   assessment of the reasons Rowe  gave for its inability to deliver
   on  time was  reasonable, as  we  explain below  when we  address
   Rowe's  allegations that GSA caused delays to Rowe's performance.
   His assessment of  Rowe's projections for future  performance was
   also reasonable.  On December 10, Rowe said that it could convert
   its weekly production  rate to a daily rate -- in other words, it
   could  quintuple its  production --  within thirty  days after  a
   meeting with GSA.   Rowe did not  explain what could  possibly be
   accomplished at one meeting to result in such a dramatic increase
   in production.   On December  13, Rowe represented that  it could
   double its production  within two weeks and then  double it again
   within  the  following two  weeks     in  other words,  it  could
   quadruple  its production.   Rowe  did not  present any  plan for
   achieving these goals  or any facts  to support its  projections.
   Rowe said that  it would hire a second shift of workers, but Rowe
   had made  that  same statement  on  September 6.   Rowe  did  not
   represent either that it had found  an outside parts manufacturer
   or that it  was in a position to install the equipment that would
   have   perhaps  enabled  its  workers  to  fabricate  parts  more
   accurately  and efficiently.   Mr. Rogero's decision  that Rowe's
   projections were not supportable was well justified.
 
        To  substantiate Rowe's allegation  that Mr. Rogero  did not
   exercise  independent judgment  in deciding  to terminate  Rowe's
   performance, Mr. Campbell testified that he spoke with Mr. Rogero
   after he issued  the termination  notice, and  Mr. Rogero  stated
   that  he did  not know  anything  about the  contract and  simply
   signed  the  notice.   Mr.  Rogero,  however,  testified that  he
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 9 As  discussed more  fully below,  Mr. Rogero  was
   permitted, not required, to refer  to FAR 49.402-3(f) when he was
   deciding whether to terminate Rowe's performance.  
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   decided  to  issue  the termination  notice  after  reviewing the
   contract file and determining  that Rowe's failure to  deliver on
   time  was not  excusable.   He recalled  a great  deal about  his
   conversation  with Mr. Campbell, and he denied indicating that he
   had  not exercised  his own  judgment  in deciding  to issue  the
   termination notice.   There is  no evidence that anyone  told Mr.
   Rogero to sign  the termination notice, or that  Mr. Rogero would
   have shirked his responsibility, had such a direction been given.
   Rowe has not established by  a preponderance of the evidence that
   Mr.  Rogero failed to  exercise independent judgment  in reaching
   his decision to terminate Rowe's contract.
 
 
        Finally, we examine Rowe's contention that we should reverse
   the termination decision  because GSA made a number of procedural
   errors  in terminating the  contract.  Specifically,  Rowe argues
   that (1) the termination notice  said that the contract was being
   terminated for default, instead of for cause, which means  either
   that the notice  was flawed or that the  termination was actually
   for default, and not for cause, (2) GSA did not notify the SBA of
   the termination action as required by part  49 of the FAR, (3) no
   contracting officer read Rowe's response to the show cause notice
   as  required by  part  49  of the  FAR,  (4) Ms. Ross lacked  the
   authority to  sign the show cause  notice because part  49 of the
   FAR required her to obtain the approval of the contracting office
   in  order  to  send  that notice,  (5) there  was  no contracting
   officer  assigned  to  the  contract,  (6)  there  was  no proper
   delegation of authority to  GSA officials in Atlanta because  Ms.
   McIntosh signed the  delegation memorandum for Mr.  Pickeral, and
   (7)  Mr.  Rogero lacked  the authority  to issue  the termination
   notice because he  was not a contracting officer  and because GSA
   officials in  Crystal  City  were  prohibited  by  the  FAR  from
   delegating to GSA  officials in Atlanta the authority  to issue a
   termination for default notice.
 
        Issue III (1)
 
        The   termination  notice   erroneously   stated  that   the
   termination  was for default,  when the termination  was actually
   for cause.    Rowe's  contract did not contain a termination  for
   default clause.   Instead, because the contract was  a commercial
   item  contract, part  12  of  the FAR  required  the contract  to
   contain a clause that permitted  GSA to terminate Rowe's contract
   for cause  if Rowe defaulted  by not performing.   FAR 12.301(b).
   Mr. Rogero stated that he  intended to terminate the contract for
   cause, and that the  notice's statement that the termination  was
   for default  was a drafting error.  There  is no evidence to show
   that the reference in the notice to a termination for default was
   anything more than an error on the part of the person who drafted
   the notice. 
 
        The fact that the termination notice erroneously referred to
   a termination for default instead of a termination for cause does
   not nullify the notice.   In order for Rowe to  establish that an
   error  in the  termination notice  invalidated  the notice,  Rowe
   would  have  to  establish  that  the  error  was  harmful.    In
   Philadelphia Regent Builders v. United States,  634 F.2d 569 (Ct.
   Cl. 1980),  the plaintiff  claimed that  the default  termination
   notice  was improper because  it contained several  defects which
   violated  procurement regulations.   For example, the  notice did
   not contain  the proper contract  number and date, did  not state
   that the  Government reserved  all of its  rights, did  not state
   that  the  decision  to  terminate  was  made  pursuant  to   the
   contract's disputes clause, and was not signed by the contracting
   officer.  The court held that these defects did not mean that the
   termination notice was invalid.   The plaintiff was not misled by
   the notice and did not show that it had been harmed in any way by
   the  defects.   The court  said that  to nullify  the termination
   notice "solely on the grounds of these harmless technical defects
   would  be to grant  plaintiff an entirely  unwarranted windfall."
   634 F.2d at  573; accord State  of Florida v.  United States,  81
   F.3d 1093 (Fed.  Cir. 1996) (notice did not  advise contractor of
   appeal rights);  Decker &  Co. v. West,  76 F.3d 1573  (Fed. Cir.
   1996) (notice  incorrectly stated  the time  for appeal);  Rafael
   Francis, DOTCAB 1566,  85-3 BCA   18,339 (notice  did not contain
   an effective date).
 
 
        Like  the contractor in  Philadelphia Regent  Builders, Rowe
   has  not established that it was harmed  by an error contained in
   the termination notice.  The notice provided Rowe with all of the
   information that it needed to  understand the action that GSA was
   taking and the reason for that action, and set out  Rowe's appeal
   rights.  There is no evidence to show that Rowe was misled by the
   error contained  in the  termination notice.   In fact,  Rowe was
   able to  file an appeal  here at the Board  and to proceed  to an
   eight-day trial on the merits.  The Court in Decker said  that it
   is  a "basic principle that harm  should accompany a defect in an
   otherwise proper termination  notice in order for  the contractor
   to seek relief based  on that defect."  76  F.3d at 1579.   Here,
   Rowe  has not  shown that  any harm  resulted because  the notice
   referred to the  termination as being for default  instead of for
   cause,  so Rowe is  not entitled  to any  relief based  upon that
   defect.
 
        Issues III (2) through (4)
 
        Even if part 49 of the FAR required GSA to notify the SBA of
   the  termination action, required  a contracting officer  to read
   Rowe's response to  the show cause notice, and  required Ms. Ross
   to obtain the approval of the contracting office in order to send
   the show cause notice, and  even if the evidence established that
   GSA did not fulfill these requirements, this would not invalidate
   GSA's termination action because the requirements of part  49 did
   not apply to that action.   GSA terminated Rowe's commercial item
   contract  for cause, and  according to the  regulations governing
   terminations for cause, GSA was not supposed to follow any of the
   procedures set  out in part 49 of the  FAR when it terminated the
   contract.   FAR 12.403(a) provides that the  requirements set out
   in  part  49  of  the   FAR,  which  apply  to  terminations  for
   convenience and for  default of some types of  contracts, "do not
   apply"   when  a  commercial  item  contract  is  terminated  and
   contracting  officers "shall"  follow the  procedures in  section
   12.403.  Although contracting officers "may" continue to use part
   49 "as guidance"  to the extent  that it does  not conflict  with
   section  12.403, section  12.403 does  not  contain the  numerous
   requirements found in  part 49 and does  not require GSA  to take
   any of the actions that Rowe says GSA failed to take.  
 
 
        Although part  12 of the  FAR did  not require  Ms. Ross  to
   obtain  the  prior approval  of the  contracting office  when she
   issued her  show cause  notice, the delegation  letter to  GSA in
   Atlanta from GSA in Crystal  City did contain such a requirement.
   The letter said that the administrative contracting officer could
   issue a  show cause  notice in  accordance with  FAR 49.402-3(b),
   which  requires the administrative  contracting officer to obtain
   the approval  of the  contracting  office before  issuing a  show
   cause notice.  Ms. Ross's failure  to obtain the approval of  the
   contracting office before issuing the  show cause notice does not
   require us  to  invalidate  GSA's  termination  action,  however,
   because  Rowe has  not  shown that  it was  harmed by  Ms. Ross's
   actions.  The contracting office  was aware of Ms. Ross's actions
   because she sent that office a copy of the show cause notice.  So
   far as the record  shows, no one in  the contracting office  ever
   objected to  Ms. Ross's having  sent the  show cause notice.   In
   addition, the notice afforded Rowe the opportunity to respond and
   to  explain  its  position,  and  Mr.  Rogero  considered  Rowe's
   response before he  decided to terminate Rowe's  performance.  In
   the  absence of  a  showing  of prejudice,  as  discussed in  the
   previous section  of this opinion,  we will not  invalidate GSA's
   termination  action  based  upon the  fact  that  the contracting
   office did not see the show cause notice before it was sent.  See
   Darwin  Construction Co.,  GSBCA  10193, 91-1  BCA    23,419,  at
   117,486-87 (1990).
 
        Issue III (5)
 
        The record does  not establish  that the  contract lacked  a
   contracting officer.  Mr. Pickeral was the procuring  contracting
   officer  who  signed  the  contract,  and  he  concurred  in  the
   termination action.  Mr. Pickeral was retiring and being replaced
   by Mr.  Compton, who  also concurred  in the  termination action.
   Rowe did  not show  that, at  any point  during the  life of  the
   contract,  there was  a  period  when  there was  no  contracting
   officer assigned to the contract. 
 
        Issue III (6)
 
        Mr.  Pickeral's delegation  to the  Atlanta  office was  not
   defective, even though  Mr. Pickeral did not sign  the delegation
   memorandum  himself.   It  was  Mr.  Pickeral's decision  as  the
   procuring contracting  officer to delegate administration  of the
   contract to Atlanta.  The delegation memorandum was signed by Ms.
   McIntosh, the contract specialist, for Mr. Pickeral.  There is no
   evidence  that  Mr.  Pickeral  ever  revoked  the  delegation  or
   expressed  any disagreement with the delegation memorandum.  Rowe
   did  not establish  that  the  memorandum  was  defective  simply
   because it was  signed by Ms. McIntosh for  Mr. Pickeral, or that
   any such defect harmed Rowe.  
 
