pears, nevertheless, that a substantial number of such pipes are included in the summaries which purport to represent the disposition of all pipes actually rejected in the May 15 inventory (Exh. 146, App's Exh. C). As will appear hereinafter, the effect of this inconsistency appears primarily to have concealed the actual number of reclaims for fallouts and rocky bells. Of course, it also makes more uncertain conclusions as to the disposition of actual rejects during the May 15 inventory. Nevertheless, except as otherwise noted, we accept the Summary of Pipe Units Reclaimed (Exh. 146) as accurate. We have found that 55 pipes rejected for circumferential cracks in the May 15 inventory included 42 repaired and previously accepted pipes. Prima facie these 42 pipes complied with contract requirements. A logical conclusion might be that these pipes were subjected to hydrostatic tests and that twenty passed and the balance failed. However, there is no evidence that pipes with repairs to circumferential cracks were tested or accepted after the May 13 letter. Indeed, it would appear that to have accepted such pipes would have been contrary to the May 13 letter (which provided for the rejection of all pipes with circumferential cracks extending entirely through the shell) or the May 24 memorandum (which provided for the testing of all pipes upon which circumferential cracks appeared only on the outside of pipe before repairs were accomplished). In view thereof, we conclude that the twenty reclaims of rejects in the May 15 inventory for circumferential cracks were other than any of the 42 repaired pipes. In any event. there is no evidence to the contrary. Although no precise determination of the diameters of these 42 pipes is possible, based on a comparison of the sizes of pipes rejected for circumferential cracks in the May 15 inventory (Exh. 22) with the numbers of each size which were final rejects for such reason (Exh. 5R), we find that two of these pipes were 72 inches, two were 66 inches, twenty were 60 inches and eighteen were 54 inches in diameter. We further find that the rejection of these pipes was improper. As we have seen, there were five rejects for longitudinal cracks prior to May 15, 1965 (Exh. 59). There were an additional 53 rejections for longitudinal cracks during the May 15 inventory of which forty had been previously repaired and accepted. Prima facie these forty pipes complied with contract requirements. Of the 276 final rejects for longitudinal cracks, 129 were manufactured subsequent to May 15 (Exh. 5R). Twenty-eight of the rejects for longitudinal cracks during the May 15 inventory are listed as reclaims (Exh. 146). Pipes with repairs to short longitudinal cracks accomplished prior to May 13, 1965, were subjected to hydrostatic tests. in accordance with the May 24 memorandum. There is no evidence of how many of the forty repaired and accepted pipes had cracks which ex February 7, 1973 tended less than one-half of the length of the pipe. A photo indicates that one pipe (60AB50, No. 6N, mfg. 2-4-65) had a repair to a longitudinal crack which extended the full length of the pipe (p. 22, Vol. IV, Exh. 40). There is no evidence that this pipe had been accepted. Since it is the Government that is representing that the 28 reclaims are pipes rejected, as disguished from marked for special hydro in the May 15 inventory, we decline to speculate on how many, if any, of these reclaims were marked for special hydro during the May 15 inventory. If the reclaims are in fact among the 53 pipes rejected during the May 15 inventory of which 40 had been repaired and accepted, it follows that at least fifteen of the reclaims were previously accepted pipes. We so find. We further find that the rejection of these fifteen pipes was improper. Of the identified pipes considered acceptable by Dr. Davis, fourteen had longitudinal cracks and six had circumferentially cracked spigots (Exh. 154). Nine of the former pipes are indicated to have failed. one or more hydrostatic tests. Three of the pipes failing hydrostatic tests had more than one defect and one pipe listed as failing the test had a full length crack. One other pipe which was not tested had a full length crack. Of the remaining nine pipes, four are 54 inches in diameter and five are 66 inches in diameter. Three of the pipes rejected for circumferential cracks in the spigot failed the hydrostatic tests. One of these pipes had more than one defect. Of the remaining five pipes, three are 54 inches in diameter, one is 66 inches and one is 72 inches in diameter. 