U.S. Government Printing Office Board of Contract Appeals The Appeals of STABBE SENTER PRESS Docket Nos. GPO BCA 13-85 & 19-85 May 12, 1989 MICHAEL F. DiMARIO Administrative Law Judge OPINION These consolidated appeals timely filed by Stabbe Senter Press, 94 Wheatley Road, Old Westbury, NY 11568 (hereinafter "Appellant"), are from the June 13, 1985 and September 13, 1985, final decision letters of Jack G. Marken, Contracting Officer, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20401 (hereinafter "Respondent/GPO"). The first letter (Rule 4 File, hereinafter "R4 File," Tab LL, GPO BCA 13-85) advised Appellant that the Navy Department portion of GPO contract Purchase Order 50228, Jacket 445-793, dated July 16, 1984, was being terminated for default because of Appellant's "failure to perform under the provisions of the contract, . . ., within the time specified, . . . [or] in conformance with the provisions of the Quality Assurance Through Attributes Program (QATAP)." The second letter (Id. at Tab R-18, GPO BCA 19-85) advised Appellant that the Air Force and Superintendent of Documents (GPO sales copies) portions of the said contract were being terminated for default for failure to conform to provisions of the QATAP finishing attributes F-12 & F-16 within the time specified. The decisions of the Contracting Officer are affirmed for the reasons set forth hereinbelow. BACKGROUND Respondent, by Purchase Order 50228, Jacket No. 445-793, dated July 16, 1984, awarded Appellant a contract in the amount of $277,900 for the production and delivery of 40,819 sets, plus one complete set of film negatives of a certain publication titled "Ch 1 to Armed Forces Recipe Service - NAVSUP Pub 7 / Army TM 10-412 / Air Force 146-12 / Marine Corps NAVMC 2778" but more usually referred to as "recipe cards." The contract was made upon primary requisition of the Department of the Navy (10,000 sets), and secondary requisitions of the Marine Corps (625 sets), Army (26,400 sets), Air Force (2,300 sets), and the Superintendent of Documents, GPO (177 Depository, 1,300 sales, and 17 file sets). Each such set was to be comprised of 436 cards (17,797,084 total cards) which were to be produced in varying specified colors and paper stock in accordance with the specifications; some to be printed face and back, others one side only. The cards were to be in ring folio format (numbered face and back, 1 through 872), gathered in sequence, and shrink-film wrapped in units of 1 set. (Id. at Tab B, GPO BCA 13-85.) The contract was "subject to all terms and conditions of U.S. Government Printing Office Contract Terms No. 1, Rev. Oct. 1980 (GPO Pub. 310.2) and Quality Assurance Through Attributes Program, Rev. June 1981 (GPO Pub. 310.1)," as well as being made in strict accordance with the terms in the Invitation for Bids (hereinafter "IFB") specifications with the IFB/specifications to govern in the case of conflicting terms. Minimally, the delivered final product was to meet the following "Quality Assurance Levels And Standards": Product Quality Levels: (a) Printing Attributes -- Level III. (b) Finishing Attributes -- Level III. Inspection Levels (from MIL-STD-105): (a) Non-destructive Tests - General Inspection Level I. (b) Destructive Tests - Special Inspection Level S-2. Specified Standards: The specified standards for the attributes requiring them shall be: Attribute Specified Standard P-7. Type Quality and Uniformity Camera Copy P-10 Process Color Match Furnished Photoprints Id. at Tab B, page 3 of 5, GPO BCA 13-85. Inspection or Quality Assurance samples were to be furnished as directed by GPO. Shipping was to be F.O.B. destination to various locales by August 14, 1984, which date was adjusted to August 20, 1984, due to late receipt of copy by Appellant. On August 25, 1984, Respondent, by way of an "exception report" was made aware that the product had not yet been shipped by Appellant. Upon inquiry, Appellant's Stewart Senter advised that his firm's premises had been burglarized over the weekend causing damage to his equipment and to the product. A notation on the exception report documenting Mr. Senter's claim states that the job was overdue before the burglary took place. As a consequence of this delinquency, a "show cause" notice was sent by telegram on August 30, 1984, notifying Appellant "that since [it had] failed to perform the scheduled requirements of [the contract] . . ., in accordance with the terms thereof, the Government [was] considering terminating . . . pursuant to the Article entitled, 'Default,' United States Government Printing Office Contract Terms No. 1." (Id. at Tab E, sheet 1, GPO BCA 13-85.) The notice further requested that the Appellant present to the Contracting Officer in writing any facts bearing on the question within 5 days after receipt of the notice. It also invited Appellant's attention to the "rights of the contractor and the Government under Contract Terms No. 1 and the liabilities that may be incurred if [the] contract [were to be] terminated for default." (Id. at Tab E, sheet 1, GPO BCA 13-85.) By letter dated September 5, 1984, Senter, on behalf of Appellant, wrote to the Contracting Officer advising him, among other things, that a supplier's late delivery of paper for another GPO contract (Jacket 445-330) had caused Appellant to be late on the recipe cards since the same equipment was being used for both jobs and the equipment was thus "tied up." In addition, Senter described the results of the burglary which took place on the weekend of August 25th and the resultant necessity to reconstruct and repair the plant during the week of August 27th. He also alleged that "[s]everal skids of the Recipe job, in the process of being collated, had to be reprinted." (Id. at Tab F, sheet 1, GPO BCA 13-85.) Senter requested an unspecified extension of time due to the extenuating circumstances described. By letter of September 10, 1984, Respondent's L. E. McHugh, Contracting Officer, Contract Compliance Section, advised Senter that "Contract Terms No. 1, Article 2-11 and 2-21, . . . , defines the conditions under which extensions of schedules may be authorized. The fact that your paper supplier did not meet their commitment is not a basis upon which an extension of the shipping schedule can be allowed." (Id. at Tab G, GPO BCA 13-85.) On September 13, 1984, Respondent's Contract Compliance Section generated another "exception report" for failure to ship on time. (The report reflected the previously adjusted shipping date of August 20, 1984, and a so-called "promised" shipping date of September 13, 1984.) At that time Respondent's Contract Compliance Section again recommended corrective action. Appellant was also contacted to find out when he would be able to ship. As a result, a new "promised" date of September 21, 1984, was given by Senter. (Id. at Tab H, GPO BCA 13-85.) While some products shipped on September 21st, complete shipment did not occur. Thus, on October 1 1984, Respondent's representative telephonically discussed the matter with Senter who advised that the balance would be shipped October 3, 1984. (Id. at Tab J, GPO BCA 13-85.) On October 3rd Senter telephonically advised the Contracting Officer that 12 skids were being sent to a local bindery and would be "complete by Fri. night [10/10/84] for sure." Based upon that information, the Contracting Officer again directed that a "show cause" notice be issued to Appellant. (Id. at Tab K, GPO BCA 13-85.) Accordingly, a second telegraphic "show cause" notice was sent to Appellant on October 3, 1984, again advising that the Government was considering default and requesting Appellant to respond in writing with any new facts bearing on the question within 5 days after receipt of the notice. (Id. at Tab I, GPO BCA 13-85.) The product was apparently completed and shipped thereafter, since the R4 File next contains a letter of October 12, 1984, from F.L. Clark, Director, Command Publications Division, Naval Supply Systems Command, to the head of the Procurement Department, Defense Printing Service (hereinafter "DPS"), advising that the recipe cards as received from the contractor were not acceptable because of the following errors: a. Inferior shrink wrapping of individual sets which promotes: (1) Loss of pages while distribution is being made, and (2) Inability to stock complete sets in warehouses of the stock points without separation. b. Image position halfway off card of Recipe No. D.60(1) in several sets, c. Fading/Smearing of ink and image rub off on Recipe Cards D.G. 7-5(2), E.9, and I.4, d. All recipe cards in "H" sections were collated incorrectly, e. Reverse pages of Recipe Cards J.29 and K.18 were printed head to head vice head to foot as requested by the specifications, f. Reverse page of No. K.18 should be blank, but the contractor has incorrectly printed the reverse page of No. K.O on the back of K.18, g. Reverse page of No. K.9 was incorrectly printed with the reverse page of No. K.O, h. The colors of sections J, K, and L are mismatched, indicating a printing delay for remixing, supplying of ink, and i. Recipe card No. P.14 has reverse page of No. R16 incorrectly printed on it, and No. P.16 has the reverse page of P.14 incorrectly printed on it. j. Thirteen to 35 missing cards were found in enclosure (2). . . . . k. Duplicated cards of enclosure (2) are indicated below: . . . . [List of duplicated cards omitted because of length.] Id. at Tab L, GPO BCA 13-85. Clark went on to say: 3. Subject publication is not acceptable as is, therefore, Navy has notified the other services and prohibited distribution of copies. It is requested that the contractor correct, reprint and distribute the entire publication free of charge. The original camera ready copy supplied to the contractor was properly folioed, and running sheets and complete specifications were also included in the package. The contractor did not follow instructions and the printing is inaccurate. Id. at Tab L, GPO BCA 13-85. Clark's letter was apparently sent to the Respondent by the head of the Procurement Department, DPS, and received October 16, 1984. The following day, October 17th, Respondent received a Notice of Quality Defects from DPS. Attached to the notice was another memorandum dated October 31, 1984, from Clark, which furnished camera copy, negatives, and 20 random samples of printed publications. The memorandum indicated that: Ninety pages of the Camera Copy were not returned by the contractor (Stabbe-Senter Press, Inc.). The missing camera-oopy pages are represented in restructuring the entire pub by actual cards printed by the contractor. Clearly, the contractor initially used the now missing camera-copy pages and still possess them. Id. at Tab M-l, GPO BCA 19-85. The Notice of Quality Defects states: "[q]uality does not meet specifications; however, the material can be utilized. It is requested that appropriate action be taken to prevent recurrence." (Id. at Tab M, GPO BCA 13-85.) The R4 File also contains an undated letter from the Commanding General, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, GA, addressed to Respondent's Central Office, Printing Procurement Division. The letter requests the reprinting of Chapter 1 to NAVMC 2778, which is the Marine Corps designation for the recipe cards as cited above. Enclosure 1 to that letter is entitled "List of Pages Missing and Printed in Error From Corrected Copy (2nd Attempt by Stabbe-Senter Press)." (Id. at Tab M-l, sheet 3.) The R4 File further contains an inspection report by Norman Campbell dated November 19, 1984 (using Plan L, lot size 17,797,084, sample size 20), stating that a Navy product sample had been inspected and had received the following ratings: Defect Breakdown by Attributes Defect Class Major Critical F-12 (Missing Pages) 20 F-16 (wrong pagination) 20 P-9 (solid color match) 20 P-7 (type quality) 20 (Dup pages) 20 TOTALS 60 40 The report is marked "reject and reprint." (Id. at Tab N, GPO BCA 13-85.) References F-12 etc., and Defect Class etc., are to the Quality Assurance Through Attributes Program (QATAP). The QATAP in pertinent part provides: 1-3. Critical Defect - A critical defect is a serious deviation from specifications. Critical defects are designated in the tolerance tables for finishing attributes and the paper attribute. 1-4. Major Defect - A major defect is a deviation from specifications which is less serious than a critical defect. Major defects are designated in the tolerance tables for printing attributes, finishing attributes, and the paper attribute. . . . . 