U.S. Government Printing Office
Board of Contract Appeals

GPO BCA 6-85
April 15, 1986

MICHAEL F. DiMARIO, Administrative Law Judge


   This appeal, timely filed on April 12, 1985, by American
   Drafting and Laminating Company (hereinafter Appellant), P.O.
   Box 62464, Virginia Beach, VA 23462 arises under the Disputes
   Article of Government Printing Office Contract Terms No. 1,
   GPO Publication 310.2.- Revised October 1, 1980, which such
   publication was incorporated in and made a part of a certain
   contract between Appellant and the U.S. Government Printing
   Office (hereinafter Respondent), identified as Jacket No.
   538-374, Purchase Order E-9652, dated January 29, 1985.  The
   appeal is from the final decision of the GPO Contracting
   Officer, Douglas R. MacBride, of February 26, 1985,
   terminating the contract "for default because your firm failed
   to make progress on the contract and you are inexcusably
   delinquent in providing the ordered products by the
   contractual ship date." (Appeal File hereinafter R4 File, Tab
   N) The decision of the Contracting Officer is reversed and the
   case is remanded back to the Contracting Officer for
   processing in accordance with this decision.


   On January 29, 1985, Appellant was telephonically contacted by
   a representative of Respondent's Hampton, VA Regional Printing
   Procurement Office and invited to bid on a contract for the
   acquisition and printing of some 15,000 +/- 4% mailing
   envelopes requisitioned from Respondent by the National
   Aeronautics and Space Administration (hereinafter NASA).  The
   Government was to furnish camera copy to the successful bidder
   by February 1, 1985.  The envelopes, themselves, were to be
   furnished by the contractor and were to be constructed from
   light brown Kraft paper with basis weight 28 lbs. per 500
   sheets, size 17 x 22", trim size 9 1/2 x 12 1/2", open sided,
   diagonal or center seamed with gummed flap (2 1/4" depth
   min.).  The completed product was to be boxed in units of 500
   and shipped to NASA Langley Research Center by February 11,

   Appellant by return telephone call gave its quotation of $988
   for the given quantity with an added rate of $65 per
   additional one thousand.  Three other firms quoted prices to
   the Government.  Based upon the quotations, Respondent, by
   Purchase Order E-9652 dated January 29, 1985, awarded the job
   to Appellant.  Appellant claims receipt of the Purchase Order
   on February 4, 1985.  Appellant claims that this late receipt
   of the Purchase Order and materials gave it an "automatic
   extention [sic] of delivery date to 13 February 1985 in
   accordance with U.S. Government Printing Office Contract Terms
   No. 1, Part 1-10(c) and 2-11(c)(1)."

   Be that as it may, the facts in the record show that on
   February 12, 1985, Penny Milladge, Procurement Assistant,
   Hampton Regional Printing Procurement Office, GPO, telephoned
   Appellant and spoke to its employee Debra Tase "on Jacket
   538-374 due for 2/11." Tase's notes of that conversation
   reflect the following:  "ODPC [Old Dominion Paper Company]
   misguided on envelopes required for job.  Envelopes are a
   special order and generally take 4 weeks to get.  RIS [RIS
   Paper Company] happened to have 13,500 9 1/2 x 12 5/8
   envelopes due in today, remainder in 1 week.  If we get
   envelope on 2/12 will ship 2/13..

   Tase's notes for 2/12/85 show a status check with RIS and
   resultant advice that envelopes were not shipped from the mill
   until 2/12/85 with anticipated delivery date to Appellant of
   2/15/85.  The notes further show that Tase called Milladge and
   advised her of this information on 2/12/85.

   Appellant by letter of February 13, 1985, was nevertheless
   given notice of its failure to perform within the time
   required by the terms of the contract and that the Government
   was considering termination for default unless Appellant could
   show by written response within 5 days of receipt of the
   notice that the "failure to perform arose out of causes beyond
   your control and without fault or negligence on your part."

