government must show that the actions which could have been taken by the government would have been certain to have avoided the increased costs. Indeed, the court in Ace Constructors, in a passage quoted prominently by GPNA-K in its briefs, stated that, in' order to demonstrate prejudice, the government must only show that, if proper notice had been given, “it might have minimized extra costs.” Ace Constructors v. United States, 70 Fed.Cl. at 272 (emphasis added). Other decisions of this court, similarly, have found that prejudice existed when a contractor’s inadequate notice deprived the government of opportunities that potentially could have minimized extra costs. See Engineered Maint. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 56 Fed.Cl. 637, 643 (2003), aff'd, 89 Fed.Appx. 267 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>); George Sollitt Constr. Co. v. United States,
holding that the independent contractor exception in the ftca would not insulate the government from the contractors negligence if the duty was nondelegable under florida law 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 contractor could recover damages from owner for misrepresenting site conditions despite contractors right to investigate site before bidding because owner represented that data it included in contract was sufficient information for contractor to prepare its bid holding that the burden to show that reprocurement did not subject the government to excess costs was on the plaintiff contractor holding that the government was prejudiced when a contractors insufficient notice directly precluded the government from investigating the site and potentially minimizing extra costs that the contractor ended up having to incur emphasis added citing schnip bldg co v us 645 f2d 950 95960 ctcl 1981