clear that whether pipes were tested in accordance with the specification as originally written or under the Chief Engineer's authorization (note 169, supra), the burden was on Cen-Vi-Ro to demonstrate that pipes which initially dripped on the test stand had healed when retested. The only persuasive evidence of dripping pipes healing is the test on representative sections referred to by Mr. Hubbard and two pipes referred to in Inspectors Daily Reports.170 Although a memorandum written by Mr. Herrera expresses the opinion that a high percentage of hydro test results were called failures where marginal results could have been classified as satisfactory (memo of May 13, 1966, Cen-Vi-Ro Correspondence), there is no persuasive evidence to support Cen-ViRo's allegation that the Bureau improperly classified as failures pipes undergoing hydrostatic tests which were not leaking as defined in the specifications.171 On this evi 170 Note 80, supra. In its Notice of Appeal (Exh. 6, p. 16), Cen-Vi-Ro refers to tests on 200 pipes having gyro area concrete which healed within seven days. These tests are allegedly represented by a tabulation furnished on discovery and stipulated into evidence (Exh. 129). However, the tabulation does not indicate the length of time the pipes were on the test stand, the test results are not self-explanatory and no testimony with respect thereto was offered at the hearing. We note that several pipes (e.g., 66A75 X 20, Nos. 5N and 7N, mfg. 5-6-65 and 66AB50 X 20, No. 9D, mfg. 12-9-64) are indicated to have been rejected for leakage at gyro areas (pp. 1 and 18, Vol. II, Exh. 40), but are not included in the Final Inventory of Rejected Pipe (Exh. 152). It is probable that these pipes, among others, healed and were accepted. 171 Subparagraph 67.1. (2) of the specifications provides that moisture appearing on the surface of the pipe in the form of beads or dence we find that Cen-Vi-Ro's objections to the Hydrostatic Test Study are not well taken. We accept as prima facie valid the indicated failure rates of pipes undergoing hydrostatic tests insofar as methods of conducting the test and results of the tests are concerned. However, it should be emphasized that there is uncontradicted evidence that uncertainty as to whether particular concrete pipes would pass the hydrostatic test is normal. Mr. Murray, who had 29 years' experience in concrete pipe production, testified that many pipes which "looked good on the surface" leaked at the gyro areas on hydrostatic tests while some with apparent voids did not.172 He asserted that this could happen any time as well as in the rest of the pipe wall and that he did not understand how anyone could ever be certain about any wall of any pipe. It should also be emphasized that there is evidence that an undetermined number of pipes which were tested for one reason failed for another reason." 173 In patches will not be considered leakage. CenVi-Ro asserts that the Bureau classified wet and sweating areas as leakage (Appendix I, Claims on DC-6000, Exh. 5N, p. 1). However, we note that Rejection Certifications (note 88, supra) reflect disagreement over whether leaking pipes would heal, but not over the classification of the pipes as leaking. 172 Tr. 953, 954. Mr. Murray's testimony is supported by the fact that some pipes tested for gyro concrete did not leak at the gyro areas, but did leak at areas which appeared sound (Tr. 1407; Inspectors Daily Reports, dated December 16, 1964, and July 9, 1965). 173 A memorandum, dated May 13, 1966, written by Mr. Herrera states that this occurred in many cases (Cen-Vi-Ro Correspondence). This was supported by Mr. Franklin (Tr. 537). Mr. Dale Powell testified that a pipe which failed the test was listed under the condition which it failed, which would not February 7, 1973 view thereof and since we have found that certain restrictions on repairs to pipes prior to testing cannot be justified, e.g., longitudinal and circumferential cracks of any degree, we think that the results of hydrostatic tests, as an indication of the quality of the pipes, must be viewed with skepticism.174 Cen-Vi-Ro also attacks the results of special hydrostatic tests upon the ground that the tests should have been conducted at the service head in accordance with Section 137, par. (h) of the Concrete Manual, rather than at 120 percent thereof and that the pipes should not have remained under pressure for 20 minutes (Notice of Appeal, p. 20). There is no mention of this contention in the claim documents and it appears to have been raised for the first time in the Notice of Appeal. The obvious purpose of testing repaired pipes is to test the efficacy of repair and it would seem to be anomalous indeed that repaired pipes were to be tested at a lower pressure than representative units of unrepaired pipes. We have found that Cen-Vi-Ro participated in and agreed to the practice of conducting necessarily be the reason for the test (Tr. 1562). We note that captions under photos of several pipes state that pipes being tested for unconsolidated gyro ring areas or form seams developed cracks during the test (See pp. 2, 33, 70, 71, 80, 96 and 116. Vol. I, Exh. 40). 