_________________________________________ ORDER ON PROCEEDINGS: August 28, 1997 _________________________________________ GSBCA 13533 B&S TRANSPORT, INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Alexander J. Brittin and Christopher C. Bouquet of McKenna & Cuneo, Washington, DC, counsel for Appellant. Michael Tully, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. HYATT, Board Judge. ORDER Appellant, B&S Transport, Inc., and respondent, the General Services Administration (GSA), have filed, respectively, motions to compel discovery and to limit discovery in this appeal. In accordance with the discussion below, we grant each motion in part. Background The Contract The contract, number GS-30F-1008B, giving rise to this appeal was entered into on April 1, 1994, between B&S Transport, a small, disadvantaged business, and GSA. The contract was a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) single award requirements contract, for the purchase by the Government (all federal agencies) of nineteen different types of new tires for light trucks and medium truck-bus vehicles. GSA, however, was the sole mandatory user. The contract covered a base period from April 1, 1994 through December 31, 1994, with an option to extend for an additional year -- calendar year 1995 -- which was exercised. Appeal File, Exhibits 7, 10. The contract's minimum order quantity was $300. Appeal File, Exhibits 1-2. The solicitation contained varying estimates of quantities of purchases expected to be made. The estimates were based on purchases made in previous years. For the items awarded to B&S the estimates ranged from as few as fifteen of one particular tire to as many as 253 of another. The solicitation stated that no guarantee is given that any quantities would be purchased, however. In addition, the solicitation cautioned that this was the first year in which GSA would be the sole mandatory user and that GSA had no way to know how this would impact on quantities ordered. Appeal File, Exhibit 1. Another factor affecting quantities purchased is that all Government agencies, including GSA, are required to purchase retread tires in lieu of new tires for vehicles, unless the purchase of new tires is specifically justified or a retread tire is not available or in stock at the time the replacement tire is ordered. The schedule states that GSA may purchase new tires only when there are no retread tires that meet the size and tread configurations required for a particular vehicle. According to appellant, retreads may not be purchased for use as front tires. B&S did not receive an award for the supply of any retread tires. Of the nineteen different new tire types to be provided by B&S, fourteen are available as retreads from other suppliers. Appeal File, Exhibits 7-8, 12. The appeal, filed after completion of the contract option term, alleges that GSA breached its contract by failing to purchase tires from B&S. In particular, B&S alleges that after receiving award of the contract, it did not receive significant orders for tires. The Discovery Requests The parties have now exchanged several sets of discovery requests and objections thereto. In response to objections raised with respect to its first set of interrogatories, appellant, through correspondence and the conduct of conversations, attempted to narrow and refine its requests in response to respondent's objections. A second set of discovery requests was filed. Although respondent continued to raise some objections to these requests, it did provide some responses as well, which B & S used to tailor a third set of interrogatories and document production requests. GSA has objected to this third set of discovery requests in its entirety. Despite good faith efforts to resolve the outstanding objections, the parties find themselves at an impasse. Four interrogatories and three requests for the production of documents are the subject of the pending motions. 1. The first interrogatory in appellant's third set of discovery requests seeks a list of all vehicles that could possibly use the tire sizes listed in the contract. The list is expected to be generated from GSA's computerized Fleet Management System (FMS) by vehicle tag number. GSA has objected to this interrogatory on the following basis: In response to your interrogatory 23, set two, GSA stated that it was possible to query the FMS system to provide tag numbers of vehicles within the classes "that could use" the tire sizes awarded to B&S. This is, as stated in GSA's response to that interrogatory, a very rough guess. Compiling such a list requires GSA personnel to make educated guesses about which vehicles might use a particular tire size. In addition to being inexact, the list will be overly inclusive. At this time, GSA's best guess is that there are about 35,000 vehicle tag numbers that will comprise this list. Although GSA has no substantive objection to providing this list, retrieval of this much information will require a significant number of personnel hours. Because this information is useless unless subsequent steps are taken, and Respondent objects to the remainder of Appellant's interrogatories, Respondent objects to the interrogatory on the basis that retrieval of this information would be unduly burdensome and expensive, and is not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. If at some later date, Respondent is compelled or agrees to comply to some extent with the remainder of the interrogatories, Respondent will voluntarily waive this objection to the extent necessary. 