   On 2/14/85 Tase again checked with RIS and was assured that
   the envelopes would be delivered on 2/15/85 as promised.  On
   2/15 at approximately 12:30 p.m. Milladge called Tase to see
   if envelopes had been received.  Tase advised her that they
   had not been.  Later that day Tase called one "Judy Rule,"
   identified elsewhere as Judy A. Ruehle, Printing Officer, GPO
   Hampton, about the acceptability of the change in envelope
   size.  Ruehle then checked with one "C. Pruitt" of NASA who
   apparently accepted the change provided there was no
   additional cost to the Government (Rule 4 file, Tab J).  Tase
   was so advised (Tase's telephone note of 2/15/84).
   Subsequently that same day, Ruehle spoke to Tase (Rule 4 file,
   Tab K) (the conversation taking place after the apparent
   receipt of the envelopes from RIS) advising her that the
   envelopes were in fact side seamed rather than diagonal seamed
   as specified.  Ruehle then told Tase that the envelopes were
   not acceptable.  She also advised her to answer the "Show
   Cause" letter.  Ruehle's note reflected that "[A]t this time
   ADL has no env & don't know where they can get Diagonal [sic]
   seam env to print job."

   On February 15, 1985, Appellant responded to the "Show Cause"
   letter stating in pertinent part that they had originally
   ordered the paper stock "from Dillard Paper Company on
   February 6, 1985.  [And that] Dillard, among the several area
   major paper distributors, was the sole supplier stating that
   stock would be provided within the allotted time" and that
   Appellant "had notified GPO by fastest means (telephone
   conversation between Ms. Debra Tase/ADL and Ms. Penny
   Milladge/GPO) on 12 February 1985 that delivery schedule
   problems were being incurred due to the paper subcontractor's
   inability to provide required stock as promised."  Appellant
   attached a letter from Dillard to support its contention that
   "unforeseeable causes beyond control and without fault or
   negligence on the part of American Drafting & Laminating are
   the basis for the performance delay." Appellant gave further
   assurance that delivery would be made "within two working days
   of receipt of proper material from its subcontractor."

   The referenced attached letter dated February 15, 1985, on
   Dillard Paper Company stationery and bearing the signature
   "Paul L. Sumner" in pertinent part states:

     When you first contacted me for a quotation on the 9 1/2 x
     12 1/2 brown Kraft 28# booklet envelopes, I contacted our
     supplier and secured pricing and delivery information.
     Those prices and delivery dates we then passed on to you.

     Upon the award of the bid to your firm and your call to me
     to order said envelopes, I then placed an order with the
     manufacturer.  At that time the manufacturer informed me
     that the price they quoted me was incorrect and that the
     envelopes they had in stock at the time of quotation had
     been sold and they did not anticipate a delivery date any
     sooner than four weeks.

Official File, Tab 1, Attachment 2

   Respondent apparently rejected this explanation since on
   February 26 GPO Hampton employee Dave Sever telephoned
   Appellant and advised that GPO was going to default Appellant
   and put the job back out for bid with a charge back to
   Appellant of any excess reprocurement costs because the
   requisitioning department, NASA, could not wait any longer for
   delivery of the ordered envelopes.  Appellant's President
   Thomas Keith, Jr., telephoned back to Sever advising that
   Articles 2-18 and 2-21 of GPO Contract Terms No. 1 indicate
   that a subcontractor's failure is not grounds for default of a
   prime contractor, that he still hadn't found a supplier to
   furnish the envelope, and that he intended to appeal any
   termination "because in his opinion the job should have been
   canceled at no cost and returned to GPO." That same day the
   "Notice of Termination" for default was sent to Appellant.

   Prior to receipt of the "Notice of Termination" on February
   28, 1985, Appellant apparently continued its effort to locate
   the proper envelopes since its notes of 2/26/85 show receipt
   of a telephone message for one Dick Lassiter from "[M]gr paper
   sales Unijax Inc., Norfolk, Va 2:45 P.M. . . ."  In addition
   four undated notes of telephone conversations were furnished
   by Appellant to support its contention that:

All efforts were made to locate proper specification envelopes.
None were available without lengthy special orders to
manufacturer's mill according to industry sources:  Dillard - Old
Dominion Paper Division, RIS Paper, Unijax Inc, and Wilcox-
Walter-Furlong Paper Company.  Assistance in this impossible
situation was needed due to the paper industry's inability to
provide the envelopes, clearly beyond the control of ADL or its
paper suppliers.  An indefinite schedule extension would be
necessary while awaiting the envelopes from the subcontractor.

