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

Appeal of Harbor Printing & Copy Service, Inc.
Jacket 229-626: Program, 404-M, Print Order 67
November 4, 1977

Vincent T. McCarthy, Chairman
Samuel Sooper, Member
Jay E. Eisen, Member
Panel 77-5

Appellant was party to a multiple award term contract for the
printing and binding of legal briefs.  On February 23, 1977,
appellant was awarded Print Order No. 67 under this contract to
produce a brief for the United States Justice Department. On
March 2, 1977, the contracting officer sent appellant a
termination notice on this print order, stating that it was
"terminated for default by reason of your inability to produce
and deliver this brief by the scheduled deadline."  This appeal
followed, the contractor contending that the lack of timely
performance was due to the Government's negligent failure to
inform it as to when the brief was due.

Both sides submitted material supporting their positions for a
decision on the record.  The Board found it necessary to seek
further information and on October 12, 1977, issued a Request for
Supplementary Information to the contracting officer.  On October
18, 1977, before the answer was due to this Request, the
contracting officer reevaluated his position and notified
appellant that the default was converted to a termination for the
convenience of the Government, U.S. Government Printing Office
Contract Terms No. 1, Article 16 (1970).

To the extent that the appellant was challenging the default
termination of the Print Order, the contracting officer's action
moots this appeal.  To the extent appellant seeks damages for
alleged breach of contract by the Government, this Board is
without jurisdiction.  United States v.  Utah Construction and
Mining Company, 384 U.S. 394 (1966).  There thus being no live
dispute before the Board, this appeal is dismissed.  See e.g.,
Wm. Green Construction Co., Inc., GSBCA, 68-1 BCA  6883 ;
William L. Warfield Construction Co., IBCA, 61-1 BCA  3045.
However, if a new dispute arises concerning the settlement under
the termination for convenience, the Board will naturally
consider it upon a timely appeal from a final decision by the
contracting officer.