1-6. Acceptable Quality Levels (AQL's) - The AQL's are the maximum number of defects per 100 copies that the Government will accept at the contract price. Unless otherwise specified, the AQL's are 1.0 critical defects and 6.5 for total defects. . . . . 2. DETERMINATION OF PRODUCT QUALITY a. QATAP establishes attributes for quality and it defines tolerances for those attributes for five quality levels of printing. When attributes deviate from the allowable tolerances, the deviations will be classified as either major or critical defects pursuant to the applicable tolerance table. b. Attributes which are not identified as quality attributes under QATAP (e.g., stitching position) will be evaluated in accordance with the article entitled "Quality" in U.S. Government Printing Office Contract Terms No. 1. 3. DETERMINING ACCEPTABILITY - Because inspection of all copies of a publication is usually impractical, the Government will utilize statistical sampling to determine quality. When the Government determines that both the number of critical defects and the number of total defects in the lot or batch do not exceed their respective AQL's, the lot or batch will be accepted at the contract price. MIL-STD-105D will be used to make this determination. If the defects exceed either or both AQL's, the Government will have the option of having the lot or batch replaced, having the defects corrected, or accepting the lot or batch with an equitable reduction in the contract price. The discount tables contained in Appendices A & B will be used as a guide by the Contracting Officer to determine reductions. Failure to agree to such reduction of price shall be a dispute concerning a question of fact within the meaning of the article entitled "Disputes" of Contract Terms No. 1. In all cases it is the intent of the Government that the products meet the quality required in the specifications. Thereafter, by letter dated November 24, 1984, Respondent's Darwin Hughes, Chief, Contract Compliance Section, advised Appellant that: An examination of samples of the product your firm produced for the Department of the Navy has revealed defects under the following attributes: P-9: Solid Color Match on Cards J, K, and L. F-12: Missing Pages F-16: Wrong Pagination Based on the results of this inspection, the order has been determined rejectable, and will require reprinting. The reprinting will be accomplished at no additional cost to the Government in strict accordance with the specifications. As agreed, the rejected copies at the Naval Publications and Form Center in Philadelphia will be picked up on November 26, 1984, and the copies at the Commander, Naval Supply Systems will be mailed back. As mutually agreed upon in our telephone conversation of November 21, 1984, the reprinting and delivery of this product will be accomplished by December 12, 1984. Id. at Tab P, GPO BCA 13-85. While this action was pending on the Navy product, Campbell completed inspection reports on Army and Marine Corps product samples. The Army report dated December 3, 1984 (using Plan L, lot size 17, 797,084, sample size 20), reflects the following ratings: Defect Breakdown by Attributes Defect Class Major Critical P-9 Solid Color Match on Cards 20 J, K, & L F-12 Missing Pages 20 F-16 Wrong Pagination 20 Dup pages TOTALS 20 40 The report is marked "reject and reprint." (Id. at Tab R, GPO BCA 13-85.) The Marine Corps report dated December 12, 1984, reflects: Defect Breakdown by Attributes Defect Class Major Critical (P-7 Type Quality & Uniformity) 20 F-12 Missing Pages 20 P-9 Solid Color Match 20 F-16 Wrong Pagination 20 Dup Pages 20 TOTALS 60 40 The report was also marked "reject and reprint." (Id. at Tab S, GPO BCA 13-85.) At this juncture, Appellant attempted correction of the Navy publications which had been shipped to the Navy's Philadelphia facility. However, by letter of February 13, 1985, to the DPS, one V. J. Montgomery advised that the corrected copies of the Navy products remained in error because pages were still missing and errors were found in the corrected copies. At the same time, the Army, upon being informed of the Navy's continuing problems, decided that since the product it received appeared to need correction of only 8 cards, such could be achieved by shipping a packet of corrected cards as an attachment to each set. The GPO was in agreement with this decision and authorized Army to contact Appellant directly to discuss the matter. Appellant's Senter was contacted on February 19, 1985, but was reluctant to agree to the Army's plan because he did not believe the Army's inspection of the product was accurate. He did agree, however, to go to St. Louis to see for himself. His visit was made on March 4, 1985, following a visit to the Navy's Philadelphia facility on March lst. Upon verifying the Army's inspection result, Senter made arrangements for the pick up and correction of the product which, at a subsequent date several weeks later, was received, inspected, and accepted by the Army. (Id. at Tab VV, GPO BCA 13-85. Attachment 1 to letter of John A. Beida, Printing Specialist, U.S. Army Publications Center, St. Louis, MO.) By memorandum of March 7, 1985, one L.J. Simon advised DPS that the conference between the Naval Publications and Forms Center personnel and Appellant's representatives held in Philadelphia on March 1, 1985, compiled a list of errors found in 10 sets of recipe cards submitted to the Navy for its review. The letter went on to state: 2. Because of the extensive errors found in each of the sets, it is requested that GPO complaint (Form 1815) dated 13 Feb 1985 be voided and replaced by this memo and accompanying enclosures. Based on the results of the review, it is evident that each set printed and collated by the contractor is not suitable for use within the Armed Forces Dining Facilities of the Department of Defense (Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps). Publication shipments, supposedly corrected by the. contractor, should be removed from all warehouses immediately, as they cannot officially be released for distribution. All publications received by the Naval Publications and Forms Center are available for pick-up [sic] by the contractor as soon as possible. If Stabbe-Center Press has made shipments to any of the warehouses of the other services, it is requested that these shipments be picked up also. 3. It is further requested that the original specifications and folio listings initially submitted to Stabbe-Center Press be used in correctly reprinting the entire publication. If the above can be accomplished by the Contractor, subject publication can be officially accepted by all services. Id. at Tab U, GPO BCA 13-85. On March 13, 1985, Appellant's Senter wrote to Respondent's Hughes referencing the March lst meeting. Senter stated that "[o]n that day we random sampled 2 sets of recipe cards and found none of the defects as previously noted." Senter further stated that he was desirous of resolving the problem. He proposed the following: The envelope will contain an index of each card with instructions that as they place the card in it's [sic] respective location in the master set to check off each one. If any card is missing or in any way defective, the person working with the set can check off on a postal reply card and our company will provide that card or cards directly at our expense. Id. at Tab V, GPO BCA 13-85. On March 22, 1985, Clark, having apparently received Senter's proposal through Respondent, submitted the proposal for consideration and approval or disapproval of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. (Id. at Tab W, sheet 4, GPO BCA 13-85.) Thereafter, by memorandum of March 27, 1985, Clark advised DPS that Senter's proposal was unacceptable to the Navy or other services and requested that the job be redone or reworked fro|m the original specifications. (Id. at Tab W, GPO BCA 13-85.) On April 11, 1985, a series of telephone conversations took place between GPO's Contract Compliance representatives and Appellant's representatives concerning setting up inspection schedules which apparently had been asked for previously and were due by April 10, 1985. As a result of those conversations and the difficulties encountered concerning printing quality, Contract Compliance advised the contractor's representatives that it would again recommend the issuance of a "show cause" notice. An on- site inspection date was discussed for April 18, 1985, with an anticipated shipping date established for April 29, 1985. (Id. at Tab X, GPO BCA 13-85.) However, because of concerns over reprinting an errata sheet, no dates were agreed to at that time. Subsequently, in a telephone conversation of April 15, 1985, Senter agreed to a contract modification. 1/ (Tab Z, GPO BCA 13-85.) The modification No. 0802 issued that same date in pertinent part states: We will withhold default proceedings provided you: (1) Pick up (as necessary) and correct the quality defects and also (2) Redeliver, in it's [sic] entirety, an acceptable product on or before May 15, 1985. The government will provide an inspector for quality compliance in three (3) instances: at one forth [sic]; at one-half and before completion. The contractor must notify the GPO of the date and time to request each of these inspections. (Id. at Tab AA, GPO BCA 13-85.) Despite the modification, Appellant was apparently still remiss in its dealings with Respondent since a third telegraphic "cure notice" was sent to Appellant on May 9, 1985, for "failure to notify the Government of time for inspection for quality compliance . . . a condition that is endangering performance of the contract in accordance with its terms." (Id. at Tab CC, GPO BCA 13-85.) Appellant was again given 5 days to respond. On May 14, 1985, a quality assurance inspection conducted by Norman Campbell and Gary Lauffer was held at Hand Assembly & Packing, Inc., the Appellant's subcontractor's plant. The product was again found to be unacceptable. The contractor was contacted and agreed to make corrections by May 15th so that his product could be reinspected for shipment on that date. (Id. at Tab CC & DD, GPO BCA 13-85.) This was apparently done since the product was shipped on that date. However, on May 31, 1985, the DPS again rejected the order as redelivered due to uncorrected defects. (Id. at Tab GG, GPO BCA 13-85.) In response to the DPS rejections, GPO contract Compliance Inspectors Gary Lauffer and Norman Campbell conducted a "formal acceptance sampling. on June 4, 1985. However, because of the number of defects found, the inspection was stopped before completion, the inspectors having concluded "that the correction was not thorough" enough given the number of critical defects (20) they found in 3 sets of cards. (Id. at Tab II, GPO BCA 13-85.) While action was pending on the Navy rejection of its portion of the product, it was determined that the Marine Corps' copies of the.publication had been distributed and accepted as delivered. It was also determined by the GPO that it would not be necessary to correct "File" or "Depository" copies for the Superintendent of Documents. (Id. at Tab JJ, page 2, GPO BCA 13-85.) However, Air Force and Superintendent of Documents' sales copies would have to be corrected. This information was apparently conveyed to Senter by telephone conversation on June 3, 1985, and confirmed by issuance of Contract Modification 0955 on June 4, 1985. The modification in pertinent part stated: We will withhold default proceedings provided you: (1) Pick up and correct the quality defects on the 1300 sets marked "Sales Copies, Req. 4-02852" from Laurel, MD, also the 2300 sets marked "Req. 4-01310AF" from Bengies, MD. (2) Redeliver, in it's [sic] entirety these sets as an acceptable product on or before June 28, 1985. If required, the government will provide an inspector for quality compliance. Notify the GPO of the date and time to request the inspection. Id. at Tab HH, GPO BCA 13-85. Thereafter, by memorandum of June 10, 1985, the Contracting Officer again took up the issue of the deficiency in the Navy portion of the contract by requesting the concurrence of the GPO CRB for the termination of that portion of the contract (10,000 sets) due to Appellant's failure to perform within the time specified or to provide a product in conformance with the Quality provisions of the Quality Assurance Through Attributes Program. CRB concurrence was unanimously given on June 11 and 12, 1985. On June 13, 1985, the contractor