concludes that the notations “N/C” (no charge) and “$0” cost in the so-called July 9,1985 BOM reflected judgments, not facts. (Findings 160-161.) By definition, judgments are not cost or pricing data. The third part in this category is the spring (61350-24047-101), for which the so-called July 9, 1985 BOM listed a unit cost of 0.42<t as opposed to the 0.54<t that appears in the June 19, 1985 Commitment Report. (Findings 162-163.) While the evidence is insufficient for the Court to determine whether the amount in the so-called July 9, 1985 BOM was correct, the Court finds that, even if it were, because the total price differential is only $33.00, it could not have had a significant impact on price. See Rose, Beaton & Rose, PSBCA No. 459, 80-1 BCA 14242, 1980 WL 2258 (Jan. 10, 1980) (<HOLDING>). With respect to the yoke (S6135-20643-002),
holding contract for sale of water which did not specify price was unenforceable because price of water was essence of contract holding that under tina the requirement for submission of cost or pricing data is met when all accurate cost or pricing data reasonably available to the contractor at the time of the agreement on price is submitted holding that government was not entitled to recover for defective pricing because contractors erroneous inclusion of 209825 in its proposed overhead did not have a significant impact on price holding that search warrant was constitutionally defective because it did not require notice holding that immunity applies to suit for declaratory judgment that plaintiff was entitled to continue paying for mudshell at the price specified in its contract with the government