174 We recognize that there is testimony to the effect that some pipes were tested as many as five times (Tr. 1410). Although we accept this testimony as accurate, it is clear that these were isolated rather than regular occurrences and we conclude that the necessity for such tests was likely due to inability to maintain particular pipes on the test stands for long periods. special hydrostatic tests on otherwise doubtful pipes in the early stages of production. Cen-Vi-Ro recognized that special hydrostatic tests should be conducted at 120 percent of service head for 20 minutes in its letter of November 30, 1964 (Exh. 12), wherein it requested approval to reduce the soak period for special hydro pipes from three hours to 12 hours. The Board finds that Cen-Vi-Ro acquiesced in and agreed to the practice of conducting special hydrostatic tests at 120 percent of service head for 20 minutes. We have found that the rejection during the May 15 inventory of 93 previously accepted pipes which exhibited evidence of gyro area concrete was improper. These pipes were reaccepted after passing hydrostatic tests. We find that these tests were excessive and should not have been required. The record indicates that there were a total of 291 pipes tested for gyro area concrete.175 This total is pipe units tested and not necessarily the number of tests. Although it is clear that most, if not all, pipes exhibiting gyro area concrete were subjected to hydrostatic tests as a condition of their acceptance, we have found that Cen-Vi-Ro continually failed to take corrective action to reduce or eliminate gyro area concrete prior to the end of July 1965. Thus the Bureau may not be faulted for re 175 Hydrostatic Test Study, note 162, supra. This figure as well as others hereinafter stated as to the number of pipes tested for particular defects must be viewed with the caveat that failing pipes were listed under the condition under which they failed. fusing to permit the repair prior to testing of pipes exhibiting gyro area concrete which were manufactured prior to July 31, 1965. The record indicates that 153 pipes were tested for circumferential cracks in the barrel, as distinguished from the spigot, of which 51 resulted in failure.176 All but eight of the 51 pipes which initially failed the tests were subsequently accepted (note 124, supra). Since it is clear that repairs to circumferential cracks were not permitted by the Bureau after May 13, 1965, we conclude that these pipes healed sufficiently to pass when retested. There were 271 pipes with pulled or cracked spigots (270 of which were 16-foot pipes) subjected to special hydrostatic tests of which 124 resulted in failure. The number failing is only two less than the number finally rejected for circumferential cracks in the spigot. In accordance with the resident engineer's memorandum of May 24, 1965, all pipes with circumferential cracks were required to be hydrostatically tested to determine if the crack extended through the shell. As the contract may not be construed as prohibiting all cracks in the pipe, this was clearly a misuse of the testing procedure. However, special hydros 176 Hydrostatic Test Study (note 162, supra). The Study distinguishes between pipes upon which special hydros were conducted for circumferential cracks and those tested for cracked or pulled spigots. However, a tabulation of pipes rejected in the May 15 inventory (Exh. 60), the Summary of Pipe Units Reclaimed (Exh. 146) and the Comparison of Rejected Pipe Remaining in the Yard on June 20, 1966 (Exh. 5Q), make no such distinction. were not required on pipes with circumferential cracks on the outside in spigot gasket groove if the crack was not visible on the inside of the pipe after December 14, 1965 (note 131, supra). The evidence does not establish that the pipes which passed the test contained defects sufficient to justify their rejection. The Board finds that 292 pipes (145 tested for circumferential cracks in the barrel and 147 tested for circumferential cracks in the spigot) passed the special hydrostatic test and test and were accepted. The resident engineer's memorandum of May 24, 1965, required pipes with short longitudinal cracks which were repaired prior to May 13, 1965, to be hydrostatically tested irrespective of whether the repairs. were major and required pipes with short longitudinal cracks (less than one-half the length of the pipe) to be hydrostatically tested prior to repair. These requirements were modified to the extent that pipes with not more than two longitudinal cracks other than in bell or spigot gasket areas which did not exceed two feet in length and which did not extend under pressure were acceptable with repair and without rehydro after September 1, 1965 (note 131, supra). The record does not indicate the number of pipes in this category. There appear to have been 245 pipes subjected to hydrostatic tests for longitudinal cracks of which 146, or approximately 59.6 percent, failed (Exh. 64). As we have found, 40 of these pipes having repairs to short longitudinal cracks February 7, 1973 had previously been accepted and were rejected during the May 15 inventory. At least 15 of these pipes passed the tests and were reaccepted. We find that 99 pipes, including 15 referred to above, tested for longitudinal cracks passed the test and were accepted. The memorandum of May 24, 1965, required that all pipes having repairs to seams (such pipes were repairable prior to testing, provided cracks were not evident after removal of defective concrete) be