U.S. Government Printing Office
Office of the General Counsel
Contract Appeals Board

Appeal of Kaufman DeDell Printing, Inc.
April 27, 1976

Vincent T. McCarthy, Chairman
J.E. Eisen, Member
Robert M. Diamond, Member
Panel 76-3

Mrs. Mary H. DeDell, President
Kaufman DeDell Printing, Inc.
812 North State Street
P.O. Box 186
Syracuse, New York  13208

This is to acknowledge receipt of delivery on February 26, 1976,
of an envelope containing many items, facsimiles of a stereotyped
letter all purporting to be written appeals addressed to the
Public Printer.

All of the items indicate that they are filed pursuant to Article
29, United States Government Printing Office Contract Terms No.
1, incorporated by reference as an integral part of each of the
respective contracts.

Actually, however, the items consist of the following:

(1)  14 appeals pursuant to said Article 29, the Jacket Numbers
and dates of decision letters of the Contracting Officers being
as follows:

   Jacket Number   Date of Contracting Officer's Letters

   1 - 504-166   November 4, 1975
   2 - 505-732   December 12, 1975
   3 - 530-547   October 31, 1975
   4 - 418-060   December 15, 1975
   5 - 529-963   November 3, 1975
   6 - 527-235   November 26, 1975
   7 - 502-673   March 27, 1975
   8 - 521-337   March 29, 1975
   9 - 527-777   October 31, 1975
   10 - 528-325   December 12, 1975
   11- 506-548   December 15, 1975
   12- 527-839   November 4, 1975
   13- 523-092   November 3, 1975
   14- 517-890   March 25, 1974

(2)  Two items concerned accord and satisfaction (Jacket 518-610
and 503-676);

(3)  One item was a Contract Appeal Board decision which was
final.  (Jacket 502-253);

(4)  Four items which referred to printing programs but failed to
state the specific print orders involved and, therefore, it is
impossible to act on these items because of lack of
identification of the print orders;

(5)  One item which referred to Program 270-S in connection with
which an appeal is presently under consideration by the Contract
Appeals Board; and

(6)  One item claiming extra expense because of inferior quality.
(Jacket 509-323)

We will now consider each of the above categories.

(1)  Article 29, the "disputes article" of the contract provides
in pertinent part as follows:

   ". . . any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under
   this contract which is not disposed or by agreement shall be
   decided by the Contracting Officer, who shall reduce his
   decision to writing and mail or otherwise furnish a copy
   thereof to the Contractor.  The decision of the Contracting
   Officer shall be final and conclusive unless within 30 days
   from the date of receipt of such copy, the contractor mails or
   otherwise furnishes to the Contracting Officer a written
   appeal addressed to the Public Printer."

The records of the Contracting Officer relating to the
identifying Jacket Numbers presented indicate that your initial
appeals to the Contracting Officers were decided by those
officers and transmitted to you via the U.S. Postal Service.  The
Jacket Numbers and the dates of the decision letters are listed

The immediate question affecting the listed numbered contracts
(Jackets) is the timeliness of your notices of appeal.  Although
they are not specifically dated, the Federal Express Shipping
ticket on your envelope was dated February 24, 1976, and our
records reflect that the shipment arrived at the Government
Printing Office mail room on February 26, 1976.  It is apparent,
therefore, that all of your appeal letters relating to the said
numbered jackets are patently untimely.  A Contracting Officer's
determination is considered final and conclusive unless an appeal
is lodged within the 30 day period set out in the "Disputes"
clause.  We find that upon a review of our records, including the
matters submitted in your letters, no facts or circumstances
justify extending or waiving the appeal times until February 26,
1976.  In view of the foregoing, the said fourteen appeals are

(2)  The records pertaining to Jacket 5118-610 reflect that your
firm, upon furnishing and delivering to the Government the
publication TM9-2330-213-14, Government checks in the amount of
$6,633.50, dated November 16, 1973, and $315 dated December 11,
1973, were issued and mailed to you in full payment, accord and
satisfaction for your services in compliance with the terms of
the contract.

The records pertaining to Jackets 503-676 show that your firm,
upon furnishing and delivering the publication, U.S. Army
Training Circular, was paid for the services the sum of $2,667,
on November 2, 1973.  The Government check was negotiated and you
retained the proceeds without any word of dissent, claim or
appeal.  We, therefore, are of the view that a valid accord and
satisfaction has been consummated in that case.

(3)  A decision by the Contract Appeals Board in reference to
Jacket No. 502-253 was issued and transmitted to your address in
Syracuse, New York, on December 11, 1975.  Therefore, no further
appeal to the Government Printing Office can be entertained in
that matter.

(4)  Reference is made to your undated purported notices of
appeal relating to the following numbered Programs:  414-M, 1330-
S, 519-S, and 28-S.  You failed to make reference to any specific
print orders in your notices of appeal as part of the above
styled Programs.  We, therefore, regret that we cannot consider
these matters at this time.  In the event that you desire to
submit timely notices of appeal, including the basis of your
appeals, with the inclusion of identifying severable print orders
issued as part of the above numbered programs, we will consider
them on their merits.

(5)  With respect to your item referring to Program 270-S, we
cannot identify whether or not it is the same item presently
being considered by the Contract Appeals Board in connection with
that Program 270-S and, therefore, can take no action on that

(6)  The records pertaining to Jacket 509-323 refer to a claim by
your firm, dated January 29, 1974, in the amount of $100 for
extra work because of your allegation that the Buckram cloth
furnished by GPO was of inferior quality; and that extra
handwork, dies, and stamping were necessary.  The Contracting
Officer denied your claim upon having the sample of the Ruby
Buckram tested.  The laboratory tests revealed that the material
furnished to you was not substandard as claimed, but equal to the
specifications.  There were no written appeals to the Contracting
Officer on this matter and an appeal now would be untimely.