UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE CONTRACT APPEALS BOARD APPEAL OF B & W PRESS Contractor's Appeal dated October 13, 1983 Decision dated March 8, 1984 Contract Appeals Board Panel 9-83 THOMAS O. MAGNETTI, Chairman THOMAS M. LEAHY, JR. WALTER B. BURROUGHS Members PRELIMINARY STATEMENT B & W Press, Inc. (hereafter the contractor) has appealed the decision of the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) Contracting Officer which rejected the contractor's claim for a price increase due to the increased cost of paper. The contractor's appeal of the Contracting Officer's decision was filed in accordance with the "Disputes" clause of the contract. Article 2-3, Contract Terms No. 1, GPO Publication 310.2, revised October 1, 1980. Contract Terms No. 1 is incorporated by reference into the specifications of the contract. See Exhibit 2, p. 2 of the Appeal File. The GPO Contract Appeals Board has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to GPO Instruction 110.10B, entitled "Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedure" and Contract Terms No. 1, supra. As the contractor was given the opportunity to have its appeal heard at an informal hearing but did not so request, this decision is based solely on the record, an Appeal File containing 10 exhibits. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The contract at issue, identified as Program A382-S, called for the production of self-mailers (envelope style). Exhibit 2. It was a requirements contract whose term was from January 1, 1983 to December 31, 1983. The type of paper required by the contract was set out in Section 2 of the Specifications. Id., p. 4-5. 2. The contract's specifications contained no provision for an escalation in the contractor's prices. Exhibit 2. The specifications provided that, if the Government's requirements did not result in orders in the amounts or quantities that were estimated, that fact would not constitute the basis for an equitable price adjustment under the contract. Id., Section 1. Under Section 4 of the specifications, "Schedule of Prices" the prospective contractors were notified that the prices bid had to include the cost of all required materials for each of the listed items. Exhibit 2, p. 11. 3. In accordance with the contract specifications, the contractor bid a firm, fixed price for the contract. Exhibit 4. Because the contractor was the lowest responsive bidder, it was awarded the contract by issuance of Purchase Orders 27214 and 27205. Exhibit 7. 4. By letter dated August 18, 1983, due to the increased cost of paper, the contractor requested a price increase on any print orders placed after September 1, 1983. Exhibit 8. With this request, the contractor submitted letters from its paper suppliers that indicated that various prices for paper would be increased during 1983. The Contracting Officer responded to this request by letter dated August 25, 1983. Exhibit 9. The contractor was informed that, because the contract did not provide for any cost escalation, any increase in material costs must be borne by the contractor. 5. The contractor appealed this decision in a letter to the Public Printer dated October 13, 1983. Exhibit 1. In its appeal, the contractor alleged that its paper costs had increased since May 1, 1983. Because the contractor did not inventory paper stock, these price increases had to be passed on to its customers. The contractor requested that the contract price be increased by $ .45 per thousand on the 8 x 3-1/2 " mailers and $ .26 per thousand on the 6-1/2 x 4-1/4 " mailers. DECISION Ordinarily, a contractor is not entitled to a price adjustment for unforeseen difficulties or unexpected losses that may arise during the performance of a firm, fixed price contract. Construction Contracts & Trading, ASBCA No. 20899, 78-1 BCA ¶ 13,121. Such risks include increased costs attributable to inflation. Absent a price escalation clause in a fixed price contract that would shift the risk of price increases from the contractor to the Government, the risk of an unanticipated price increase by a supplier of material needed by a contractor is assumed by the contractor. McNamara Construction of Manitoba, Ltd. v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl. 1, 8 (1975); Nedlog Company, ASBCA No. 26034, 82-1 BCA ¶ 15,519. Since there is no clause in this contract to provide the relief sought by the contractor, the increased cost of paper, by itself, does not provide a basis for recovery. Finding of Fact No. 2. See also, Lynch Foods, VABCA No. 1620, 81-2 BCA ¶ 15,402. To recover, the contractor must show the costs would not have occurred but for a cause for which the Government is responsible. Claude C. Wood Company, AGBCA Nos. 79-176-1, 80-134-1, 82 BCA ¶ 15,706. In the instant case, the contractor alleges that, although the contract provides that only six print orders would be placed with the contractor, as of October 13, 1983, 14 print orders had been placed with the contractor. As this was a requirements-type contract, the Government was not contractually bound to place only six print orders with the contractor. Under this type of contract, the contractor is required to produce all of the Government's requirements. In bidding on a requirements-type contract, a contractor is presumed to have considered that it might be responsible for producing work in quantities greater than those estimated in the contract. Shader Contractors v. United States, 149 Ct. Cl. 535, 538 (1960); Propane Industrial, Inc. v. General Motors Corp.., 419 F.Supp. 214, 218 (W.D. Mo. 1977). Here, the contractor has not proved that the quantities ordered under the 14 print orders were appreciably greater than the estimated quantities that could have been ordered under six print orders. For example, the specifications inform prospective contractors that there could be two orders that would possibly require the production of 12 million copies each. Exhibit 2, p. 4. The other four orders might require the production of 500,000 copies each. Id. Therefore, to bid properly on this contract, the contractor had to anticipate the possible production of 26 million copies. The evidence shows that in the 14 print orders that were placed with the contractor, the Government ordered approximately 25,200,000 copies. See Exhibit 10. Therefore, the record of this appeal does not provide any evidence that would permit recovery based upon Government fault. Although this Board sympathizes with a contractor who must bid on fixed price contracts in the face of the rising cost of paper, since there is no clause that would shift the risk of this occurrence to the Government, the contractor cannot recover for such unanticipated costs. For this reason, the appeal is denied in its entirety.