U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of CEN-TEX WEB PRINTING COMPANY
Docket No. GPO BCA 6-86
May 2, 1989

MICHAEL F. DiMARIO
Administrative Law Judge

SUMMARY OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED

BACKGROUND

     By letter dated January 24, 1986, Cen-Tex Web Printing
     Company, Dallas, Texas (Appellant) was advised by R.W.
     Wildbrett, Contracting Officer (CO), U.S. Government
     Printing Office Dallas Regional Printing Procurement Office
     (DRPPO), that a complaint had been received from Bergstrom
     Air Force Base, Texas (BAFB), to the effect that:  (1)
     Certain letterheads procured from Appellant by Purchase
     Order K-9960, Jacket No. 659-612, dated November 20, 1985,
     in the amount of $399, had inconsistent inking, broken type,
     plugged type, and ink scumming; and (2) The Appellant had
     not furnished one complete set of negatives for each of the
     six different letterheads it prepared as required by the
     specifications.  The letter directed that Appellant was to
     reprint the order at no additional expense to the Government
     and ship complete within 10 days from receipt of the January
     24, 1986, letter.

     By letter of the CO dated March 14, 1986, Appellant was
     directed to show cause within 5 days of the receipt of the
     letter as to why the contract should not be terminated for
     default in accordance with Article 2-18, "Default," "U.S.
     Government Printing Office Contract Terms No. 1" for failure
     to ship the reprint as previously directed.

     When no response was received, the CO issued a termination
     letter dated April 2, 1986, for inability to perform within
     the schedule of the contract.  The letter advised Appellant
     that in accordance with the "Disputes" article, supra, the
     decision would be final and conclusive unless a written
     notice of appeal addressed to the Public Printer of the
     United States, Dallas RPPO, Attn:  Mr. Richard W. Wildbrett,
     was received within 90 days of Appellant's receipt of the
     decision.  The notice also advised that a general letter of
     complaint objecting to the action taken would not be
     considered a notice of appeal.  The appeal must be signed,
     identify the contract number and decision, and contain a
     statement specifying the part or parts of the CO's decision
     from which the appeal was being taken, and the reason or
     reasons why the decision of the CO respecting the specified
     part or parts was erroneous.

     On May 30, 1986, this Board received correspondence from the
     CO which included an appeal letter from Appellant dated
     April 23, 1986.  The letter generally stated that it was an
     appeal from the CO's decision.  However, it gave no response
     to the issue of failing to meet scheduling requirements, but
     rather spoke to its disagreement with Respondent and the Air
     Force concerning the quality of the previously rejected
     printing.

     Appellant was then advised by letter from the Board dated
     June 3, 1986, that the appeal had been received and
     docketed, and that Rule 6.(a) of GPO's Instruction 110.12
     entitled "Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Practice and
     Procedure" dated September 17, 1984, and Change 1 dated
     September 26, 1984, requires that within 30 days after
     receipt of the notice of docketing, an original and 2 copies
     of a complaint containing the data described in the Rule
     shall be filed with the Board; and that Rule 8 requires the
     Appellant to make an election and notify the Board as to
     whether it desires a hearing or desires to have the appeal
     decided on the written record.  A copy of the Instruction
     was furnished to the Appellant as an enclosure to the
     Board's letter.

     No complaint was received within the time prescribed by the
     Instruction, nor has any other correspondence been received
     from Appellant.  Accordingly, it is the decision of this
     Board that:

DECISION

     The appeal be denied for failure on the part of Appellant to
     state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

     IT IS SO ORDERED.