U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
   BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
   WASHINGTON, DC  20401

In the Matter of            )
                            )
The Appeal of               )
                            )
WEB BUSINESS FORMS, INC.    )      Docket No. GPO BCA 31-89
Jacket No. 232-662          )
Purchase Order 12887        )

   DECISION AND ORDER

   By letter dated August 1, 1989, Web Business Forms, Inc.
   (Appellant or Contractor), 6 Shirley Avenue, Franklin
   Township, New Jersey 08873, filed a timely appeal from the
   June 20, 1989, final decision of Contracting Officer James L.
   Leonard, of the U.S. Government Printing Office's (Respondent
   or GPO or Government) Printing Procurement Department,
   Washington, DC 20401, rejecting the Appellant's request for
   payment in the amount of $1,188.00 for printing forms which
   had been rejected under its contract identified as Purchase
   Order 12887, Jacket No. 232-662.  The Appellant based its
   claim on the ground that GPO's instructions were bad and
   incomplete information was furnished to the Contractor (R4
   File, Tab M).1  For the reasons which follow, the decision of
   the Contracting Officer is hereby AFFIRMED, and the appeal is
   DENIED.2

   FINDINGS OF FACT3

   1.  On March 15, 1989, the Department of Transportation (DOT)
   submitted a Printing and Binding Requisition (SF-1) asking GPO
   to procure 20,000 sets of an 8-1/2" x 11", six-part multi-form
   entitled "Travel Authorization for Permanent Change of
   Station" (PCS Forms), to be delivered to the agency by April
   20, 1989 (R4 File, Tab E).  Attached to the SF-1 were the 1972
   specifications for the PCS Forms with handwritten notations
   concerning the changes DOT wished to make; e.g., omitting the
   copy designation "Accounting Office" Part 1; eliminating the
   carbon paper between Parts 1 and 2, etc.  The SF-1 also said
   that DOT would supply the printer with three (3) pieces of
   camera copy, and a construction sample which should be
   followed for the purpose of aligning the margins.

   2.  The Appellant, one of 17 bidders for this contract, made
   the lowest offer (R4 File, Tab B).  On March 27, 1989, the
   Respondent issued Purchase Order 12887 awarding the job to the
   Appellant for the contract price of $1,100.00 (R4 File, Tab
   A).4

   3.  As written, the Purchase Order described the form to be
   produced, in pertinent part, as follows:

      FINISHED PRODUCT: Single stub; carbon interleaved sets

      STUB LENGTH: 8-1/2"

      STUB 1/2 to 1": Internal glue or paste

      DETACHED SIZE (inches): 8-1/2" x 11"

      PAPER COLOR: White (All Parts)

      PAPER KIND: C.W. Writing (All Parts)

      SUB NO. (LATITUDE): Part 1-15-16, Parts 2, 3, 4, 5 and
      6-12-13

      TYPE OF CHANGE: Part 2-Major, Parts 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6-
      Marginal5

      COLOR OF INK: Black-Part 1 Face and Back, Parts 2, 3, 4, 5,
      and 6 Back only

      PRINTS HEAD TO: Head (Part 1 only)

      STUB POSITION: T[op] (All Parts)

      NOTE: No carbon between Parts 1 and 2.

      MARGINS: Part 1 Face-1/2" (Head), 5/16" (Foot), 6/10"
      (Left), 6/10" (Right); Part 2 Back-3/10" (Head), 3/10"
      (Foot), 2/6" (Left), 2/6" (Right)

      CARBON PAPER AND REMOVAL: Black; carbon coating must cover
      8-1/2" x 10-4/6"; Dual purpose; Full sub length-2/6 inch
      short at Bottom; Carbon copies must be clear, and legible
      on all parts when forms are filled in by-Manual/Electric
      Typewriter and Ballpoint Pen

