UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE CONTRACT APPEALS BOARD Appeal of Progress Graphics, Inc. Appeal dated May 3, 1982 Decision dated October 28, 1982 Panel 82-6 THOMAS O. MAGNETTI, Chairman GEORGE A. SIMMS, Member ERNEST W. HENSON, Member Preliminary Statement This appeal arises from the default termination of Progress Graphics, Inc. (hereinafter the contractor) under a contract to procure printed material. The GPO Contracting Officer terminated the contract for default because the contractor failed to make deliveries in accordance with the schedule. The contractor disputes this termination and takes this appeal in accordance with Article 2-3 of the General Provisions, the "Disputes" Clause of Contract Terms No. 1, GPO Publication 310.2, revised October 1, 1980. This document was incorporated by reference into the contract specifications. Exhibit 1 of the Appeal File, hereafter Ex. 1. The GPO Contract Appeals jurisdiction over this appeal is established pursuant to GPO Instruction 110.10B, entitled "Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedure", and pursuant to the above-cited contract. This decision is based solely on the record which consists of the documents and exhibits within the Appeal File. Statement of Facts 1. Program 1515-S was awarded to the contractor in accordance with standard GPO contract award procedures on February 22, 1982. 2. The specifications required the contractor to produce a self- cover, saddle-stitched or pasted pamphlet entitled Milwaukee MSC News Conveyor. Ex. 1. This document was intended to be issued by the Postal Service on a monthly basis. Id. 3. During the term of the contract, the contractor was required to pickup manuscript copy on the first workday of each month. Page proofs were to be delivered back to the Government within 5 workdays. These proofs would then be marked and be ready for pickup the following workday. The contractor would then deliver the finished product within 4 workdays of availability of the marked page proofs. Ex. 1. The section of the contract setting out this schedule states that "adherence to this schedule must be maintained." Id. 4. On March 1, 1982, Print Order No. 1 was issued and the manuscript copy for the March issue was picked up by the contractor. Originally the shipping date on this print order was March 15, 1982, however, because of the number of pages in the manuscript copy, the shipping date was extended to March 22, 1982. Ex. 3. According to the contract schedule, the page proofs should have been delivered to the GPO on March 8. These proofs were ultimately received by the Government on March 29, 1982. Ex. 6, 9. The proofs were marked by the Government and picked up by the contractor on that same day. Under the contract the printed copies had to be delivered 4 days after the marked proofs were retrieved. However, as of April 13, 1982, no completed product for Print Order 1 was delivered or received by the Government. Id. 5. Because the page proofs were not delivered to the Government until March 29, 1982, the contractor was sent a letter notifying it that its delinquent delivery was a condition endangering its performance under the contract. The contractor was instructed to deliver the completed work under this print order within 4 workdays of March 29, 1982 (April 2). Ex. 5. The contractor was warned that failure to adhere to the contract specifications or the delivery schedule might justify a default termination. 6. Print Order No. 2 was issued on April 1, 1982. Although the manuscript copy was ready for pickup on that day and should have been picked up, the work was only picked up by the contractor on April 5,.1982. Ex. 6. As of April 15, 1982, the contractor had not delivered either the page proofs or the completed work for Print Order 2. Id., Ex. 9. 7. Based on this failure to deliver the finished product for Print Order No. 1 and the page proofs for Print Order No. 2, the contract, Program 1515-S, was terminated for default. The contractor was notified of this action by letter dated April 13, 1982. Ex. 6. 8. This decision was appealed by the contractor on May 3, 1982. Ex. 7. In its appeal letter, the contractor argued that its inability to deliver in a timely fashion was due to equipment breakdown. Discussion The Government has the initial burden of demonstrating that the contractor had defaulted in its performance under the contract. This particular default was justified because of the contractor's lack of compliance with the delivery schedule. See Article 2-18, entitled "Default", supra. The record indicates that the contractor failed to deliver work ordered under Print Order Nos. 1 and 2 in accordance with the contract schedule. Ex. 5, 6, 7, and 9. The inability of the contract to deliver in a timely fashion on these 2 print orders justified the termination of the entire contract. Because of the monthly issue date, in order for the information contained in each pamphlet be received by readers in a timely fashion and be of some value, the schedule had to be adhered to. The contractor was notified of the seriousness of its failure to comply with the contract specifications and was given the opportunity to cure its delinquency by delivering work under Print Order No. 1 four days after it picked up the marked proofs on March 29, 1982. Since delivery was not made within that time period, sufficient grounds existed for the Contracting Officer to default the entire contract. Technical Publishing Services, Inc., GPO BCA No. 1-81, January 20, 1982. The contractor seeks to excuse its delinquency by alleging that it was impossible to perform the contract in accordance with the schedule because of the breakdown of its Baum Folder unit. Ex. 7. The Board holds, however, that the equipment breakdown is not such a reason as could be considered beyond the contractor's control or without its fault. Failure to provide for the necessary equipment or back-up machinery, in the event of a breakdown, does not excuse noncompliance with delivery schedules. Technical Publishing Services, Inc. supra, Associated Graphics Services, Inc., GPO CAB 76-12, January 12, 1981. Decision Based upon the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Contracting Officer to terminate this contract for default is upheld. Accordingly, the contractor's appeal is denied in its entirety.