132 While we have refused to accord substantial probative value to Dr. Davis' findings insofar as projecting the results of his examination to rejected pipes not identified,1 we conclude that Cen-Vi-Ro has established prima facie that pipes not shown to have extensive cracks, e.g., longitudinal cracks which extended over one-half of the length of the pipe and not shown to have multiple defects, were properly repairable in accordance with the Concrete Manual and thus improperly rejected. The Government has made no attempt to demonstrate that these pipes could not properly be repaired in accordance with the Concrete Manual. Decision The contract required that the pipes be free from fractures. However, fractures and cracks are not 132 The Government cites an additional reason for questioning the results of the Davis and Peckworth inspections, namely, that there is no evidence that pipes examined by them had been presented to the Bureau. We note that 16 of the 58 pipes identified as acceptable by Dr. Davis (Exh. 154) were apparently not included in the Final Inventory of Rejected Pipe (Exh. 152), which presumably means that these were acceptable but surplus pipe. However, we can identify only two 20-foot pipes (66 AB 50. mfg. 12-17-64; 66A 100, No. 11D, mfg. 8-23-65) and one 16-foot pipe (60 AB 50, No. N13, mfg. 2-2-65) on the list of 58 pipes which are also on the list of acceptable but surplus pipes (Exh. 37). We conclude that it is highly unlikely that any substantial number of pipes examined by Mr. Peckworth and Dr. Davis had not been presented to the Bureau, identical and the contract may not be construed as requiring that the pipes be free of all cracks. The Concrete Manual provides that fractures or cracks extending entirely through the shell are normally repairable except for cracks through the shell of gasketed spigots which extend into or beyond the gasket bearing area and more than four inches around the circumference under the gasket and except where the defect is attributable to a continuing failure to take known corrective action. Although the Bureau allowed some pipes with cracks extending entirely through the shell to be repaired prior to May 13, 1965, such repairs were not permitted after that date. Pipes with longitudinal cracks which extended more than one-half of the length of the pipe were rejected, as were all pipes with circumferential cracks extending through the pipe wall irrespective of size. Pipes with longitudinal cracks which extended less than onehalf of the length of the pipe were subjected to hydrostatic tests and all pipes with circumferential cracks were hydrostatically tested to determine if the crack extended through the pipe wall. If the pipes passed the tests, it was concluded that the cracks were minor and the pipes were accepted without repairs. Since the evidence establishes and Cen-Vi-Ro admits that whether longitudinal and circumferential cracks are repairable depends upon the magnitude and extent of the crack, we cannot say that the rejection of pipes with longitudinal cracks extending over one-half of the length of the pipe was unreasonable. The requirement that pipes with lesser longitudinal cracks be hydrostatically tested prior to any repairs and rejected if they failed the test was clearly contrary to the Concrete Manual. Left to his own devices the project engineer would apparently have permitted the repair of substantial circumferential cracks in the barrel of the pipes and cracks of 12 inches or less in the spigot. The requirement that all pipes with circumferential cracks be hydrostatically tested without repairs and rejected if they failed the test was clearly contrary to the Concrete Manual. These restrictions were not relaxed in any significant degree. The evidence will not support a finding that Cen-Vi-Ro continually failed to take known corrective action to eliminate the causes of longitudinal and circumferential cracks. It indicates rather that the Bureau imposed the restrictions because of concern for the integrity of any repairs. There were 134 final rejects for circumferential cracks (eight of which had cracks in the barrel) and 276 final rejects for longitudinal cracks. The Government relies on the high percentage of pipes assertedly tested for longitudinal and circumferential cracks which failed hydrostatic tests as proof that pipes manufactured by Cen-Vi-Ro did not conform to the specifications. CenVi-Ro asserts that these test results February 7, 1973 are distorted by the Bureau's refusal to permit repairs permissible under the Concrete Manual prior to conducting the test. We conclude that this contention must be sustained. We have identified 108 pipes in the Final Inventory of Rejected Pipe which are indicated to have failed hydrostatic tests and for which the primary reason for rejection appears to have been longitudinal cracks. We have also identified 42 pipes for which the primary reason for rejection appears to have been circumferential cracks and which are indicated to have failed hydrostatic tests. Thirty of these 150 pipes are indicated to have more than one defect. We think there is sufficient doubt as to whether pipes with more than one defect were repairable as to justify their rejection. Of the remaining 120 pipes, nine are 54 inches, sixteen