See, R4 File, Tab A.6

   4.  With regard to the Government-furnished material (GFM),
   the Contractor was told that it would be provided with: (a)
   camera copy; (b) a revised reprint to "use as a construction
   guide"; (c) one type and rule form; and (d) one reproduction
   proof for the shipping container labels (R4 File, Tab A).
   This GFM would be available to the Appellant by March 29, 1989
   (R4 File, Tab A).  The record indicates that the day after the
   Contractor received the GFM, it telephoned the Respondent's
   Departmental Account Representative Division (DARD) of the
   Customer Service Department, for an explanation of some
   markings on the camera copy and to resolve a grammatical error
   with regard to the Part 3 designator (R4 File, Tab G, p. 4).7

   5.  The Appellant printed the PCS Forms and delivered them to
   DOT by the contract due date, April 20, 1989.  Three weeks
   later, on May 10, 1989, the Respondent received a report from
   DOT that the quality of the PCS Forms delivered by the
   Contractor did not meet the contract specifications and could
   not be utilized (R4 File, Tab E).  As DOT saw it, the problem
   was caused by the Appellant's shooting the construction sample
   and printing from that, rather than using the camera copy
   which it had been provided for that purpose (R4 File, Tab E).
   Accordingly, DOT told GPO that it wanted the entire order
   reprinted (R4 File, Tab E).

   6.  The Respondent immediately notified the Appellant of DOT's
   complaint and asked that the revised camera copy, which the
   Government had furnished for use as a construction sample, be
   returned, since the Contractor had neglected to do so when the
   job was completed (R4 File, Tab C).  See also, Draft Report,
   p. 26.8  The Appellant complied with this request, and also
   sent a "Read & Reply" message to the Respondent indicating
   that the PCS Forms had been produced in accordance with the
   specifications and the construction sample (R4 File, Tab D).

   7.  On May 22, 1989, the Respondent telephoned the Appellant
   to discuss reprinting the job (R4 File, Tab F).9  The
   Contractor balked at the direction to reprint, contending that
   the Appellant was not at fault (R4 File, Tab F).  Stating that
   it would call back after reviewing "all pertinent
   documentation," the Appellant telephoned GPO that same day
   affirming its position that the Government must have been at
   fault for any error in the printed product (R4 File, Tab F).
   However, during this conversation, the Contractor also
   acknowledged that it used the construction sample as camera
   copy for Parts 2-6 of the PCS Form (R4 File, Tab F).

   8.  On May 23, 1989, Senneff met with the Contracting Officer
   and showed him DOT's complaint (Notice of Quality Defects, GPO
   Form 1815, dated May 10, 1989)), the contract specifications,
   the camera copy, and the construction sample (R4 File, Tab G,
   p. 2).  After looking at this material, the Contracting
   Officer concluded that the camera copy was clearly
   "folioed",10 the construction sample was properly identified
   as such, and the contract specifications left no doubt that
   the GFM included camera copy and a sample to be used "for
   construction only" (R4 File, Tab G, p. 2).  As a result of
   their meeting, Senneff said that she would telephone the
   Appellant and schedule a reprint date (R4 File, Tab G, p.
   2).11

   9.  On May 23, 1989, Senneff telephoned the Appellant and
   spoke to Vartughian, about having the PCS Forms reprinted (R4
   File, Tab G, p. 3).  After some discussion, Vartughian asked
   Senneff to send him the camera copy, negatives and the
   construction sample for review, so he could see where the
   mistake occurred (R4 File, Tab G, p. 3).  Senneff replied that
   she would send the material immediately, and Vartughian
   responded that he would call back the next day with a reprint
   date and disposition instructions (R4 File, Tab G, p. 3).
   Their conversation was confirmed by Senneff in a letter to the
   Contractor that same day, which also stated that reprinting
   was required because the original shipment had been rejected
   for the following defect: "Failure to follow specification and
   camera copy. . . ." (R4 File, Tab H).

