U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS The Appeal of INTERNATIONAL LITHOGRAPHING, INC. Docket No. GPO BCA 18-88 February 21, 1990 MICHAEL F. DiMARIO Administrative Law Judge ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND DISMISSING APPEAL WITH PREJUDICE "RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT," filed with the Board on February 16, 1989, as renewed by its "REPLY TO APPELLANT'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT," filed with the Board on March 16, 1989, is granted for the reasons set forth therein. In so doing, the Board notes that the "Notice of Termination Complete," dated April 27, 1988, specified the reason for the termination as "default because you failed to correct or replace the rejected product." and that Appellant's notice of appeal, filed with the Board on July 8, 1988, specified that it was from such decision, but that Appellant's appeal does not address this failure to follow the Contracting Officer's order to reprint as pointed out by Respondent in its Motion for Summary Judgement. Nor does Appellant address such issue in its response to the Motion for Summary Judgement. Rather, in both its pleading and its response, Appellant attacks the question of whether or not its product was, in fact, defective. Notwithstanding the ultimate question of the correctness of the Government's determination that the product was in non-conformance with the specifications, the Government, having made its determination in good faith based upon inspection and testing as specified in the contract, was entitled to require the contractor to proceed with the contract in accordance with the Contracting Officer's directions under Section 5(d) of U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) Contract Terms No. 1 (GPO Publication 310.2), effective December 1, 1987, which was incorporated into the contract by reference. Failure of Appellant to proceed in accordance with such direction gives rise to the Government's right to terminate the contract without regard to the merits of the underlying dispute. Sterling Electronics, Inc., 64 BCA ¶ 4092 (1964). We do not address the underlying dispute since such is unnecessary to our decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with prejudice. It is so Ordered.