U.S. Government Printing Office
Contract Appeals Board

Jay E. Eisen, Chairman
Victor Corrado, Member
Robert McArtor, Member
Panel 3-80

Appeal of Broyles Typesetting Service
920 L Street, NW, Washington, D.C.  20001
December 3, 1979

This is an appeal filed by the Broyles Typesetting Service,
Washington, D.C., herein also referred to as the contractor,
under the disputes clause of the contract, Purchase Order 50297,
Jacket 246-540, Article 29, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Contract Terms No. 1, approved July 1, 1943, Rev. July 15, 1970.

The appeal came before the Board on November 20, 1979, following
a decision by the Contracting Officer on November 20, 1978, to
terminate the contract Jacket 246-540, due to the failure of the
contractor to perform in accordance with the terms of the
contract.  The appellant submitted its notice of appeal by letter
dated December 1, 1978.  The appellant requested an informal
hearing in accordance with GPO Instruction 110.10, June 6, 1979.
This procedure consists of a written submission and an informal
hearing before the Board.  The purpose of such a hearing
generally is not to serve for introduction of new matter but to
permit explanations and/or argument regarding written matters
already in the record.  Accordingly, no transcript of the
proceedings was prepared.  The decision of the Board is based
upon information contained in the appeal file, supporting
explanations, and argument regarding written matters in the
record.  Mrs. L. Hofberg appeared for the appellant and Mr. James
Lane, Office of General Counsel, appeared for the Contracting
Office.  Mr. James Markley appeared as the Contracting Officer's
representative together with Mr. James E. Willard, Printing
Specialist, who acted as Technical Advisor.

I.  Findings of Fact:

A. This case arises out of a contract entered into by the Broyles
Typesetting Service and the U.S. Government Printing Office,
hereinafter referred to as the GPO, on October 14, 1977, at a
cost of $2,586.28, "For the Purchase of Reproduction
Proofs/Camera Copy" to be used for the production of a
publication for the National Aeronautical and Space
Administration titled Overall Loudness of Steady Sounds According
to Theory and Experiment (NASA RP--1001).  GPO furnished 22
folios of manuscript copy fully prepared, typewritten,
predominantly double spaced with a moderate amount of handwritten
editorial markings.  Five sets of galley proofs and the
manuscript were scheduled to be received by GPO on or before
November 2, 1977.

B. The specifications provided for Hot Metal Composition and/or
Photocomposition and/or Cold Type.  The specifications as to
composition provided the following:

"NOTE:  Typesetting requirements for production of this
publication includes the setting of complex single-line and
multi-line equations.  Contractor must have the capability and
all necessary special characters needed for setting complex
equation matter."

. . .

"It is estimated there will be-(Described according to
classification, i.e., Straight matter, Moderately Difficult,
Difficult, Tabular, Hand Time, and Makeup):

190,000 ems of Difficult Matter, includes approximately 180
single-line equations and 170 multi-line equations, . . .) set 8
& 10 pt. Modern, . . ., in addition to the equations there are
numerous special characters running in throughout the main body
text.  Special characters include but are not necessarily limited
to: superior and inferior plus superscript and subscript figures
and letters, common and advanced math signs, radicals, integrals
. . .."

"TABULAR MATTER:  30,000 ems 10 pt.Modern . . .."

C. The specifications in regards to typefaces and methods of
composition provided the following:

"A.  TYPEFACES AND METHODS OF COMPOSITION

   Hot Metal, Coldtype,
Typeface    Photocomposition

1.  TEXT:   6, 8, and 10 pt. Modern with   Hot Metal
   italics and small caps

2.   8 pt. Garamond with italics   Hot Metal

3.    8 pt. Gothic Condensed   Hot Metal

4. TABULAR:   8 pt. Modern   Hot Metal

5. DISPLAY:   12 pt. Helvetica   Hot Metal

6.   14 pt. Helvetica Bold   Hot Metal

. . .

"B. Substitute typefaces    /_/   will not be accepted
   /X/   will be accepted for item(s) 1-6 above

"C. Substitute methods of composition   /_/   will not be
accepted
   /X/   will be accepted for item(s)
            1-6 above

If substitute typefaces and/or methods of composition will not be
accepted, the bidder must use those listed above in order to meet
the terms of this contract.  If substitutes will be accepted, the
bidder must list the proposed substitute on the line of the same
number as the preferred typeface/method of composition, giving
the name, point size, series and font number, and the composing
machine he intends to use."

D. On October 13, 1977, inquiry was made to appellant by
telephone by GPO as to the method of typesetting the contractor
intended to use in the performance of the requirements of the
contract.  The contractor indicated hot metal exclusively as
confirmed by letter dated October 13, 1977 (Exhibits 5, 6).

E. Consequently, GPO issued Purchase Order 50297 dated October
14, 1977, to the contractor.  The 5 sets of galley proofs and the
manuscript required to be mailed to GPO on or before November 2,
1977, were delivered and received by GPO on November 25.  1977.
(Exhibit 14).