   10.  During their conversation, Vartughian mentioned that he
   had talked to three DARD employees-Ras Beard, Pat Morrissey
   and James Willard-on March 30, 1989, about the circled folios
   on the GFM, and said that they told him to print the PCS Forms
   as he did (R4 File, Tab G, p. 3).  Since there was nothing in
   the file documenting that discussion, Senneff spoke to the
   three employees identified by Vartughian (R4 File, Tab G, p.
   4).  As indicated previously,12 Beard said he had discussed
   the marking on the back of the camera copy with the Appellant,
   and confirmed the placement of the backside numbers below the
   circle folio for the face.  Willard, for his part, authorized
   a minor grammatical change in the Part 3 designator.  See,
   note 4 supra.  Morrissey told Senneff that as a trainee, he
   really did not participate in any discussions with the
   Contractor (R4 File, Tab G, p. 4).  After talking to these
   employees, Senneff called Vartughian and told him that she had
   looked into the matter, and that no one from GPO had ever
   authorized the Appellant to print the PCS Forms from the
   construction sample (R4 File, Tab G, p. 3).

   11.  On May 23, 1989, Senneff returned the camera copy to the
   Appellant (R4 File, Tab O).  Two days later, Vartughian
   telephoned Senneff and arranged June 12, 1989, as the date for
   delivery of the reprinted PCS Forms to the DOT's new warehouse
   in Landover, Maryland (R4 File, Tabs G, p. 3, and I).  He also
   said that the Contractor was reprinting "under protest", and
   would seek a final decision from the Contracting Officer (R4
   File, Tab G, p. 3).  In the interim, it seems that on May 24,
   1989, Vartughian had telephoned the Contracting Officer, who
   told the Appellant that since the camera copy was marked
   correctly, it was a mistake to use the construction sample as
   camera copy (R4 File, Tab J).  The Contracting Officer later
   confirmed this conversation in a letter to the Appellant dated
   May 26, 1989 (R4 File, Tab K).

   12.  On May 26, 1989, Senneff sent the remaining GFM to the
   Appellant.  See, Senneff Declaration,  2.  In that regard,
   the Contractor received: (a) copies of the previously-printed
   sample sheets marked "Construction Sample Only"; (b) the
   original of an 8-1/2" x 11" sheet of paper with a handwritten
   notation across the top which read, "Designators Print at
   Bottom of Base c/c.  See Dummy"; and (c) two pages of "glossy"
   to used as camera ready copy.  Id.,  2.a,b (citing, R4 File,
   Tabs N and O).13

   13.  By letter dated June 5, 1989, the Appellant wrote to the
   Contracting Officer stating that while it was reprinting the
   order, it disagreed with the Respondent's position that the
   Contractor was at fault, and believed instead that the error
   which caused the problem with the initial shipment of PCS
   Forms was "a direct result [of] bad instructions and
   incomplete information furnished to our company by GPO. . . ."
   (R4 File, Tab L).  Accordingly, the Contractor asked the
   Contracting Officer for a final decision so that it could
   pursue its appeal rights under GPO Contract Terms (R4 File,
   Tab L).

   14.  By letter dated June 20, 1989, the Contracting Officer
   furnished his final decision to the Appellant (R4 File, Tab
   M).  In his letter, the Contracting Officer reasoned as
   follows:
      The reprinting of this product was required by your failure
      to follow specifications.  The specifications stated that
      the Government would furnish "camera copy and a revised
      reprint copy to be used as a construction guide."
      Unfortunately, your company used the construction guide as
      camera copy.  Contract Terms (GPO Pub. 310.2) states: "The
      contractor is required to examine the furnished property
      immediately upon receipt.  If at that time there is a
      disagreement with the description or the requirements as
      presented in the specification, and prior to the
      performance of any work, the contractor shall contact the
      U.S. Government Printing Office."

      The facts in this matter have been reexamined and the
      original decision will remain as previously stated.

See, R4 File, Tab M, p. 1.  [Original emphasis.]

   15.  By letter dated August 1, 1989, the Contractor timely
   appealed the Contracting Officer's final decision to the
   Board.

