U.S. Government Printing Office Office of the General Counsel Contract Appeals Board Appeal of Kaufman DeDell Printing, Inc. April 27, 1976 Vincent T. McCarthy, Chairman J.E. Eisen, Member Robert M. Diamond, Member Panel 76-3 Mrs. Mary H. DeDell, President Kaufman DeDell Printing, Inc. 812 North State Street P.O. Box 186 Syracuse, New York 13208 This is to acknowledge receipt of delivery on February 26, 1976, of an envelope containing many items, facsimiles of a stereotyped letter all purporting to be written appeals addressed to the Public Printer. All of the items indicate that they are filed pursuant to Article 29, United States Government Printing Office Contract Terms No. 1, incorporated by reference as an integral part of each of the respective contracts. Actually, however, the items consist of the following: (1) 14 appeals pursuant to said Article 29, the Jacket Numbers and dates of decision letters of the Contracting Officers being as follows: Jacket Number Date of Contracting Officer's Letters 1 - 504-166 November 4, 1975 2 - 505-732 December 12, 1975 3 - 530-547 October 31, 1975 4 - 418-060 December 15, 1975 5 - 529-963 November 3, 1975 6 - 527-235 November 26, 1975 7 - 502-673 March 27, 1975 8 - 521-337 March 29, 1975 9 - 527-777 October 31, 1975 10 - 528-325 December 12, 1975 11- 506-548 December 15, 1975 12- 527-839 November 4, 1975 13- 523-092 November 3, 1975 14- 517-890 March 25, 1974 (2) Two items concerned accord and satisfaction (Jacket 518-610 and 503-676); (3) One item was a Contract Appeal Board decision which was final. (Jacket 502-253); (4) Four items which referred to printing programs but failed to state the specific print orders involved and, therefore, it is impossible to act on these items because of lack of identification of the print orders; (5) One item which referred to Program 270-S in connection with which an appeal is presently under consideration by the Contract Appeals Board; and (6) One item claiming extra expense because of inferior quality. (Jacket 509-323) We will now consider each of the above categories. (1) Article 29, the "disputes article" of the contract provides in pertinent part as follows: ". . . any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this contract which is not disposed or by agreement shall be decided by the Contracting Officer, who shall reduce his decision to writing and mail or otherwise furnish a copy thereof to the Contractor. The decision of the Contracting Officer shall be final and conclusive unless within 30 days from the date of receipt of such copy, the contractor mails or otherwise furnishes to the Contracting Officer a written appeal addressed to the Public Printer." The records of the Contracting Officer relating to the identifying Jacket Numbers presented indicate that your initial appeals to the Contracting Officers were decided by those officers and transmitted to you via the U.S. Postal Service. The Jacket Numbers and the dates of the decision letters are listed above. The immediate question affecting the listed numbered contracts (Jackets) is the timeliness of your notices of appeal. Although they are not specifically dated, the Federal Express Shipping ticket on your envelope was dated February 24, 1976, and our records reflect that the shipment arrived at the Government Printing Office mail room on February 26, 1976. It is apparent, therefore, that all of your appeal letters relating to the said numbered jackets are patently untimely. A Contracting Officer's determination is considered final and conclusive unless an appeal is lodged within the 30 day period set out in the "Disputes" clause. We find that upon a review of our records, including the matters submitted in your letters, no facts or circumstances justify extending or waiving the appeal times until February 26, 1976. In view of the foregoing, the said fourteen appeals are dismissed. (2) The records pertaining to Jacket 5118-610 reflect that your firm, upon furnishing and delivering to the Government the publication TM9-2330-213-14, Government checks in the amount of $6,633.50, dated November 16, 1973, and $315 dated December 11, 1973, were issued and mailed to you in full payment, accord and satisfaction for your services in compliance with the terms of the contract. The records pertaining to Jackets 503-676 show that your firm, upon furnishing and delivering the publication, U.S. Army Training Circular, was paid for the services the sum of $2,667, on November 2, 1973. The Government check was negotiated and you retained the proceeds without any word of dissent, claim or appeal. We, therefore, are of the view that a valid accord and satisfaction has been consummated in that case. (3) A decision by the Contract Appeals Board in reference to Jacket No. 502-253 was issued and transmitted to your address in Syracuse, New York, on December 11, 1975. Therefore, no further appeal to the Government Printing Office can be entertained in that matter. (4) Reference is made to your undated purported notices of appeal relating to the following numbered Programs: 414-M, 1330- S, 519-S, and 28-S. You failed to make reference to any specific print orders in your notices of appeal as part of the above styled Programs. We, therefore, regret that we cannot consider these matters at this time. In the event that you desire to submit timely notices of appeal, including the basis of your appeals, with the inclusion of identifying severable print orders issued as part of the above numbered programs, we will consider them on their merits. (5) With respect to your item referring to Program 270-S, we cannot identify whether or not it is the same item presently being considered by the Contract Appeals Board in connection with that Program 270-S and, therefore, can take no action on that item. (6) The records pertaining to Jacket 509-323 refer to a claim by your firm, dated January 29, 1974, in the amount of $100 for extra work because of your allegation that the Buckram cloth furnished by GPO was of inferior quality; and that extra handwork, dies, and stamping were necessary. The Contracting Officer denied your claim upon having the sample of the Ruby Buckram tested. The laboratory tests revealed that the material furnished to you was not substandard as claimed, but equal to the specifications. There were no written appeals to the Contracting Officer on this matter and an appeal now would be untimely.