2. The second interrogatory seeks repair history query reports from GSA's Fleet Management System showing, for each vehicle identified on the vehicle tag number list, the tire size, the tire vendor number, and the accounting transaction control number for the tire purchase. Appellant explains that it needs the vendor number and the accounting transaction control number to obtain purchase invoices, which are highly relevant to the case. GSA objects that retrieval of the requested information would be unduly burdensome and expensive because GSA personnel would have to review on an individual basis the repair history for some 35,000 vehicles to establish if there were tire purchases of a size relevant to this dispute. Appellant counters that to comply, no review must be undertaken; respondent need only print out the screens and supply them. 3. The next interrogatory seeks "payment search results" from GSA's accounts payable "NEAR System" showing the invoice numbers for the tires purchased for the vehicles identified on the vehicle tag number list. Once again, respondent's objection is that the retrieval of this information would be time consuming and expensive considering the small size of the case and GSA's limited personnel. 4. The final interrogatory in issue seeks a listing of the location of boxes in the record center. Specifically, B&S requests that, using the invoice numbers obtained for interrogatory number three, GSA generate, using its PITS system, a listing of boxes where the corresponding documents are located. This listing is intended to assist in the retrieval of specific tire invoices from GSA's record center. B&S points out that this interrogatory narrows the scope of a prior request, which GSA objected to on the basis that it called for "wholesale retrieval" of boxes without regard to whether relevant invoices would be found. GSA objected to this interrogatory on the basis that retrieval of the information would be burdensome given its personnel availability, and unduly expensive given what GSA regards as the relatively small size of the case. In addition, GSA objected to the added work given the cumulative effort required to respond to the prior interrogatories. 5. The first request for production of documents asks that GSA produce the boxes identified in interrogatory number four above. GSA objects on the basis that such effort would be unduly burdensome and expensive. 6. The second request for production of documents seeks a copy of each document identified, relied on, generated or referenced in response to B&S's third set of interrogatories described above. GSA did not respond to this request, given its position with respect to each of the referenced interrogatories. 7. Finally, B&S has requested copies of certain GSA contracts with other tire vendors. GSA has objected to this request on the ground that the documents are not relevant nor likely to lead to discovery of relevant evidence. GSA has also represented that the request is duplicative in that any information in these contracts that would be relevant to this dispute is found in the FSS schedule which is provided in the Rule 4 file for this case. Finally, GSA has suggested that those contracts may contain proprietary information of other contractors. Appellant responds that it is interested in the terms and conditions of these contracts, in order to determine whether GSA inadvertently included terms that might permit the purchase of tires listed in B&S's contract. In addition, appellant doubts that these contracts would contain proprietary information. The Motions In its motion to compel, appellant contends that GSA's objections as to burdensomeness and expense are conclusory. Additionally, even if GSA will be required to devote considerable time and effort to respond to appellant's requests, appellant points out that this is not a justification to deny relevant discovery. Appellant adds that it has estimated a loss of some $30,000 in potential profits, and that the amount it is owed could be considerably more than this. Of most significance, the information needed to establish B&S's case is wholly within GSA's knowledge and control. Absent this discovery, appellant cannot effectively pursue its claim. Finally, appellant states that it has diligently worked with GSA to refine its requests to help minimize the burden of response. GSA's motion to limit discovery elaborates on its responses to B&S's third discovery request. In particular, GSA takes the position that the requested discovery should not be permitted because 1) appellant has "wildly" exaggerated the possible amount in controversy in this case; 2) GSA has made an attempt to determine the amount of effort and cost associated with providing responses to the discovery requests and believes that the proposed discovery is burdensome; 3) GSA does not have the resources to acquire all the documentation sought; and 4) the discovery is not necessary to resolve the issue in this claim. With respect to B&S's potential recovery, GSA points out that the estimates in the contract were based on prior years when all agencies were mandatory users. In addition, GSA argues that the $300 minimum order requirement further limits mandatory orders because only one tire variety exceeds $300 for one tire. For the other tire types, at least two tires would be required for a purchase from B&S to be mandatory. Because of these circumstances, GSA contends that the amount in controversy in this matter is necessarily very small. In addition, GSA urges that the effort to retrieve the information sought by B&S, even using computerized data bases, will be cumbersome and expensive because the nationwide FMS data base is not organized to retrieve readily the type of information sought by appellant. To comply with B&S's requests, GSA must use a separate computer program to access the FMS data base and search that data base by sixteen different categories and codes. GSA asserts that the data runs must be conducted at night because they consume the system's entire capacity. Employees must be trained to conduct the search and then must be asked to stay at night to retrieve the data. GSA has now developed the format for querying the data base, but states that it took several hours at night to retrieve the information with respect to one of the agency's eleven regions. Retrieval of the information from the data base does not end the matter, according to GSA, because the data does not