   ISSUE PRESENTED

      Was the Respondent at fault for the defects found in the
      Appellant's initial shipment of PCS Forms, thus entitling
      the Contractor to payment in the amount of $1,188.00, or
      was the problem with that order the result of the
      Appellant's own errors, justifying rejection of the
      delivery by the Government?

     POSITION OF THE PARTIES14


   This case is before the Board because the Appellant,
   acknowledging that its initial printing of PCS Forms was
   incorrect, seeks to shift the blame for the error to the
   Respondent.  The Appellant's position was succinctly stated in
   its letter to the Contracting Officer, dated June 5, 1989,
   when it said that the mistake was caused by "bad instructions
   and incomplete information furnished to our company by GPO."
   See, R4 File, Tab L.  As amplified in its appeal letter to the
   Board, dated August 1, 1989, the nub of the problem, according
   to the Contractor, was that while the Respondent provided two
   pieces of camera copy (art boards) for the face of Part 1
   (Travel Authorization) and the back of Part 1 (Travel
   Order),15 respectively, it was not advised that the latter was
   also to be used as the camera copy for Parts 2 through 6 of
   the PCS Form; i.e., that particular art board was to be
   reproduced six times not just once.  See, Letter from the
   Appellant to the Board, dated August 5, 1989, p. 1.  See also,
   Draft Report, p. 20.   Consequently, the Appellant erroneously
   printed Parts 2 through 6 from the construction sample (a
   prior printed form) furnished with the GFM.  See, R4 File, Tab
   J.  See also, Draft Report, pp. 19-20, 24, 25-26, 27.  Since
   the Respondent failed to issue the proper instructions, the
   Appellant believes that it is entitled to reimbursement in the
   amount of $1,188.00 for the first printing of the PCS Forms.

   The Respondent, on the other hand, argues that any confusion
   experienced by the Appellant is its own fault and not the
   Government's.  R. Brf., p. 8.  Specifically, GPO contends that
   the contract terms were unambiguous and the GFM clearly
   indicated how the PCS Forms were to be printed.  R. Brf., pp.
   4-5.  Consequently, the Government believes that when the
   specifications and the GFM are considered in toto, it is
   apparent that the same camera copy was to be used for the back
   of Part 1 and the face of Parts 2 through 6 of the PCS Forms.
   R. Brf., p. 5.  Therefore, if the Appellant had properly read
   the specifications prior to printing the PCS Forms, the error
   would not have occurred.  R. Brf., p. 4.  On the other hand,
   if the problem stemmed either from the fact that the
   Contractor failed to receive all of the GFM it was entitled
   to, or simply did not understand the instructions and
   specifications, then under GPO Contract Terms, it had a duty
   to contact the Contracting Officer prior to printing the PCS
   Forms for a clarification.16  R. Brf., pp. 7-8 (citing, GPO
   Contract Terms, Contract Clauses,  7 (Government Furnished
   Property)).  See also, Draft Report, pp. 14, 22, 26-27.
   Accordingly, the Respondent blames the Appellant's own
   negligence for the misprinting of the original PCS Forms, and
   requests a judgment in its favor for that reason.  R. Brf., p.
   8.

   DECISION17

   The Board has carefully considered the record in this case,
   especially the discussions which took place during the
   prehearing conference held on April 19, 1990, as detailed in
   the Draft Report.18  Those discussions indicate quite clearly
   the existence of a major dispute with respect to the GFM
   provided to the Appellant to perform the work, including what
   exactly had the Contractor been given to use for printing the
   PCS Forms.19  Draft Report, p. 26.  The GPO contract clause
   pertaining to GFM which is relevant to this appeal, provides,
   in pertinent part:

