With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". base scope of the contract or with regard to changes is erroneous precisely because this is a fixed-price contract. The LOGO, FP, and Changes clauses do not contain language permitting plaintiff to cease performance in the face of a funding overrun situation. See Appeal of Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc., 66-2 BCA ¶ 6,049, 1966 WL 528 (1966) (resolving ambiguity in relationship of LOC and LOGO clauses to Changes clause and permitting recovery of termination claim and reasonable fee in cost-plus contract); compare Titan Corp., 129 F.3d at 1481 (providing specifically that funding limits in cost-plus contract encompass Changes clause and permitting contractor to cease performance upon expenditure of allocated funding), with Appeal of Ryan Aeronautical Co., 61-1 BCA ¶ 2,911, 1961 WL 664 (1961) (<HOLDING>). Under the contract plaintiff could effect a

A: holding that the penalty is applicable
B: holding that one method of computing damages for a breach of contract is the contract price less the reasonable cost of completion
C: holding that ceiling cost is not applicable to a change which increases costs under the contract if provision is present providing for price revision
D: holding contract for sale of water which did not specify price was unenforceable because price of water was essence of contract
C.