* * * [b]ecause of the very nature of the procurement (and the product) involved, plaintiff's contract was clearly not such a "requirements" contract in any customary sense. See Albano Cleaners, Inc. v. United States, 455 F.2d 556, 197 Ct.Cl. 450 (1972); Franklin Co. v. United States, * * * [ 381 F.2d 416, 180 Ct.Cl. 666 (1967)]; E. H. Sales, Inc. v. United States, 340 F.2d 358, 169 Ct.Cl. 269 (1965); Goldwasser v. United States, 325 F.2d 722, 163 Ct.Cl. 450 (1963). [T.J. op. at 21-22.

Prestex Inc. v. United States, 320 F.2d 367, 372, 162 Ct.Cl. 620, 627 (1963) (footnote omitted). See also Mid-West Construction, Ltd. v. United States, 387 F.2d 957, 961, 181 Ct.Cl. 774, 781 (1967); Albano Cleaners, Inc. v. United States, 455 F.2d 556, 559, 197 Ct.Cl. 450, 455 (1972). Cf. United States v. Ellicott, 223 U.S. 524, 32 S.Ct. 334, 56 L.Ed. 535 (1912).

The seminal case in point is John Reiner Co. v. United States, 325 F.2d 438, 163 Ct.Cl. 381 (1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 931, 84 S.Ct. 1332, 12 L.Ed.2d 295 (1964). See also Albano Cleaners, Inc. v. United States, 455 F.2d 556, 197 Ct.Cl. 450 (1972); Warren Brothers Roads Co. v. United States, 355 F.2d 612, 173 Ct.Cl. 714 (1965); Coastal Cargo Co. v. United States, 351 F.2d 1004, 173 Ct.Cl. 259 (1965); Brown Son Electric Co. v. United States, 325 F.2d 446, 163 Ct.Cl. 465 (1963). The contract in Reiner was cancelled because the invitation for bids had permitted bidders to vary the specified time for delivery.

The Case Law Cited by Plaintiff is Inapposite In further support of its argument that the Court should adopt the total estimated quantity of $100 million as the "total contract price," plaintiff cites Albano Cleaners, Inc v. United States, 197 Ct. Cl. 450, 455 F.2d 556 (1972), E.H. Sales, Inc. v. United States, 169 Ct. Cl. 269, 340 F.2d 358 (1965), and Goldwasser v. United States, 163 Ct. Cl. 450, 325 F.2d 722 (1963). However, the cases cited by plaintiff are distinguishable.

There is no claim that either Mid-South or American Employers' concealed these other surveys or misrepresented their contents, nor that there was any overreaching."); Swift Chem. Co. v. Usamex Fertilizers, Inc., 490 F. Supp. 1343, 1356 (E.D.La. 1980) ("Whatever the truth is, at best only one of the parties could have been mistaken about the issue. A unilateral mistake about a particular fact is insufficient to reform a contract otherwise properly entered into."), aff'd, 646 F.2d 1121 (5th Cir. 1981); Albano Cleaners, Inc., 455 F.2d 556, 560 (Ct.Cl. 1972); see also Bowater No. Am. Corp., 773 F.2d at 75 ("The adequacy of the contract formation [of a settlement agreement] is further supported by the [fact that] . . . there was no mutual mistake, nor was there mistake due to fraud which only one of the parties would have known about.") (emphasis added). In the case at bar, there was no mutual mistake or fraudulent misrepresentation.

A unilateral mistake about a particular fact is insufficient to reform a contract otherwise properly entered into.See also, Albano Cleaners, Inc. v. United States, 197 Ct.Cl. 450, 458, 455 F.2d 556, 560 (1972). Since defendant alleges neither mutual mistake nor fraud — the only two grounds for setting aside a settlement agreement — its attack on this valid settlement agreement must fail. Callen v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 332 U.S. 625, 630, 68 S.Ct. 296, 298, 92 L.Ed. 242 (1948).

The mere existence of evidence to support a determination contrary to that which was made does not standing alone constitute evidence of plain illegality. See Albano Cleaners, Inc. v. United States, 197 Ct.Cl. 450, 458, 455 F.2d 556, 560-61 (1972). The government attempts to distinguish Trilon on the ground that the contracting officer in Trilon had broad discretion in making his decision to award a research contract among a number of bidders, whereas in this case discretion is limited by the applicable federal regulations which set forth explicit requirements which must be met before an exclusive domestic license and waiver of foreign rights can be granted.

See also, William Green Construction Co. v. United States, 477 F.2d 930, 935, 201 Ct.Cl. 616, 624-25 (1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 909, 94 S.Ct. 2606, 41 L.Ed.2d 213 (1974); Bailey Specialized Buildings, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.2d 355, 363, 186 Ct.Cl. 71, 86 (1968). Furthermore, under clause 13 of the contract, there can be no doubt that the contracting officer could have partially terminated the plaintiff's contract for the convenience of the Government on April 7, 1970. See, e. g., G. C. Casebolt Co. v. United States, 421 F.2d 710, 712-13, 190 Ct.Cl. 783, 787 (1970); Albano Cleaners, Inc. v. UnitedStates, 455 F.2d 556, 561-62, 197 Ct.Cl. 450, 460 (1972). The authority of the contracting officer to so terminate a contract either in whole or in part, is subject to very few limitations.

" See also, 41 C.F.R. § 1-2.406; Albano Cleaners, Inc. v. United States, 455 F.2d 556, 559, 197 Ct.Cl. 450 (1972); City of Chicago v. Mohr, 216 Ill, 320, 329, 74 N.E. 1056 (1905). There is, of course, some appeal to the thought that an employer who has demonstrated achievement of the 1974 goal of hiring members of minorities is already serving the purpose of the Plan and that there may be as much or more probability that he will reach the 1975 goal as an employer who merely makes the commitments.

There is no statute or regulation that would make illegal or improper the acceptance of a bid backed by a bid bond containing an error such as was here involved. It is not every bid deviation or error which automatically compels a bid rejection. Albano Cleaners, Inc. v. United States, 455 F.2d 556, 197 Ct.Cl. 450 (1972). In the language of the court in Continental Bus. Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, supra, plaintiff has, considering the nature of the errors in the Knott bid upon which it is relying, failed to "show that there was no reasonable basis for the decision" of the Architect.