 
        Issue III (7)
 
        Rowe did  not establish that Mr. Rogero lacked the authority
   to terminate  the contract.   Without citing to  any fact  in the
   record, Rowe says that Mr. Rogero  lacked a contracting officer's
   warrant.   Mr. Rogero testified  that he  signed the  termination
   notice  because  he was  the only  person  in the  office  with a
   warrant large enough  to sign the notice.  Mr.  Rogero signed the
   termination notice as an administrative contracting officer.  His
   position   description   calls   him   a   supervisory   contract
   administrator, and  he testified that this is  what a contracting
   officer is  called in his  office.  There  is no evidence  to the
   contrary.   Whether the FAR  prohibited GSA officials  in Crystal
   City from delegating to GSA officials in Atlanta the authority to
   issue a  termination for default  notice is irrelevant  to Rowe's
   appeal because Rowe's  performance was terminated for  cause, and
   not  for default.   As  mentioned previously,  a  termination for
   cause is  subject to  a different  set of  regulations than is  a
   termination  for default.   Rowe has not  established either that
   any FAR provision prohibited GSA in Crystal City from  delegating
   to  GSA in  Atlanta the  authority  to terminate  a contract  for
   cause, or that if there is such a FAR provision, Rowe  was harmed
   by a violation of that regulation.  
 
   IV.  Delay
 
        Rowe's final argument is that  it did not perform within the
   time  permitted  by  the  contract  because  GSA  delayed  Rowe's
   progress.  Rowe implies that Ms. Huddleston and Mr. Mould thought
   that GSA  delayed Rowe's  performance, because  they agreed  that
   Rowe's performance period should have  been extended by ninety or
   120 days.  Rowe's  Opening Brief at 1.  Rowe's  contention is not
   supported by the weight of  the evidence.  Mr. Campbell testified
   that, around July 12, Ms. Huddleston suggested that Rowe be given
   a 120-day  extension, and  later said that  she would  modify the
   contract to give Rowe a  ninety-day extension.  Mr. Campbell said
   that Ms. Huddleston made this latter statement during a telephone
   conversation with him and Mr. Mould.  Mr. Mould said that, as far
   as he  knew, there  was never any  conversation during  which Ms.
   Huddleston  recommended giving  Rowe  an  added  ninety  days  to
   perform.   Ms. Huddleston  testified that she  never made  such a
   suggestion, and that she was  not aware of anyone discussing such
   an extension.   When Rowe wrote to Ms.  Huddleston on July 12 and
   said   that  "the   Government"  had   suggested   extending  the
   performance  period by ninety  days, Ms. Huddleston  responded on
   August 19 by denying what she called Rowe's request for a ninety-
   day  extension.   Mr.  Mould  suggested in  July  1996, that  Ms.
   Huddleston consider establishing new delivery dates, but he never
   suggested that the performance period be extended by any specific
   number of days or  that GSA was responsible for any  delay.  Rowe
   has not established  by a preponderance of the  evidence that Ms.
   Huddleston and  Mr. Mould  recommended either a  ninety-day or  a
   120-day extension to the contract's performance period.
 
 
        Rowe  also asserts that  its nonperformance within  the time
   required by the contract was due to delays it experienced because
   (1) this  should not  have been a  commercial item  contract, (2)
   there was a lack of  continuity in contracting personnel, (3) the
   specifications  were defective,  (4)  GSA  made  changes  to  the
   contract's requirements, and (5) GSA was not responsive to Rowe's
   requests    for   inspections,    meetings,   information,    and
   clarifications.  
 
        Issue IV (1)
 
        Rowe asserts that this contract should not have been one for
   commercial   items,  but  Rowe  offers  no  explanation  for  its
   assertion.    Rowe's Opening  Brief  at  16.   Also,  Rowe  never
   establishes  how designating the  contract as one  for commercial
   items had  any impact  upon Rowe's ability  to complete  the work
   required by the contract within the performance period.
 
        Issue IV (2)
 
        Although Rowe  contends that this contract  was administered
   by six contracting  professionals in a six-month period  and that
   this  lack  of   continuity  delayed  Rowe's  performance,   this
   contention is not  supported by the facts.   Rowe's Opening Brief
   at  46.   The  contract  was  administered  by GSA  officials  in
   Atlanta.  One handwritten  note in the appeal file  says that the
   administrative contracting officer was Ms. Graham, but the record
   does not  show that  Ms. Graham ever  took any  action concerning
   Rowe s   contract.     Ms.  Huddleston   was   assigned  as   the
   administrative  contracting officer, and Ms. Ross replaced her in
   October 1996.  Mr. Rogero  signed the termination notice, but was
   not  otherwise actively involved  in administering  the contract.
   Rowe  cites  to no  evidence  to  establish  that the  change  in
   administrative personnel delayed its performance.  
 
        Issue IV (3): Defective specifications
 
        Rowe says that its performance was delayed primarily because
   of specifications that lacked adequate information to enable Rowe
   to  manufacture an acceptable  vehicle.  Rowe s  Opening Brief at
   17, 42, 54.   Rowe complains about defects  in the specifications
   concerning mesh size, air ducts in the rear compartment, the size
   of the  sliding door  opening,  the shape  of  the van,  and  the
   striping on the Item  002 vans.  Rowe's Opening Brief  at 17, 21,
   32, 33, 36,  49.  Rowe also argues that  GSA tacitly acknowledged
   that  the  specifications   were  defective  when  it   issued  a
   subsequent solicitation with specifications that differed in some
   respects from  the specifications contained  in Rowe's  contract.
   Rowe's Opening Brief at 4-5, 45-46.
 
             Mesh size
 
        Rowe  contends that it  was delayed due  to an error  in the
   specified mesh  size.  Rowe's Opening  Brief at 17.   The parties
   agree  that the  specification  contained  an  error  because  it
   required the partition to be fabricated  of "No. 9 woven mesh, (1
   to 1/4) inches  on centers."  The evidence  establishes that this
   error was obvious to those who read the specification for GSA and
   for Rowe.  Mr. Mould and Mr.  Dellinger testified that "1 to 1/4"
   inch appeared to be a typographical error because when dimensions
   are specified, they go from a  smaller number to a larger number.
   Mr. Dellinger and Mr. Mould testified that  "1 to 1/4" inch was a
   clear  typographical error.   Mr.  Campbell  testified that  Rowe
   thought  that the  mesh size  was  supposed to  be 1-1/4  inches.
   Consistent with Mr. Campbell's testimony,  in a July 12 letter to
   Ms.  Huddleston,  Rowe  stated that  the  mesh  specification was
   incorrect  and should read   1 to 1  1/4 inches.    Mr. Globerman
   stated in an  August 7 memorandum  that Rowe had informed  GSA of
   the  typographical error  concerning the  mesh size.   Given  the
   obviousness of  the error in  the specification, if Rowe  had any
   doubts about  what was  required, Rowe should  have asked  GSA to
   clarify the  requirement before it submitted its bid, which would
   have    given    GSA    the   opportunity    to    correct    its
   error.[foot #] 10      Apparently,   however,    Rowe   did   not
   have any  doubts about what mesh  size was required.   During Mr.
   Mould s July 10 visit to  Rowe s plant, Mr. Campbell informed Mr.
   Mould that prior INS van contracts  had specified 1 to 1-1/4 inch
   mesh,  and that Rowe  had already ordered  its mesh.   The record
   shows that  Rowe  ordered 1-1/4  inch  mesh in  mid-July,  before
   receiving any directions from GSA concerning the mesh size.  
 
 
        Even  if  the defect  in  the  specifications had  not  been
   obvious, there is  no evidence that this defect  caused any delay
   to Rowe s progress.  On August 19, Ms. Huddleston  told Rowe that
   she would issue a modification to change the dimensions to  1  to
   1-1/4" inches on centers.  On September 19, Ms. Huddleston issued
   this modification.  Clearly, Rowe s  work was not held up waiting
   for Ms. Huddleston s direction, because Rowe ordered  its mesh in
   mid-July, before  receiving any  direction or  clarification from
   GSA concerning the mesh size.  Rowe has not established  that the
   obvious defect in  the mesh specification, which  Rowe recognized
   was a defect and which did not delay Rowe s purchase of the mesh,
   caused a delay to Rowe s progress.  
 
             Air ducts in the rear compartment
 
        Rowe  asserts that  the specifications  for  air ducts  were
   defective.    Rowe's Opening  Brief  at 21.    The specifications
   required  that  the  air  conditioning  system  be   the  chassis
   manufacturer s  dual evaporator system,  with the rear evaporator
   located behind the partition,  with multiple outlet ducts.    The
   next sentence specified that  the auxiliary rear floor heater and
   air  conditioner   including  outlets   in  the   rear  passenger
   compartment  had to be made tamper resistant.  Rowe contends that
   Mr.  Mould  read  this to  mean  that  the  vans  needed two  air
   conditioning  systems.  Rowe's Opening Brief  at 22.  There is no
   evidence  to support  this  contention.    Mr.  Mould s  concern,
   beginning with  his July 10 visit  to Rowe s plant,  was with the
   number of outlet ducts in the rear of  the vans, and not with the
   number of air conditioning systems in the vans.
 
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 10 Rowe did not assert that the specifications were
   defective  in any  respect until September  6, 1996,  nearly five
   months after award.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
        The specification was not defective.  Rowe read the contract
   to  say  that  only one  outlet  duct  was required  in  the rear
   compartment, and GSA read the contract  to say that more than one
   duct was  needed  in the  rear  of the  van.   According  to  Mr.
   Campbell s   testimony   at   the   hearing,   Rowe   based   its
   interpretation  upon  the  fact  that it  could  have  offered  a
   Standard Item 34 van, which came equipped with only one outlet in
   the rear compartment.  Of course,  Rowe could also have offered  
   and,  in fact,  did offer    a Standard  Item 24 van,  which came
   equipped with multiple outlet ducts in the rear compartment.  The
   fact that Rowe could have offered either one of two standard item
   vans does  not shed  any light  upon the correct  reading of  the
   terms of the  contract because regardless of which  van was used,
   it had to be modified to meet GSA s requirements.  
 
        Looking at the contract terms quoted above, even if Rowe did
   not  understand the  first sentence to  say that  multiple outlet
   ducts  were to  be  located  in the  rear  compartment, the  next
   sentence clearly states that there would be  outlets  in the rear
   compartment.  On September 30, Rowe had installed multiple outlet
   ducts in the rear compartment, and they appeared to  Mr. Mould to
   be satisfactory.   That  same day, Rowe  wrote to  Ms. Huddleston
   that  the contract  requires rear evaporator with multiple outlet
   ducts  in the  rear vehicle  compartment,  and  described how  it
   would  comply  with  that  requirement.   The  evidence  does not
   establish  that   the  specifications  were  unclear   about  the
   requirement that Rowe had to fulfill. 
 
        Rowe did not  show either that any delay occurred due to the
   outlet duct specification, or that if any delay did occur, it was
   attributable to GSA.  When Mr. Mould visited Rowe s plant on July
   10, Rowe  informed him that  the vans would have  only one outlet
   duct in the  rear compartment.  Mr.  Mould told Rowe to  write to
   Ms. Huddleston about this, so  that any necessary action could be
   taken  before Rowe  submitted its  first  production vehicle  for
   inspection.   Rowe  did not  write to  Ms. Huddleston  about this
   issue  until September 6,  and did not ask  her for a contracting
   officer s  decision  until September  25.   On September  30, Ms.
   Huddleston  said that she would  issue a final  decision.  But on
   that same  date, Rowe told  Ms. Huddleston that it  would provide
   multiple  outlet ducts  in the  rear  compartment.   If Rowe  was
   delayed  by its misunderstanding of the specification, which Rowe
   has not  established, the delay  was attributable in part  to the
   fact that Rowe  waited so long to ask  the contracting officer to
   resolve the issue.
 