was telephonically notified of the partial termination and that the rejected sets were available for pick up from the Government. (Id. at Tab KK, GPO BCA 13-85.) That same date a written notice of such action was sent to the contractor. (Id. at Tab LL, GPO BCA 13-85.) The notice advised "that the same or similar items terminated may be reprocured against your firm's account, on such terms and in such manner as the Contracting Officer deems appropriate. In that event, your firm shall be held liable to the Government for any excess costs. The Government reserves all rights and remedies provided by law and under the contract, in addition to charging excess costs." The notice also advised Appellant of its right to appeal the decision under the "Disputes" Article of GPO Contract Terms No. 1. Subsequently, on June 18th, Senter telephonically asked Respondent to convene a meeting with himself and Navy Department representatives to discuss possible solutions. A memorandum of the conversation states that: [Senter] offered to provide a system where users could send a notice to him when they found missing cards, put money in escrow, or provide Navy extra sets to replace any defective [ones]. [Marken] told [Senter GPO] had discussed options with Navy and they do not wants [sic] anything except correct sets. Id. at Tab PP, GPO BCA 13-85. The Navy Department representatives apparently had no desire to meet with Appellant. Nevertheless, that same day Respondent's own representatives met with Senter at Senter's request to discuss the partial default. A memorandum memorializing the meeting states that: [Senter] explained all that he had done to correct the problems. He felt that Darwin's [Hughes] last inspection in his plant and his [Hughes] approval to ship was acceptance by the Government and [GPO] could not reject it at a later time.2 Gary Lauffer, reminded [Senter] that he [Lauffer] had made it clear during the inspection that their [GPO] approval to ship was not to be construded [sic] as final acceptance. [Senter] also felt he may not have received all the copies back for correction [since] according to his own sales records they were 2,000 short. Campbell told [Senter that] Navy had assured him that the last sampling was being taken from the redelivered stock just received. (Id. at Tab QQ, GPO BCA 13-85.) Respondent then reprocured the defaulted Navy portion of the contract from Cato Show Printing of Cato, NY on Jacket 479-050, Purchase Order 60788 at a cost of $78,217, terms 5%, 30 days. (Id. at Tab RR, GPO BCA 13-85.) By letter of July 11, 1985, Appellant was advised of the reprocurement and that the amount of excess costs would be deducted from its account, together with an undetermined expense accrued by Respondent to verify missing and uncollated returned negatives. (Id. at Tab SS, GPO BCA 13-85.) Such costs and verified expenses were stated by GPO to be $74,306.15, including $67,400.19 which had been previously paid to Appellant for the work it performed, and $6,905.96 excess costs covering the difference between Appellant's bid price for 10,000 sets and the reprocurement price for such sets. (Id. at Tab TT, GPO BCA 13-85.) Having been so notified of the termination and recovery of overpayment and excess costs, Appellant, by letter of September 4, 1985, gave notice of its intention to appeal the decision of the Contracting Officer in its entirety for the following reasons: 1. Any alleged failure to perform within the time specified was waived; 2. Any alleged failure to perform within the time specified was excused by the Government Printing Office's breaches of its duty to cooperate with the Contractor; 3. No cure notice was sent the Contractor; 4. The Contractor had substantially performed; 5. Any alleged defects in performance were within the specification tolerances; 6. Purported "default proceedings" were withheld on June 4, 1985 pursuant to agreement of the parties confirmed in a contract modification and the contract was partially terminated on June 13, 1985 without prior notice; and 7. The excess reprocurement demand was improperly calculated by approximately $70,000.00 because the default termination article permits the recovery of excess reprocurement costs only. Id. at Tab UU, GPO BCA 13-85. The appeal was given GPO BCA Docket No. 13-85 Meanwhile, Appellant apparently continued work on the Air Force and Superintendent of Documents' sales portions of the contract in accordance with Contract Modification 0955, supra, since a telephone memorandum of July 17, 1985, reflects that the work was shipped on June 28, 1985, the date called for in the modification. (R4 File, Tab G-7, GPO, BCA 19-85.) However, both shipments were found to be rejectable because of missing cards based upon Respondent's random inspection of Superintendent of Documents' sales copy samples on July 19, 1985, and two Air Force samples on July 22, 1985. As a result of these random findings, Respondent's Contract Compliance Section directed that a more complete inspection of the products received be conducted. The results were again negative (R4 File, Tab I-9, GPO BCA 19-85.) Accordingly, Respondent on August 5, 1985, telephonically notified Appellant that the Air Force and Superintendent of Documents' products were rejected and were to be picked up, corrected, and redelivered. The following day Senter called and demanded written notification of Respondent's action. (R4 File, Tab J-10, GPO BCA 19-85.) Such written notification was given by letter dated August 7, 1985. (R4 File, Tab K-11, GPO BCA 19-85.) On August 26, 1985, Respondent received telephonic notification that the Appellant's firm had been sold but that the acquiring company was not assuming responsibility for work on Jacket 445-793. The next day, August 27, 1985, Appellant was sent another telegraphic "cure notice" advising that Respondent considered Appellant's failure to respond to its notification of rejection of 3,600 sets (Air Force and Superintendent of Documents' sales copies) and its request that they be picked up, corrected, and redelivered to be a condition that was endangering performance of the contract in accordance with its terms. The notice afforded Appellant the opportunity to comply by September 6, 1985, and also to give written notice within 5 days of receipt of the telegram of any measures adopted by it to cure such condition. The notice also advised Appellant of the Government's right to terminate for "default" if such cure was not timely affected. (R4 File, Tab M-13, GPO BCA 19-85.) By telephone conversation of August 29, 1985, Senter advised that he did not want to correct the Air Force and Superintendent of Documents' copies because the "job is out of warranty," claiming that the job was accepted in NY by Lauffer and could not be rejected later. (Id. at Tab N-14, GPO BCA 19-85.) On September 9, 1985, the Contracting Officer again sought concurrence of the GPO CRB for partial termination of the contract (2,300 Air Force copies and 1,300 Superintendent of Documents' sales copies). Concurrence was given unanimously (Id. at Tab Q-17, GPO BCA 19-85) and Appellant was notified of the termination by letter dated September 13, 1985. (Id. at Tab R-18, GPO BCA 19-85.) A contract for reprocurement in the amount of $47,887 was awarded to Peake Printers by Purchase Order 61567, Jacket 486-290, for some 2,896 sets rather than 3,600 sets. Appellant was so notified of this action and the docketing of its account by letter of October 11, 1985 (Id. at Tab T-20, GPO BCA 19-85.) The notice advised Appellant of his right to appeal the decision within 90 days of receipt of the termination notice. About the same time, Appellant asked for an extension of time to file its Complaint in GPO BCA 13-85, supra, which extension was granted until November 18, 1985. (Id. at Tab VV, GPO BCA 19-85.) The Complaint dated November 14, 1985, was in fact received by the Board on November 19, 1985, although it may well have been received in GPO before such date. A copy of the Complaint was furnished by the Board to Respondent for its Answer. The substantive portions of the Complaint allege: 1. NO CURE NOTICE WAS SENT TO CONTRACTOR: On June 13, without any prior notice, a letter of default was sent to Stabbe Senter Press (Government's exhibit LL). The notice of default terminated our right to perform as of the date of June 13. In accordance with Contract Terms No. 1, part 2-18, a ten day cure notice should have been given. Additionally, it is obvious that Stabbe Senter Press attempted in good faith to satisfy the requests of the Government Printing Office at substantial expenditures in amounts in excess of $100,000. Stabbe Senter Press was both accomodative [sic] and cooperative in all instances. The Government Printing Office was aware of all remedial attempts on the part of Stabbe Senter Press. Default with no cure notice was an unfair and improper act. 2. TEST PROCEDURES WERE IMPROPER: It is the position of Stabbe Senter Press when we bid the job and produced the job that the job consisted of 17,797,084 total cards. We were familiar with the AQL and assumed the AQL test criteria was based on the 17,797,084 cards being produced. I refer your attention to Government exhibit N - the first inspection report prepared by Mr. Norman Campbell. Specific attention is drawn to the lot size of 17,797,084. It should be noted that if this lot size is used consistently, all testing would have revealed an acceptable product. However, the Government decided to change the evaluation of the lot size in mid-stream which affected the acceptability of a sampling lot. It is my further contention that denoting a missing card as a critical defect is further incorrect. According to GPO publication 310.1 "Quality Assurance through Attributes Program" the Government apparently is applying the critical defect of missing page in a bound publication rule. This is incorrect in the instances of this project as the product under evaluation here is a number of recipe cards supplemental to a master file and non-dependent on one another for continuity and not bound togethe [sic] in any fashion. The loss of one card, although a major defect, is certainly not critical as all the other cards can still be utilized. Likewise, the positioning or pagination of the cards purely facilitates the insertion of the cards into the master file but does not pose a critical defect if one card is out of a desired pagination. The intent in publication 310.1 is obvious, a lost page in a bound book, where there is continuity of information, is certainly critical. In the case of different recipe cards it is not. There are no instances of any recipe going over to a second card. Each card contains no more than one recipe. My position is reinforced by a review again of Government exhibit N, where missing pages and improper pagination were first considered major defects but then changed over to critical defects. 