base scope of the contract or with regard to changes is erroneous precisely because this is a fixed-price contract. The LOGO, FP, and Changes clauses do not contain language permitting plaintiff to cease performance in the face of a funding overrun situation. See Appeal of Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc., 66-2 BCA ¶ 6,049, 1966 WL 528 (1966) (resolving ambiguity in relationship of LOC and LOGO clauses to Changes clause and permitting recovery of termination claim and reasonable fee in cost-plus contract); compare Titan Corp., 129 F.3d at 1481 (providing specifically that funding limits in cost-plus contract encompass Changes clause and permitting contractor to cease performance upon expenditure of allocated funding), with Appeal of Ryan Aeronautical Co., 61-1 BCA ¶ 2,911, 1961 WL 664 (1961) (<HOLDING>). Under the contract plaintiff could effect a
holding that ceiling cost is not applicable to a change which increases costs under the contract if provision is present providing for price revision holding contract for sale of water which did not specify price was unenforceable because price of water was essence of contract holding that the penalty is applicable holding that one method of computing damages for a breach of contract is the contract price less the reasonable cost of completion holding that the measure of damages for the breach of a contract of sale where no fraud is shown is the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods on the date of the breach