             Size of the sliding door opening
 
        Rowe contends  that the specification was  defective because
   it resulted in the sliding door opening on the Ford vans  that it
   supplied being  too small to be usable.   Rowe s Opening Brief at
   32-33.   The specifications required  the vans to have  a sliding
   side door,  and required  Rowe to install  some type  of limiting
   device that  would prevent the door from  opening beyond one-half
   of  its normal  opening  distance.     The  solicitation did  not
   specify how large the door opening had to be.  The normal opening
   distance of the sliding side doors on the vans that Rowe provided
   is    39.6   inches,    and   one-half    of    this   is    19.8
   inches.[foot #] 11  
 
        Rowe never established that a 19.8 inch opening is too small
   to be usable.   On July 22,  Mr. Mould saw  a stop in  place that
   allowed the door to open half-way, and the opening was big enough
   for a  person to enter and exit the van.  As far as Mr. Mould was
   concerned, Rowe  had fulfilled  the contract s  requirement.   On
   September 3,  the opening size  became an issue because  Rowe had
   moved  the stop  so  that the  door  opened approximately  three-
   quarters of  its normal  opening distance.   Mr. Mould  discussed
   this requirement  with GSA  officials in  Crystal City, and  they
   decided that the opening should be between twenty and twenty-four
   inches.[foot #] 12      A    twenty-inch   opening,   which   the
   GSA  officials  thought  was  acceptable,  is  not  significantly
   greater than the 19.8 inch  opening that Mr. Mould first observed
   on one  of  Rowe s  vans.   Rowe  has not  established  that  the
   specification was defective.  
 
        Rowe did not establish that it was delayed by GSA due to the
   specification  concerning the  opening  distance of  the  sliding
   door.  Rowe says  that it was  delayed because it provided  eight
   different design options before GSA approved an  opening that was
   twenty-two inches wide.   Rowe s Opening Brief at  32-33.  Rowe's
   contention is  supported only by  its response to the  show cause
   notice, which also says that it provided eight different designs,
   and  not  by any  documents  created at  the  time the  events in
   question  occurred.    Mr.  Campbell  testified  that  Mr.  Mould
   rejected the  placement of  the door stop  three times,  and that
   Rowe   made   repeated  requests   for   clarification  of   this
   requirement.   Mr. Campbell s testimony  is not supported  by Mr.
   Mould s contemporaneous inspection reports or any other documents
   created when these  rejections and requests would  have occurred.
   The  record shows  that  Mr. Mould was  satisfied  with the  door
   opening on July 22, and that the size of the opening  only became
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 11 All   of  this   information  was,   of  course,
   available to Rowe before it  submitted a bid based upon supplying
   Ford vans.
 
        [foot #] 12 The  contract was never modified to allow for an
   opening other than one-half of the normal opening distance.  
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   an issue  on September 3 when  Rowe made the  opening larger than
   permitted by  the specification.   Sometime  between Mr.  Mould s
   September 3  visit to  Rowe s plant and  his September  19 visit,
   Rowe relocated the door stop  so that the opening was acceptable.
   Rowe has not shown  that it experienced any delay as  a result of
   moving the door stop that is attributable to GSA.
 
 
             Shape of the van
 
        Rowe  says that  the specifications  were defective  because
   they were not  suitable for  oval-shaped vans  like the Ford vans
   that Rowe  provided.  Rowe's Opening Brief at 33.  Rowe explained
   that,  due to the vans' oval shape,  when Rowe moved the position
   of the  partition, the  dimensions of  the partition changed  and
   this  delayed Rowe's  performance.   The  specifications did  not
   require contractors  to supply  vans with  any particular  shape.
   Before  Rowe submitted its bid, it knew that Ford vans were oval-
   shaped.   The specifications plainly stated that the van required
   a partition  and that where  the partition  met the sides  of the
   van, the gap  could not exceed 0.75  inches.  Just as  plain were
   the consequences of having to  move the position of the partition
   within  an oval-shaped  van,  while  maintaining  the  0.75  inch
   maximum gap.   Rowe nonetheless chose to supply Ford vans and was
   able to meet  the requirements of the  specifications using those
   vans.  The fact that the  specifications permitted Rowe to use an
   oval-shaped  van does  not  mean  that  the  specifications  were
   defective, even  if some aspects  of Rowe's performance  were not
   the same as they would  have been if Rowe  had been able to  find
   and to supply vans with perfectly rectangular interiors. 
 
             Striping on the Item 002 vans
 
        Rowe asserts that the  specifications were defective because
   they contain a  drawing to show where  the stripe on the  side of
   the Item  002 van  was to  be placed,  and the  placement of  the
   stripe on a Ford van in the position shown in the drawing was not
   acceptable to GSA.  Rowe says this caused  delays because on July
   17, GSA rejected   a van with the stripe applied  as shown in the
   contract, and GSA did not  respond to Rowe's numerous demands for
   clarification.    Rowe  says  that  GSA  asked  Rowe  to  provide
   "engineered options" for  the placement of  the stripe, but  Rowe
   refused  to  do this.    Rowe says  that it  submitted  a revised
   diagram  on  September  17,  and  GSA  modified the  contract  on
   September  30 to  correct the  position  of the  stripe.   Rowe's
   Opening Brief  at 37.   Rowe also says  that GSA accepted  one of
   three computer assisted design detailed engineering drawings, and
   then refused to compensate Rowe for the drawings.  Rowe's Opening
   Brief at 49.   There is little  to no support  in the record  for
   most of Rowe's  statements, and Rowe cites to  nothing to support
   its allegations.
 
        The facts, as shown in the record, are that Mr. Mould  saw a
   van  with a stripe  applied on August  19.   He did not  like the
   appearance of the  stripe, but it was applied  in accordance with
   the contract's requirements, so he  did not reject the van.   Mr.
   Mould did, however, tell Ms. Huddleston  that the contract should
   be changed to lower the placement of the stripe.  On September 6,
   Rowe  said that GSA  would have to  tell Rowe where  to place the
   stripe.  Rowe asked the manufacturer of the stripe to superimpose
   the stripe s pattern onto  a Ford van, and on  September 17, Rowe
   sent  GSA a  suggestion for  the  placement of  the  stripe.   On
   September 19, Ms. Huddleston told  Rowe that the placement of the
   stripe   would  be  evaluated  during  inspection  of  the  first
   production vehicle.  Also on  September 19, Mr. Mould recommended
   that GSA accept Rowe's suggestion.  On September 30, GSA modified
   the contract to accept Rowe's suggestion.
 
 
        Even  if  we  assume that  the  specification  was defective
   because GSA did not like  the appearance of the stripe when  Rowe
   placed it in the location required by the contract, Rowe  has not
   shown  that the  defect delayed  its  performance.   There is  no
   evidence to show how any  issue concerning the stripes could have
   affected production of  the Item 001 vans, which  did not require
   stripes.  The  only evidence suggesting that Rowe  was delayed in
   producing the  Item 002 vans  is contained in Rowe's  response to
   the show cause notice, which alleges that Rowe was delayed by 120
   days due to the  striping issue.  The response to  the show cause
   notice,  however, does  not outweigh  the other  evidence in  the
   record.  The  first time that Rowe  presented an Item 002  van to
   GSA  for  inspection  was  October  8.   The  evidence  does  not
   establish  that  Rowe  had any  Item  002  vans  completed before
   October  8,  except for  the  stripe,  and  was waiting  for  the
   September  30  modification  to present  those  vans  to GSA  for
   inspection.   In fact, the Item  002 van that Rowe  presented for
   inspection  on October 8 contained several defects, and Rowe said
   that  the van did not represent  Rowe's final product and that it
   was initiating design changes to the Item 002 van.  In  addition,
   Rowe has  not shown how placing the stripe  on the outside of the
   van  affected any of its other work,  most of which was performed
   inside the van.   As Mr. Campbell testified, the  stripe could be
   applied at any time, concurrently with other work.   Rowe has not
   established  that  the  specification  provisions concerning  the
   stripe delayed  its performance,  even if  the specification  was
   defective. 
 
             Subsequent solicitation
 
        Finally,  Rowe  says that  GSA  must have  thought  that the
   specifications in  Rowe's contract  were defective  because in  a
   subsequent  solicitation, GSA  changed  some of  the requirements
   that were found in Rowe's contract.  Rowe's Opening Brief at 4-5,
   45-46.  Specifically, the subsequent solicitation spelled out the
   precise make and model of the flood light that the contractor was
   to attach  to the roof  of the  Item 001 van,  the number  of air
   ducts  required in  the rear  compartment, and  the width  of the
   sliding door opening.  T. 1425, 1431, 1457.  At the  hearing, Mr.
   Globerman testified  that these changes were not  needed in order
   to  eliminate  an  ambiguity  or  to clarify  the  terms  of  the
   contract.    Due to  GSA's  experience  with Rowe,  however,  GSA
   decided  to  make  the  requirements  more  restrictive  for  the
   subsequent contractor.  T. 1426, 1890.  
 
 
        The  fundamental problem with  Rowe's argument is  that Rowe
   has  not  established   that  the  provisions  of   its  contract
   concerning the flood  light, the air ducts, and  the door opening
   were   defective   and   needed   to   be   corrected.[foot #] 13
   The fact that GSA  wrote the subsequent solicitation to  restrict
   the  subsequent contractor  by  dictating  its  choice  of  flood
   lights, the number  of ducts that it installed,  and the width of
   the door opening, does not mean that Rowe's contract was unclear.
   When  the Government and a contractor disagree about the language
   of  a contract,  the Government  acts responsibly  when  it takes
   action  to eliminate  the  source of  the  disagreement in  later
   contracts.    Such  action  by  the  Government does  not  prove,
   however, that  the contract  was unclear  as originally  written.
   Martin Lane Co. v. United States, 432 F.2d 1013 (Ct. Cl. 1970).  
 
        Issue IV (4): Changes
 
        Rowe alleges that GSA made changes to the following contract
   requirements,   and  that  these   changes  prevented  Rowe  from
   performing within the time set  out in the contract: (1) striping
   on  the  Item 002  vans,  (2)  seat  rivets,  (3) arm  rest,  (4)
   alternator, (5)  vent cover, (6)  jack, (7) spare tire  lock, (8)
   flood light, (9) seat attachment (welds), (10) iron bracket, (11)
   partition attachment, (12)  partition fabrication, (13) partition
   installation, and (14) seat belts. 
 
             Striping on the Item 002 vans
 
        Rowe says that  it was delayed due  to a change GSA  made to
   the contract's requirement for stripes.  Rowe's  Opening Brief at
   37.   Earlier,  we  concluded  that  Rowe's performance  was  not
   delayed even if the  striping specifications were defective.   We
   reach the same conclusion, for  the same reasons, here.  Although
   GSA did change  the contract's  requirement for  striping on  the
   Item 002 vans, there  is no evidence to suggest  that this change
   affected the Item 001 vans in any way.  As for the Item 002 vans,
   Rowe could have applied the  stripes at any time, concurrent with
   other work.   Nothing establishes either that  Rowe's work inside
   the vans  was affected by  the stripes, or  that Rowe  could have
   presented an Item 002 van for inspection any earlier than it did,
   but for the change to the stripes.
 