3. ACCEPTANCE AND THEN REJECTION: Item 2 above should have rendered the project acceptable. However, Stabbe Senter Press cooperated with the Government in removing the job from the Philadelphia warehouse of the Navy and bringing it to a subcontractor to inspect and repair. In fact, after repairs were performed the first time and then we were advised that further testing revealed certain deficiencies, Stewart Senter and Terence Hewitt visited the naval facility on Friday, March 1, 1985. The arrangements for this visit were made through Mr. Darwin Hughes' office and Mr. Hughes was supposed to have someone present at the visit. Trish McGrail received us at the guard house at 5801 Taber Avenue. She took us to building #26 and introduced us to Ms. Susan Lamparter, her superior. We were brought into the warehouse to a location where the recipe job was sitting on the floor. It should be noted that we observed several skids opened, several cartons opened and other projects commingled amongst the skids. Ms. Lamparter and Ms. McGrail took two samples from different skids. We brought these samples into Lt. Commander Paul Wilson's office and right on Lt. Commander Wilson's desk we found the two samples to be totally correct. However, we were subsequently notified by telephone that further testing revealed deficiencies. It was at that point that I wrote the letter, Government exhibit V, to Mr. Darwin Hughes suggesting a remedy for any problem with the project. Subsequently I was advised that my proposal was unacceptable and that I must pick up the job and repair it satisfactorily. At that point, I entered into a verbal agreement with Mr. Darwin Hughes that I would pick this job up again and go through it again on condition that the Government provide inspection at my subcontractors plant and give approval of the job prior to its shipment back to Philadelphia. On May 14, 1985, as evidenced by Government exhibit EE, Gary Lauffer and Norman Campbell conducted a random sampling of the recipe cards. The test results, after taking a sample from 13 different skids or a sample size of 5,668 cards revealed 5 cards missing. Mr. Lauffer determined this unacceptable which although incorrect, is not the essence of this portion of the complaint. It was a unilateral suggestion that a work crew of about 40 women would work through the night and reinspect. Mr. Lauffer agreed to return with Mr. Campbell the following afternoon. He did so and performed his random sampling again. He found his samplings perfect and approved and accepted the job. The current position of the Government that Mr. Lauffer did not provide final acceptance is both unfair and contradictory to our agreement. It is obvious that additional testing would hold the job to a higher standard than is customary. This certainly is the case here as the Government contends that a reinspection in Philadelphia revealed unacceptable results. It is both inaccurate and unfair to perform any further testing after a proper sampling produced the job acceptable. Further testing would totally change and tighten test criterias thereby making the project a totally different one. 4. SUBSTANTIAL PERFORMANCE AND ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTIONS TO CURE: It is obvious that substantial performance on the part of Stabbe Senter Press took place. It is further obvious that Stabbe Senter Press at great expense and time attempted to satisfy the wishes and demands of the Government Printing Office although those demands were both unfair and incorrect. It is noted that the Department of the Army in St. Louis, Missouri received some 9,000,000 cards. A remedy was arrived at and agreed to and I invite your [sic] review Government exhibit WW, specifically to the last paragraph of Mr. Bieda's synopsis. The project was distributed with no complaints from the field. Stabbe Senter Press offered the same remedy for the Philadelphia portion of the job. In addition, Stabbe Senter Press offered to provide an index with a postage paid card and an agreement that we would provide free of charge any cards that were missing or in any manner defective. Stabbe Senter Press offered to provide additional complete sets so that the Navy could fulfill any request for additional or replaced cards. Stabbe Senter Press offered to post funds in escrow to guarantee and insure performance of all suggestions. The Government Printing Office refused to accept any of the proposals and incorrectly and unfairly defaulted Stabbe Senter Press. 5. DEFAULT OF ENTIRE JOB WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND UNFAIR: I bring your attention to Government exhibit Y, an internal memorandum written by Mr. J.G. Marken, specifically under remarks Mr. Marken writes "I directed his attention to terms #1 inspection and test and advised him that if I did not get an acceptable date I would contract to have it fixed and charge the cost to him." Mr. Marken recognized that if deemed unacceptable, the cards could have been corrected less expensively than the drastic measure of total re-procurement. However, the Government did not execute this more reasonable option. 6. OFFSETTING OF FUNDS WAS INCORRECT, UNFAIR, IN VIOLATION OF LAW AND IN NON-CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONTRACT: The Government declared Stabbe Senter Press in default and offset the re-procurement costs (before actually incurred) against funds owed Stabbe Senter Press. The contract specifically provides that the severest measure on default is to hold the contractor responsible for the differential in cost of the project. 7. RECAP AND SUMMATION: Stabbe Senter Press, a dedicated and competent Government printing contractor produced a large but relatively simple recipe card job. During the production of same, as evidenced by Government exhibit F, Stabbe Senter Press incurred problems of a public enemy with a plant breakin and serious vandalism. One of the intruders was successfully aprehended [sic] and prosecuted. The project under consideration here was in various stages of completion and required some repairs due to the public enemy. Careful testing revealed that all repairs had been performed. However, it became apparent that perhaps some defects were not corrected. Although Stabbe Senter Press strived to perform an absolutely perfect job, even the defects which were subsequently discovered were well within the tolerances of AQL 6.5. The Government Printing Office elected to assign more stringent test standards and determined that the job required repairs. Stabbe Senter Press attempted to satisfy and respond in ever manner asked. Stabbe Senter Press offered numerous methods to insure perfection and use of the project. The Government Printing Office excessively and improperly tested the product and after the expenditure of well in excess of $100,000 on the part of the contractor deemed Stabbe Senter Press in default without any further allowances to correct. The Government reprocured the entire portion of the disputed job and took the re-procurement costs from funds due Stabbe Senter Press on subsequent, unrelated and accepted projects. The combined total of monies taken from Stabbe Senter Press and monies expended by Stabbe Senter Press were in excess of $200,000. This incident was a contributing factor to the closing of Stabbe Senter Press which at this writing is no longer functioning after 45 years of business. The assets of Stabbe Senter Press have been sold and the lives of more than 35 people have been displaced. Judgment is asked in favor of Stabbe Senter Press in the sum of $200,000 as a partial compensation to reverse a total injustice. Official Record, GPO BCA 13-85, Tab 7. Upon receipt of the Complaint, Respondent asked for an extension of time to respond until January 20, 1986, which such extension was granted. Meanwhile, on December 19, 1985, Appellant's notice of appeal dated December 6, 1985, from the September 13, 1985, final decision letter of the contracting officer respecting the Air Force and Superintendent of Documents' sales copies was received by the Board and was given GPO BCA Docket No. 19-85. The notice contended that the Contracting Officer's decision was erroneous for the following reasons: (1) The statute of limitations as set forth in "U.S. Government Printing Office Contract Terms No. 1" has expired; (2) Any alleged failure to perform within the time specified was waived; (3) Any alleged failure to perform within the time specified was excused by the Government Printing Office's. breaches of its duty to cooperate with the Contractor: (4) No cure notice was sent to the Contractor; (5) The Contractor had substantially performed; (6) Any alleged defects in performance were within the specification tolerances; (7) The excess reprocurement demand was improperly calculated because the default termination article permits the recovery of excess reprocurement costs only; Official Record 19-85, Tab 1. On January 16, 1986, Respondent filed its Answer to Appellant's November 14, 1985 GPO BCA 13-85 Complaint (page 21, supra) as follows: 1. The first sentence in paragraph 1 is denied. lt should be noted that the default was partial and applied only to 10,000 sets of the recipe cards for the Navy and prior notice was given in the Cure Notice of May 9, 1985. The second sentence is admitted, but only with respect to the Navy sets. The third sentence is denied. Pursuant to the Default clause contained in paragraph 2-18 of Contract Terms No. 1, incorporated by reference in the contract, a cure notice is required only if the contractor fails to perform provisions of the contract other than timely delivery, or fails to make progress as to endanger performance of the contract in accordance with its terms. AF Exh. B. Here, the ship date of May 15, 1985 had already passed; thus, a cure notice was not required. We have no information upon which to base a response to the fourth sentence. The fifth and sixth sentences are admitted. The seventh sentence is denied. 2. We have no basis upon which to base a response to the first and second sentences in paragraph 2; however, the specifications set forth a quantity of 40,819 sets (17,797,084 total cards). AF, Exh. B. In sentences three and four, the fact that the inspection report shows a lot size of 17,797,084 is admitted; however, the sample size of 20 was based on 10,000 sets. AF, Exh. N. If the inspection had been based on 17,797,084 rather than 10,000 the sample size would have been 50 rather than 20. The fifth and sixth sentences are denied. The lot size of 10,000 sets was used consistently by the inspector. The report shows 40 critical defects and 60 major defects. The accept/reject rules, as contained in MIL-STD-105D (multiple sampling plan "J"), permit acceptance only if there are no major defects, and require rejection if 5 or more major defects are identified. The rules also require rejection of the entire job if two or more critical defects are identifed. As can readily be seen, use of the Quality Assurance Through Attributes Program (QATAP) rendered the entire job rejectable. The seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth sentences are denied. There are 436 different recipe cards in a set--some printed head to head and some head to foot--some with wrong information printed on the back. It can readily be seen that if cards are missing, it could render the set useless. On page 38 of QATAP, a missing page is always classified as a critical defect. A critical defect is defined on page one of the document as "a serious deviation from specifications." A missing card in a collated set is precisely that--a serious deviation from specifications. Although the cards do not have continuity, they are needed on an individual basis. The product becomes useless if the particular card needed is missing. In this case, it was not just one card missing in the sets. It was a number of different cards and other problems throughout the sets that rendered the product rejectable. The fourteenth sentence is denied. The fifteenth sentence is admitted. The sixteenth sentence is denied. The change from major to critical merely complies with QATAP which is part of the contract. 3. The first sentence in paragraph 3 is denied. The second through seventh sentences are admitted. The eighth sentence is denied. In a sworn statement, dated December 2, 1985, Lt. Commander P. A. Wilson, Ms. Patricia McGrail, and Ms. Susan Lamparter state that although some skids and boxes had previously been opened and randomly sampled, no other jobs had been commingled with this job. Exhibit 1. The ninth sentence is admitted. The tenth sentence is admitted; however, it should be noted that this was not a true quality assurance inspection of the two sets. They were checked only for those faults found in the previous sample inspection. The eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth sentences are admitted. The fourteenth sentence is admitted as to our having two inspectors at the subcontractor's plant; however, it was made clear to Mr. Senter that the inspection was not one for final acceptance. The fifteenth and sixteenth sentences are admitted. Sentence 21 is denied. As Mr. Lauffer states in his report, no critical defects were found; however, a formal acceptance inspection was not performed and the contractor was so informed. AF, Exh. EE. Sentence 22 is denied. The Government agreed to inspect the progress at the one quarter and one half points, and before completion of the job, the dates to be furnished by the contractor. These inspections were to be similar to process control inspections during manufacture and not formal acceptance sampling inspection. AF, Exh. W. Sentences 23, 24, 25, and 26 are denied. 4. The first and second sentences in paragraph 4 are denied. Sentences three through nine are admitted. Sentence 10 is denied. 