hydrostatically tested irrespective of whether the repair could properly be considered major. There appear to have been a total of 66 pipes subjected to special hydrostatic tests because of bad seams, other than tests at a lower head than for which the pipes were manufactured, of which 15, or approximately 22.7 percent, failed (Hydrostatic Test Study). This figure does not include retests, if any, on pipes which initially failed the tests. Cen-Vi-Ro asserts that form joint leakage does not mean that the pipes were cracked and that under the Concrete Manual there was no basis for requiring hydrostatic tests on all such repaired pipe (Appendix to Claims on DC-6000, Exh. 5N, p. 8). Messrs. Peckworth and Davis characterized seam joint roughness as being generally or usually minor repair (Tr. 105; Deposition, p. 14). Mr. Thomas testified without contradiction that Cen-Vi-Ro did not use gaskets on the forms to prevent mortar leakage as required by the specifications (Tr. 1353). He stated that during the first six or eight months of operation while the forms were new the absence of gaskets did not appear to make much difference, but that as the forms became "beat up" through repeated use more grout leakage resulted at the seam and at the bell and spigot forming ring. It appears that grout leakage occurred on significant quantities of pipes, 10 to 15 percent, as late as April of 1966 (chronology appended to Production Quality Graph, Exh. 73). This evidence, which we accept as accurate, compels the finding that Cen-Vi-Ro continually failed to take known corrective action to reduce or eliminate form joint leakage. It follows that the Bureau could properly require hydrostatic tests on these pipes as a condition of their acceptance and that Cen-Vi-Ro has not established that these tests were excessive or improperly required. There were 31 pipes subjected to special hydrostatic tests for rock pockets other than gyro areas of which eight failed the test (Exh. 64). These are pipes tested and not necessarily the number of tests. One pipe (72AB50 x 20, No. 15N, mfg. 3-9-65) indicated to have unconsolidated concrete is in the Final Inventory of Rejected Pipes (Exh. 152) even though it passed the test. We find that the balance of the pipes which passed the test were accepted. The remaining category is 248 pipes subjected to special hydrostatic tests for miscellaneous reasons of which 54 or approximately 21.7 percent resulted in failure (Exh. 64). This figure does not include retests on pipes which initially failed the tests. It appears that approximately 15 of these pipes were tested for impact damage to or broken bells and spigots (three of which are indicated to have passed the test), and are included in the Final Inventory of Rejected Pipe (Exh. 152). It is probable, but far from certain, that many of the other tests in the miscellaneous category were for similar reasons. We have found that 233 pipes rejected for rocky bells in the May 15 inventory were subsequently accepted. However, hydrostatic tests on repaired rocky bells do not appear to have been generally required (Inspectors Daily Report, dated August 4, 1965). We have also found that 150 pipes rejected for fallouts in excess of one square foot during the May 15 inventory were subsequently accepted. We agree with the resident engineer that a repair to a fallout of any consequence would be a major repair (note 56, supra). Consequently, hydrostatic tests for the purpose of testing the repaired area of fallouts were fully in accord with the Concrete Manual. However, it is the Government that is asserting that pipes subjected to special hydrostatic tests contained defects sufficient to justify their rejection or that the tests were for the purpose of testing repaired areas. We think that the Government at the very least had an obligation to identify the purpose of tests which prima facie were not in accordance with the contract. Accordingly, we decline to assume that any number of pipes tested for miscellaneous reasons were for the purpose of testing the repaired area of fallouts or other major repairs. We have referred to several pipes upon which special hydros were conducted for the purpose of testing alleged improper vibration, spinning or cure (note 165, supra). We infer that many of the other special hydros listed under miscellaneous were for similar reasons. The test provided in the contract for proper cure of the pipes was compressive strength of the concrete and not hydrostatic tests. The evidence does not establish that all of the pipes subjected to special hydrostatic tests which passed the tests contained defects sufficient to justify their rejection. If the pipes passed the test, the Bureau concluded that the defects were minor and except for three pipes referred to above accepted the pipes without repairs (par. 72, Findings of Fact). We find that 191 of these pipes were accepted after passing the special hydrostatic test. Mr. Franklin testified that a second source of hydrostatic tests not anticipated when the bid was prepared was a decrease in the lot-test period from one work week to three days (Tr. 344, 345). This decrease was effected on May 10, 1965 (Tr. 1534; Special Report, dated May 21, 1965, note 24, supra). Mr. Thomas stated that the reason for the decrease was the many failures on lottests and the great number of pipes |