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 13 Rowe  does   not  argue  that  the  flood  light
   specification was defective.   Rather, Rowe argues  that GSA made
   changes  to the  contract's  requirement  for  the  flood  light.
   Rowe's Opening Brief  at 36.   We address  this in the  following
   section of our discussion.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
        Rowe asserts that GSA changed the contract by requiring Rowe
   to provide  the striping  for the  Item 002  vans, and that  this
   change delayed  Rowe's performance.   Rowe's Reply  Brief at  21.
   The contract  says  that the  striping  "shall be  furnished  and
   applied to the vehicle."  This language does not suggest, as Rowe
   contends, that the  stripes would be furnished  by the Government
   and  applied by  Rowe.    The requirement  to  furnish and  apply
   stripes was one of many tasks  that the contract required Rowe to
   perform.  When GSA required Rowe to  furnish the striping, it was
   requiring  no more than the terms  of the contract required.  GSA
   did not change the contract when it required Rowe to provide  the
   striping for the Item 002 vans.
 
             Seat rivets
 
        Rowe  says  that  its performance  was  delayed  because GSA
   changed the  contract to require Rowe to  secure fiberglass seats
   to  their frames  using  eight rivets,  instead  of four  rivets.
   Rowe's Opening Brief  at 19-20.  The evidence  does not establish
   that GSA changed the  terms of the contract by requiring  Rowe to
   install eight rivets in each seat.  
 
        Rowe intended  to attach  fiberglass seats  to the  original
   equipment  manufacturer's seat  frames in  the rear  compartment.
   The contract  required that the  seat attachment be "in  a manner
   equal to  a  seat furnished  as  a complete  assembly by  a  seat
   manufacturer."   On October 8, Mr. Mould  saw that the seats were
   mounted with only two rivets along the front of the seat  and two
   rivets on the top of the seat.  In Mr. Mould's opinion, the seats
   moved too  freely in  the center because  they were  mounted with
   only two rivets.  Mr. Globerman explained that because fiberglass
   is  flexible and the seats are  several feet long, using only two
   rivets  would allow  the seats  to be  vandalized.   Mr. Campbell
   testified that Mr. Mould used a clipboard to pry up the  front of
   one seat, but Mr. Mould denied this.
 
        Mr. Mould asked for documentation to show that Rowe's method
   of  attaching  a  seat complied  with  FMVS  standards, and  Rowe
   provided  Mr. Mould  with  a  sheet of  paper  that contained  an
   installation procedure for  the seats, including using  only four
   rivets to attach the seats to  the frames.  The paper was  not on
   any company's letterhead,  and contained a handwritten  note from
   an employee of the company  that supplied the seats, stating that
   he agreed  with using four  rivets and also stating  that "typing
   errors" were being corrected.   Mr. Mould asked Rowe to provide a
   certification without errors, or to identify the typing errors in
   the sheet of paper.  
 
        On October  11, three  days after Mr.  Mould inquired  about
   Rowe's seat  attachment procedure,  Rowe said  that it would  use
   eight rivets, instead  of four, to secure  the seats to  the seat
   frames.   On October 15, and again on  October 23, Mr. Mould told
   Rowe  that  he still  needed  documentation to  show  that Rowe's
   planned method of attaching the seats was acceptable.  On October
   25,  Rowe sent  Mr. Mould  the seat  manufacturer's amended  seat
   installation instructions, which  showed the use of  eight rivets
   to attach the  seats.  Six days later, Mr.  Mould approved Rowe's
   first production vehicles.
 
 
        Although  Mr. Campbell  testified at  the  hearing that  Mr.
   Mould insisted upon using eight  rivets to secure the  fiberglass
   seats to their frames, Mr. Mould  testified that he was sure that
   it  was  Rowe's  idea to  use  eight  rivets.    Mr. Muncie  also
   testified that  he was sure  that Rowe made  the decision  to use
   additional rivets when Mr. Mould  pointed out that the seats were
   not secured to the frames.  The contemporaneous  documentation of
   record  shows  that  GSA  identified  a  problem  with  the  seat
   attachment  and three  days later,  Rowe said  that it  would use
   eight rivets  to attach the  seats.  At  that time, Rowe  did not
   mention  that the  use of eight  rivets instead  of four  was Mr.
   Mould's idea, and did  not say that Mr. Mould  was insisting upon
   the use  of eight rivets.  The contemporaneous documentation also
   shows  that  Rowe  did  not provide  Mr.  Mould  with  acceptable
   information  concerning  the method  it was  using to  attach its
   seats until October 25, and  that the information stated that the
   use of eight rivets to secure the seats was an acceptable  method
   of installation.  Rowe has not established, by a preponderance of
   the evidence,  that GSA changed  the contract to require  Rowe to
   use eight rivets to secure the fiberglass seats to their frames. 
 
             Arm rest
 
        Rowe   contends  that  GSA  attempted  to  insist  upon  the
   installation  of  arm   rests,  and  that  this   delayed  Rowe's
   performance.    Rowe's  Opening  Brief  at  21.    Rowe  has  not
   established either that GSA attempted  to change the terms of the
   contract by insisting upon the installation of arm rests, or that
   GSA's actions delayed Rowe's performance.
 
        If  GSA had  insisted that  Rowe  install arm  rests on  the
   drivers' seats, this would not  have amounted to a change to  the
   contract because the contract plainly required the drivers' seats
   to  have   arm  rests.[foot #] 14       The  evidence   does  not
   show, however,  that GSA  insisted that Rowe  install arm  rests.
   Instead, because  the vans that  Rowe supplied did not  come with
   arm rests, GSA asked Rowe for a credit  of $50 per van.  GSA also
   discussed with Rowe whether they could trade the arm  rests for a
   roof vent cover.  Although Rowe attempted to install arm rests in
   the  vans, there  is no evidence  to show  that this was  done at
   GSA's  suggestion or  with GSA's  prior knowledge,  much less  at
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 14 Even if, as  Rowe says, the contracting  officer
   realized that  the vans  that Rowe purchased  would not  have arm
   rests   and there is conflicting evidence concerning this point  
   there is  no evidence to  show that the contracting  officer ever
   agreed that the vans that Rowe provided to GSA would not have arm
   rests.  
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   GSA's insistence.  Instead of  changing the contract by insisting
   that Rowe provide seats with arm rests, GSA modified the contract
   on September 30 to eliminate the arm rest requirement in exchange
   for Rowe's providing a roof vent cover.  As for any delay related
   to the arm  rests, Mr. Mould  never rejected Rowe's vans  for not
   having arm  rests, because he  was aware that  GSA and Rowe  were
   discussing this issue.   Rowe has not shown how the resolution of
   the arm rest issue had any impact  upon its performance of any of
   the other work required by the contract.  
 
 
             Alternator
 
        As  part of  its argument  that  GSA changed  the contract's
   requirements, Rowe  says that  GSA rejected  the alternator  that
   Rowe supplied.  Rowe's Opening Brief at 25.  There is no evidence
   to  support Rowe's contention.   At  the September  3 preliminary
   inspection, Mr. Mould asked  Rowe to provide information  to show
   that  the alternator  it supplied  was  the one  required by  the
   contract.  There  is nothing in the  transcript or in any  of the
   GSA  inspection  reports to  show that  GSA ever  rejected Rowe's
   alternator,  or that  the  alternator was  ever  at issue  during
   Rowe's performance of the contract.
 
             Vent cover
 
        Rowe  contends that GSA delayed Rowe's progress by modifying
   the contract on  September 30 to require an  additional roof vent
   cover.  Rowe's  Opening Brief at 26-28.   This is the  cover that
   Rowe provided in exchange for GSA's  deleting the requirement for
   an arm  rest, discussed  above.   Most vents  have a  fixed cover
   screwed over the  vent.  The cover  that Rowe planned to  install
   was hinged and was designed to swing up, and it could be tampered
   with from outside the van.   The cover also had to  be opened and
   closed manually from inside the passenger compartment,  and had a
   detachable knob.  Rowe says  that requiring a different roof vent
   cover delayed its progress because the substitute cover had to be
   installed before the interior head  liner and the insulation were
   installed, and that  this is one  of the items  that delayed  Mr.
   Mould's approval of the first production vehicles. 
 
        Rowe did  not point to any  evidence, and we found  none, to
   show that the  vent cover was an  issue that delayed Mr.  Mould's
   approval  of  the   first  production  vehicle.     Similarly,  a
   preponderance of the evidence does not show that the installation
   of the cover delayed work inside the van.  Mr. Campbell testified
   that  Rowe's workers  would have  had to  install the  vent cover
   before installing the  head liner and  the insulation inside  the
   van unless his workers used  cutting screws to install the cover;
   he did  not think  that  his workers  used cutting  screws.   Mr.
   Globerman  explained  how the  vent  cover  was  supposed  to  be
   attached and concluded that if  the vent itself had been properly
   installed, there would have been no  reason for anyone to need to
   do any work  inside the van  in order to  attach the vent  cover.
   Mr.  Muncie explained  how  the  vent  cover  was  attached,  and
   testified that the cover could  be installed even if the interior
   of the van  had been  installed previously.   Mr. Muncie did  not
   believe that his co-workers had to go inside the vans in order to
   install  the  vent  covers.   Mr. Campbell's  testimony  does not
   outweigh that of Mr. Globerman or Mr. Muncie.
 
 
        If  the addition  of the  requirement for  a new  vent cover
   increased   Rowe s   performance   time,  which   Rowe   has  not
   established,  the corresponding deletion  of the  requirement for
   arm  rests  would  by  the  same  argument  have  reduced  Rowe's
   performance time.  There is no evidence to show that it took Rowe
   longer to  install the  vent cover  than it would  have taken  to
   comply  with the contract's requirement for arm rests by removing
   the existing drivers'  seats and installing seats with arm rests,
   or  by  installing  arm  rests  on  the  existing  seats,  or  by
   installing a center console with arm rests.  The only evidence to
   support Rowe's contention  that it was delayed by  the vent cover
   issue is found  in its response to the show cause notice, when it
   said that  it was delayed for 129 days  beginning on June 19, and
   Mr. Campbell's testimony.  The  response to the show cause notice
   was created long  after the alleged delays began,  and neither it
   nor  Mr. Campbell's testimony explains  how Rowe could  have been
   delayed by  129 days  due  to the  vent  cover modification.    A
   preponderance  of  the  evidence  does  not  establish  that  the
   September 30 contract modification delayed Rowe's progress.
 
             Jack
 
        Rowe  says  that GSA  changed  the contract  by  requiring a
   certification concerning the jack, and that this caused Mr. Mould
   to  reject  the  first production  vehicle,  which  delayed Rowe.
   Rowe's Opening Brief at 36.  The evidence of record shows that on
   October 8, Mr. Mould noted that Rowe did not have any information
   available to  show  that the  jack complied  with the  contract's
   requirements, and this was one of several reasons that  Mr. Mould
   rejected the  Item 002 van.   On October  11, Rowe said  that the
   information  concerning the jack  was available at  its facility.
   Mr.  Mould approved Rowe's  first production vehicles  on October
   31.  Asking Rowe to establish  that the jack it provided met  the
   contract's  requirements did  not  constitute  a  change  to  the
   contract, and  there is  no evidence to  show that  GSA's request
   delayed Rowe's progress.
 