Official File, Tab 3

   On March 6, 1984, Respondent reprocured the job from Union
   Envelope Company, Box 27007, Richmond, VA, the firm which had
   given the lowest quotation on the original solicitation but
   had not been awarded the contract at that time because it
   apparently was unable to meet the stated delivery schedule of
   February 11, 1985, the earliest date it could ship being March
   1, 1984.  (Rule 4 File, Tab C) Under the reprocurement, a
   delivery date of 4/12/85 was established.  Union's price of
   $871.50 per 15,000 +/- 4% and $58.10 per additional one
   thousand, remained the same as its original quotation.  This
   was lower than the award price to Appellant.  As a result,
   there were no excess costs to be recovered from Appellant.
   However, the default remained a matter of record and it is
   from this judgment by the Contracting Officer that Appellant
   has appealed.


   Appellant's complaint by way of argument states that:

   1. The government charge that ADL "has failed to make progress
   on the contract" is erroneous.

   ADL's performance as the contractor was as could be commonly
   and reasonably expected:  Supplies were ordered from a major,
   reliable source who had stated materials were available.
   Supplies were quickly reordered from a second source when the
   first subcontractor was unable to provide.  When supplies that
   did not meet specifications were delivered by the second,
   other known suppliers were again queried as to availability of
   the envelopes.  None were found available.  The government was
   kept informed by telephone and letter of this progress.

   2. The government charge that "you are inexcusably delinquent
   in providing the ordered products" is erroneous.

   ADL complied with contract provisions concerning schedule
   delays and provided information which explained the cause and
   justification for the delays.  Considering that delinquency
   was beyond control of ADL, an unspecified length extention
   [sic] of delivery schedule was requested.  The government was
   kept informed by telephone and assured in writing that
   delivery would be made as soon as possible.  No schedule
   extention [sic] decision was received.

   3. Termination for Default and the governments decision that
   "your firm shall be held liable to the government for any
   excess costs" is unreasonable.

   It is not reasonable in light of: (a) the paper industry's
   inability to furnish the specified envelopes in sufficient
   time, (b) the government's superior knowledge or suspicion
   prior to contract award that the envelopes were not
   immediately available, (c) Contract Terms No. 1, Part 2-18(2)
   (c) which releases the contractor from liability in instances
   of subcontractor default of this nature, (d) the contractors
   verbal and written attempts to comply and cooperate with the
   Government Printing Office, (e) and the contractor's proposal
   for cancellation or termination with assurance that no costs
   would be claimed of the government.

   The reasonable contracting [sic] Officer would recognize the
   spirit of the regulations and best interest of both government
   and contractor to reduce time expended, paperwork, and
   aggrevation [sic] to all involved, as well as the courtesy to
   a government/ contractor team member of having a default on
   his business record through no fault of his own.  Contract
   Terms No. 1, Part 2-18(e) may provide for a finding of
   excusable circumstances for this termination as well as such
   other relief the public printer may find appropriate.  It is
   so appealed.

Official File, Tab 1

   GPO's telephone notes of 4/9/85 conversation with Appellant's
   Mr, Keith, in response to the appeal letter states:

K [contractor] has some erroneous facts

Complaint para. #5 - GPO had 4 Bidders on job!

[complaint] para. #8 - No justification - bid means K has
material or reasonable assurance he can obtain envelope in time
to produce.

[complaint] para. #10 - Paper industry's - why only 4 suppliers.
Industry?  Come on.  Why no Double Env., Union Envelope, US [sic]
Envelope - Largest in industry.

Para 1 - K had failed to beginning [sic] printing the envelopes.
Had not recieved [sic] envelopes in plant and stated no plates or
negs made yet due to K waiting for envelopes coming in.  (That's
no progress) 2-26-85 T. Keith JR to ME.  DGS

para 2 - Inecusably [sic] delinquent. K couldn't even tell if or
when job would be completed.

para 3 - (a) Paper industries, RIS, Dillard, Unijax. Wilcox-
Walter do not constitute the paper INDUSTRY!

para 3 - (b) superior knowledge - of Gov't GPO rec'd 4 bids on
envelopes.  No indication that envelopes were not available.

(c) K failed to read last clause in para 2-18 2(c) "unless the
supplies or services to be furnished by the subcontractor were
obtainable from other source in time to permit the contractor to
meet the required delivery schedule."

(e) not within authority of GPO to grant K's offer because he had
accepted order & notified GPO in writing he would not be able to
produce job for an indefinite and undeterminable period.

4/9/85 3:20 pm To 3:45
Tried to negotiate for a settlement of the dispute K says the
fact that no money is involved makes it attractive to drop the
appeal however ADL does not want a record of "DEFAULT" on its
name.  Whenever they bid jobs for other agencies it asked [asks]
have you ever been defaulted?  ADL does not want to say YES.