      7.  Government Furnished Property (GFP)
      The contractor is required to examine the furnished
      property immediately upon receipt.  If at that time there
      is disagreement with the description or the requirements as
      presented in the specification (or print order/GPO Form
      2511), and prior to the performance of any work, the
      contractor shall contact the U.S. Government Printing
      Office, Central Office Printing Procurement Division,
      Washington, DC 20401, or the originating Regional Printing
      Procurement Office, and contest the description.  (Failure
      to examine the GFP/specification and bring any
      discrepancies to the attention of the Contracting Officer
      will not relieve the contractor of  responsibility to
      perform.)  The Contracting Officer will then investigate
      and make a determination which will be final.  If the
      decision is reached that the original description is
      proper, the contractor will be required to proceed with the
      work.  Failure to agree to the description shall be a
      dispute within the meaning of article 5 "Disputes." . . .

See, GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses,  7 (Government
Furnished Property).  A contractor's duty to notify GPO under the
circumstances described in the above clause is an affirmative
one.  Custom Printing Company, GPO BCA 10-87 (May 10, 1988), Sl.
op. 12.

   The thrust of the Appellant's case is its view that the GFM
   provided by the Government, as well as the Respondent's
   augmenting instructions, were either poor or incomplete; i.e.,
   they did not clearly indicated what the Contractor was
   expected to do.  Where, as here, a contractor attacks the GFM
   as either inadequate or unsuitable, it has the burden of
   proving that it notified the Respondent of its problems in
   accordance with GPO Contract Terms; i.e., "prior to the
   performance of any work."  Printing Unlimited, GPO BCA 21-90
   (November 30, 1993), Sl. op. at 13; Custom Printing Company,
   supra, Sl. op. 12.  Accord, Southern Athletic Company, Inc.,
   ASBCA No. 9258, 65-1 BCA  4,649; Sidran Sportswear Company,
   Inc., ASBCA No. 9557, 65-1 BCA  4,632; Kilgore, Inc., ASBCA
   No. 1387 (1953)).

   Contrary to the view held by the Appellant, the Board
   concludes from the evidence of record that the Contractor
   received all of the GFM which was to be provided under the
   contract.  The record is also clear that the Appellant did not
   understand the specifications with respect to formatting the
   forms.  Therefore, under the terms of its contract with GPO,
   the Contractor was supposed to contact the Respondent for
   instructions on how to proceed, "prior to the performance of
   any work."  See, GPO Contract Terms, Contract Clauses,  7
   (Government Furnished Property).

   Interestingly, the record evidence indicates that the
   Appellant did, in fact, recognize problems with the GFM "prior
   to the performance of any work."  In that regard, the R4 File
   shows that the day after receiving the GFM, the Contractor
   telephoned the Respondent's DARD for an explanation of some
   camera copy markings and to resolve a grammatical error with
   regard to the Part 3 designator (R4 File, Tab G, p. 4).20
   However, there is nothing in the record to show that Appellant
   brought the specific defects it now relies on to the
   Respondent's attention.  What this case boils down to is a
   situation where the Contractor, who was uncertain about the
   contract specifications and the GFM, failed to ask the right
   questions of the Respondent.  The Government cannot be held
   liable for the Appellant's failure to make a complete inquiry.
   Printing Unlimited, supra, Sl. op. at 14; Custom Printing
   Company, supra, Sl. op. 13.

   Without any positive proof in this record to show that the
   Contractor fully met its responsibilities under GPO Contract
   Terms to notify the Respondent of the alleged defects with the
   GFM "prior to the performance of any work", the evidentiary
   cupboard regarding the notification issue is bare.  What is
   left are mere assertions by the Appellant that the GFM and the
   Respondent's instructions, were "bad" and "incomplete" (R4
   File, Tab L).  Such unsubstantiated assertions standing alone
   do not constitute proof.  R.C. Swanson Printing and
   Typesetting Company, GPO BCA 31-90 (February 6, 1992), Sl. op.
   at 45-46; Fry Communications, Inc./InfoConversion Joint
   Venture, supra, Sl. op. at 33, fn. 31, 40 (citing, Singleton
   Contracting Corporation, GSBCA No. 8548, 90-2 BCA  22,748;
   Tri-State Services of Texas, Inc., ASBCA No. 38010, 89-3 BCA 
   22,064; Gemini Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 30247, 86-1 BCA 
   18,736); Palmetto Enterprises, Inc., ASBCA No. 20421, 76-2 BCA
    11,978; S & S Constructors, ASBCA No. 20590, 76-1 BCA 
   11,759; Air-A-Plane Corporation, ASBCA No. 3842, 60-1 BCA 
   2,547.  Accordingly, when the Board considers the record as a
   whole, it concludes that the Appellant has failed to sustain
   its burden of proof.  Printing Unlimited, supra, Sl. op. at
   15; Custom Printing Company, supra, Sl. op. 13.