             Spare tire lock
 
        Rowe contends  that GSA  changed the  contract by  requiring
   Rowe  to show that  its spare tire  was placed  under the vehicle
   with a locking device, as required by the contract, and that this
   caused Mr.  Mould to reject  the first production  vehicle, which
   delayed Rowe.  Rowe's Opening  Brief at 36.  It is  true that Mr.
   Mould rejected the Item 001 first production vehicle on September
   19 due,  in part, to  a concern about  the locking device.   When
   Mr. Mould inspected the van, the spare tire did not  seem to have
   a  locking device.    When  Mr. Mould asked  about  this, a  Rowe
   employee said  that he did not know where the locking device was.
   Four   days  later,  Rowe  told  Mr.  Mould  that  Ford s  design
    incorporates the function of a lock.   Two days after that, Rowe
   told  Ms.  Huddleston that  it  would  provide a  locking  device
   attached to the  left rear door  of the van.   We agree  with Ms.
   Huddleston s  observation  that  Rowe s  position concerning  the
   locking device  was unclear  and contradictory.    Mr. Mould  was
   responsible for ensuring  that Rowe provided a  locking device as
   required by the contract.  Asking Rowe  to explain how it met the
   spare tire locking device requirement did not constitute a change
   to the  contract requirement,  and there is  no evidence  to show
   that GSA s actions delayed Rowe s progress. 
 
             Flood light
 
        Rowe  argues that  all  of  the  different  lights  that  it
   proposed  to install above the sliding doors of the Item 001 vans
   met  the  contract s  requirements, and  that  GSA  changed those
   requirements  when it rejected Rowe s choices  of lights.  Rowe s
   Opening Brief at 36.   The facts do not support  Rowe s position.
   The contract required  Rowe to install an adjustable flood light,
   and the lamp  was supposed to be contained in an ABS type plastic
   housing  measuring approximately four  inches by six  inches.  On
   September 3, when Mr. Mould conducted a preliminary inspection of
   a van, he  noted that the light provided by Rowe was 5-1/2 inches
   by 3-1/8  inches.   It  was  not  adjustable, and  there  was  no
   documentation available to  show that  the housing  was ABS  type
   plastic.  On  September 18, Rowe asked what GSA meant by ABS type
   plastic, and it  said that it was  going to supply a  Signal Stat
   model  512WD  light.     On  September  19,  during  Mr.  Mould s
   inspection of an Item 001 first production vehicle, he noted that
   Rowe had the same light attached to the van as had  been attached
   on September 3; he  also noticed that the light was  a fog light,
   and not a  flood light.  Mr.  Dellinger spoke with Rowe  and they
   identified an acceptable  light, a Signal Stat  model 629WD, that
   would meet the contract requirements.  On September 23, Rowe said
   that  its light met  the ABS requirement.   On September 25, Rowe
   said that it wanted to supply a Signal Stat model 612WD, which is
   three inches  by five  inches.   On September 30,  Ms. Huddleston
   wrote to Rowe  and explained what ABS  type plastic is,  and also
   reminded  Rowe that  a  flood light,  and not  a  fog light,  was
   required.  The  light that Rowe  provided on  October 15 met  the
   contract s requirements.
 
        GSA never changed  the contract requirements for  the light.
   GSA rejected lights Rowe  proposed to use that did not meet those
   requirements.   Rowe  proposed to  supply  a light  that was  not
   adjustable, when  the contract  called for  an adjustable  light.
   Rowe proposed to supply  a fog light, even though a  fog light is
   not  the same  as a  flood light because  the different  types of
   lights  disperse light in  different patterns.   Rowe proposed to
   supply a light  that was approximately three by five  inches.  We
   cannot  fault  GSA for  deciding that  a light  this size  is not
   approximately the  same size as  one that is  four by  six inches
   because the  larger light has  an area that is  approximately one
   and one-half  times greater  than the smaller  light.   After GSA
   assisted  Rowe in  identifying a  light  that met  the contract s
   requirements, Rowe proposed to supply a different light.  If Rowe
   experienced any delay as a  result of the light issue, the  delay
   was not attributable to any change made by GSA.
 
             Seat attachment (welds)
 
        Rowe alleges that GSA  changed the contract on  December 10,
   1996,  by requiring  Rowe to  tack  weld the  passenger seats  in
   place.   Rowe s  Opening Brief  at  43.   The  evidence does  not
   support Rowe s allegation.   On October 15, Mr.  Mould noted that
   the  passenger seat  attachments were  not  tamper resistant,  as
   required by the  contract.  Later that month,  Mr. Mould saw that
   Rowe had corrected this problem by tightening a  bolt so that the
   seat  release  handle  was restricted.    During  his  November 8
   inspection, Mr. Mould saw that tightening the bolt did not always
   prevent a seat from being released, and he rejected three vans on
   that  date due  to  this problem.   On  November  18, Mr.  Muncie
   explained  to Mr. Mould that tightening the bolt would not always
   prevent  the rear seats from being  released.  Mr. Muncie and Mr.
   Mould testified that  Rowe decided to tack weld  the seat release
   handles so that the seats could not be released.  
 
        The evidence does not show  that GSA changed the contract on
   December 10  or on  any other date  to require  Rowe to  weld the
   passenger seats in place.   Mr. Campbell testified that Mr. Mould
   directed Rowe to tack weld the handles on the seats, but Campbell
   was not  present on  November 18, when  the decision was  made to
   tack weld  the handles.   Mr. Mould s record  of his  December 10
   inspection does not mention anything  about tack welding the seat
   release  handles,  and  Mr.  Campbell  was  not present  for  the
   December 10 inspection.   Mr. Muncie and Mr.  Mould recalled that
   it was Rowe's decision to  tack weld the seat release  handles in
   order  to  comply with  the  requirements  of  the contract.    A
   preponderance  of the evidence does not support Rowe s contention
   that  GSA changed the  contract to require Rowe  to tack weld the
   seats in place.  
 
             Iron bracket
 
        Rowe alleges  that GSA changed the contract  on November 25,
   1996, by requiring Rowe to weld an iron bracket  to the passenger
   side window  cover.   Rowe s Opening  Brief at 43.   Mr.  Mould s
   inspection report for  this day shows that he  approved six vans,
   and  says  that  he  noted  only  minor  deficiencies which  Rowe
   corrected.   There is  no evidence in  the record  to support the
   allegation that GSA on November 25, or on any other  date changed
   the  contract by  ordering Rowe  to weld an  iron bracket  to the
   passenger side window cover. 
 
 
             Partition attachment
 
        Rowe contends that GSA changed the contract when it rejected
   a method of attaching the partition to the body of the van, after
   it had  previously approved  that method of  attachment.   Rowe s
   Opening Brief at 35.  The evidence in the record establishes that
   in  early September,  before Rowe  submitted  a first  production
   vehicle for inspection, GSA told  Rowe that it was not sufficient
   to secure the partition  to the body of the van  with rivets, and
   that Rowe  needed to  mount the partition  with nuts,  bolts, and
   screws.  Rowe responded that it had used its method of attachment
   in other contracts, and that GSA would have to modify the INS van
   contract if it wanted Rowe to do something else.  The record does
   not establish  what method  of attachment GSA  approved in  other
   contracts,  what  method   of  attachment  Rowe  used   in  other
   contracts,  or whether those  other contracts contained  the same
   requirements  for  securing  the  partition as  did  the  INS van
   contract.   Rowe has  not shown that GSA  changed the contract by
   approving a  method for attaching  the partition in the  INS vans
   and later rejecting that method of attachment. 
 
             Partition fabrication
 
        Rowe contends  that it asked  GSA, in May 1996,  if it could
   construct  the  partition  in  the   same  manner  as  the  prior
   contractor,  and that GSA  agreed.  According  to Rowe, Mr. Mould
   then rejected the partition and GSA had to change the contract to
   allow Rowe  to construct the partition  as it wished.   Rowe also
   says  that there  were unspecified  problems  with attaching  the
   Lexan shield to the partition, and GSA had to change the contract
   to  resolve these  problems.   Rowe says  that GSA s  actions and
   changes  regarding  fabrication  of  the  partition  delayed  its
   progress.  Rowe s Opening Brief at 35.  
 
        There  is nothing in the record  to show that Rowe asked GSA
   any questions about fabrication of  the partition in May 1996, or
   that GSA  agreed to a  method of fabrication different  from that
   required  by  the contract.    On  September  3, when  Mr.  Mould
   conducted his preliminary inspection,  he saw that Rowe  was spot
   welding the  mesh to  L-frame, instead of  pinning it  to channel
   frame as required  by the contract.   Rowe was not  attaching the
   Lexan  forward of  the partition,  as required  by  the contract.
   Because  fabricating the  partition as  Rowe wished  to do  would
   require a  modification to  the terms of  the contract,  Rowe was
   going to ask Ms. Huddleston about this.   The next day, Mr. Mould
   and GSA officials  in Crystal City decided that  Rowe s method of
   fabricating the partition would be acceptable if  it proved to be
   durable during the inspection of Rowe s first production vehicle.
   On September  6, Rowe advised  Ms. Huddleston that the  method of
   fabrication it  wished to use  had been used in  other contracts.
   Even though the  contract specifically told Rowe to fabricate the
   partition  by pinning the mesh  to channel frame  and did not say
   that  Rowe could  spot weld  the mesh  to L-frame, Rowe  told Ms.
   Huddleston  that GSA  would have  to  modify the  contract if  it
   wanted Rowe to  do anything other than  spot weld the mesh  to L-
   frame.  On September 19, Ms. Huddleston told Rowe  that she would
   consider  approving  an  alternative  method  of  fabricating the
   partition  if Rowe  asked for a  deviation from the  terms of the
   contract.  On September 27, Rowe asked to be allowed to  weld the
   mesh  to an  L-frame,  with the  welds four  inches  apart.   Ms.
   Huddleston  issued  a  contract  modification  on   September 30,
   approving  Rowe s proposed method  of fabricating  the partition,
   instead of pinning the mesh to channel frame.  
 
 
        The  evidence does not  support Rowe s allegations  that GSA
   approved a  method of  fabricating the  partition, then  rejected
   that  method,  and  then subsequently  modified  the  contract to
   approve  that method of  fabrication.  Instead,  the record shows
   that Rowe wanted to fabricate the partition in a manner different
   from that specified in the  contract, and GSA acted promptly when
   it modified the contract on September 30 to approve the deviation
   requested by Rowe on September 27.   Rowe included a videotape in
   the  record  of  this  case,  and  the  videotape  shows  several
   partition  configurations.   Ex.  615.   The  videotape does  not
   outweigh   the  other  evidence  in  the  record  concerning  the
   partition, because  it  was  made  in early  1997,  after  Rowe's
   performance was terminated, and does not establish why there were
   several partition configurations.  Ex. 188 at 3.  
 
             Partition installation
 
        Rowe says that GSA changed the contract by directing Rowe to
   move  the  partition nine  times,  that  Rowe made  seven  design
   changes to  the partition in order to  satisfy GSA, and that this
   delayed  Rowe s  progress.    Rowe  also  says  that   Mr.  Mould
   threatened to  reject the  vans unless the  partition was  placed
   where he wanted it to be placed.   Rowe s Opening Brief at 33-35.
 