5. Paragraph 5 is denied. To begin with, the appellant was not defaulted on the "entire job." The termination notice, dated June 13, 1985, makes it clear that this is a partial termination of 10,000 sets for the Navy. AF, Exh. LL. After numerous attempts by the Quality Assurance Section to establish a second date for correction or replacement of the Navy sets, Mr. Jack Marken pointed out to the contractor that although he had not decided that it was the best approach to take at this time, one of the options the Government has under the Inspection and Test clause of the contract is for the Government itself to correct the product by contracting it out to another contractor and charging the cost back to appellant. AF, Exh. Y. The decision to terminate the Navy portion of the contract was made two months later, and then only after a second attempt at correction of the defects had failed. 6. Paragraph 6 is denied. Only the Navy portion (10,000 sets) is involved in this appeal. It is true that the contractor is liable only for the excess costs involved in the reprocurement of the 10,000 sets; however, in this case, since the contractor had already been paid for the job, action had to be taken to recoup these monies in addition to the excess costs. 7. The first sentence in paragraph 7 is generally admitted; however, the rejections and attempts to correct the product obviously brings into question the dedication and competency of the contractor. The second sentence is admitted; however, the vandalism does not relieve the contractor from delivering a product in accordance with the specifications. We have insufficient information upon which to base a response to sentences three and four. The fifth sentence is denied. A final acceptance sampling revealed quality defects in excess of that permissible under the AQL. The sixth sentence is admitted. Sentences seven and eight are denied. Sentences nine and ten are admitted. Sentence 11 is denied. Sentence 12 is admitted. We have insufficient information upon which to base a response to sentences 13, 14, and 15. Sentence 16 is denied. Wherefore, the Board is requested to deny the appeal in its entirety. Official Record, GPO BCA 13-85, Tab 11. On February 4, 1986, the Board received Appellant's Complaint in GPO BCA 19-85. The Complaint alleges: 1. MATERIALS WERE OUT OF WARRANTEE [sic] PERIOD - On June 3, 1985 Stewart Senter of Stabbe Senter Press received a telephone call from Mr. George Watson regarding the sets of recipe cards under evaluation here. I submit that this telephone call was the first communication regarding the Laurel, Md. and Beniges [sic], Md. shipments. I respectfully direct your attention to Contract Terms No. 1, GPO Publication 310.2, page 10, 2-12 Warrantee [sic], specifically "The Contracting Officer Shall Give Written Notice of Any Breach of Warrantees [sic] Within 120 days from the Check Tendered as Final Payment". [sic] The item under evaluation was clearly out of the warrantee [sic] period and notification during same was never received verbally or in written form. In an attempt to accomodate [sic] the GPO, Stabbe Senter Press agreed to pick up the items in Laurel, Md. and Beniges [sic], Md. and inspect those items. Mr. Watson provided Stewart Senter with a list of names and phone numbers to speak to to arrange the pick up of these sets. Upon calling, Mr. Senter found that in several instances sets had been distributed and used. Some sets were available for pick up and were picked up by Stabbe Senter Press. 2. INSPECTION REVEALED ACCEPTABLE SETS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AQL TEST CRITERIAS - Stabbe Senter Press inspected all the sets and repacked same, reshipping them to their respective locations. Stabbe Senter Press inspection found the sets correct and fully in compliance with AQL test criterias. Government exhibit I 9, an alleged testing was both inaccurately performed and incorrect. It is found confusing as to when the tests were performed, what the sampling size was, and a proper evaluation report based on test criterias. I further submit that it is apparent that the first and only testing of the items under consideration here was performed on and after the date of July 19, 1985. The government performed no testing prior to July 19, 1985 and this is both unfair and improper. A contract modification should not have been written without proper testing. 3. RECAP AND SUMMATION - The item being appealed is the printing of recipe cards which were produced and distributed to several locations. After the production and distribution of the project, Stabbe Senter Press was notified that testing revealed deficiencies with the shipment made to the Department of the Navy in Philadelphia, Pa. Proper notification was given by Mr. Darwin Hughes regarding the Philadelphia shipment. Mr. Hughes and Stewart Senter engaged in several telephone conversations as to the future course of the project. Mr. Hughes advised Mr. Senter subsequent to the initial notification regarding Philadelphia that a portion of the project shipped to the Department of the Army in St. Louis had also been determined to have deficiencies. Stewart Senter and Stabbe Senter Press cooperated fully with the GPO in an attempt to satisfy and obtain acceptance of the project. A successful remedy and repair was performed for the Army portion. Several attempts to repair and correct the Navy portion were performed. Finally the Government accepted and subsequently rejected the Navy portion of the shipment. That rejection is the essence of an appeal previously. taken by this contractor and in various stages of resolve. I submit to the Board that each and every allegation of that appeal pertains to this appeal and further that the telephone call received by Stewart Senter on June 3, 1985 asking to pick up these items was apparently a device to harm this contractor. I ask this Board to consider the question why the Government would wait near seven months of attempting and performing successful remedial work on the exact same project to advise the contractor that there are still more items they wish modified. That advise [sic] came without previous inspection and after portions had already been field distributed. The Government's actions on defaulting the contractor and offsetting funds owed on other acceptable work was both improper and illegal. Judgement is asked against the Government and in favor of Stabbe Senter Press for all sums witheld [sic] and offset and an additional amount in the sum of $25,000 as a reimbursement for expenses associated with this portion of the project. Official Record, GPO BCA 19-85, Tab 4. On April 4, 1986, Respondent filed its Answer in GPO BCA 19-85: 1. The first sentence in paragraph 1 is admitted. Sentence No. 2 is denied. According to a memorandum from the Superintendent of Documents ("SupDocs"), copy attached as Exhibit 1, their copies were picked up on May 23, 1985. This is ten days prior to the date appellant alleges he was first contacted about Laurel and Bengies. We believe that appellant was aware of the problems with all of the recipe cards, not just the Navy and Army portions. This is evidenced by exhibits N and Q of BCA 13-85. Exhibit N is the inspection report and contained thereon are the Words "Air Force." Exhibit Q contains notes pertaining to the problems. One can see that the GPO was in contact with the contractor about the problems and the contractor makes a statement ". . . to make a plan of how to handle this problem." Also there is a statement that Navy copies in Philadelphia will be corrected first. This leads us to believe that the contractor was aware of problems as far back as November of 1984. According to a memo from Mr. Darwin Hughes, copy attached as Exhibit 2, appellant was informed of other destination problems but was told to "worry first about Navy." Although appellant was told to "worry about Navy first," this does not relieve him of the responsibility of correcting the product for the other destinations. The reason for the delay in time is that the contractor kept trying to correct the Navy copies and failed. The modification (0802) dated April 15, 1985 was to reestablish ship dates for correcting the defects. However, the time lapse was due to the ongoing problems with trying to correct the Navy portion first, which the contractor was unable to do even after having been given a second chance. Once large lots such as for the Navy and Army are found to be defective, the Government can request inspection of all lots if the product was printed and finished at the same time or in the same production run. There is no evidence that the production of this product run was carried out in more than one run. The third sentence is informative only and requires no answer. The fourth sentence is denied. As indicated in our answer to sentence No. 2 above, we believe appellant was well aware of the problems. However, through the process of trying to correct the Navy copies, time progressed and in order to get the contract back on track, a modification was written to establish a new ship date. Once a new date was established and agreed to by appellant, we had a bilateral agreement between the two parties. Therefore, all of the articles of the contract were in effect. CT-l, paragraph 2-B(e), incorporated by reference in this contract, provides that any supplies corrected or replaced are subject to all provisions the same as the initial supplies. In other words, the product was not out of warranty as alleged by the appellant. It was through the contractor's own nonconformance to the specifications and the fact that he did not correct the product, when given a chance, that created the default. The fifth and six sentences are admitted. We have insufficient information upon which to base a response to the seventh sentence. The eighth sentence is admitted as to the SupDocs portion. The recipe card sets were delivered to Laurel warehouse on October 11, 1984. A total of 129 sets were sold before SupDocs was notified that the copies were not printed correctly. This is the reason the full count was not at the warehouse when picked up. According to SupDocs a total of 1171 sets were picked up and redelivered. The 129 sets will be adjusted. 2. We have insufficient information upon which to base a response to whether the sets were in fact inspected or not as asserted in the first sentence in paragraph 2; however, an end product inspection revealed the product was rejectable. The second sentence is denied. Because no one from the Government was present during the alleged inspection and correction it is impossible for us to determine whether this work was in fact carried out. The evidence, however, shows that we have a rejectable product on the redelivered portion. Further, appellant states that his corrected sets were fully in compliance with the AQL. We suggest that all of the contractor's test records and procedures be presented to the Board to ascertain whether his inspection was in accordance with GPO Pub. 310.1 and in compliance with the AQL. CT-l, under Inspection and Test Article, 2-12(e), requires the contractor to have records of all inspections and we believe these records are relevant to this case. The third sentence is denied. The inspections performed were random, and when enough sets were inspected to make the lot rejectable, the inspection was terminated. Appellant asserts that GPO's testing was inaccurately and incorrectly performed. To the contrary, we believe the inspection was performed correctly within the terms of the contract. The fourth sentence is denied. The inspections were taken from the lots, as found, at each destination and although the exhibits are not on formal inspection forms, the results are the same. The product is rejectable. The inspections were carried out on July 19 and 22, 1985. (AF, Exh. I) Sentence No. 5 is admitted; however, this inspection was based on the premise that the sets were picked up, corrected and returned to the respective destinations. Sentence No. 6 is denied. Numerous inspections were conducted on other lots that turned up many defects. If the appellant actually believes that inspections were unfair and improper, then why did he agree with the modification of April 15, 1985 (0802)? See Exhibit (AA) BCA 13-85. The bilateral agreement was signed by Mr. Hewitt, appellant's representative, and dated April 19, 1985. If what the contractor alleges is true, he should not have agreed to the modification as written. We do not believe it is unfair to persist in efforts to obtain a product that is in accordance with the specifications. Further, we believe the default is in fact proper. Sentence No. 7 is denied. As outlined in our response to sentence 6 above, numerous inspections were conducted. Appellant was to pick up the "entire" order, correct and reship it. The April modification reestablished new ship dates for correcting the product. 