Docket No. GPO BCA 7-89
April 21, 1989

Administrative Law Judge


It is the opinion of this Board that Respondent's "Motion to
Dismiss" the above-captioned appeal on the grounds that it was
not timely filed since it was not lodged with the Board
until"March 23, 1989," a date more than 90 days after Appellant's
receipt of the Contracting Officer's (CO) "Notice of
Termination"dated September 8, 1988, is without merit in light of
the following information:

1.  On March 19, 1989, Respondent's counsel furnished the
undersigned certain correspondence received from the Office of
Senator William Armstrong, of Colorado and requested that an
appeal be docketed subject to the Government's right to move its
dismissal for lack of timeliness.  The correspondence consisted
of a transmittal memorandum dated October 17, 1988, from the
Denver Office of Senator Armstrong addressed to Mr. John
W.Morris, Superintendent, Congressional Printing Management
Division (CPMD), GPO, referencing "the attached"; a signed letter
to Senator Armstrong from one Mr. John Courtie, Branch
Manager,Litho Development and Research (LDR), Denver, CO, dated
October 5, 1988, requesting the Senator's "review of the attached
notice of appeal to the Public Printer"; and an unsigned letter
from Courtie to Ralph E. Kennickell, Jr., Public Printer, United
States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC  20401, dated
October 5, 1988, captioned "Notice of Appeal of Termination of
Contract No. 3262-88," bearing a notation "cc:  Herb Jackson" on
its second page.

2.  On or about March 20, 1989, the undersigned caused the
material received from Respondent's counsel to be examined by the
Clerk of the Board.  The Clerk advised that on or about October
14, 1988, Mr. Herb Jackson, CO, Materials Management Service,
GPO, furnished the Clerk a photocopy of a certain unsigned
"Notice of Appeal" letter from LDR concerning a folding machine
which Jackson had received and which the Clerk believes was the
"carbon copy" of Appellant's letter of October 5, 1988,furnished
to Jackson.  However, the Clerk did not respond to or docket the
appeal at that time, since the correspondence did not comport
with the prerequisites necessary to effect an appeal under GPO
Instruction 110.12 entitled "Board of Contract Appeals Rules of
Practice and Procedure" inasmuch as it was unsigned and not
addressed to the Board.

3.  Upon receipt of Respondent's "Motion to Dismiss" dated April
11, 1989, the undersigned examined the CO's "Notice of
Termination" furnished as an attachment thereto and noted that
stated therein was advice to the contractor respecting the
necessary content of a "Notice of Appeal" and the address to
which such notice must be sent, to wit:  "The notice of appeal
should be addressed to the Public Printer and sent to the
Contracting Officer.  A general letter of complaint objecting to
the action taken will not be considered as notice of appeal.  The
notice of appeal must be signed by the contractor, identify the
contract by number and this decision, state that the decision is
being appealed, specify the part or parts of this decision from
which the appeal is taken, and should state the reason why these
parts are erroneous."

4.  Thereafter, through its own inquiry, the Board determined
   a.  The Superintendent, CPMD, received the correspondence from
   Senator Armstrong on October 27, 1988, and furnished it
   forthwith to the Office of the Public Printer (PP).
   b.  The PP's office had no record of Senator Armstrong's
   correspondence, but there was a record of receipt on October
   14, 1988, of certain correspondence from the Appellant dated
   October 5, 1988, respecting Contract No. 3262|-88 which was
   forwarded that same day to the Office of the Assistant Public
   Printer (Operations and Procurement) (APP (O&P)) for action.
   c.  The APP (O&P) received the correspondence from the PP's
   office on October 14, 1988, and transmitted it to the Office
   of the Manager, Printing Procurement Service (PPS), on October
   17, 1988.
   d.  The PPS office received the transmittal from the APP (O&P)
   on October 17, 1988, and redirected it to the Office of the
   Director, Materials Management Service (MMS), that same day.
   e.  MMS personnel had no record or recollection of having
   received the October 5, 1988, transmittal from PPS.  Thus,the
   original letter has not been located for determination as to
   whether it comports with the GPO Instruction 110.12
   requirements for content, signature, and address (or the
   address requirements stated in the "Notice of Termination")
   necessary to properly raise an appeal.

   Based upon the foregoing, the Board believes it prudent to
   conclude that a properly signed, but otherwise
   identical,October 5, 1988, letter of Courtie to Kennickell,
   was timely filed on October 14, 1988, and that such letter
   substantially comported with the requirements necessary to
   give notice of an appeal under GPO Instruction 110.12.
   Accordingly, the "Motion to Dismiss" is hereby denied.