                 ORDER

     The Board finds and concludes that by printing the initial
     order of PCS Forms without a full understanding of the
     specifications and the GFM, and without seeking a complete
     clarification from the Respondent "prior to the performance
     of any work", in accordance with GPO Contract Terms,
     Contract Clauses,  7 (Government Furnished Property), the
     Appellant assumed the risk of the error which resulted in a
     rejection of the initial shipment of forms, and thus bears
     the cost of its own mistake.  THEREFORE, the decision of the
     Contracting officer is AFFIRMED, and the appeal is DENIED.

It is so Ordered.

July 22, 1994                  STUART M. FOSS
                            Administrative Judge

_______________

    1 The Contracting Officer's appeal file, assembled pursuant
    to Rule 4 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, was
    delivered to the Board on November 29, 1989.  GPO Instruction
    110.12, Subject: Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Practice
    and Procedure, dated September 17, 1984, Rule 4(a) (Board
    Rules).  It will be referred to hereinafter as the R4 File,
    with an appropriate Tab letter also indicated.  The R4 File
    consists of 15 documents identified as Tabs A through O.
    2 By letter dated January 5, 1990, the Appellant advised the
    Board that it had elected to have its appeal decided on the
    record without a hearing.  Board Rules, Rules 8 and 11.
    3 The factual description of this case is based on the: (a)
    the Appellant's Notice of Appeal, dated August 1, 1989; (b)
    R4 File; (c) the Appellant's Letter, dated January 5, 1990,
    requesting that the Board decide the case on the basis of the
    written record pursuant to Rule 11 of the Board Rules; (d)
    the Respondent's Answer, dated February 16, 1990; (e) the
    Respondent's Notice of Filing, dated May 4, 1990, including
    the attached Declaration of Rosemary Senneff (Senneff
    Declaration); (f) the Appellant's Letter, dated May 14, 1990,
    enclosing a sample form and original art work; (g) the
    Appellant's Letter, dated May 15, 1990, stating that the
    original copy that was used as camera copy had been returned
    to the Quality Assurance Section at GPO's request; and (h)
    the Report of Telephone Status Conference, dated August 13,
    1992 (RTSC).  In addition, at the status conference, which
    was held on July 22, 1992, the Board informed the parties
    that the former Administrative Judge had prepared a draft
    Prehearing Telephone Conference Report, dated April 23, 1990
    (Draft Report), of the meeting he held on April 19, 1990, but
    had not issued it to them because an agency reorganization
    soon afterward resulted in his reassignment to another senior
    position within GPO.  Since the Board believed that the Draft
    Report should be included as part of the appeal record, it
    told the parties that they would be provided a copy for their
    comments and/or corrections.  RTSC, pp. 1, 3.  Although the
    Board sent each party a copy of the Draft Report on August
    14, 1992, neither of them submitted comments and/or
    corrections for the Board's consideration.  Consequently, the
    Board included the Draft Report in the record as originally
    written.  See, Order Establishing A Briefing Schedule and
    Setting a Date for Settling the Record, dated September 16,
    1992, p. 2.  The facts, which are essentially undisputed, are
    recited here only to the extent necessary for this decision.
    4 In addition to the 20,000 sets of forms, the contract also
    ordered one complete set of film negatives from the Appellant
    (R4 File, Tab A).
    5 There were no changes to Part 1 of the PCS Form.
    Furthermore, as defined by the parties at the prehearing
    conference on April 19, 1990, a major change is one that
