A contractor's contention its default was excused by a patent ambiguity was rejected by the Court of Federal Claims because the contract requirements were not ambiguous and the government had a reasonable basis for believing the contractor could achieve the requirements. The government terminated the fixed-price contract to design and produce helicopter armor on grounds the contractor failed to make progress to meet weight and ballistics requirements. The contractor alleged breach of contract based on bad faith and abuse of discretion, asserting the government was aware of a patent ambiguity in the contractor's bid and awarded the contract despite the nonconforming bid.