 
        Although there are documents in the record showing that Rowe
   moved the partition, these  documents establish that Rowe did  so
   in  order to  satisfy the  requirement of  the contract  that the
   partition separate  the passenger  compartment from  the drivers'
   compartment.   Mr. Mould  saw  a partially  completed van  with a
   partition installed  on  September 3,  but  he could  not  verify
   whether the location of the partition was acceptable until he saw
   a completed van.   Mr. Mould saw a completed van on September 19,
   when he inspected  Rowe's Item 001 first production  vehicle.  He
   observed  that the  floor covering was  not properly  secured and
   that the  partition was  placed so that  a passenger  could reach
   into the front  compartment and grab the assistant  driver.  Rowe
   said that it would move  the partition forward to eliminate these
   problems.   When Rowe moved  the partition, this resulted  in the
   main electrical  wiring harness on  the driver's side of  the van
   being exposed so  that it could  be reached by passengers  in the
   rear compartment.  Rowe  made a panel to cover  the wiring, which
   solved that  problem.   Directing Rowe to  move the  partition so
   that  the passenger compartment  was separated from  the drivers'
   compartment  did not  constitute a  change  to the  terms of  the
   contract.   Instead,  such direction  was necessary  in order  to
   ensure that Rowe complied with the contract's requirements.  
 
 
        The record contains  two documents that are  consistent with
   Rowe's allegation that it was directed to move the partition nine
   times.   One is  Rowe s response to  GSA s show  cause notice, in
   which Rowe said  that the partition  had moved nine  times.   The
   other is Rowe's response to GSA's cure notice, in which Rowe said
   that it had been ordered  to move the partition nine "documented"
   times.   There  is, however,  no documentation  showing any  such
   order or direction by  GSA.  When Mr. Conklin asked  Mr. Campbell
   if he could support his contention that Rowe had been directed to
   move the partition  nine times, Mr. Conklin found  Mr. Campbell's
   response  to be  vague, and  Mr. Campbell  indicated that  GSA in
   Crystal City had  directed the partition to be moved.  He did not
   say who gave  that direction and he  had no documents to  back up
   his statements.  Also in response to GSA's cure notice, Rowe said
   that three  months earlier,  which would have  been some  time in
   July,  GSA had ordered Rowe  to move the  partition back by three
   inches.  Rowe made similar  statements in its September 23 and 25
   letters to Mr. Mould and Ms. Huddleston.  Presumably, this is one
   of the  nine  "documented" times  that,  according to  Rowe,  GSA
   ordered the partition moved.   It appears that Rowe was referring
   to  the fact  that on July  22, Mr.  Mould advised Rowe  that the
   partition could  not interfere  with moving  the drivers'  seats.
   But, Mr. Mould  did not see a  van with a partition  installed at
   that time. 
 
        Mr. Campbell said  that Mr. Mould directed Rowe  to move the
   partition numerous times.   Mr. Mould said that  he never ordered
   Rowe to move the partition, and that he did not know of any other
   GSA employee  telling Rowe to  move the partition.   Mr. Muncie's
   recollection  was  that  Mr.  Mould wanted  to  ensure  that  the
   partition was placed  so that the passengers could  not reach the
   drivers.    He  testified  that  Mr. Mould  told  Rowe  that  the
   partition  would  have   to  be  moved  in  order   to  meet  the
   requirements of  the contract,  but that Mr.  Mould did  not tell
   Rowe where to place the partition.  
 
        The only time  that Mr. Mould  rejected a van for  a problem
   with  the partition was on September 19, when he rejected an Item
   001 van for  seven reasons, including workmanship  problems.  One
   of Mr. Mould's comments concerning workmanship was  that Rowe had
   advised that it would move  the partition forward to decrease the
   space  between   the  passenger  compartment  and  the  assistant
   driver's space. 
 
 
        Rowe  has not established  either that GSA  directed Rowe to
   move the  partition nine  times or that  Mr. Mould  threatened to
   reject the vans unless Rowe  placed the partition where Mr. Mould
   wanted it to be placed.  Mr. Mould did advise Rowe that it should
   not  locate the  partition  where  it  would interfere  with  the
   movement of the drivers' seats, and he also advised Rowe that the
   partition would have  to be located so that  passengers could not
   reach into the drivers' compartment.  Rowe's response to the cure
   notice and the  show cause notice, and  Mr. Campbell s testimony,
   are   not  sufficient  evidence  to  overcome  the  testimony  of
   Mr. Mould  and  Mr.  Muncie,  and the  contemporaneously  created
   documents  in the record  concerning Mr. Mould's  inspections and
   directions, which do not support the conclusion that he or anyone
   else in GSA either directed Rowe to move the partition nine times
   or threatened to reject vans unless the partition was placed in a
   specific spot.  
 
             Seat belts
 
        Rowe contends  that  Mr.  Mould ordered  Rowe  to  move  the
   drivers' and passengers'  seat belts to locations  other than the
   original  equipment  manufacturer's  locations.   Rowe's  Opening
   Brief  at  34.    The  contemporaneous  documentation  of  events
   concerning the seat belts shows that on September 4, GSA and Rowe
   discussed the fact  that Rowe's vans had  shoulder harnesses, and
   not just seat  belts, and these could be hazardous because of the
   purpose for which the INS intended to use the vans.  Although GSA
   intended to discuss  this with the INS  and report back to  Rowe,
   the record does not show whether GSA  got back in touch with Rowe
   concerning this issue or, if it did, when that contact was  made.
   On September 26, however, Mr.  Campbell told Ms. Huddleston  that
   one  of his workers had  found a way to  attach both belts to the
   floor instead of to the roof, and  that Rowe could do this at  no
   cost  because it would  have to detach and  reattach the belts in
   any  event.    Ms. Huddleston told  Mr.  Campbell  to submit  his
   request in  writing and  to include any  effect that  this change
   would have upon  Rowe's "liability with Ford."   On September 30,
   Rowe told Mr. Mould that it might relocate the seat belt/shoulder
   harness so that  it would be  mounted on  the floor.   Consistent
   with  Ms. Huddleston's  advice, Mr.  Mould told  Rowe that  if it
   moved  the mount, it  needed to make  sure that its  mounting met
   FMVS standards.  
 
        On October  8, Mr.  Mould observed that  Rowe had  moved the
   attachment for the front seat belt harness so that it was located
   in  the drivers' compartment,  and there was  no documentation to
   establish  that this  complied with  FMVS standards.    Mr. Mould
   documented this observation in an  inspection report that he sent
   to Ms.  Huddleston and to  Rowe.   On October 11,  Rowe explained
   that when it moved  the partition forward, this left part  of the
   seat belt attachment  in the rear compartment.   Because GSA said
   that  this was "not the best," Rowe  planned to use a kit made by
   Kenidyne  that  would permit  Rowe  to meet  the  required safety
   standards.  
 
 
        In  a letter  to Rowe  concerning  his October  15 visit  to
   Rowe's  plant, Mr. Mould stated that Rowe had moved the seat belt
   mounting  for the assistant  driver to the  drivers' compartment.
   Mr. Mould's  letter says that the mounting  was unacceptable, but
   that Rowe  corrected the  problem during Mr.  Mould's visit.   On
   October 29, Mr.  Mould noticed that the driver's  seat belt would
   bind after  minimal usage, and  Rowe said that it  would evaluate
   the design and location of  the mounting bracket.  The  next day,
   Rowe said that it had eliminated the binding problem.  
 
        Mr.  Mould testified  that  before  he  approved  the  first
   production vehicle, Rowe provided him with information concerning
   a  Kenidyne   fixture  and  said  that  it   complied  with  FMVS
   requirements.   In Mr.  Mould's opinion,  the documentation  that
   Rowe   provided  established  that  it  had  complied  with  FMVS
   standards.    Although  Mr. Campbell  testified  that  Mr. Muncie
   submitted some documentation to C.E. White and to Ford concerning
   the  Kenidyne attachment, that  Ford responded that  it would not
   accept the  Kenidyne fixture, and  that he told GSA  about Ford's
   response,  there are  no  documents  to  support  Mr.  Campbell's
   testimony. 
 
        Mr. Campbell testified that Rowe moved seat belt attachments
   at  GSA's direction.  He  also testified that,  as of October 31,
   Rowe had not  moved the drivers' seat belt  attachments, and only
   moved those mounts  after telling GSA that Ford  would not accept
   the Kenidyne  attachment method  that Rowe had  proposed to  use.
   Mr.   Campbell's  recollection   is   not  consistent   with  the
   information  contained   in  the  documents  summarized   in  the
   preceding paragraphs, which were created  at the time the  events
   at  issue occurred.  When Rowe spoke  with Ms. Huddleston and Mr.
   Mould in  late September,  the summaries  that  they prepared  of
   their discussions  show that  Rowe had  determined that  it could
   change how the  seat belts were  attached to the vans,  and GSA's
   only concern was that  whatever Rowe did had to  comply with FMVS
   standards.   Mr. Mould documented his observation that Rowe moved
   attachments and mountings before October 31.  There is nothing in
   any of the parties' documents of record to suggest that Rowe ever
   told GSA  that  Ford would  not  accept the  Kenidyne  attachment
   method that Rowe  proposed to use.  Mr.  Mould, who had initially
   expressed concern about compliance with FMVS standards, testified
   that Rowe provided him with information to show that the Kenidyne
   kit met those safety standards.  
 
        As  explained earlier,  if Rowe  had  to move  the partition
   forward  in order to comply  with the contract's requirement that
   the partition  separate the  rear compartment  from the  drivers'
   compartment,  then  moving  the partition  did  not  constitute a
   change to the  terms of the  contract.   If moving the  partition
   resulted  in  a  problem  with  the location  of  the  seat  belt
   attachments, Rowe could have solved that problem by boxing in the
   attachment  point  or  by  sloping  the partition.    The  record
   indicates that  it was Rowe's decision  to use a Kenidyne  kit to
   eliminate  problems   with  the   location  of   the  seat   belt
   attachments, and that Rowe provided information to GSA to satisfy
   its  concerns about  safety standards.     The evidence  does not
   establish that  Mr. Mould ordered  Rowe to move the  drivers' and
   passengers'  seat  belts  to locations  other  than  the original
   equipment manufacturer's locations.
 
 
        Issue  IV  (5):  Inspections,   meetings,  information,  and
   clarifications
 
        Rowe asserts that it was delayed because GSA did not provide
   a timely  response to  Rowe's request to  change the  contract to
   provide  one ventilator instead of the two ventilators specified,
   and  because  GSA did  not  timely  approve  the use  of  Celotex
   insulation.   Rowe's  Opening Brief  at 26,  30.   Throughout its
   briefs, Rowe argues  generally that its progress  was delayed due
   to  GSA's  refusal to  perform timely  inspections, to  meet with
   Rowe, to provide Rowe with information that it needed in order to
   perform, and to clarify the terms of the contract. 
 
             Ventilators
 
        Rowe  has not  established that  it was  delayed due  to the
   length of time that GSA took to approve Rowe's request  to change
   the contract's ventilator requirement.   On May 24, more than one
   month after  it was  awarded the contract,  Rowe wrote to  GSA in
   Crystal City  and asked whether  it could provide  one ventilator
   instead  of the two required by the contract.   On May 28, GSA in
   Crystal City told Rowe to send its information to GSA in Atlanta.
   On  June 6, GSA  in Crystal  City  learned that  Atlanta had  not
   received any  information  from Rowe,  and so  Crystal City  sent
   Rowe's information to Atlanta.   On June 6,  GSA was waiting  for
   additional information  from Rowe  concerning its  proposal.   On
   June  19, GSA  modified  the  contract to  provide  that the  one
   ventilator that Rowe wanted to  use was acceptable.  Rowe ordered
   the vents one week  after GSA issued the modification.   There is
   no  evidence in  the  record  to show  that  Rowe's progress  was
   delayed by not being able to order the ventilators sooner than it
   did, and Rowe  has not established that GSA  took an unreasonable
   amount of time to decide whether to issue the change order.  
 