Willing to withdraw appeal if CO is willing to withdraw action of
default. Stambaugh/DGS

4/9/85 4:00
Per CO, no dice. K failed to comply with ship date. dmf/DGS

Rule 4 file, Tab P

   Appellant's exceptions to GPO's assertions are set forth in a
   letter to the Board dated 6/7/85, as follows:

   1. Exhibit M, Paragraph 5 confirms that the GPO was kept
   informed of the status of Purchase Order E-9652 by ADL and
   knew that the orders would be delivered, although late, within
   four weeks or approximately 20 March 1985.  This delay was
   termed unacceptable by the contracting officer.  Exhibit O,
   reprocurement of the order, allowed the new contractor, an
   envelope manufacturer, in excess of thirty days or until 12
   April 1985 to fill the same order. This date and 35 day
   procurement period apparently was acceptable, although it
   emphasized the unreasonableness of not allowing an extention
   [sic] to the initial ten day period allowed ADL.

   2. Exhibit P, Page 1, comments on complaint paragraph #8,
   infers ADL has no justification for failure to perform within
   time provided; further stating ". . . bid means contractor has
   reasonable assurance he can obtain envelopes in time." ADL's
   bid was submitted with this reasonable assurance from a paper
   distrubutor [sic].  This is confirmed in Exhibit I by
   subcontractor Dillard Paper Company, who explains their

   3. Exhibit P, Page 1, comment on complaint paragraph #10 and
   Exhibit P, Page 2, paragraph 3(a) concern ADL's use of the
   term "the paper industry." ADL's reference to the paper
   industry is not meant to include the entire paper industry of
   the United States.  It refers only to that portion of the
   industry that ADL has present business contacts with or is
   able to establish business with to obtain envelopes.  As the
   GPO knows, most paper manufacturers sell directly only to very
   large accounts; that is customers buying in repeated lots
   approximating tens of thousands of dollars.  This is standard
   trade practice and cannot be changed by a small business in
   Virginia Beach.  Orders of the nature of the envelopes must be
   reprocessed through a paper supply distributor.  These
   distributors are the "paper industry" contacted by ADL who
   were unable to provide the envelopes in less than four weeks.
   As an example; Union Envelope company., the reprocurement
   supplier of the order, is very distributor oriented,
   particularly in Southern Virginia.  They will not sell
   directly to small printing companies, but use as their prime
   distributors Dillard Paper Company and Virginia Paper Company.
   These are distributors that ADL routinely purchases from.

   4. Exhibit P, Page 2, paragraph 1 states "no plates or
   negatives made yet . . . no progress." ADL at no time recalls
   stating no negatives were made.  Plates are not made at ADL
   until shortly before the order goes to press, i.e., one or two
   days.  This contributes to quality printing by reducing the
   chance of plate degradation due to effects of handling, dust
   and humidity.  Negatives were made prior to 8 February in
   anticipation of envelope delivery from the initial vendor and
   are available to ADL.  The government-furnished materials from
   which the negatives were produced were returned to GPO Newport
   News on or about 26 February 1985 when directed by the verbal
   termination.  This was prior to the complaint being
   originated.  FACT - Progress was made.

   5. Exhibit P, Page 2, Paragraph 2 states the contractor
   couldn't even tell if or when the job would be completed.  ADL
   stated in telephone conversations and paragraph 3 of its 15
   February 1985 letter that the order would be delivered within
   two working days of envelope receipt.  This would put delivery
   near mid-March.  An exact date was not given because the
   expected receipt date from the supplier was not exact.  This
   delivery timeframe was known to GPO as shown in GPO memorandum
   Exhibit M.

   6. Exhibit P, Page 2, Paragraph 3(b) states there was no
   indication that envelopes were not available.  Exhibit D
   indicates that Union Envelope Company, possibly the most
   knowledgeable of the original four offerers due to its
   envelope manufacturing position, required a production time of
   30 days.  Was this not a tipoff to the GPO?  ADL and other
   offerers did not have this information, but relied on
   assurances from paper distributors as to envelope
   availability.  It was unreasonable for GPO to require earlier
   delivery with this knowledge.

Your consideration to the above exceptions is appreciated.


/s/ Thomas L. Keith


Official File, Tab 7


   The pertinent provisions of Government Printing Office
   Contract Terms No. 1 referenced by Appellant and Respondent,
   supra, are set forth hereinbelow as follows:

2-11.  Notice of Compliance With Schedules.
(c) Extension of schedules.