reveal which tire design was purchased and whether the tire was new or a retread. To derive this information, the invoices, which are in the records center, must be examined. In short, GSA believes that the effort and expense required to comply with appellant's discovery requests far outweigh what it views to be the de minimis potential value of the claim. In keeping with its position, GSA has offered a proposal to limit discovery. GSA will produce a random sampling of tire invoices for three months for three regions (to be selected by B&S) for the three largest estimated quantity sizes. Respondent suggests that the result of this sampling will show what proportion of the estimated amount GSA actually purchased and if these tires were purchased from a vendor other than B&S in violation of the contract terms. In response to this proposal, appellant asserts that GSA's sampling approach is unacceptable. It is appellant's position that the computer formats available to GSA enable retrieval of all of the information required by B&S in a prompt and efficient manner. B&S says that it has no informed basis upon which to select sample regions for this approach and is being asked to engage in a form of "Russian Roulette." B&S further maintains that because GSA has now developed the computer formats to enable it to avoid review of thousands of boxes of documents, there is no reason to restrict discovery to a sampling process. Discussion Under Rule 115(c)(3) the Board may limit discovery if it makes a determination that "[the discovery is unduly burdensome and expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, limitations on the parties' resources, and the importance of the issues at stake." This determination is arrived at by weighing the burden or expense of the proposed discovery against its likely benefit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(iii). This balancing process requires honing the need for discovery as narrowly as possible to reduce and prevent undue burden on the responding party. See Roseberg v. Johns-Manville Corp., 85 F.R.D. 292, 304 (E.D. Pa. 1980). Conclusory objections as to burdensomeness are not enough. The party resisting discovery is required to show with specificity how each objected to discovery request either is not relevant or is overly broad, burdensome, or oppressive. Id. As B&S points out, the information it needs to prove its case is wholly within GSA's possession. B&S is not in a position to pursue its claim without access to the information it seeks in these interrogatories and requests for documents. B&S now estimates the possible value of its case to be as much as $600,000. GSA believes this estimate of the potential value is excessively high and asserts that the more likely value, if any, is less than the $30,000 originally estimated by B&S to represent lost profits. The Board is not in a position at this point to determine how much the case is potentially worth. For the most part, respondent's objections to B&S's discovery requests focus on its allegation that GSA's employees would be required to expend significant time and energy to comply. GSA further argues that providing full discovery to B&S would, therefore, represent a personal hardship to these employees. The fact that answering discovery requests will require the objecting party to expend considerable time, effort and expense is not alone sufficient reason for disallowing the requests. Fagan v. District of Columbia, 136 F.R.D. 5, 7 (D.D.C. 1991); Dawco Construction Co., VABCA 1967, 85-3 BCA  18,209, at 19,392. Nor is it enough to justify circumscribing discovery to the sampling technique proposed by GSA. Although GSA may find it somewhat burdensome and expensive to produce the information needed by B&S, this does not outweigh appellant's demonstrated need for the documents and information it seeks. One particular difficulty with GSA's proffered compromise is that it has not made a convincing case that production of a "sampling" of the information sought will suffice to provide B&S with a fair opportunity to prove its case. The discovery requests are clearly designed to produce relevant information needed by B&S to pursue its claim. There is no other way for B&S to show whether respondent has breached its obligation to buy its requirements for new tires of the pertinent sizes under this contract. B&S has, moreover, cooperated in seeking compromise approaches to reduce the burden of complying with the discovery requests in response to GSA's initial objections that the requested discovery would require production of massive boxes of documents. We thus conclude that appellant is entitled to production in full in response to most of its interrogatories and document production requests. The one exception is interrogatory number 1. This discovery request requires GSA to produce "a listing, by tag number, of all vehicles that could possibly use the tire sizes listed in the B&S contract." As GSA correctly points out, this in fact is overly broad because it requires respondent to include in the compilation vehicles which never purchased a tire during the relevant period, as well as vehicles which purchased retreaded tires exclusively. This requires the production of more information than B&S needs to establish its case. We agree with GSA that the properly honed question is: "Which vehicles purchased tire types that were offered for sale by B&S under its contract?" Discovery request number 1 should, therefore, be limited to the production of a listing, by tag number, of all vehicles which purchased new tires of the types that were to be provided by B&S under the contract. Decision Appellant's motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART. Respondent is required to comply in full with the discovery requests numbered 2-7. Respondent's motion to limit discovery is also GRANTED IN PART as to discovery request number 1, which is hereby narrowed as stated above. ___________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge