In the Matter of             )
the Appeal of                )
Program 1113-S               )
Purchase Order A9525         )

For the Appellant: RD Printing Associates, Inc., 1865 New
Highway, Farmingdale, NY, by Ralph DeMartino, pro se.

For the Government: Drew Spalding, Esq., Deputy General Counsel,
U.S. Government Printing Office.

Before BERGER, Ad Hoc Chairman.


RD Printing Associates, Inc. (Appellant), 1865 New Highway,
Farmingdale, New York, timely appeals the decision of Contracting
Officer Roger S. White of the U.S. Government Printing Office
(Respondent or GPO), concerning the Appellant's entitlement to
payment for certain work performed under its Program 1113-S
contract, Purchase Order A9525.   For the reasons which follow,
the Contracting Officer's decision is AFFIRMED and the appeal is


1.   On March 8, 1994, the Appellant was awarded a single award
requirements contract for the production of technical manuals and
changes for the Defense Printing Service from the date of award
to February 28, 1995.  Pursuant to the contract specifications
the Respondent was to furnish camera ready copy and the Appellant
was to make all required films and ultimately produce the manuals
in looseleaf form.
2.   The specifications "anticipated that approximately 96% of
the orders will require fold-ins," that the number of fold-ins
per order were anticipated to be "1 to 46," and that the fold-in
widths would range from up to 21" to 45".  The Schedule of Prices
called for pricing for page-size units of fold-in "base films"
and for "illustration films."  A base film was defined as "each
page-size film requiring one film exposure, produced from one
basic piece of camera copy or art.  Any additional components
required . . . will be allowed under 'Illustration Films', . . .
."  Under "Illustration Films," the Schedule defined
"illustration" as "any element not furnished in position on the
basic camera copy, or one that requires a separate exposure," and
provided that the prices offered for each illustration film
"shall include the cost of combining them with the applicable
base film . . . ."  The solicitation estimated a total of 7,560
base film units and zero line illustration films.  Rule 4 File,
Tab F.1  The Appellant's unit price for base films was $1; for
line illustration films it was $3.  Rule 4 File, Tab G.

3.   On May 2, 1994, the Appellant complained to GPO that it was
billing for illustration films where that work was required by
print orders, but that GPO was paying only for base films.  The
Appellant explained that the copy supplied for some fold-ins was
larger than the finished product and that this required separate
exposures, which entitled it to be paid for illustration films.
On June 2, the Contracting Officer informed the Appellant of his
disagreement with the Appellant's interpretation.  This appeal


The question presented by this appeal-whether the Appellant was
entitled to bill for illustration films in light of the fold-in
work required by the print orders issued to it-need not detain us
long.  The contract clearly set forth requirements for and
anticipated quantities and sizes of fold-ins.  The specifications
stated, with respect to the camera copy to be furnished by the
Government, that "[v]arying reductions may be required" and that
"[v]arying focuses may be required."  The contract, in the
Schedule of Prices, also stated:  "The prices offered shall be
all-inclusive for producing films in accordance with the terms of
these specifications; and shall include the cost of all required
materials and operations, as applicable."  Rule 4 File, Tab G.
The definitions of base films and illustration films, set forth
above,  then followed.

The Appellant states that the camera copy supplied for fold-ins
in some cases is larger than the finished size and goes up to 75
inches in length and 18 (later stated to be 14) inches high.  The
Appellant further points out that this large size copy "is highly
unusual and requires additional time and material to complete."
Complaint.  It points out that to reduce the camera copy, the
camera lens exposure unit has to be changed, as does the distance
between the lens and the art board.  It states further that in
cases where original art is received, varying reductions are
required for the same order and "[t]herefore, 'Separate
Exposures' are required."  Id.  The Appellant concludes from this
that it is entitled to bill for illustration films even though it
concedes that only "one piece of camera copy" is involved.
Appellant's Brief at 3.
The Appellant is incorrect.  Its contract describes illustration
films as those that result when an element is not furnished in
position on the basic copy or a separate exposure is required.
In addition, the contract, by specifying that the illustration
film prices "shall include" the cost of combining the films with
base films, made it clear that illustration films were those that
were to be combined with the base films and that the Government
expected to be paying for that combining operation when paying
the separate charge for illustration films.  The Contracting
Officer  states that under the contract the Government has
furnished only "one piece of camera ready copy for each fold-in,"
so that combining has not been required, White Declaration at 2,
and the Appellant does not disagree.  The Appellant instead
relies on the fact that in some cases it has had to reduce large-
size copy and refocus its camera and, in essence, that cost-wise
this is more akin to producing illustration films than to
producing base films.  The contract, however, explicitly placed
the contractor on notice that it could expect various sizes of
fold-in copy and that varying reductions and focuses might be
required; the fact that such requirements arose cannot convert
what the contract describes as a base film into an illustration
film regardless of whether the required reduction and refocusing
were minor or substantial.

