PANEL 79-13

Appeal of F.C.L. Graphics, Incorporated

This is an appeal filed on February 16, 1979, by F.C.L. Graphics,
Incorporated (Appellant or F.C.L.) of 4626 N. Olcott Avenue,
Harwood Heights, Illinois  60656, under the "Disputes" clause
article 29, U.S. Government Printing Office Contract Terms No. 1,
as revised July 15, 1970, which is an integral part of the
contract between F.C.L., and the Government Printing Office (GPO)
for the printing of a brochure.

I.   Proceedings before the Board of Contract Appeals (the Board)

This decision is rendered pursuant to the procedures established
in GPO Instruction 110.10, dated June 6, 1979, a copy of which
was supplied to the Appellant by letter of July 18, 1979.  The
Appellant was at that time advised that it could request a
hearing before the Board or could elect to rely on written
submissions alone.  No response to this letter was ever received
by the GPO or the Board.  As a result, we have arrived at our
decision evaluating only the written and documentary material
submitted by the Contracting Officer and the Appellant which was
included in the Appeal File.

II.   Statement of facts

1.   On November 13, 1978, Appellant was awarded a contract by
GPO, Jacket No. 650-249, for the printing of 1,500 copies of a
four color process brochure for the Department of Energy (the
Department).  The contract specifications required "A-1 Quality."

2.   Page 3 of the specifications required the Appellant to
provide two sets of Cromalin or equal proofs of the covers and
text for approval before printing.  In this connection the
specifications further required that the Appellant notify the GPO
Contract Compliance Officer, Chicago Regional Printing
Procurement Office (RPPO), three (3) working days in advance of
the time of inspection.

In addition the Appellant was to notify the Contract Compliance
Officer, (RPPO), three working days in advance of expectation of
press run for inspection of quality conformance during actual
production at the contractor's plant.

3.   On December 5, 1978, representatives of the Department from
Argonne, Illinois, visited the subcontractor's plant to review
the Cromalin proofs.  They completed the inspection the same day
making various changes.  Neither F.C.L. nor the Department
notified the Chicago RPPO of any changes marked by the agency at
the time of proof inspection.

4.   On December 6, 1978, Mr. Arnold Stenvog, Chicago RPPO,
Contract Compliance Officer, telephoned Mr. Michael Keegan,
F.C.L. Production Supervisor.  Mr. Keegan advised Mr. Stenvog
that F.C.L. would be plating after making corrections and then go
to press.  No date or time of press run was provided to Mr.
Stenvog, although it appears no date was requested by Stenvog.

5.   On December 11, 1978, the Department contacted F.C.L. and
was advised the covers for the order were being printed and that
the text would be printed about 6:00 p.m. that day.  The
Department representative could not attend the press inspection
on that day because of insufficient prior notification, however,
F.C.L. proceeded to complete the press run.

6.   The order was subsequently rejected because of deficiencies
found in the printing.  The Department cited some 21 specific
complaints regarding the quality of the printed brochure.  These
complaints included color density, photographs out of register,
improper folding of pages, and loss of detail.

7.   In a letter to Appellant dated January 17, 1979, the Chicago
RPPO Manager conveyed his final decision to reprint the brochure
and hold the Department responsible for all charges for the
proofing, filming, and plating operations of the order and to
hold the Appellant responsible for the printing, binding, and
shipping operations.  This decision was appealed by F.C.L. in a
letter dated February 16, 1979.

III.   Appellant's Argument

1.   In a letter dated February 16, 1979, Mr. Nicholas J.
Vergoth, Vice President of F.C.L. contented that F.C.L. did
notify Mr. Stenvog that the film proofs were okayed and that
F.C.L. was plating and going directly to press.  F.C.L. further
contented that Mr. Stenvog acknowledged the report in his "usual
manner" and requested no further information.  F.C.L. contented
that Mr. Stenvog has done this in the past and that it has meant
to F.C.L. that the Government was not going to send a
representative to the press O.K..  F.C.L. further contended that
when the Government has wished to send a representative Mr.
Stenvog has requested dates and times.

2.   F.C.L. did not contest the determination that the quality of
the product was inadequate.

3.   No further communication, representation, or evidence was
provided by F.C.L. in the Appeal.

IV.   Position of the Government

1.   The contract was specific as to the prior notification
requirements for proof and press inspections.  The contract was
specific as to the requirement for proof at print location and
checking of press run.

V.   Opinion

A contract was entered into between a contractor and the GPO for
the printing of a brochure for the Department of Energy.  The
specification for the printing clearly required prior
notification of proof inspection and press inspection three days
in advance.  The specification required that this notification be
made to the Contract Compliance Officer, Chicago, RPPO.

It is unrefuted that the Appellant did not provide date and time
of press inspection tot he Chicago RPPO as required by the
contract.  The printing was subsequently rejected because of poor
quality, a result which might have been avoided if the Appellant
had adhered to the contract terms and given GPO proper
notification.  In this case the contract is clear as to
obligations of the Appellant.  It is clear that the Government is
entitled to strict compliance with specifications.  In Ideal
Restaurant Supply Co., Inc., VACAB No. 570, 67-1 BCA par. 6237 at
p. 28,847, the Board states:

"The Board must decide if Appellant was justified in not
following strictly the provisions of the specifications, relying
on custom and precedent, if the government was correct in
demanding exact compliance with the specifications.  Contracting
Officers have the right to insist upon strict compliance with
specifications."  Slingerland Drum Co., (6 CCF par. 61,830) ASBCA
2688; Farwell Company v. U.S., 137 C. Cls. 832; A.E. Minstein
Construction Co., VACAB-174 (June 27, 1950).

In the instant case, the specifications were clear and were not
lived up to.  The Appellant had an obligation to contact the
Contract Compliance Officer before the press run was started to
secure approval for that press run.  When the Appellant went
ahead on his own without such approval he did so at his peril.
The Government may reject the offered product and require the
product to be reprinted.  See, USGPO Contract Terms No. 1,
Article 13, Inspection and Tests.

VI.   Decision

The Appeal is denied.

Chairman, Panel 79-13


January 25, 1980