             Celotex
 
        The contract required Rowe to install foam insulation in the
   rear compartment ceiling and walls,  and the insulation had to be
   fire  resistant per  FMVS Standard 302.   On  July 22,  Mr. Mould
   noticed that  the  label  on the  Celotex  insulation  that  Rowe
   planned  to use  stated that  it would  ignite and  cause harmful
   vapors.   Rowe did  not have any  evidence that  Celotex complied
   with FMVS Standard 302.  
 
        Rowe wrote to GSA in Crystal City on July 25, and  asked the
   officials there to approve  the use of Celotex.   Rowe said  that
   GSA had approved the use of  Celotex in other contracts, and that
   Celotex  met  an  ASTM  standard.   Neither  Mr.  Mould  nor  Mr.
   Globerman  recalled  whether  Rowe  used  Celotex  on  other  GSA
   contracts.  The record contains a copy of one prior GSA contract,
   and  the type  of insulation  that Rowe  was required to  use was
   different from  Celotex.   Rowe did not  establish that  the ASTM
   standard is the  same as FMVS  Standard 302,  or that a  material
   that meets  the ASTM standard  would automatically meet  the FMVS
   standard. 
 
        On July  29, Rowe  told Mr.  Mould that  it was having  some
   difficulty verifying that Celotex met  the contract requirements,
   and said  that it  would send him  some test  certifications from
   Celotex.  The  next day, Mr.  Mould and GSA employees  in Crystal
   City contacted a  representative of the manufacturer  of Celotex,
   who did  not know whether  Celotex would meet FMVS  Standard 302.
   GSA sent the  manufacturer a copy of that standard  and told Rowe
   to obtain a certification from the manufacturer or to arrange for
   a test  of the insulation  material.  GSA  was willing  to accept
   Rowe's use of Celotex, so long as the performance of the  Celotex
   would be at least the equivalent to the performance of a material
   that met the requirements of FMVS Standard 302. 
 
        On  August 5, Rowe  told GSA in  Crystal City  that it would
   have to  stop work  because of the  Celotex issue,  and suggested
   that it  be allowed  to use  Reflectex  insulation.   A few  days
   later, Mr. Globerman and  Mr. Dellinger told Ms.  Huddleston that
   they thought  Celotex was  acceptable.   Mr. Globerman  explained
   that when he  told Ms. Huddleston that  Celotex could be used  in
   lieu of  a material  that met the  requirements of  FMVS Standard
   302, he  intended to  recommend to her  that she  permit Rowe  to
   deviate from  the terms of  the contract.  Mr. Globerman  did not
   say that Celotex met the  contract s requirements.  On August 19,
   Ms. Huddleston told Rowe that  she would issue a modification  to
   the contract  to allow Rowe  to use either Celotex  or Reflectex,
   with Mylar bubble insulation in areas where foam insulation could
   not be used.  On September 6, Rowe said that requiring the use of
   Mylar bubble insulation was a change to the contract, and that it
   had  ordered  a laboratory  test  to establish  that  the Celotex
   insulation complied  with FMVS Standard  302.  By  then, however,
   Celotex  was no  longer  an  issue because  on  September 4,  the
   manufacturer of  Celotex told  Rowe that  an independent  testing
   laboratory  had determined that  Celotex met the  requirements of
   FMVS  Standard 302.   Consequently, no contract  modification was
   ever issued concerning Celotex, and Rowe  used Celotex to fulfill
   the contract's requirements.
 
        Rowe has  not established that  it was delayed due  to GSA's
   actions related to the Celotex  insulation.  Rowe proposed to use
   Celotex without having any documentation  to show that it met the
   requirements of  FMVS Standard 302, as required  by the contract.
   GSA was not obligated  to accept Celotex without knowing  whether
   it met the requirements of the contract, and it was not obligated
   to accept a  material that met some  other standard.  As  soon as
   Rowe established that  Celotex met the contract  requirements, it
   was able to use Celotex as its insulating material.  If  Rowe was
   delayed, it was due to the fact that Rowe proposed to use Celotex
   without being able  to establish that it met  the requirements of
   FMVS Standard 302.  
 
 
             Inspections
 
         Rowe  contends that GSA's actions related to the scheduling
   of inspections resulted in a  delay to Rowe's delivering the vans
   within the time required  by the contract.  On July 22, Rowe told
   Mr. Mould  that a first production  vehicle would be ready  to be
   inspected on July 29.  On  July 29, Mr. Mould contacted Rowe  and
   learned that the first production vehicle would not be ready that
   week.   On August 13,  Mr. Mould planned  to inspect Rowe's first
   production  vehicle on  August 20.   On  August 19,  however, Mr.
   Mould was at Rowe's facility in connection with another contract,
   and  he  saw that  Rowe would  not have  an INS  van ready  to be
   inspected the next day.  Mr. Mould next planned to go to Powhatan
   on August 28.  That morning, Mr. Mould and Ms. Huddleston  called
   Rowe's facility at 8:00, and  Mr. Mould called again at  8:45 and
   spoke with  Mr.  Muncie.   Mr. Muncie  said that  a  van was  not
   completed, and that Mr. Campbell would call Mr. Mould to tell him
   whether there were any open items.  Mr.  Mould waited until 10:00
   for a  telephone call and,  when none came, he  scheduled another
   appointment.  
 
        On September  3, Mr. Mould went  to Rowe's plant and  saw an
   Item 001 van.   Rowe was not  completely ready to submit  the van
   for inspection at that time, so Mr. Mould conducted a preliminary
   inspection.  Mr.  Mould returned to Rowe's  facility on September
   19, and after initially refusing to do so, Rowe made an  Item 001
   van  available  for  inspection.    On  September  30,  Mr. Mould
   traveled to  Powhatan to inspect  an Item  002 van, but  none was
   ready for inspection.  Rowe told Mr. Mould that it would be ready
   to have an  Item 002 van inspected  and to have the  Item 001 van
   reinspected  on October 3, and Mr. Mould told Rowe to provide him
   a notice  that it  was ready  for inspection  when  the vans  had
   actually been completed.  
 
        On October 3, Mr. Mould telephoned Rowe and learned that the
   Item  002  van was  completed  and  the  Item 001  van  would  be
   completed the  next day.   Mr.  Mould said  that he  would be  at
   Powhatan on  October 8  in connection  with another  contract and
   would inspect Rowe's vans on that  date.  Mr. Mould conducted his
   inspection as scheduled on October 8.  Rowe withdrew the Item 001
   van  from  inspection,  and  stated  that  neither  of  the  vans
   represented its final vehicle configuration.  Mr. Mould told Rowe
   to let him know when it had vans that were completed and actually
   ready for inspection.  Mr.  Mould returned to Powhatan on October
   15, and saw that  Rowe had made progress.    On October 18,  Rowe
   said  that it would have vans  ready for inspection on October 22
   and 25.  Mr.  Mould told Rowe that he would return on October 29,
   which  he  did.   Mr. Mould  returned  again two  days  later, on
   October  31, and approved Rowe's first  production vehicles and a
   few other vans.
 
 
        Mr. Mould was at Rowe's facility to inspect vans on November
   8,  November 18,  and November  25.   Rowe  called  Mr. Mould  on
   December 2,  and stated that it  had vans ready to  be inspected.
   Mr. Mould  told Rowe to  call him when  it had  vans ready to  be
   inspected and when it had made arrangements to have vans shipped,
   so that he could schedule a visit and inspect all completed  vans
   at one  time.  Also  on December 2, Ms.  Ross told Rowe  that GSA
   would be glad to inspect a "substantial number" of vans when they
   were ready for  shipment.  On December  4, Ms. Ross said  that if
   Rowe was ready  to ship vans, Mr. Mould would be there to inspect
   within seven work days after being requested to do so by Rowe, as
   required by  the contract.   Mr.  Mould  made his  last visit  to
   Rowe's  plant on  December 10,  which is  within seven  work days
   after  December 2,  the date  that Rowe  had asked  Mr. Mould  to
   conduct an inspection.   Mr. Mould  told Rowe  to give him  seven
   work  days' notice when it was  ready for another inspection.  On
   December 17, Rowe asked  Mr. Mould to  come and inspect vans  the
   next day.  Mr. Mould  reminded Rowe that the contract  called for
   him to receive seven work days' notice when Rowe was ready for an
   inspection.  GSA terminated Rowe's performance on December 20.  
 
        Rowe has not established  that any of GSA's actions  related
   to the  scheduling of inspections  resulted in a delay  to Rowe's
   delivering the vans  within the  time required  by the  contract.
   Rowe alleges that GSA canceled scheduled inspections on August 20
   and  28,  1996,  and  actually  stopped  inspections  altogether.
   Rowe's  Opening Brief  at 58;  Rowe's Reply  Brief at  16, 45-46.
   Although Mr. Mould did not visit Rowe's plant on August 20,  this
   was because he  had been there the  day before and saw  that Rowe
   would  not have a van  ready to inspect the  next day.  Mr. Mould
   did not  visit Rowe's plant  on August 28, because  he telephoned
   Rowe  that morning  to see  whether any  vans were  available for
   inspection   and  never  received  a  response  to  his  inquiry.
   Although  GSA wanted  Rowe to  arrange  to ship  vans, GSA  never
   stopped its inspections.   The contract required Rowe  to provide
   GSA  fifteen  days  notice  prior  to  the  day  that  the  first
   production  vehicle would be  ready for inspection,  and required
   GSA to inspect vans thereafter within seven work days after being
   requested to do  so by Rowe.   Rowe has not established  that GSA
   failed  to make  a  timely inspection  in  response to  receiving
   either a notice or a request from Rowe.  
 
             Meetings, information, and clarifications
 
        Rowe says that Ms. Huddleston  worked at home during most of
   the  contract period  due  to  the Olympic  games  being held  in
   Atlanta, and  that this  resulted in  her taking  a long  time to
   respond to Rowe's  requests.  Rowe's  Opening Brief  at 59.   Mr.
   Campbell testified  that Rowe did  not have an e-mail  address, a
   home  telephone number, or  a mailing address  for Ms. Huddleston
   and that  this  caused  a  large  part of  the  delay  to  Rowe's
   progress.  Ms. Huddleston testified that she worked at home for a
   few days and was on vacation for a few days in July, and that her
   telephone calls at work were forwarded directly to her house when
   she was  working  at  home.    Rowe  has  not  established  by  a
   preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Huddleston  worked at home
   for  most of  the contract  period, or  could not  be reached  by
   telephone, or that her schedule interfered with Rowe's ability to
   perform in a timely fashion.  As discussed more fully below, Rowe
   has not shown that Ms.  Huddleston took an unreasonable amount of
   time to respond to Rowe s letters and requests.  
 
