original contract in that case granted the contracting officer broad discretion to conduct reprocurement of the articles “upon such terms and in such manner as the Contracting Officer may deem appropriate.” Id. This placed the reduction in quantity in the resale contract “within the contemplation of the parties.” Id. Seaboard argues that the lack of such discretionary language in the resale contracts in this case makes the rule of Consolidated Airborne inapposite. Seaboard urges that we instead follow Doehler and place the burden of proving the impact of the changed terms on the government. The government responds that the Court of Federal Claims properly allocated the burden, not only on the basis of Consolidated Airborne but also Miller v. United States, 106 Ct.Cl. 239, 249 (1946) (<HOLDING>). The original contract in Miller did not grant
holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that the government could not charge contractor excess cost of relet contract where government caused a delay in contract performance in which contractor was to use his own equipment original contractors costs increased and government refused to allow original contractor to perform at cost but allowed new contractor to use government equipment and paid new contractor a different rate holding that the government could not charge contractor excess cost of relet contract where the governments specifications were impossible to meet government changed the specifications but did not change the price to be paid original contractor refused to perform and new contractor was paid more to meet new specifications holding that burden is on government to show that error in failure to provide notice is harmless holding that the burden to show that reprocurement did not subject the government to excess costs was on the plaintiff contractor