U.S. Government Printing Office Contract Appeals Board Appeal.of Studio Printing, Inc. Panel 84-8 February 24, 1986 THOMAS O. MAGNETTI, Chairman JACK ISEMANN, Member CHARLES L. RITCHEY, Member PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Studio Printing, Inc. (hereafter the contractor) has appealed the rejection by a Contracting Officer of the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) of a monetary claim for work performed under two print orders of Program A-589-S. The contractor appealed the rejection of its claim in a timely fashion and in accordance with the "Disputes" clause of the contract. See Article 2-3, Contract Terms No. 1, GPO Publication 310.2, revised October 1, 1980. The contractor requested a hearing which was held on September 19, 1984. At this hearing, the contractor argued that it had performed color operations for which it was not adequately compensated. In accordance with Contract Terms No. 1 and GPO Instruction 110.10B, entitled "Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedure," the GPO Contract Appeals Board had jurisdiction over the matters raised in this appeal. The decision of the Board is based solely on the appeal record which consists of the exhibits accepted into the record and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing. As agreed to by the parties, no transcript of the testimony was taken. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. By Purchase Order 27243, dated February 8, 1983, the GPO awarded the contract to produce a pamphlet entitled Army Logistician to the contractor. Exhibit 7. 2. The specifications for this contract required the contractor to produce the pamphlet with separate 4-color process covers. Exhibit 2. The operations included were composition, color separation, film making, printing, binding, packing, and distribution. Section 4 of the specifications required that each prospective bidder provide a price which would include the cost of all required materials and operations for each item listed. 3. According to the specifications, an illustration charge was allowed for an element that was not furnished in position on the Government furnished material and/or required a separate exposure. The price quoted had to include the cost of all proofs, materials, and operations required to produce the illustration in its final form as an integral part of the basic trim/size film. Exhibit 2, p. 14. Timework was defined as operations which could not be properly classified under any other item. The GPO reserved the right to determine the acceptable amount of time to be allowed for such charges. Id. 4. According to these specifications, each bidder was directed to provide a price per set of flat tones, duotone halftones and Color Corrected Four-color Process films of Illustrations. The contractor bid on those items as follows: (b) Line per illustration $3.00 (c) Square-finish halftone per illustration $6.00 (d) Combination line and halftone per illustration $12.00 (e) To 25 sq. in. image per set $125.00 (f) Over 25 to 50 sq. in. image per set $125.00 (g) Over 50 to 75 sq. in. image per set $150.00 (h) Over 75 to 100 sq. in. image per set $150.00 (i) Each additional sq. in. over 100 sq. inches per set $2.00 Exhibit 4. 5. The list of bidders indicated that although the contractor was the lowest overall responsive bidder, other contractors provided lower bids on the operations priced in the items set out in Finding No. 4. Exhibit 5. 6. In September 1983 and again in November 1983, the contractor complained that it had performed work on Print Orders 502 and 503 for which it had submitted invoices for payment but had not been paid. Exhibits 10 and 11. 7. By letters dated November 9 and 26, 1983, respectively, the contractor's claims for four combination line and halftone illustrations for the pamphlet covers for Print Orders 502 and 503 were denied by the contracting officer. Exhibits 12 and 13. 8. By letter dated January 24, 1984, the contractor appealed the denial of its claims, arguing that it had to perform operations connected with four color process printing for which it was not being compensated under the contract. Exhibit 1. This work was in fact being performed for the contractor by subcontractors. 9. By letter dated September 25, 1984, the contractor submitted the amount in dispute. The contractor claimed that while it cost $442.15 to produce the cover for Print Order 502, it was compensated only $177.00 by the GPO. In regards to the cover for Print Order 503, the contractor contended that its costs were $495.00 but that it was paid only $175.50 by the GPO. According to the contractor, its total claim for.these two Print Orders was $584.65. DECISION The issue to be resolved in this appeal is whether the contractor should have factored into its bid price the cost of color processing operations which the contractor claims it performed but for which the contractor was not compensated. In its appeal, the contractor has alleged that in producing the color work on the cover for Print Orders 502 and 503, the contractor was required to perform operations which should have been considered "timework" and billed separately from the work billed under the specific Illustration items set out in the specifications. At the hearing, the Government contended that the specifications, if properly interpreted, required a prospective bidder to submit a bid for the Illustration items which would include the costs for all operations required to produce the illustration in its final form. Further, according to Paul Barlow, the Government's witness, to permit the contractor to charge this work under timework would in effect allow the contractor to bill the Government twice for the same operation. The contract clearly provided that the bid price for illustrations should include the cost of all proofs, materials, and operations required to produce the illustration in its final form. The operations which were performed by the contractor or its subcontractor were operations which were required to produce the cover in its final form. As these operations could be classified under the illustration item charges, they cannot be construed as "timework." The specifications were clear enough to put a reasonably prudent bidder on notice of what a bid for an illustration item should include. Therefore, based upon the evidence of record, this Board rules that the contract required all bidders to include in their bids the cost of all operations necessary to produce the illustration in its final form. Consequently, the contractor was bound by its bid for these items. Accordingly, the contractor's appeal is denied in its entirety.