3. The first sentence in paragraph 3 is admitted. Sentences Nos. 2 thru 10 are denied, however, these sentences pertain to the Navy portion (BCA 13-85) and will not be elaborated upon here. Sentence No. 11 is denied. To begin with, each and every allegation of the two appeals, BCA 13-85 and 19-85 are not exactly alike. Some of the circumstances are different. The comment that appellant makes about "to harm this contractor" is strictly without merit. The Government is in no way out to harm this or any other contractor. However, we do expect that when a contract is entered into, the product received will be in accordance with the specifications. If it is not, we will request a correction or replacement. We believe that the GPO went out of its way to help this contractor. This can be evidenced by the issuance of two modifications extending the correction date. See BCA 13-85, Exhibits AA and HH. We sympathize with the contractor; however, this is not the issue at stake. The main issue, as we see it, is whether the Government received the product for which it contracted. The answer of course, is no. Sentence No. 12 is denied. As stated above, we believe that the contractor was well aware of the defects. Because of the ongoing problems with the Navy portion, time progressed. See our responses to the second and third sentences in paragraph 1 above. Sentence No. 13 is denied. Again, we believe the contractor was cognizant of the defects in the product long before the Modifications were written. Sentence No. 14 is denied. The offsetting of funds is covered in the answer to the complaint on BCA 13-85, paragraph 6. Sentence No. 15 is denied. The Government should receive a product that conforms to the specification, and, if additional costs are incurred to correct it, the costs should be borne by the contractor. After all, the Government should get what it has paid for. It is obvious that the contractor is trying to make himself whole when the facts show that it was through his own negligence that the product was rejected. One should look at the rejection as a whole and the numerous chances appellant was given to correct. Much of the time consumed can also be attributed to the fact that appellant had to pick up the Navy portion of the job more than once to correct it and still returned an unsatisfactory product. The Government had no choice but to default appellant and procure the recipe cards elsewhere in order to fill the needs of the Government. Official Record, GPO BCA 19-85, Tab 9. The two appeals were joined at Appellant's written request of February 14, 1986. Thereafter, a prehearing conference was held on May 20, 1986. At the conference it became apparent that Appellant's principal assertion respecting the Navy portion of the product was that at the time he was informed that the Navy would not accept the remedial proposal in his March 13, 1985, letter, supra, but insisted that he must pick up and correct the job instead, he and Hughes entered into an oral agreement that he, Senter, would pick up and go through the job again on the condition that GPO would provide inspection at Appellant's subcontractor's plant (HAPI) and give approval of the job prior to shipping it back to the Navy's Philadelphia facility. He asserted that in conjunction with this agreement Lauffer and Campbell inspected the job on May 14, 1985, and again found that some recipe cards were missing. However, they agreed, after first getting the approval of Mr. George Watson, Chief, Contracts Branch, Purchase Division, Printing Procurement Division, GPO, that Appellant, pursuant to Contract Modification 0802, supra, had until May 15, 1985, to produce an acceptable job and that they would return the following day to inspect the product, thus allowing Appellant time to correct the problems. Upon reinspection of random samples, Respondent's Lauffer purportedly approved and "accepted" the job which was then shipped to Philadelphia where it was subsequently reinspected by Navy and rejected. (Prehearing Conference report, Tab 18, page 5, GPO BCA 13-85.) Testimony was then taken from Lauffer, Hughes, Campbell, and Contracting Officer Marken in that order. Pertinent excerpts of the Prehearing Conference report reflecting their testimony follows: When asked if he in fact had told Mr. Senter on the second day of sampling that the job was OK to ship, Mr. Lauffer responded in the affirmative. The sampling consisted of pulling 13 sets, doing a 100 percent inspection on 7 sets, and the remaining 6 sets were double checked to see if missing cards had been replaced. Mr. Lauffer indicated that the 100 percent inspection was looking for all defects. Mr. Lauffer could not recall (when asked by the undersigned) if he had told Mr. Senter the product was acceptable, or if he had discussed with Mr. Senter his authority to accept or reject the product. . . . [A]sked . . . if Army's solution could have worked for Navy. . . . Hughes indicated Navy was not agreeable to any solution other than reprinting the job. Mr. Hughes recounted Mr. Lauffer's and Mr. Campbell's inspection at SSP's subcontractor's plant. He said they were asked to inspect samples on the floor and report their results to the contractor. When asked . . . if Mr. Senter had been told this would be an acceptance inspection, . . . Hughes responded in the negative saying that an acceptance inspection is performed at destination by the user. . . . Hughes said Senter was familiar with GPO's sampling procedures. . . . . . . . . . . Senter asked . . . Hughes if he recalled their conversation wherein they discussed GPO employees going to HAPI to perform inspection for acceptance of the job. Mr. Hughes said that acceptance cannot be done with random sampling of this type. The undersigned asked if the same sets could be tested more than once. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the Navy portion was tested at least two times after the first correction. Mr. Senter added that when the job was picked up to correct, he did not get all 10,000 sets from Navy. He then asked if it could be possible that the testing was performed on the missing sets, but Mr. Hughes could not answer. When asked by the undersigned to describe in his own words the method used to correct the job in St. Louis, Mr. Hughes indicated that Mr. Senter and the Army representative had decided on a solution whereby they would reprint the necessary cards, add those cards to the first bundle with an errata sheet. Mr. Senter asked Mr. Hughes to review his letter to him dated March 13, 1985, where he proposes a solution to the Navy job. Mr. Hughes acknowledged receiving the letter and when asked by Mr. Senter if he had responded to it, Mr. Hughes said he did not believe so. Mr. Hughes indicated he had presented this proposal to Navy but they would only accept a reprint of the job, and Mr. Hughes had informed Mr. Senter of same. Mr. Hughes indicated (when asked by undersigned) that Mr. Marken is the Contracting Officer on this job but that Mr. Marken had delegated responsibility to him as the Contracting Officer. Mr. Senter asked Mr. Hughes to explain the test criteria used. Mr. Hughes indicated there are 18 finishing attributes and 11 printing attributes. The particular standards are set by the person doing the press sheet inspection. Mr. Senter referred to R4 file, Tab N, Mr. Campbell's inspection report, and was concerned that for F-12 and [F-16] attributes, both times 20 major defects had been crossed out and put in the critical column. Mr. Hughes said that missing cards constitutes a loss of information and that is a critical defect. Mr. Norman Campbell, Quality Inspector, Quality Assurance Section, GPO, was called by Respondent to testify. Mr. Campbell was referred to Tab N, his inspection report of the Navy portion of the job, and asked to explain why in two instances 20 major defects were crossed out and put in the critical defect column. Mr. Campbell said he had given 20 major defects to both missing pages (F-12) and wrong pagination (F-16) when in fact they should have been critical defects. He does not know who crossed them out and made the change. Mr. Senter had questioned the "20" under sample size versus the lot size of 17,797,084, which was the entire job. Mr. Campbell assured everyone that the testing was done on the Navy portion (10,000 copies) and he had hoped to indicate that in the "Title" portion of the report by putting Navy in parenthesis. On the test inspection done December 12, 1984 (R4 File, Tab S), out of a sample size of 20, F-12 (missing pages) was given 20 critical demerits. Mr. Campbell felt that according to the QATAP, a set would be ranked the same as book; therefore, a missing page would render the set useless and warrant a critical defect. Of the inspection in Brooklyn, his account was somewhat different from Mr. Lauffer's. He could not recall looking at 7 sets in their entirety. Neither could he recall looking just for missing pages. Respondent called Mr. Jack Marken, Contracting Officer, Purchase Division, Printing Procurement Department, GPO, who was the Contracting Officer on this job. When Mr. Lane asked Mr. Marken if he had delegated authority to Mr. Hughes with respect to final acceptance on this job, Mr. Marken answered in the affirmative. Mr. Lane then asked the question again placing emphasis on the words "final acceptance," in which case Mr. Marken responded in the negative. Mr. Marken stated that he had given authority to Mr. Hughes with respect to in-process inspections. When asked to explain why Mr. Lauffer and Mr. Campbell had been sent to Brooklyn to inspect the Navy job, Mr. Marken indicated it was to look at the product to be corrected and see if the product complied with specifications before shipping to Navy. The undersigned asked Mr. Marken that if the inspectors had said the job was acceptable and to ship, did this constitute acceptance, and Mr. Marken responded in the negative. He indicated it would only mean that the job was OK to release to Navy. Mr. Marken stated he had not outlined the inspector's duties to Mr. Hughes prior to their departure. When Mr. Senter asked Mr. Marken if inspectors, after testing product, had the authority to accept the product, Mr. Marken responded in the negative adding that they were to test the product and report back with their findings. According to Mr. Marken, acceptance is when the job is received complete and in order. Mr. Marken was excused. This Board then directed that the Government "brief the question of when, in the opinion of the Government, 'acceptance' of the final product was in fact intended to occur under the terms of the contract." The additional question was asked as to: [W]hether the Contracting Officer has the requisite powers of discretion to reject a product as being defective without a substantial showing of additional consequential defects, if his agents have inspected such product at his behest and found it to be "acceptable," and have notified the contractor of the same and authorized his shipment of the "acceptable product" to final destination. Official File, GPO BCA 13-85, Tab 15. In addition, the Board gave the option to the Government and the Appellant at their individual elections after distribution of the mandated Brief on the question of "acceptance," to brief the issues and arguments which had been presented in the case up through the close of the prehearing conference. The Government by its Post-Prehearing Brief dated June 16, 1986, in pertinent part argued that the language in paragraph (c) of Article 2-12, Contract Terms No. 1, supra, providing that "acceptance or rejection of supplies shall be made as promptly as practicable after delivery. (Emphasis added.)" is dispositive of the question of when acceptance was in fact intended to occur under the terms of the contract. In support of such argument the Government cited case law of various boards of contract appeal which hold in interpreting paragraph (c) of the Standard Form 32 clause of executive agency supply contracts, that "inspection by Government inspectors at the contractor's plant is not acceptance and does not preclude rejection after the supplies have been shipped." The standard Form 32 clause reads "acceptance or rejection of the supplies shall be made as promptly as practicable after delivery." Additionally, it was argued that Messrs. Lauffer and Campbell's authority was limited to inspection of. previously discovered