Appeal of Progress Graphics, Inc.
Appeal dated May 3, 1982
Decision dated October 28, 1982

Panel 82-6

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


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.


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.