(1) In the event a delay is caused by any action of the
Government, including failure to furnish purchase/print order,
copy and/or materials as scheduled, the shipping schedule will be
extended automatically by the total number of workdays that work
was delayed PLUS 1 workday for each day of delay; such period of
grace not to exceed 3 workdays. For example:

   Order, etc., 1 workday late + 1 workday grace = 2 workdays

   Order, etc., 2 workdays late + 2 workdays grace = 4 workdays

   Order, etc., 3 workdays late + 3 workdays grace = 6 workdays

   Order, etc., over 3 workdays late: total number of workdays
   late + 3 workdays grace = total number of workdays extension.

2-18.  Default

(a) The Government may, subject to the provisions of paragraph
(c) of this article, by written notice of default to the
contractor, terminate the whole or any part of the contract in
any one of the following circumstances:

(1) If the contractor fails to make delivery of the supplies or
to perform the services within the time specified herein or any
extension thereof; or

(2) If the contractor fails to perform any of the other
provisions of the contract, or so fails to make progress as to
endanger performance of the contract in accordance with its
terms, and in either of these two circumstances does not cure
such failure within a period of 10 days (or such other period as
the Contracting Officer may determine to be reasonable and
authorize in writing) after receipt of notice from the
Contracting Officer specifying such failure.

(b) In the event the Government terminates the contract in whole
or in part as provided in paragraph (a) of this article, the
Government may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as the
Contracting Officer may deem appropriate, supplies or services
similar to those so terminated, and the contractor shall be
liable to the Government for any excess costs for such similar
supplies or services: Provided, That the contractor shall
continue the performance of the contract to the extent not
terminated under the provisions of this article.

(c) Except with respect to defaults of subcontractors, the
contractor shall not be liable for any excess costs if the
failure to perform the contract arises out of causes beyond the
control and without the fault or negligence of the contractor.
Such causes may include, but are not restricted to, acts of God
or of the public enemy, acts of the Government in either its
sovereign or contractual capacity, fires, floods, epidemics,
quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes, and
unusually severe weather; but in every case the failure to
perform must be beyond the control of both the contractor and
subcontractor, and without the fault or negligence of either of
them, the contractor shall not be liable for any excess costs for
failure to perform, unless the supplies or services to be
furnished by the subcontractor were obtainable from other sources
in sufficient time to permit the contractor to meet the required
delivery schedule.

. . .

(e) If, after notice of termination of the contract under the
provisions of this article, it is determined for any reason that
the contractor was not in default under the provisions of this
article, or that the default was excusable under the provisions
of this article, the rights and obligations of the parties shall,
if the contract contains a clause providing for termination for
convenience of the Government, be the same as if the notice of
termination had been issued pursuant to such article.  If, after
notice of termination of the contract under the provisions of
this article it is determined for any reason that the contractor
was not in default under the provisions of this article, and if
the contract does not contain a clause providing for termination
for convenience of the Government, the contract shall be
equitably adjusted to compensate for such termination and the
contract modified accordingly.  Failure to agree to any such
adjustment shall be a dispute concerning a question of fact
within the meaning of the article entitled "Disputes" in Part II,
Contract Terms No. 1.

   (f) The rights and remedies of the Government provided in this
   article shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any
   other rights and remedies provided by law or under the

   2-21. Delay in Deliveries.  Damages shall not be applied
   against the contractor for delays in delivery occasioned by
   unforseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault
   or negligence of the contractor as detailed in paragraph (c)
   of the article entitled "Default" in Part II of these Contract
   Terms No. 1; provided, that the contractor shall, within 10
   calendar days (by telephone or telegraph, confirmed promptly
   in writing, if the remaining production time is less than 10
   days) from the beginning of such delay, notify the Contracting
   Officer in writing of the cause of the delay; provided
   further, that such notice to the Contracting Officer shall
   contain the justification for such delay.


   The question presented by this appeal is whether or not in
   light of all the facts and circumstances hereinabove set forth
   Appellant "had failed to make progress on the contract" and
   was thus "inexcusably delinquent in providing the ordered
   products by the contractual ship date."