F. Inspection of the galley proofs by the customer agency
revealed that the job was not well set with equations pulled out
and set in a different typeface.  A second set of galley proofs
was ordered and the contractor acknowledged receipt of the
material on May 1, 1978.  The contractor's request for a
scheduled delivery date of June 19, 1978, was approved Exhibit
18).  Five sets of galley proofs with manuscript was received by
GPO on July 14, 1978, Exhibit 20).  They were rejected because
the equations were not set in text in type to match the text as
marked on the first set of galley proofs and therefore returned
for correction to the contractor.

G. On July 21, 1978, the contracting officer issued a show cause
letter to the contractor to the effect that the Government was
considering terminating the contract because of failure to
perform within the time required and that part of the composition
job was set by the photocomposition method (Exhibit 23).

H. The contractor responded to the effect that since the
specifications provided for the composition to be set in hot
metal and/or photo, the balance of 70 multi-line equations were
set in photocomposition.  Further, the contractor's initial
choice was to set the formulas in monotype, but since such a
service is not available in the Washington area, photocomposition
was used (Exhibit 24).

I. The contracting officer, by letter dated August 1, 1978,
reminded the contractor that at the time the contract was being
negotiated, the appellant confirmed in writing on October 13,
1977, that it would set the job in hot metal.  The contracting
officer requested that the equations be reset by the hot metal
method (Exhibit 27).  An additional set of galley proofs was
received by GPO on August 7, 1978.  The revised proofs were set
in two different typefaces and therefore rejected (Exhibit 34).

J. The contractor was notified on November 20, 1978, that the
contract was terminated for default because of failure to set the
type on the revised galley proofs as instructed, that the text
was set in hot metal Modern typeface and the equations set in
photo Times Roman which was in direct conflict with the
corrections made on the first set of galley proofs and the
specifications (Exhibit 35).

II. Decision:

Having recited the operative facts in this case, the Board now
focuses on the question of the propriety of the decision by the
contracting officer to terminate Jacket No. 246-540 for default
following the rejection by GPO of the composition (typesetting
requirements) submitted by the contractor because of failure to
conform to the strict requirements of the specifications.  On
September 9, 1978, the contractor submitted a third set of
revised galley proofs.  Inspection by the GPO Composition
Specification Section revealed that the contractor had reset the
multi-line equations using, apparently, a mixture of hot metal
and photocomposition.  The text being set in Modern typeface and
the equations being set in photo Times Roman.  This action was in
direct conflict with the specifications and not in accordance
with the corrections made on the first set of galley proofs
returned to the contractor.

The appellant argues that the specifications in the contract
provided alternative methods of composition, hot metal and/or
photocomposition and/or cold type, which it interpreted permitted
hot metal composition, and photocomposition for certain
equations.  It was reiterated by the contractor, however, that
the equations were intended to be set in monotype, but the
appellant contends that such a supplier is not available in the
Washington area.  This point was disputed by GPO.  The contractor
asserted, therefore, it was justified in using photocomposition
for some of the complicated equations only.

The Government contends that the appellant's galley proofs were
not in compliance with the strict requirements of the contract.
The specifications, as to typefaces and methods of composition
provided for hot metal composition, but.also specified for the
use of substitute typefaces other than those listed, and two
other methods of composition, provided the bidder listed the
proposed substitute on the line of the same number as the
preferred typeface/method of composition, giving the name, point
size, series and font number, and the composing machine he
intended to use.  The bidder did not submit proposed lists of
typefaces or substitute methods of composition, and it is,
therefore, concluded that the contract performance required hot
metal composition and the types listed in the contract including
Modern and not Times Roman.  Further it appears reasonable and
consistent with the entire agreement that GPO intended that the
composition be submitted entirely in hot metal or
photocomposition or cold metal and not in segments.

The general and overriding principle is that the Government is
entitled to strict compliance with the specifications.  Polyphase
Contracting Corp.,  ASBCA, 68-1 BCA  6759 (1967); Consolidated
Airborne Systems, Inc.,  ASBCA 10602, 11154, 66-1 BCA  5582
(1966).  This doctrine is enforced even when the deviations are
minor, or even if the nonspecification item offered is as good or
better than the item called for by the contract.  In the instant
case we believe that the specifications were clear and were not
lived up to.  The Government had a right to obtain what it
contracted for and it did not receive it; the contractor had no
right, except at his own risk, to deviate therefrom.  Factually,
the contractor was not misled in any way.

Again the Government is entitled to strict compliance with the
specifications in this type of contract, simply as a usual right.
Contrary to appellant's suggestion at the hearing, nothing
arbitrary or unconscionable appears merely from the Government's
adherence to the specifications.

Accordingly, in reviewing all the evidence that has been
presented and after considering all of the arguments, the Board
finds

1.  The default termination was proper.

2.  The appeal is denied.