amount, ACE requests markups for field (1.8%) and home-office (5.8%) overhead, profit (10%), and bond cost (0.84%). PX 175 App. Tab 18. “A contractor may recover for loss of efficiency if it can establish both that a loss of efficiency has resulted in increased costs and that the loss was caused [by the government].” Cibinic and Nash 745. “That loss of productivity of labor resulting from improper delays caused by defendant is an item of damage for which plaintiff is entitled to recover admits of no doubt.” Luria Bros., 369 F.2d at 712 (citing Abbett Elec. Corp. v. United States, 142 Ct.Cl. 609, 162 F.Supp. 772 (1958)) (emphasis added). Extended work schedules have been recognized as a cause of productivity loss. See Maryland Sanitary Mfg. Corp. v. United States, 119 Ct.Cl. 100 (1951) (<HOLDING>); Appeal of Casson Constr. Co., GSBCA No. 4884,
holding that the state failed to meet its burden when the record failed to show that the jurors would or would not be available after a weeks continuance holding that joint trials promote efficiency and serve the interests of justice by avoiding the scandal and inequity of inconsistent verdicts recognizing the standing of an organization whose fundraising efforts would be impaired by an irs taxdeductiblecontribution rule because the organization would be harmed if its contributors ceased giving it money recognizing that the doctrines of technical res judicata and collateral estoppel serve as important means of promoting certainty and efficiency recognizing that efficiency would be impaired by working 12hour days and sevenday weeks