Moreover, to the extent the Appellant relies on the "or one that
requires a separate exposure" language of the Schedule of Prices,
that reliance is misplaced.  The Appellant makes two different
assertions about its having to take separate exposures.  First,
it states that separate exposures were required because under
certain print orders "varying reductions are required" for the
same order.  Complaint.  Second, the Appellant, in a May 4, 1994,
letter to the Respondent's Office of Financial Management, stated
that "[t]he foldout units in question were oversized and required
separate exposures in order to meet margin requirements."  Notice
of Appeal (Enclosure).  Since the copy for each fold-in could
require a different reduction, the first assertion seems to
equate "separate exposures" with the exposures taken after
varying reductions for the various fold-ins, even though there
would be only one exposure per fold-in.  The second assertion, on
the other hand,  suggests multiple exposures for one fold-in.
The first assertion cannot support the Appellant's position
because the contract clearly defines illustration films as ones
resulting from more than one exposure for one fold-in.  In
addition, both assertions must fail because, as discussed above,
the "separate exposure" language of the contract, in context,
means a separate exposure that is followed by a combining
operation.  The Appellant has performed no combining operations
under this contract.  Simply put, the act of taking more than one
exposure of the same camera ready copy, which is  the most that
Appellant claims to have done, by itself does not result in an
illustration film.

The Appellant refers to another contract, for the 1281S Program,
where the Respondent spelled out its large-size fold-in
requirements more clearly and, according to the Appellant, led
bidders to submit relatively high prices for base films because
of those requirements.  The Appellant states that GPO should have
done the same thing with this contract.  The Appellant's rights
and obligations under the 1113S Program contract are established
by that contract; the 1281S contract, which is not before the
Board in any event, RD Printing Assocs., Inc., GPOBCA 02-92
(December 16, 1992), slip op. at 9 n.9, 1992 WL 516088, has no
relevance here.  The Board notes, however, that bidding for the
1281S contract occurred several months before bidding for the
1113S contract-if the Appellant believed the 1113S solicitation
should have been as detailed as the 1281S solicitation with
regard to large-size fold-in requirements, it should have brought
that to GPO's attention prior to the bidding.  See Wickham
Contracting Co., Inc., 546 F.2d 395 (Ct. Cl. 1976); MKB Constr.
Co., ASBCA 47741, 95-1 BCA  27,497; Delphi Indus., Inc., AGBCA
76-160-4A & B, 84-1 BCA 17,053.  Moreover, the Appellant, which
makes no argument that the Respondent was precluded from ordering
fold-ins from large-size copy, should have been aware of what
could be ordered under the contract and built an appropriate risk
factor into its pricing for base films.  See Essex Electro
Engrs., Inc., 72 Comp. Gen. 299 (1993), 93-2 CPD  141; Service
Technicians, B-249329, B-249329.2, Nov. 12, 1992, 92-2 CPD  342;
Benco Contract Servs., B-233748, Feb. 24, 1989, 89-1 CPD  205.
Its failure to do so does not entitle it to bill at a rate above
what it bid for the work it performed.

The Board has often recognized that when two contracting parties
have two different interpretations of the same contract language
they raise the possibility that the contract is ambiguous, a term
indicating that the language will sustain more than one
reasonable interpretation.  See, e.g., B & B Reproductions,
GPOBCA 09-89 (June 30, 1995), slip op. at 22, 1995 WL 488447; RD
Printing Assocs., Inc., supra, at 14.  There is no ambiguity
here, however.  The Appellant's interpretation of the contract-
that it somehow allows the Appellant to bill for illustration
films when there is a significant reduction and refocusing
effort-is simply not reasonable as it is flatly inconsistent with
the clear, specific provisions of the contract.  In short, while
the Appellant may accurately be stating the cost impact of
working with large-size copy,3 it is bound to the terms of its
contract, and the contract does not allow it to bill for
illustration films where combining operations are not required.

   III.    ORDER

The Contracting Officer's decision is AFFIRMED and the appeal is

It is so Ordered.

February 24, 1998                  Ronald Berger
Ad Hoc Chairman
GPO Board of Contract Appeals


1 The Contracting Officer's appeal file, assembled pursuant to
Rule 4 of the Board's Rules of practice and Procedure, was
delivered to the Board on August 24, 1994.  It will be referred
to as the Rule 4 File, with an appropriate Tab letter also
indicated.  The Rule 4 File consists of 18 tabs identified as Tab
A through Tab R.  Some of these Tabs relate to the Appellant's
companion appeal involving Program 1112-S, which the Appellant
withdrew by letter of December 2, 1994.
2 The parties agreed that a hearing was not required in this
case.  Report of Prehearing Telephone Conference dated January 3,
1995.  The decision is based on the Rule 4 File, the Appellant's
letters of June 29, 1994, with enclosures (Notice of Appeal),
August 24 (Complaint), and December 2 (Appellant's Brief), and
the Respondent's Brief with accompanying declarations, including
one  from Contracting Officer White (White Declaration).
3 The Contracting Officer takes issue with the Appellant's cost
assertions, stating that "the manner in which we issue the print
orders permits the contractor to organize its work in such a way
that it must re-set its camera only a very few times." White
Declaration at 3.