U. S. Government Printing Office
Office of the General Counsel
Contract Appeals Board

Appeal of Uscher Business, Inc.
Docket 75-1
February 28, 1975

Alan S. Zuckerman
Associate General Counsel

Mr. William Uscher, President
Uscher Business Forms, Inc.
629 Grove Street
Jersey City, New Jersey  07302

Reference is made to the appeal to the Public Printer from the
decision of the contracting officer rejecting the printing of
50,000 sets of forms and terminating the contract for default.
The forms were purchased under GPO purchase order 59360 dated May
22, 1974.  Such appeal was made pursuant to the "Disputes" clause
of the contract.  This is the decision of the Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. Government Printing Office, the authorized
representative of the Public Printer for the determination of
such appeals.

The specifications require in pertinent part that;.

"CONSTRUCTION: . . . . The carbon shall be affixed to the form by
an adhesive of the type that will leave little residue on the
form when removed and will not mar the printed form when carbon
is removed . . . . The carbon must be attached in such a manner
as to allow clear and easy separation . . . . Strip pasting is
not acceptable."

The supplies furnished were constructed in such a way that when
separated, a 1/8" strip of a carbon sheet running the full width
of the printed page remained on the printed page.  The remaining
strip of carbon runs through the printed seal of the Department
of the Interior.

In the context of the entire specification, it is clear that the
"little residue" referred to was a residue of adhesive, not a
residue of paper.  However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the
product delivered fails to meet the specifications in the
following additional respects:

(1) The printed form is marred by the remaining strip of carbon
running through the printed seal of the Department after carbon

(2) The carbon was not attached in such a manner as to allow
clear and easy separation.

(3)  The carbon was attached by strip pasting.

The Government is entitled to a product which has been
manufactured in exact conformance with the specification.
Inasmuch as the product delivered by your firm failed to meet the
specifications in several respects, the supplies furnished were
properly rejected.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is denied.