   We find in reviewing the submitted documentation that there
   are no factual differences between the parties respecting the
   sequencing of events.  The purchase order itself (Rule 4 File,
   Tab E) reflects that the contractor was "to receive furnished
   material by February 1, 1985." The Appellant's uncontroverted
   assertion is that it received such material on February 4,
   1985.  This is a period of 3 calendar days late.  The original
   "ship complete" date on the purchase order was February 11,
   1985.  Thus by operation of paragraph 2-11 of Contract Terms
   No. 1, supra, the "ship complete" date was automatically
   extended by 6 workdays.  Examining a 1985 calendar for the
   month of February we take judicial notice that such extension
   date was February 19, 1985, rather than February 13 as
   asserted by Appellant.  Accordingly, when Tase telephoned
   Milladge on February 12, 1985, to inquire as to the status of
   the procurement, Appellant had 7 remaining days for
   performance under the general terms of the contract.
   Appellant, although not initiating the conversation with Tase
   as implied by its Complaint, did, at that time, inform
   Respondent that it had incurred difficulty in obtaining the
   envelopes which it had timely ordered on February 6, 1985,
   from its supplier.  At that time (February 12, 1985) Appellant
   told Respondent (1) that the envelopes were a special order
   and generally required 4 weeks to obtain; (2) that RIS Paper
   Company happened to have some 13,500 9 1/2 x 12 5/8 envelopes
   due in that day, with the remainder in 1 week; and (3) that if
   they received the envelopes from RIS by February 12 they would
   ship them on February 13.  Respondent was thus on notice as to
   the difference in envelope size on that date.

   They were also promptly made aware later that day that the
   shipment would be delayed further because RIS, due to late
   shipping by the mill, did not anticipate receipt until
   February 15.  Respondent erroneously issued its "Show Cause"
   letter to Appellant on February 13, 1985, some 6 days before
   the contractual ship date.  Appellant checked with RIS on the
   14th as a follow.up on the shipment.  Respondent called
   Appellant at 12:30 on the 15th but the envelopes had not been
   received.  That same day but before receipt of the envelopes,
   Respondent called Appellant to advise that the size difference
   was O.K. with NASA, the "ordering activity". This was some 4
   days after being advised of the size change by Appellant.
   When the envelopes arrived thereafter on the 15th, Appellant
   immediately notified Respondent that they did not conform to
   the specifications respecting seam location.  It was at that
   time that Respondent (Ruehle) advised her that the envelopes
   were not acceptable and to answer the "Show Cause" letter.
   Respondent was also aware that "[A]t this time ADL has no env
   and don't know where they can get Diagonal [sic] seam env to
   print job." Respondent answered the "Show Cause" letter that
   same date, setting forth the reasons for delay and attaching
   its supplier's letter corroborating its contention.  Appellant
   continued to look for envelopes thereafter until February 26,
   not knowing that the Contracting Officer had requested
   concurrence to institute termination for Default by memorandum
   to Respondent's Contract Review Board of February 21, 1985,
   some 3 days after the contractual ship date.  (Rule 4 File,
   Tab M) One of the reasons for the recommendations was that
   "[T]he Contracting Officer has determined that the soonest
   ship date by ADL would be approximately March 20, 1985.  This
   delay is unacceptable to the department." The contract was
   thus terminated for Default on February 26, 1985, for failure
   to make progress.  The reprocurement undertaken thereafter
   gave the contractor some 25 working days after receipt of
   materials to ship the product (Rule 4 File, Tab O) in contrast
   to the 8 working days after receipt of materials contemplated
   in the original purchase order and 11 working days afforded
   Appellant by the late receipt of materials.  (These counts.of
   days are based upon the traditional 5-day workweek, Monday
   through Friday, using a 1985 calendar.)


   We think it abundantly clear from the foregoing discussion
   that while it was within the discretion of the Contracting
   Officer to terminate the contract and seek reprocurement
   because at the time of termination Appellant had no reasonable
   idea of when it would be able to deliver the product, the
   termination should have been for the convenience of the
   Government rather than Default, since the contractor had acted
   as a reasonably prudent printing contractor in like
   circumstances.  Appellant went first to his usual supplier who
   gave certain assurances which without fault or negligence of
   either of them turned out to be erroneous.  Appellant next
   sought out another respected vendor and obtained a substitute
   product which as it turned out did not meet acceptance.
   Appellant continued its quest until Respondent advised that
   the contract had been terminated.

   We do not believe, however, that the extended terms of the
   reprocurement give rise to any cause of action in Appellant.
   Indeed, given Respondent's experience with the procurement up
   to that time, we believe the extended term to be fully

   Accordingly, we remand the case back to the Contracting
   Officer for processing as a termination for convenience of the