    exceeds 3 inches on a page, while a marginal change is just
    one line.  See, Draft Report, p. 23.
    6 The Purchase Order also indicated that the contract would
    be covered by the relevant provisions of GPO Contract Terms,
    Solicitation Provisions, Supplemental Specifications and
    Contract Clauses, GPO Publication 310.2, Effective December
    1, 1987 (Rev. 9-88) (GPO Contract Terms) (R4 File, Tab A).
    7 According to the note in the appeal file, Ras Beard, and
    employee of the DARD, answered the Appellant's question
    concerning the marking on the back of the camera copy, and
    confirmed that the backside numbers were to be placed "below
    the circle folio for the face."  As for the Part 3
    designator, which originally read "Employee-Attached to
    Initial Travel Voucher", another employee, James Willard,
    apparently agreed with the Contractor that the "ed" at the
    end of the word "Attached" was grammatically incorrect, and
    since those two letters did not appear on the construction
    sample, authorized the Appellant to print Part 3 without
    them; i.e., the designator for Part 3 should appear as
    "Employee-Attach to Initial Travel Voucher".  See, R4 File,
    Tabs G, N and O (Designator Sheet).
    8 At the prehearing conference, Counsel for the Appellant,
    Mark Stanton, Esq., stated that the Contractor had failed to
    return not only the camera copy, but the construction sample
    and "two other pieces on artboard" as well, and they were all
    sent back to GPO's Quality Assurance staff on May 10, 1989.
    Draft Report, p. 26.  However, it is not clear from the
    record whether Spurgeon Johnson or Ras Beard telephoned the
    Appellant, although they were both employees of the
    Respondent's Customer Service Department (R4 File, Tabs C and
    D).  Id.
    9 The record discloses that the telephone call was made by
    "J. Bucher".  Reference to the GPO telephone directory for
    the relevant time period, leads the Board to believe that "J.
    Bucher" was probably Jacqueline A. Bucher, a DARD employee.
    Furthermore, the record makes several early references to "Ed
    Vortage" as a representative of the Appellant (R4 File, Tabs
    F and H).  However, it seems clear that "Ed Vortage" was
    really a corruption of the name "Ed Vartughian," who is the
    Appellant's President, a mistake mostly due to an initial
    misreading of his signature (R4 File, Tab D).  The
    misidentification of the Appellant's representative was
    corrected by Rosemary Senneff, a Printing Specialist in GPO's
    Quality Assurance Section, who was ultimately assigned to
    handle this matter for the Respondent (R4 File, Tabs F and G,
    p. 3).  See, Senneff Declaration,  1.
    10 A "folio" is simply a page number.  See, Pocket Pal,
    International Paper Company, Memphis, Tennessee (14th ed.,
    1989), p. 193.
    11 The Contracting Officer also expressed his opinion that
    DOT could have made matters clearer by drawing a large "X"
    across the construction sample, but since the camera copy was
    correct, it should have been followed by the Contractor.  In
    response, Senneff asked if she should so mark the
    construction sample before returning it to the Appellant, but
    the Contracting Officer told her that doing so was
    unnecessary (R4 File, Tab G, p. 2).
    12 See, note 7 supra.
    13 In her affidavit, Senneff states that the notation "Copies
    of 3 pieces of c/c [camera copy] ret'd [returned] to K
    [contractor] on 5/23.  Copies show circle for folios[.]"
    which appears at the bottom of the first page in Tab O of the
    R4 File, was added later and did not appear on the sheet sent
    to the Contractor.  See, Senneff Declaration,  2.b.
    14 Only the Respondent submitted a written brief in this
    appeal.  See, Respondent's Brief, dated October 19, 1992
    (hereinafter R. Brf.).
    15 Apparently, the major change indicated in the contract