defects and that as such, they had no authority to.alter any terms or conditions of the contract or to accept the end product. Various cases were cited respecting the rule that apparent authority of agents is not a basis upon which the Government may be bound. The Brief also discussed the doctrine of equitable estoppel which the Respondent believed to be the essence of the second issue raised by the Board. After surveying the pertinent law, the Brief argued that the four elements necessary to establish equitable estoppel were absent from this case; namely: (1) A false representation or concealment of a material fact or facts; (2) Knowledge on part of the defendant of the true fact or facts; (3) Lack of knowledge and an absence of means of securing knowledge of the true facts, on the plaintiffs [sic] part; (4) An intent on the part of the defendant that the representation or concealment be acted upon by the plaintiff; and (5) Actual reliance by the plaintiff on the representation or concealment. [See cases cited therein.] United States for Use and Benefit of Fogle v. Hal B. Hayes & Associates, Inc., 221 F. Supp. 260, (N.D.Cal. 1963), and Respondent's Brief, Tab 16, page 10, GPO BCA 13-85. Moreover, it was pointed out that even if the elements of equitable estoppel are present, equitable estoppel may be found against the Government only if "(1) the Government is acting in its proprietary rather than sovereign capacity, and (2) its representative has been acting within the 42 scope of his authority. United States v. Fox Lake State Bank, 225 F. Supp. 723, 724 (N.D.Ill. 1963) aff'd and rev'd 366 F.2d 962 (7th Cir. 1966)." (Id. at Tab 16.) By letter of July 7, 1986, Appellant's Senter requested the minutes of the prehearing conference indicating that after reviewing same, he would prepare a Brief and advise if he wanted a formal hearing. (Id. at Tab 17, GPO BCA 13-85.) The minutes were furnished by letter of July 14, 1986. On August 1, 1986, Senter wrote "I am trying to do some research to write a brief. I should have it done within a month." (Id. at Tab 19, GPO BCA 13-85.) On February 12, 1987, an Order Denying Submission of Post- Prehearing Conference Supplemental Brief for Failure to Timely File Same was issued by the Board advising Appellant that failure to respond within 10 days of receipt would result in the case being decided on the written record. A letter of February 25, 1987 from Senter, with an enclosure dated October 6, 1986, was received by the Board on March 3, 1987. The letter indicated that the Order from the Board came as a total surprise to Senter, since he thought he had in fact timely mailed the October 6th letter and Brief to the Board. He asked that this omission be excused and that the Brief be considered in the Board's final determination. (Id. at Tab 21, GPO BCA 13-85.) The Board contacted Respondent's counsel who interposed no objection to such consideration. Appellant's Brief in pertinent part states: 1. It is the position of Stabbe Senter Press that the Government did not take proper test procedures and, furthermore, were unreasonable and arbitrary in their decisions to reject the job and take the cost of reprocurement from funds validly owed Stabbe Senter Press. Not withstanding [sic] the above it should be further noted as follows: 1. Default on Docket #19-85 was totally improper as no notification during the prescribed warrantee [sic] period had ever been given the contractor. The allegation by Mr. Darwin Hughes that a discussion to "deal later" with the Maryland portion of the job is both untrue and improper. The question should be asked why the contractor directed repairs to 95% of the job and not the other 5%. Furthermore, the Government's action of reprocurement as separate projects caused the unit price to more than triple on the smaller Maryland portion of the job. This constitutes further evidence that no notice or discussions had been made on the Maryland portion. It is, therefore, requested that the Board of Contract Appeals #19-85 be favorably decided for Stabbe Senter Press on the basis of improper compliance by the Government Printing Office. 2. In regard to Docket #13-85, the question of acceptance becomes the primary issue. It was documented during the prehearing conference that Mr. Marken had delegated contracting officer responsibilities to Mr. Darwin Hughes. In fact, Mr. Hughes represented himself as the contracting officer in correspondence to the contractor. Having made these acknowledgements and representations, it should be clear that agreements and representations made by Mr. Hughes were binding and valid as the contracting officer. Mr. Hughes and Mr. Senter arrived at an agreement. Although this agreement and understanding was not in writing, but verbal, it should be determined valid and proper. Mr. Hughes Mr. Senter agreed that if the Philadelphia portion of the project were picked up for a second time, that an acceptance inspection would be performed prior to reshipment. This was agreed upon because of the high cost of reshipping the job. The inspection performed by Messrs. Campbell and Lauffer was an acceptance inspection and not an "in plant production inspection". Government's position that Lauffer and Campbell were not authorized to provide final acceptance is also not valid. Messrs. Lauffer and Campbell were working as assistants to Darwin Hughes. Darwin Hughes was contracting officer and agreed to provide a final acceptance inspection and did so with his immediate assistants Lauffer and Campbell. To further strengthen the position of Stabbe Senter Press, I submit that at no point during the production of this job or, for that matter, any other job performed by Stabbe Senter were "plant inspections" of this nature ever performed. Stabbe Senter had been a vendor to the United States Printing Office for some ten ten [sic] years. It should be clear that the inspection that we are referring to was, in fact, a final acceptance determination. Messrs. Campbell and Lauffer used criterias of final acceptance in performing their tests on a totally completed project. Not withstanding [sic] all the other points that have previously been made regarding the improper and unfair handling of this project by the Government Printing Office, the default should be reversed purely by the fact that acceptance took place on May 15, 1985 in Brooklyn, New York by the determinations of Mr. Hughes' (contracting officer) representatives Messrs. Campbell and Lauffer. . . . Official File, GPO BCA 13-85 & 19-85, Tabs 21 & 18, respectively. The matter is before the Board for consideration in this format. ISSUES The issues presented are: (1) Whether, under all the facts and circumstances hereinabove described, the CO acted within the proper scope of his discretion under the terms of the contract, in partially terminating the contract's Navy, Air Force, and/or Superintendent of Documents Sales Program requirements; and if so, (2) Whether the Respondent was thereby entitled to recover, by administrative offset or otherwise, any sum of money other than the excess reprocurement costs specified in GPO Publication 310.2, Contract Terms No. 1, Article 2-18 "Default," supra, which may have been paid to Appellant under the contract prior to such partial terminations. The proper resolve of the issues depends upon the Board's answers to the following factual and legal questions raised by Appellant: 1. Whether the Government had accepted the Navy portion of the contract through Lauffer's and Campbell's inspection of May 15, 1985; and if not, 2. Whether the Government failed to comply with Article 2-18 of Contract Terms No. 1, supra, or any other contractually. mandated requirement, to issue an additional Cure Notice to Appellant prior to its June 13, 1985, partial termination. 3. Whether the Government's June 13, 1985, partial termination was erroneous because: (a) The inspection samples used as the basis for rejection were inconsistent in number with the requirements of MIL-STD-105D; and/or (b) The defects were improperly classified under the QATAP. 4. Whether the Government, at any time, waived its entitlement to enforce the scheduling requirements of the contract either expressly, or impliedly, through breach of a duty to cooperate with the contractor or otherwise. 5. Whether or not the 120-day warranty period of Article 2-13 of Contract Terms No. 1, supra, was exceeded at the time of the September 13, 1985, partial termination, thus precluding recovery by the Government of moneys previously paid to Appellant. 6. Whether Article 2-18 of Contract Terms No. 1, supra, limits Respondent's right of recovery to excess reprocurement costs only. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Board, for its findings of fact and conclusions of law, finds that: 1. The evidence does not support Appellant's bald assertion that he had orally entered into an agreement with Hughes for acceptance of the Navy's shipment at the time of the May 14 and 15, 1985, inspection by Lauffer and Campbell for the following reasons: (a) Article 2-12 "Inspection and Tests," of Contract Terms No. 1 in pertinent part states that "[a]cceptance or rejection of supplies shall be made as promptly as practicable after delivery, except as otherwise provided in the contract . . . . The inspection and test by the Government of any supplies or lots thereof does not relieve the contractor from any responsibility regarding defects or other failures to meet the contract requirements which may be discovered prior to acceptance."; (b) The contract specifications make no exception to the delivery before acceptance provision of Contract Terms No. 1; (c) Mr. Hughes denied making any oral agreement or having any authority to make such an agreement with Mr. Senter respecting Senter's contention that Hughes had orally agreed that Lauffer and Campbell's inspection would constitute an acceptance, notwithstanding the terms of Article 2-12; (d) Lauffer and Campbell each denied having been delegated contractual authority to "accept" the tendered products, notwithstanding the fact that Lauffer may have referred to the inspection at one time or another as "formal inspection sampling"; (e) The Contracting Officer denied that he had given Hughes authority to waive the terms of Article 2-12 or to otherwise accept the product; (f) The contract modification which memorializes the agreement between the Government and the Appellant respecting the inspection refers to providing "an inspector for quality compliance in three (3) instances: at one forth [sic]; at one-half and before completion." which such language makes clear that it contemplates a segmented production inspection for quality compliance and not an agreement for "final acceptance" before shipment as alleged by Mr. Senter (underscoring added for emphasis); and (g) A telegram "cure notice" was given to Appellant for failure to notify Respondent of the time for "Quality Compliance Inspection." (Emphasis added.) (R4 File, Tab CC, GPO BCA 13-85.) 2. (a) Respondent, by telegraph "cure" notice of May 9, 1985, fully complied with the provisions of Article 2-18, Contract Terms No. 1 respecting the June 13, 1985, partial termination. In so finding, the Board notes the extent to which Appellant had already been put on notice of the Government's right to terminate for default: (1) The "ship complete" date for the final product was August 30, 1984; (2) Two earlier "show cause" letters had been issued because Appellant had "failed to perform the schedule requirements" of the contract; (3) Contract Modification 0029 of September 30, 1984, issued after Appellant's response to the first such letter per its terms, was "not to be construed as an extension of the original ship date" nor was "[t]he delay in default proceedings [to be] a waiver of the Government's rights and remedies provided by law under the contract."; (4) A second Contract Modification, 0802 of April 15, 1985, notified Appellant of Respondent's withholding of default proceedings on the condition that certain defects be corrected and an acceptable product delivered on or before May 15, 1985; and (5) A telegram "cure notice" was given to Appellant for failure to notify Respondent of the time for "quality compliance inspection" on May 9, 1985. (R4 File, Tab CC, GPO BCA 13-85.) The clear thrust of all these documents was to warn Appellant of the imminent possibility of termination for default, if the product was not acceptable in accordance with the contract terms. The Board also notes the Appellant was obligated by the provisions of Article 2-12, Contract Terms No. 1, captioned "Inspection and Tests" to correct the rejected product at its own expense and if it failed to promptly do so, the Government could, as here, terminate the contract for default. (b) The Appellant was given ample notice prior to the September 13, 1985, partial termination that the Air Force and Superintendent of Documents Sales Program portions of the contract were defective and needed to be cured, in that Appellant was so notified by (1) the telephone conversation of June 3, 1985 (Id. at Tab A-l, GPO BCA 19-85); (2) Contract Modification 0955 of June 4, 1985, which confirms the June 3rd conversation and directs the correction of the "quality defects" by June 28, 1985 (Tab A-l, supra); (3) the telephone notification of August 5, 1985, to pick up, correct, and redeliver the products; (4) the letter of August 7th reiterating the direction of the August 5, 1985, telephone conversation and identifying the defects as F-12 missing pages and F-16 wrong pagination (Id. at Tab K-ll, GPO BCA 19-85); and (5) the telegram "cure notice" of August 27, 1985, advising Appellant that its failure to respond to the direction to pick up, correct, and redeliver the products was a condition endangering the performance of the contract. 