The Court holds no more here than that certain portions of two specific documents which the Court has had the opportunity to examine must not be disclosed. The requested declaratory relief would necessarily cover information yet to be prepared which may or may not be confidential in nature.

A decree enjoining defendants from disclosure other than in accordance with the foregoing should be prepared by counsel for the plaintiffs and presented for entry after submission to counsel for defendants and intervenors for approval as to form.

From an analysis of the Government's motion to dismiss as further elaborated in its answer as amended, the Government's position resolves itself to two contentions. First, that a set-off action is involved in this appeal, and the Board has no authority to review set-off actions. Second, even if the Board should assume jurisdiction of the appeal and find that the contracting officer's letter of 15 August 1960 to RAC was a finding within the purview of the Disputes clause, the instant appeal is untimely because it was not taken until more than 30 days after Republic had received the letter of 15 August 1960.

As to the Government's right of set-off, this Board has never questioned in any of its decisions the right of the Government to set off against one contract an indebtedness due it arising from another contract. When, however, that indebtedness is construed to arrive from an interpretation of the terms of a contract, and a factual question of whether the contractor is required to perform the contract in accordance with such interpretation exists, then the validity of said indebtedness becomes a question of fact requiring a determination by the contracting officer. As such, the decision of the contracting officer is appealable under the Disputes clause.

Applying this reasoning to the case before the Board, the determination of RAC's liability as made heretofore, was based upon an analysis of Republic's obligation under its Government contract AF 33(600)-8116. The initial assumption, as exemplified in the contracting officer's letter of 17 February 1959, appears to have been based upon an interpretation that certain provisions of the Operating Manual, incorporated by reference into Contract AF 33(600)-8116, required Republic to furnish a master tool fixture for the manufacture of the glass canopies by Aerfer. Later, as shown by the quoted excerpt from the Government's letter to the appellant dated 2 February 1962, Government trial counsel stated that it had always been recognized that the master tool for the canopy was not included on the list of specific tools which RAC was to furnish Aerfer, but that RAC was obligated to furnish whatever technical assistance Aerfer required to insure complete interchangeability between RAC parts and those of Aerfer, a duty which RAC failed to accomplish. Therefore, maintains the Government, RAC is in breach of contract and liable for the rework costs of $71,000.