are 60 inches, fourteen are 66inch x 16-foot, 52 are 66-inch x 20foot and 29 are 72-inch pipes. One 72-inch pipe was rejected for a longitudinal crack notwithstanding it passed the hydrostatic test. In addition, one 66-inch by 16-foot pipe and one 72-inch pipe were rejected for circumferentially cracked spigots notwithstanding the pipes passed hydrostatic tests. There is, of course, no way of determining how many of the above pipes would have passed the hydrostatic test if repairs had been permitted prior to testing. However, the Government is not in a position to complain since its refusal to permit repairs allowed by the contract has made the evidence unavailable. In the nature of a jury verdict we conclude that Cen-Vi-Ro should have been permitted to repair ten of the 54-inch pipes, five of the 60-inch pipes, 24 of the 66-inch pipes, five of which are 66-inch x 16-foot, and ten of the 72-inch pipes and that these pipes would have passed the hydrostatic test and then been acceptable pipes. These figures include the identified pipes (seven 54-inch, six 66-inch x 20-foot and one 72-inch) considered acceptable by Dr. Davis which are not shown to have multiple defects or extensive cracks. It follows that Cen-Vi-Ro is entitled to an equitable adjustment measured by the cost of producing these pipes less the cost of repairs. We also conclude that Cen-Vi-Ro should have been permitted to repair the three pipes referred to above (two 72-inch and one 66-inch x 16-foot) which passed the hydrostatic test and that they would then have been acceptable pipes. Cen-Vi-Ro is also entitled to an equitable adjustment for the cost of producing these pipes less the cost of their repair. During the May 15 inventory, 55 pipes, 42 of which had been repaired and previously accepted, were rejected for circumferential cracks and 53 pipes, forty of which had been repaired and previously accepted, were rejected for longitudinal cracks. The prior acceptance establishes prima facie that the 82 previously accepted pipes complied with contract requirements. During the reclaim program twenty pipes previously rejected for circumferen tial cracks and 28 pipes previously rejected for longitudinal cracks were accepted. The Bureau regarded as reclaims of prior rejects certain pipes marked for special hydro during the May 15 inventory, even though these pipes were not listed as rejects during the May 15 inventory. We have found that the twenty reclaims of prior rejects for circumferential cracks were other than any of the 42 repaired and previously accepted pipes. We conclude that Cen-Vi-Ro has met its burden of proving that these 42 pipes complied with contract requirements and were improperly rejected. Two of these pipes were 72 inches in diameter, two were 66-inch by 20-foot, twenty were 60 inches and eighteen were 54 inches in diameter. Pipes with repairs to short longitudinal cracks which were accomplished prior to May 13, 1965, were subjected to hydrostatic tests in accordance with the May 24 memorandum. The record does not show the length of the cracks on any of the forty repaired and previously accepted pipes rejected for longitudinal cracks in the May 15 inventory. However, accepting the 28 reclaims for longitudinal cracks as pipes rejected in the May 15 inventory, it is obvious that a minimum of fifteen of the repaired and previously accepted pipes were reaccepted. We find that these fifteen pipes passed the hydrostatic test and that their rejection was improper. It follows that Cen-Vi-Ro is entitled to an equitable adjustment for the interim wrongful rejection of these fifteen pipes. The appeal as to longitudinal and circumferential cracks is sustained as to 94 pipes (28 54-inch, 25 60inch, 21 66-inch x 20-foot, six 66inch x 16-foot, and 14 72-inch) which were improperly rejected, as to the interim wrongful rejection of 15 pipes and is otherwise denied. Cen-Vi-Ro is entitled to an equitable adjustment measured by the cost of producing 42 of these pipes. For the remaining 52, Cen-Vi-Ro is entitled to an equitable measured by the cost of production less the cost of necessary repairs. The amount of the equitable adjustment will be determined infra. Defects in Bell and Spigot Areas and Unconsolidated Concrete in Spigots and Barrels Included under this heading are 146 pipes rejected for rocky or unconsolidated, sometimes referred to as underfilled, bells, 170 pipes rejected for impact damage to bells and spigots and 67 pipes rejected for unconsolidated areas in barrels or spigots for a total of 383 pipes (Exh. 5Q). As we have seen (note 124, supra), the contracting officer considered circumferentially cracked spigots under this heading. The specification, Subparagraph 67.e. (3), provides in part: "The duration and speed of spinning shall be sufficient to completely distribute and thoroughly consolidate the concrete and produce an even interior surface." Subparagraph 67.h. (4) (g), provides: |