3. The Government's June 13 and September 13, 1985, partial terminations were each supported by the proper application of MIL-STD-105D with respect to the number of samples required and Section F-12 of the QATAP with respect to the classification of defects for the following reasons: (a) Under Government contract law, the Government has a right to strictly enforce compliance with its specifications. H. L. C. & Associates Construction Co. v. United States, 367 F.2d 586, 598 (Ct.Cl. 1966). Maxwell Dynamometer Co. v. United States, 386 F.2d 855, 868 (Ct.Cl. 1967). The Government, however, must show that the work does not meet the requirements of the specifications, Hardeman-Monier-Hutcherson, ASBCA 11785, 67-1 BCA ¶ 6210 (1967); Ramar Co., ASBCA 16060, 72-2 BCA ¶ 9644 (1972); Pams Products, Inc., ASBCA 15847, 72-1 BCA ¶ 9401 (1972). Generally, this is accomplished, as here, by submitting test results. The burden then shifts to the contractor to show that the tests were wrong for some cogent reason. C.W. Roen Construction Co., DOTCAB 75-43, 76-2 BCA ¶ 12,215 (1976). This is precisely what the Appellant is attempting to do in his Complaint. Our analysis, however, shows that Appellant's argument has failed to meet that burden since the contract provides that: (1) "The inspection levels are the means used to determine the relationship between the lot or batch size and the minimum sample size. Inspection Levels will be specified in accordance with page 9 of 'Military Standard Sampling Procedures and Tables for Inspection by Attributes' (MIL-STD-105D)." (Page 1 of the QATAP.) (Emphasis added.) (2) Inspection levels are specified as (a) Non-destructive tests - General Inspection Level I and (b) Destruction Tests - Special Inspection Level S-2. (Page 3 of 5 of the specifications.) (3) The term lot or batch size means "inspection lot" or "inspection batch"; i.e., a collection of units of product from which a sample is to be drawn and inspected to determine conformance with the acceptability criteria, and may differ from a collection of units designated as a lot or batch for other purposes (e.g., production, shipment, etc.). (Paragraph 5.1 of MIL-STD-105D, page 3.) (4) On page 9 of MIL-STD-105D is a table which is used to determine sample size code letters. The left hand column reflects variable lot or batch size quantities. The next four columns reflect code letters for special inspection levels S-l through S-4. The last three columns show code letters for general Inspection Levels I, II, and III. The sample size code letter for general Inspection Level I for a lot or batch size of 3,201 to 10,000 is "J"; for 35,001 to 150,000 is "L"; and for 500,001 and over is (5) The sample size code letter together with the designated AQL (Acceptance Quality Level) is used for indexing the various sampling plans in MIL-STD-105D. The AQL is defined as the maximum percent defective (or the maximum number of defects per hundred units) that for purposes of sampling inspection, can be considered satisfactory as a process average. (6) The specifications are silent as to AQL's. The QATAP, however, provides that "[u]nless otherwise specified, the AQL's are 1.0 for critical defects and 6.5 for total defects." (Paragraph 1.6 - Definition of QATAP, page 1.) (7) The MIL-STD-105D paragraph 6.1 states that the acceptability of a lot or batch will be determined by the use of a sampling plan or plans associated with the designated AQL or AQL's. (8) Paragraph 8.1 of the MIL-STD-105D states that "[n]ormal inspection will be used at the start of the inspection unless otherwise directed by responsible authority. There are 3 such normal plans: Single normal, double normal and multiple normal." However, paragraph 9.5 of the standard states that "when several types of plans are available for a given AQL and code letter, any one may be used." (9) Table IV-A multiple sampling plans for normal inspection (master table) shows a sample size of 20 for an AQL of 6.5 and sample size code letter J. Since it is clear that the number 17,797,084 represents the total number of cards which Appellant was to produce, and since the product being inspected was the shipment of 10,000 cards, it is reasonable to accept Campbell's testimony that the inspection lot was 10,000 rather than the 17,797,084 entered on the inspection report. Moreover, it is obvious from the above examination of the MIL-STD-105D that Campbell also erroneously entered Plan L on the inspection report when, in fact, he correctly used Plan J which called for a sample of 20. What is unclear from the report or the Board's examination of the documents is why he chose to use the multiple normal sampling plan rather than the single normal sampling plan for his inspection. Be that as it may, paragraph 9.5 of MIL-STD-105D makes it clear that the choice of which "normal" plan to use was his alone to make and he, as asserted in Respondent's Answer, chose the multiple plan. (b) Appellant's next contention, i.e., the inappropriateness of classifying missing recipe cards as "missing pages" for QATAP purposes, raises a question of contract interpretation and not of fact. Turning to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, Mass., 1977, as our first guide, we find the word "missing" to have but a single meaning; i.e., "absent." The word "page" on the other hand has multiple meanings, only the first of which fits contextually with our issue; i.e., "one of the leaves of a book, magazine, letter, or manuscript; also a single side of one of these leaves." From these definitions, we can conclude preliminarily that the term "missing pages" need not be given the narrow interpretation suggested by Appellant. Turning next to the QATAP for whatever guidance we can discern, we find the only mention of the term "missing pages" in the "Tolerance Tables for Miscellaneous Finishing Attributes" where it stands first in a list of other defects all of which are characterized as "critical"; i.e., "Upside Down Cover, Upside Down Pages, Blank Pages - Other Than Specified, Wrong Pagination and a Loss of Information," the only additional guidance is the definition in the Table of "loss of information" as "any omission of or damage to the printed image which impairs the transmission of the intended information." (Page 38 of the QATAP.) Looking to the list and this definition, it seems clear that the drafter's intention was to treat loss or impairment of intended information as a critical defect. Indeed, it seems facially that the inspector could have characterized the missing cards as "loss of information" with the same result as characterizing them as "missing pages." Moreover, since the QATAP was specifically made a part of the contract and since no exclusions were made as to the application of any of its provisions as to product types, it must be assumed that all product types were to be evaluated by applicable QATAP provisions to protect the Government's interest by assuring that it received the quality product it specified. Paragraph 4-2 of the QATAP entitled "Finishing Attributes" specifies that: "The Government will evaluate finishing attributes by inspecting individual copies of publications. When each copy is inspected, each applicable finishing attribute that deviates from specifications will be classified as either a critical or major defect in accordance with the tolerance table for that attribute." The finishing attribute that deviated from the specifications was a missing card. The deviation could have been characterized as a loss of information or a missing page. The inspector in his discretion chose the latter. The Board will not disturb such judgment. 4. There has been no evidence whatsoever presented to the Board supportive of Appellant's bald assertion that the Government waived its entitlement either through a breach of its duty to cooperate with the contractor or otherwise. This finding is supported by our discussion respecting whether there was a need for a further "cure notice," paragraph 3, supra. Accordingly, no analysis of the contractual or factual background is necessary to support a conclusion that the allegation is wholly without merit. 5. Appellant's assertion that finality due to the 120-day warranty period precluded the September 13, 1985, partial termination is without merit for the reasons expressed in paragraph 2(b), page 48, supra, and Respondent's answer and brief, which reasons this Board adopts as its own. There was but a single contract between the parties, albeit that there were segmented distributions to various Government entities, two of which chose to accept defective products notwithstanding the Government's right to reject. In such circumstance, the various ongoing activities associated with the Government's good faith attempt to allow Appellant to provide an acceptable product with respect to the Navy, Army, and Marine Corps' portions cannot now be allowed to act as a limitation on the Government's right to terminate the Air Force and Superintendent of Documents Sales Program portion of the contract which were produced by Appellant as part of the very same production schedule especially where, as here, it is abundantly clear that Appellant was fully aware that these portions of the contract were potentially as defective as the portions it was attempting to correct. 6. Article 2-18(b) of Contract Terms No. 1, supra, creates a contractual right in the Government to recover excess reprocurement costs. However, Article 2-18(f) states that "[t]he 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 contract." Accordingly, Article 2-18 does not act as a limitation upon the Government's right to collect other debts due and owing to it. Government, to the extent that it made an erroneous payment to Appellant, is entitled to recover such payment under the authority of the Claims Collection Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3716. The appropriateness of such action by the Government is not cognizable by this Board under the jurisdictional authority granted by GPO Instruction 110.12, "Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedure." DECISION Based upon the foregoing discussion, it is the conclusion of this Board that the CO acted within the proper scope of his discretion in partially terminating the contract's Navy, Air Force, and Superintendent of Documents Sales Program requirements; and that Article 2-18 of Contract Terms No. 1 does not limit the Government's right to recover by administrative offset, or otherwise, erroneous payments previously made by it to Appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is denied and the decision of the CO is affirmed. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3/ _______________ 1/ The notes in the R4 File, although unsigned, reflect a conversation with its writer, who from observation of signed notes elsewhere in the file, appears to be George Watson. 2/ The reference to "Hughes'" last inspection in Senter's plant and Hughes' approval to ship is an apparent reference to the May 14 and 15, 1985, inspection by Lauffer and Campbell acting on Hughes' behalf. 3/ The long-term delay in the issuance of this opinion has been caused by the administrative oversight of the Board, itself.