ORDER CORRECTING TRANSCRIPTION ERROR: July 20, 1993 GSBCA 11368 COMPUTER NETWORK SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Carl L. Vacketta and Richard P. Rector of Pettit & Martin, Washington, DC; and Barbara Spencer Lamade of Computer Network Systems, Incorporated, Arlington, VA, counsel for Appellant. John E. Cornell, Michael D. Tully and Margaret A. Dillenburg, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. Order On July 19, 1993, appellant filed a motion to correct a transcription error in the Board's decision in this appeal issued on July 13, 1993. The error appears on page 300 of the hearing transcript and is quoted in footnote number seven on page nine of the Board's decision. Respondent has no objection to appellant's motion. Accordingly, appellant's motion is GRANTED. The corrected page is issued herewith. ______________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge Id. at 301-02. Both appellant and respondent attempted to locate him for the hearing without success. Id. at 253-54, 301.[foot #] 1 CNSI's Billing Error In May of 1990, CNSI discovered that it had been billing PILOT at a 25% surcharge. Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 25; Transcript at 92. This occurred because of an input error to CNSI's billing algorithm; 25% had been keyed in. Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 25; Transcript at 92, 111-13. Such billing errors were common on the part of CNSI, and invoices were often rejected by the GSA TSP funds branch. Transcript at 132. In one instance CNSI had failed (through error) to bill GSA approximately $195,000 in surcharges for another software product. Id. at 143-44. CNSI's manager of business administration explained: Generalized explanation would include the human factor that related to the creation of the actual invoices, the complexity of the MASC program, and how many people were required to perform various functions of making sure that the proper data was collected off the computer, and then taking that data from the computer and creating invoices. . . . . . . . The timing of getting these bills into the Government was also crucial. There was a requirement in the MASC that the GSA funds branch receive our invoices by the fifteenth day of the following month in order for them to be paid within the twenty day prompt period time that was also part of the contract. If they weren't submitted by the fifteenth day, they were allowed to add a certain number of days on to the invoice, as far as when it would be paid. Well, CNSI . . . was not a very large company, was fairly reliant on its cash flow and was under pressure to get their bills in so that they would be processed and paid so that our business would run smoothly. If the funds branch would detect an error, they might reject a bill for one error and not tell us about another error that was found. We would see the error, correct it, resubmit it, and then have it re-rejected. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Appellant's counsel stated: "The last time we knew . . . he was in Mexico trying to avoid tax proceedings." Transcript at 254. CNSI's former president testified that the negotiator had never picked up his W-2 form. Id. at 300. ___