Docket No. GPO BCA 13-86
May 25, 1989

Administrative Law Judge



        On April 10, 1986, Jomar Enterprises, Inc., 4015 Forrest
        Road, Columbus, GA  31908-7008 (Appellant), was awarded a
        $2,300 contract by the Denver Regional Printing
        Procurement Office (DRPPO/Respondent), Purchase Order
        M-7452, Jacket No. 671-184, to produce a total of 18,050
        copies in 5 sizes of a certain die cut, pressure
        sensitive label requisitioned by the Department of the
        Air Force, to be shipped complete FOB destination to
        Colorado Springs, CO, by June 10, 1986.  (Rule 4 File,
        hereinafter "R4 File," Tab 1.)

        On June 17, 1986, Appellant was issued a notice advising
        that the Government was considering terminating the
        contract for default and requesting that the contractor
        show cause in writing respecting why it had failed to
        ship the product in accordance with the schedule.  (R4
        File, Tab 2.)  Appellant's President, Mary J. Cavallaro,
        responded by letter dated June 23, 1986, alleging that
        several weeks previously she had talked to an
        unidentified man in the DRPPO about difficulties which
        Appellant was encountering in obtaining the necessary
        materials to produce the job on time.  She was allegedly
        told she would have to complete the job although the only
        work which had then been completed was the artwork.  She
        also alleged that since that time, Appellant had also
        encountered equipment problems.  She requested a 2-week
        extension in shipment date.  (R4 File, Tab 3.)  As a
        result, the ship date was adjusted by letter dated July
        1, 1986, to July 14, 1986.  The letter advised that the
        default proceedings would be withheld provided the new
        delivery date was met; but that such withholding of
        action should not be construed as an extension of the
        original ship date; and that for compliance record
        purposes, Appellant would still be considered late in its
        performance.  Moreover, the letter expressly stated that
        the delay in default proceedings was not a waiver of the
        Government's rights and remedies under the terms of the
        contract.  (R4 File, Tab 4.)

        In late July, the Air Force received the order from the
        Appellant and upon inspection found it to be of poor
        printing quality and that the Appellant had failed to die
        cut the product as specified in the purchase order.
        Accordingly, the Air Force recommended rejection.  The
        DRPPO inspected the samples and agreed but was unable to
        contact the contractor by telephone.  They did, however,
        send a second "show cause" notice to Appellant dated July
        31, 1986, advising Appellant of the specific defects and
        the rejection.  The notice also advised Appellant that on
        July 29 and 30, 1986, telephone messages had been left
        which were not returned regarding the order; the order
        was over l-month late when delivered; the Appellant
        failed to return the Government furnished materials or
        dies ordered; and as a result, the Government was
        considering terminating the contract for default without
        offering Appellant an opportunity to reprint, but would
        hold such action in abeyance for 7 days from Appellant's
        receipt of the notice in order to afford Appellant the
        opportunity to present in writing any extenuating facts.
        Appellant was cautioned that a failure to respond to the
        letter might be considered an admission of fault or
        negligence.  (R4 File, Tab 5.)

        Cavallaro, by letter dated August 18, 1986, stated that
        the failure to perform in a timely manner was due to
        circumstances purportedly beyond Appellant's control,
        i.e., machine failure and merchandise not being delivered
        on time, and that it was not until after the award of the
        contract that her firm realized the great difficulty
        which would be encountered with machines and materials.
        As a result, the pressure sensitive labels were cut using
        materials which the firm had available and were being
        hand printed one by one because of difficulties
        concerning register and ink densities.  Thus, the labels
        would not be uniform.  However, extra labels were being
        printed in order to make up for any that did not meet
        specifications.  Appellant also realized that the only
        Government materials which it received, one label, had
        been returned to the Department of the Air Force on
        August 7, 1986.  (R4 File, Tab 6.)

        That same day, the CO sent Appellant a "termination
        complete" letter for "failure to produce the labels to
        specifications regarding register and die cutting.", and
        failure "to respond to our 'Show Cause' Notice of July 31
        regarding a proposal for your correcting the rejected
        order."  (R4 File, Tab 8.)

        By letter dated August 26, 1986, Appellant noted its
        appeal referencing both the decision to terminate and the
        July 18, 1986, "show cause" letter.  The notice of appeal
        reiterates the same points previously made by Appellant,
        adding no new information.  (Official File, Tab A.)  By
        letter dated December 18, 1986, Appellant advised that it
        wished to submit its case for decision upon the written
        record.  Again, the very same information was reiterated
        by the Appellant without significant expansion.
        (Official File, Tab G.)

        By letter dated August 27, 1986, the Contracting Officer
        (CO) responded to Cavallaro's August 18th letter in
        pertinent part as follows:

     Your letter makes the point that you had not started
     performance when you contacted our office regarding
     difficulties in producing the product.  However, your letter
     of June 23 states that, at the time of your inquiry, ". . .
     I had completed . . . the artwork for the proof."  We
     relied, and continue to rely, upon that statement.  Further
     we note that you had provided this office with proofs in
     early May; an act which clearly demonstrates activity on
     your part.

and for those reasons, did not reconsider its decision to
terminate the contract for default.  (R4 File, Tab 7.)

        On December 30, 1986, a "general denial" on behalf of the
        Government was entered as an answer to Appellant's
        complaint in accordance with GPO Instruction 110.12
        entitled "Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Practice and
        Procedure" dated September 17, 1984; Appellant being
        advised of the same by letter of that same date.


        Assuming for the sake of argument that all of Appellant's
        assertions are true, it is the opinion of this Board that
        they are irrelevant since they fail to state a claim
        against the Government upon which relief may be granted.
        Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the decision of
        the CO is affirmed.