 
        Rowe complains that  GSA did not hold a  "kick off" meeting,
   that its repeated requests for meetings were ignored, and that no
   contracting  officer  ever  visited  its  facility  in  Powhatan.
   Rowe's  Opening  Brief  at  18, 27,  35.    It  is  true that  no
   contracting  officer ever visited Rowe's facility in Powhatan and
   that  most of  Rowe s contact  was with  Mr. Mould,  who was  the
   designated inspector  for this contract.   He met with  Rowe pre-
   award  and  reviewed  the  specification   requirements,  and  he
   provided the  contracting officer  and other  GSA employees  with
   timely  and thorough  reports of  his visits  to  Powhatan during
   Rowe s period of  performance.  Ms. Huddleston  and GSA employees
   in Crystal City spoke with Rowe representatives by telephone, and
   the  record  is filled  with  GSA s written  responses  to Rowe s
   numerous letters.  The evidence shows that GSA spent a great deal
   of   time  and   effort  responding   to   Rowe s  requests   for
   clarification. Rowe has not  shown that anything more  could have
   been gained by Ms. Huddleston or Ms. Ross traveling from Atlanta,
   or  that the lack of such a visit  or meeting caused Rowe to fail
   to deliver the vans within the time required by the contract.  
 
        Finally, Rowe alleges that it  was delayed because GSA  took
   months to issue simple clarifications and contract modifications.
   Rowe's Reply  Brief at 18.   GSA  first modified the  contract on
   June  19 to allow  Rowe to provide one  ventilator instead of the
   two required  by the  contract,  and to  state that  gray was  an
   acceptable color for the fiberglass seats, when the  contract did
   not require any particular seat color.  Apparently, Rowe asked to
   use gray  seats in late May,  but the first written  request from
   Rowe  concerning seat  color  is  dated June  5.   Regarding  the
   ventilators,  on May  24, Rowe  asked GSA  in Crystal  City about
   supplying  one ventilator  instead of  two.   On  June 6,  GSA in
   Crystal  City was waiting to receive additional information about
   the vents from Rowe,  and Rowe had not  forwarded its request  to
   GSA in  Atlanta.   Approximately two weeks  after GSA  in Atlanta
   received  Rowe's  requests, GSA  issued  a contract  modification
   regarding seat color and the ventilator.  In addition to the fact
   that  Rowe  has not  established  that GSA  took  an unreasonable
   amount  of  time  to  issue   this  modification,  Rowe  has  not
   established that it was delayed because GSA took until July 19 to
   act upon Rowe s requests.
 
        On August 19,  Ms. Huddleston responded to  two letters from
   Rowe.   In  response to  Rowe's  July 12  letter, Ms.  Huddleston
   confirmed that  the contract did  not require  power windows  and
   locks even though  a few delivery orders called  for these items,
   that Rowe  was required to supply stripes  for the Item 002 vans,
   and that the mesh size was stated incorrectly in the contract and
   should read "1 to 1-1/4" inches.  In response to a July 25 letter
   from Rowe  to GSA in Crystal  City, Ms. Huddleston said  that GSA
   would accept vans  without arm rests  for a  $50 credit, and  she
   said that Rowe  could use Celotex or Reflectex,  and Mylar bubble
   insulation in areas where foam insulation could not be used.  Ms.
   Huddleston  asked Rowe to let her  know if additional performance
   time  would  be  needed  and,  if  so,  to  submit  an  offer  of
   consideration.   She also  asked Rowe  to let  her know  what its
   intentions were concerning the arm rests.  
 
        On September 6, after Ms. Huddleston had twice asked Rowe to
   respond to  her August  19 letter,  Rowe said  that  it needed  a
   contract  modification before  it could  proceed.   Although  Ms.
   Huddleston s  August  19  letter  said  that she  would  issue  a
   contract modification,  no modification  was necessary  regarding
   the  stripes or  the arm  rests, because  the contract  was clear
   concerning those  items.  As  for the Celotex insulation,  by the
   time Rowe responded to Ms. Huddleston on September 6, no contract
   modification was needed because it  had been established by  that
   time that Celotex  met the contract  requirements.  Although  GSA
   issued a modification on  September 19 to delete the  requirement
   set out  in a few  delivery orders for  power windows and  locks,
   Rowe  does not contend that it was delayed in any way by the fact
   that  GSA took  until  September  19 to  acknowledge  that a  few
   delivery  orders  called  for  power  windows  and  locks.    The
   September  19 contract modification  also stated the  proper mesh
   size, but Rowe recognized that the mesh size originally stated in
   the  contract contained  an error and  Rowe did not  wait to hear
   from Ms. Huddleston  before ordering its  mesh, so the lack  of a
   modification before September 19 did not delay Rowe s progress. 
 
        Also on September 6, Rowe raised several new issues with Ms.
   Huddleston,  including the necessity for a  vent cover, the width
   of the  sliding door opening,  the placement of the  stripes, and
   the  method that  it wanted  to use  to fabricate  the partition.
   Rowe explained how  it read the contract regarding  the number of
   air ducts required in the rear compartment.  Ms. Huddleston spoke
   with Rowe on September 17, and they resolved the vent cover issue
   by agreeing to exchange the arm rests for vent covers.  
 
        On September 19, Ms. Huddleston provided Rowe with a written
   response to its  September 6 letters.  She pointed out that as of
   August 19, the only open issue concerned the arm rests,  and that
   this had  since  been  resolved.   She  repeated  the  contract s
   requirement concerning  the width  of the  sliding door  opening,
   which was  clear, and  she told  Rowe that  the placement  of the
   stripes  would be  evaluated at  the time  Rowe provided  a first
   production vehicle  for inspection.   She  also  stated that  GSA
   would  consider an  alternate to  the method  of fabricating  the
   partition  set out in the contract if  Rowe asked for a deviation
   from the terms  of the contract.  She also  modified the contract
   to  extend Rowe's performance period by thirty-eight days, due to
   the time that GSA took to respond to Rowe's July 12 letter.  
 
 
        On  September 25, Rowe  asked Ms. Huddleston  for a decision
   concerning  the  number  of  air  ducts  required  in  the   rear
   compartment,  and asked  for  a  deviation  from  the  contract s
   requirement for fabricating the partition.  On September 27, Rowe
   asked to be allowed to weld the partition s mesh to an L-frame.  
 
        On  September   30,  Ms.   Huddleston   issued  a   contract
   modification  to  delete the  requirement  for  an  arm  rest  in
   exchange for Rowe s  supplying a vent cover,  to provide striping
   on the  Item 002  vans in the  manner that  Rowe had  applied the
   stripes  on September  19, and  to  allow Rowe  to fabricate  the
   partition as it proposed.   Also on September 30,  Ms. Huddleston
   said that she would issue a decision concerning the number of air
   ducts  required in  the rear  compartment.   That same  day, Rowe
   wrote to  Ms. Huddleston and  said that it would  supply multiple
   ducts in the rear compartment, so this was no longer an issue. 
 
          The  facts summarized in  the preceding paragraphs  do not
   support Rowe s contention  that its progress was  delayed because
   GSA  took  months  to issue  simple  clarifications  and contract
   modifications.  Rowe has not established either that any of GSA s
   reviews  took an  unreasonable  amount of  time,  or that  Rowe s
   progress was delayed  by GSA s actions for more  than the thirty-
   eight days of additional time that GSA gave Rowe to perform.  
 
   V.  Other Allegations
 
        In its opening brief, Rowe accuses Mr. Mould of soliciting a
   bribe   during  his  October 31  meeting  with  Mr.  Campbell  in
   Fredericksburg.    Rowe's Opening  Brief  at  40.   We  lack  the
   jurisdiction to decide whether an  employee is guilty of a crime.
   There is no need  for us to refer this matter  to GSA's Office of
   Inspector General,  because that office  has already investigated
   Rowe's charges.  T. 1961-63.  
 
        In  its reply  brief,  Rowe accuses  GSA  witnesses and  GSA
   counsel of conspiring to obstruct  justice and to offer  perjured
   testimony.  Rowe asks that we sanction counsel and report him  to
   the  appropriate bar  association,  and that  we  suggest to  the
   Department  of Justice that  it prosecute counsel,  several other
   GSA  employees,  and  an  employee  of   a  Ford  dealership  for
   violations of a criminal statute.  Rowe s Reply  Brief at 10, 25,
   39,  44,  63.   Rowe  also accuses  GSA  of altering  Exhibit 147
   because the document does not have a telefacsimilie date and time
   line stamped  at the  top of its  pages, and of  manipulating the
   evidence by not  making a GSA letter dated August  1, 1996, which
   is referred to in  Exhibit 43, a part of the appeal file.  Rowe s
   Opening Brief  at 2;  Rowe s Reply  Brief at 38.   Because  these
   charges are quite serious, we have examined them carefully. 
 
 
        The testimony of GSA s witnesses was largely consistent with
   the contemporaneous  documentation created  during the  course of
   the contract and this, coupled with the demeanor of the witnesses
   at the  hearing, leads  us to conclude  that their  testimony was
   worthy of  belief.   Although  Rowe accuses  witnesses of  giving
   perjured  testimony and counsel  of suborning that  testimony, to
   the extent  that Rowe  makes any  specific accusations,  they are
   based largely upon the fact that Rowe chooses not to believe  the
   testimony  of  the  witnesses,  even  though  Rowe  points to  no
   contrary evidence that outweighs that testimony.  
 
        As for the exhibits, GSA filed Exhibits 43  and 147 with the
   Board and served  them on Rowe  on April 21,  1997.  If  Rowe had
   questions or  concerns about those documents, the  proper time to
   raise them was in the twenty-two months before the hearing began,
   and not  in the  post-hearing briefs.   Nonetheless,  we reviewed
   Rowe's allegations that the  documents were altered and  that the
   evidence was manipulated by GSA.  Exhibit 147 is signed and dated
   by three people.   The fact that it  lacks a telefacsimilie stamp
   does not show  that GSA altered the  document.  For all  we know,
   GSA does not have a copy of the document with such a stamp on it.
   Exhibit 43 refers  to a GSA letter dated "August  1, 1996," which
   allegedly states that Mr. Campbell  had assured the INS that Rowe
   would complete  the contract in fewer than  180 days.  The record
   does not  contain a GSA letter dated August  1, 1996, but it does
   contain a  GSA letter  dated August 19,  1996, that  mentions Mr.
   Campbell's assurances to the INS.  Although the author of Exhibit
   43 testified at the  hearing, Rowe did not ask her  any questions
   about  the  "August 1,  1996" GSA  letter.   If  there is  such a
   letter, the  description of it  contained in Exhibit  43 suggests
   that it is cumulative of other evidence concerning the assurances
   that  Mr. Campbell  gave the  INS, and  we have  not  found those
   assurances to  be relevant  to our  disposition  of this  appeal.
   Rowe has  not established  that GSA  manipulated the  evidence in
   this appeal by not  including a GSA letter dated August  1 in the
   appeal file. 
 
        Rowe has not come close  to establishing that the charges it
   makes about counsel and GSA  witnesses have any basis whatsoever.
   Accordingly,  we will  not  take  any of  the  actions that  Rowe
   suggests.  
 
                                Decision
 
        Rowe was required to deliver 219 vans to GSA by November 26,
   1996.   When Rowe  failed to deliver  the vans by  that date, GSA
   terminated  Rowe s performance.  Rowe  did not establish that the
   termination  action  was  flawed or  that  GSA s  actions delayed
   Rowe s  performance.  Rowe s  appeal of GSA s  termination action
   is, therefore, DENIED.
   __________________________________
 
                                      MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
                                      Board Judge
 
   We concur:
   __________________________________ ______________________________
 
                                      ____
   ROBERT W. PARKER                   ANTHONY S. BORWICK
   Board Judge                             Board Judge