    specifications concerned the Travel Authorization portion of
    the form only.  Draft Report, p. 28.
    16 As the Respondent notes, during the prehearing conference
    of April 19, 1990, the parties could not agree about what
    materials were included in the GFM actually provided to the
    Appellant.  R. Brf., pp. 5-6 (citing, Draft Report, p. 25).
    In a nutshell, the dispute concerned how many pieces of
    camera copy were furnished to the Contractor-the Appellant
    said two pieces, while the Respondent insisted that three had
    been provided.  Draft Report, pp. 13-14, 20-21, 25.  (From
    the Board's examination of Tab O of the R4 File, which the
    Contractor admitted was identical to the camera copy it
    received, it seemed to the Board that three pieces were in
    fact provided; i.e., two sheets plus the instruction sheet.
    Draft Report, pp. 20-21.)  Since this factual dispute had to
    be resolved in order to decide the case, the Board directed
    the Respondent to furnish an affidavit from the GPO employee
    who sent the GFM to the Appellant describing the materials
    which were included (Senneff Declaration), while the
    Contractor was asked to submit copies of the materials which
    it received from the Government and samples of the original
    printing.  Draft Report, pp. 25, 27-28.  The Respondent now
    says that it has reviewed the documents the Appellant
    submitted to the Board, and it believes that they do not
    accurately reflect the GFM which was sent to the Contractor.
    R. Brf., pp. 6-7.  The Respondent also claims that the
    Appellant has "steadfastly refused" to provide copies of the
    requested documents.  R. Brf., p. 7.  Accordingly, GPO
    contends that it is entitled to the benefit of a negative
    inference that the contents of those documents would be
    harmful to the Appellant's case.  Id. (citing, Jen-Beck
    Associates, VABCA Nos. 2107-10, 2113-2117, 2119-20, 2122,
    2124, 2125, 2127, 2129-2135, 2186, 87-2 BCA  19,831;
    Morowitz v. United States, 15 Cl.Ct. 621, 631 (1988).  See
    also, Fry Communications, Inc./InfoConversion Joint Venture,
    GPO BCA 9-85, Decision on Remand (August 5, 1991), Sl. op. at
    39-40.  However, the Board has already ruled that both
    parties have furnished the additional information it
    requested.  See, RTSC, p. 3.  Therefore, such a negative
    inference is not warranted in this case.
    17 The record on which the Board's decision is based consists
    of: (a) the Appellant's Notice of Appeal, dated August 1,
    1989; (b) R4 File; (c) the Appellant's Letter, dated January
    5, 1990, requesting that the Board decide the case on the
    basis of the written record pursuant to Rule 11 of the Board
    Rules; (d) the Respondent's Answer, dated February 16, 1990;
    (e) the Respondent's Notice of Filing, dated May 4, 1990,
    including the Senneff Declaration; (f) the Appellant's
    Letter, dated May 14, 1990, enclosing a sample form and
    original art work; (g) the Appellant's Letter, dated May 15,
    1990, stating that the original copy that was used as camera
    copy had been returned to the Quality Assurance Section at
    GPO's request; (h) the draft Prehearing Telephone Conference
    Report, dated April 23, 1990; and (i) the Report of Telephone
    Status Conference, dated August 13, 1992.
    18 Although the record was mostly compiled before the
    undersigned was appointed GPO's Administrative Judge, see
    note 3 supra, that fact is not an impediment to his
    authorship of this decision.  See, C&L Construction Company,
    Inc., ASBCA Nos. 22993, 23040, 81-2 BCA  15,373, at 76,168
    (citing, Sternberger v. United States [13 CCF  82,085], 185
    Ct.Cl. 528, 401 F.2d 1012 (1968); Sundstrand Turbo v. United
    States [12 CCF  81,589], 182 Ct.Cl. 31, 389 F.2d 406
    (1968)).
    19 See, note 16 supra.
    20 See, note 7 supra.