U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of CEN-TEX WEB PRINTING COMPANY Docket No. GPO BCA 6-86 May 2, 1989 MICHAEL F. DiMARIO Administrative Law Judge SUMMARY OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED BACKGROUND By letter dated January 24, 1986, Cen-Tex Web Printing Company, Dallas, Texas (Appellant) was advised by R.W. Wildbrett, Contracting Officer (CO), U.S. Government Printing Office Dallas Regional Printing Procurement Office (DRPPO), that a complaint had been received from Bergstrom Air Force Base, Texas (BAFB), to the effect that: (1) Certain letterheads procured from Appellant by Purchase Order K-9960, Jacket No. 659-612, dated November 20, 1985, in the amount of $399, had inconsistent inking, broken type, plugged type, and ink scumming; and (2) The Appellant had not furnished one complete set of negatives for each of the six different letterheads it prepared as required by the specifications. The letter directed that Appellant was to reprint the order at no additional expense to the Government and ship complete within 10 days from receipt of the January 24, 1986, letter. By letter of the CO dated March 14, 1986, Appellant was directed to show cause within 5 days of the receipt of the letter as to why the contract should not be terminated for default in accordance with Article 2-18, "Default," "U.S. Government Printing Office Contract Terms No. 1" for failure to ship the reprint as previously directed. When no response was received, the CO issued a termination letter dated April 2, 1986, for inability to perform within the schedule of the contract. The letter advised Appellant that in accordance with the "Disputes" article, supra, the decision would be final and conclusive unless a written notice of appeal addressed to the Public Printer of the United States, Dallas RPPO, Attn: Mr. Richard W. Wildbrett, was received within 90 days of Appellant's receipt of the decision. The notice also advised that a general letter of complaint objecting to the action taken would not be considered a notice of appeal. The appeal must be signed, identify the contract number and decision, and contain a statement specifying the part or parts of the CO's decision from which the appeal was being taken, and the reason or reasons why the decision of the CO respecting the specified part or parts was erroneous. On May 30, 1986, this Board received correspondence from the CO which included an appeal letter from Appellant dated April 23, 1986. The letter generally stated that it was an appeal from the CO's decision. However, it gave no response to the issue of failing to meet scheduling requirements, but rather spoke to its disagreement with Respondent and the Air Force concerning the quality of the previously rejected printing. Appellant was then advised by letter from the Board dated June 3, 1986, that the appeal had been received and docketed, and that Rule 6.(a) of GPO's Instruction 110.12 entitled "Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedure" dated September 17, 1984, and Change 1 dated September 26, 1984, requires that within 30 days after receipt of the notice of docketing, an original and 2 copies of a complaint containing the data described in the Rule shall be filed with the Board; and that Rule 8 requires the Appellant to make an election and notify the Board as to whether it desires a hearing or desires to have the appeal decided on the written record. A copy of the Instruction was furnished to the Appellant as an enclosure to the Board's letter. No complaint was received within the time prescribed by the Instruction, nor has any other correspondence been received from Appellant. Accordingly, it is the decision of this Board that: DECISION The appeal be denied for failure on the part of Appellant to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. IT IS SO ORDERED.