Docket No. GPO BCA 31-88
March 14, 1990

Administrative Law Judge


   This appeal, timely filed by Matthew's Printing, Inc., 1315
   Northwest Industrial Drive, Bridgeton, MO  63044 (hereinafter
   "Appellant"), is from the July 28, 1988, final decision of
   James L. Leonard, Contracting Officer (C.O.), U.S. Government
   Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC 20401 (hereinafter
   "Respondent"), partially terminating GPO contract, dated April
   9, 1988, Jacket 210-460, Purchase Order 34486, for default
   because of Appellant's inability to furnish an acceptable
   product within the terms of the contract.  The decision of the
   C.O. is affirmed for the reasons set forth hereinbelow.


   Appellant was competitively awarded the above cited contract
   in the amount of $24,500 to produce some 2,798 copies of a
   416-page book with two piece cover and six tab dividers,
   entitled "Annual Cancer Statistics Review Including Cancer
   Trends 1950-1985," as requisitioned from Respondent by the
   Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), requisition
   number 8-00609.  Product quality was to be at Level III in
   accordance with the GPO Quality Assurance Through Attributes
   Program (GPO Pub 310.1) in effect on the date of the order.
   For this reason, the contract specified General Inspection
   Level I of MIL-STD-105 for Non-Destructive Tests and required
   that Appellant furnish Respondent 13 random samples selected
   by dividing the order into 13 equal sub-lots and selecting one
   sample from each. 1  The product was to be shipped complete by
   April 25, 1988.  (Rule 4 File, Tab A)  The product was
   produced and delivered by Appellant.  (Rule 4 File, Tabs C and
   D)  Thereafter, by letter, dated July 5, 1988, the C.O.
   advised Appellant's Ms. Debra Randazzo that an examination of
   samples had revealed the following defects:

GPO Contract Terms Supplemental Specifications-1. Quality
(missing tab dividers "Cancer Trends:  1950-1985")
GPO Contract Terms Supplemental Specifications-1. Quality
(duplicate tab dividers-other than specified-in wrong place
F-12:  Missing Pages
F-16:  Wrong Pagination  2

and that based on these results the order had been determined to
be rejectable and therefore was to be corrected at no additional
cost to the Government in strict accordance with the
specifications.  (Rule 4 File, Tab K)  Appellant reworked the
order and redelivered the products as directed.  However, an
examination of an additional 88 randomly selected samples by the
Department on July 14, 1988, (Rule 4 File, Tab L)  and an
additional 13 randomly selected samples by the Respondent on July
22, 1988, (Rule 4 File, Tab Q) revealed that the product was
still defective in the following particulars:

F-12:  Missing pages
F-16:  Wrong pagination (dup pgs)
Also noted - contract terms violations
Cartons not 200 p.s.t.
Cartons not packed solidly
Cartons have contractor's name printed on outside
Several cartons did not have shipping label

Accordingly, the C.O., with the concurrence of the GPO Contract
Review Board, terminated the contract for partial default,
advising Appellant that the same or similar items terminated were
subject to  reprocurement with Appellant liable for any excess
costs associated with such action.  (Rule 4 File, Tabs R-U)
Appellant thereafter appealed to this Board as follows:

. . . We corrected all the above mentioned and with all the
checking and double checking we did, I can not [sic] see where
these books were still wrong.  We corrected the errors and then
inspected each book page by page to verify that the book was
correct, this inspecting was done by the bindery dept. manager
and 1st and 2nd shift assistant managers exclusively.  We then
reshipped the 1130 reworked books to Columbia, MD and 80 to
Silver Springs [sic], MD as attached copies will show.  On August
12, 1988 we were contacted saying they rejected 1210 books form
[sic] the Columbia, MD office--we reworked only 1130 form [sic]
this paticular [sic] place, the other 80 we reworked were from
Silver Springs [sic], MD.  I contacted Brenda Edwards at Silver
Springs [sic] MD who informed me that they still had there 80
books that Matthew's Printing reworked, she also stated that GPO
contacted her about defaulting the reworked books--in talking to
Jimmy Leonard he said 3 quality assurance officers went out to
inspect books at Columbia, MD, at no time was Silver Springs
[sic] checked.  I contend that the 1130 form [sic] Columbia, MD
that we reworked were not the ones they checked, they still had
other books that were'nt [sic] available for us to repair.  I do
not believe we should have to pay the $14,042.75.  We have the
books in house and went through 10 random cartons and could not
find any mistakes.  We would like in addition to the 14,042.75,
our record cleared for a default on these books and any interest
the board deems appropriate on the amount listedabove [sic], also
our cost in presenting this dispute.

   Respondent, by ANSWER of February 6, 1989, denied Appellant's
   allegation that the products which were reinspected were not
   in fact products which it had reworked.  Respondent furnished
   copies of shipping records and cited evidence already existing
   in the record to support its position that they in fact were
   reworked randomly selected copies.  The case comes before the
   Board for decision in this form.


   A careful review of the entire record by the Board failed to
   disclose any probative evidence to support Appellant's
   allegation.  Indeed, as accurately represented by Respondent
   in its ANSWER, there is clear evidence that the HHS inspection
   was of 88 reworked books supplied by Appellant.  Shipping
   receipts furnished by Respondent show that Appellant returned
   1140 reworked books to Biospherics, Inc., Columbia, MD, in
   three shipments.  The first shipment was of 36 boxes and was
   received on July 8, 1988.  The second was of 48 boxes and was
   received on July 13, 1988.  The third was of 31 boxes and was
   received on July 14, 1988.  Each box in each shipment
   contained 10 reworked books.  (Respondent's ANSWER,
   Attachments 1, 2, and 3)  Seventy-two (72) of such books (2
   books from each box from the first shipment) were sent by
   Biospherics to HHS in Silver Spring, MD, where they were
   inspected together with 16 reworked books (2 from 8 boxes of
   10 received directly by HHS from Appellant) and found to be
   defective.  (Rule 4 File, Tab N, Page 2)  Moreover, the July
   22, 1988, inspection report by Respondent's Quality Assurance
   Inspector (Rule 4 File, Tab Q) shows that the additional 13
   samples upon which a decision to reject the reworked product
   was based were randomly selected from unopened boxes in the
   second and third shipments of reworked books returned by
   Appellant to Columbia, MD.


   Since Appellant's allegation is completely specious, the Board
   concludes that there is no genuine dispute among the parties
   concerning a material issue of fact and no need for a hearing.
   Accordingly, the Board dismisses the appeal with prejudice,
   upon the written record, for failure to state a claim upon
   which relief can be granted.  The decision of the Contracting
   Officer is thus affirmed.

   It is so Ordered.


1 The sample size of 13 was derived from the multiple sampling
plan specified in "Table X-H-2-SAMPLING PLANS FOR SAMPLE SIZE

2 The GPO Inspection Report supporting this information is at Tab
G, Rule 4 File.