U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

The Appeal of THE PRINTERY, INC.
Docket No. GPO BCA 14-87
July 7, 1989

MICHAEL F. DiMARIO
Administrative Law Judge

SUMMARY OPINION

BACKGROUND

        This appeal, timely filed by The Printery, Inc., 5323
        West Reno, Oklahoma City, OK  73127, by letter dated June
        30, 1987, is from the June 19, 1987, final decision of
        R.W. Wildbrett, Contracting Officer (CO), Dallas Regional
        Printing Procurement Office (DRPPO), United States
        Government Printing Office (Respondent), directing
        Appellant to repair or reprint as necessary and at no
        additional expense to the Government, the entire order of
        some 3,000 saddle-stitched 76 page, plus cover, 8-1/2 x
        11" 4-color publications requisitioned by the Department
        of the Air Force (Req. No. 7-00083) because the
        publications were purportedly "not printed in the 4-color
        process colors.  It appears the blue negative was not
        used.  Instead, it appears the yellow negative was
        duplicated and used in lieu of the blue negative."  (Rule
        4 File, hereinafter "R4 File," Tab A.)

        The Appellant denies the allegation made by the CO and
        asserts that:

      We made a color key proof using the negatives provided us
      by the Regional Office and determined that the proof did
      not look right.  I then telephoned the Dallas office and
      talked with Mr. Casey and he advised me in a rather curt
      manner that they had furnished those same negatives to many
      other printers and they had never had a problem producing
      the job.  The attitude was that we were not really capable
      of doing the job.  I was then advised that those negatives
      were to be used.

     We ran four (4) process colors of ink.  We provided a color
     key proof to Dallas as soon as they rejected the job.  It
     seems that they can not [sic] see that four (4) colors were
     run.  Anyone with a magnifier can see that all four colors
     were run.

     The problem is that the negatives furnished were not good
     negatives.  We were told to use them as other printers had.
     We did not duplicate any negatives.  We stripped up what was
     sent to us.

        We do not feel we should have to print this job over due
        to the Dallas Office furnishing bad negatives and then
        instructions to go ahead and use them even though I told
        them on the phone the job did not look right.

Official File, Tab 1.

        Appellant enclosed a color key proof it purportedly had
        submitted to the DRPPO together with a sample of the
        rejected booklet it had printed.  (Official File, Tab 1.)

        By memorandum to this Board dated July 30, 1987, the CO
        stated:

     The contractor was advised of the problem with the cover on
     June 12, 1987 and was directed to return negatives and
     camera copy to the DRPPO.  We received negatives and color
     keys for the cover from the contractor on June 19, 1987.
     Examination of the negatives revealed the following:

     The negatives for the Red and Yellow plates were intact and
     suitable for their intended purpose.
     The negative for the Black plate had been cut into two
     pieces and restripped to conform to the configuration of a
     black line border on the furnished camera copy, rather than
     being used as furnished.
     The negative for the Blue plate was not the negative
     furnished by the Government, but rather, appeared to be a
     contractor duplicated negative of the furnished yellow
     negative that had been cut into three pieces and restripped
     with a "blue" key line.

        The contractor was advised of our findings, and was
        informed that we would require him to reprint the covers
        and repair the publications.  He refused to reprint the
        order and on June 19, 1987, the Contracting Officer made
        a final decision and directed the contractor to repair or
        reprint as necessary.  On July 1, 1987, we received a
        copy of a letter sent by the contractor appealing that
        final decision.  We contacted the department on July 15,
        1987, to determine if the publications had been picked up
        by the contractor.  We were told the publications were
        still there.  The contractor was again called regarding
        the reprint and told us no action had been taken because
        they were waiting for a response to their appeal.  The
        contractor was referred to the disputes clause in U.S.
        GPO Contract Terms No. 1 and the requirement for him to
        "proceed diligently with the performance of the contract
        and in accordance with the Contracting Officers [sic]
        decision."  At that time the contractor said he would
        make arrangements to pick up the publications.  As of
        July 17, 1987, the publications were still at the
        Department.

Official File, Tab 4.

DECISION

        The question presented by this appeal is whether or not
        the product manufactured by Appellant was done in 4-color
        process as required by the specifications.  The question
        is purely technical in nature and, pursuant to the terms
        of the contract concerning rights of inspection, is
        reserved to the Government to determine. The exercise of
        such authority by the Government is usually made by the
        CO, as here, and will not be overturned by the Board
        except upon clear and convincing evidence that it was
        fraudulently made or that the discretion was clearly
        erroneous or exercised in an arbitrary and capricious
        way.  No such evidence having been presented by
        Appellant, it is the decision of this Board that the
        appeal be denied and the decision of the CO affirmed.