JAY E. EISEN, Chairman
Panel 79-4

November 5, 1979

This is an appeal filed by the Veitch Printing Corporation, 1812
Hempstead Road, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601, hereinafter
referred to as the contractor, on May 21, 1979, under the
"Disputes" clause of the contract, Jacket 274-544, Purchase Order
70352, Article 29, U.S. Government Printing Office Contract Terms
No. 1, Revised, July 15, 1970.  The Board of Contract Appeals is
the Public Printer's representative for the determination of
appeals under the "Disputes" clause.

The appeal came before the Board on August 29, 1979, following a
decision of the contracting officer on May 8, 1979, to terminate
for default Jacket No. 274-544, following the rejection by the
Government Printing Office of the printed matter based on an
inspection of a random sampling which revealed poor match of the
furnished transparency, printing not in register, and excessive
ink causing loss of detail.

The contractor requested an informal hearing pursuant to
paragraph 13, GPO Instruction 110.10, June 6, 1979.  This
procedure consists of a written submission and an informal
hearing before the Board.  The purpose of such a hearing
generally is not to serve for introduction of new matter but to
permit explanations and/or argument regarding written matters
already in the record.  Consequently, no transcript of the
proceedings was prepared.

The decision of the Board is based upon information contained in
the appeal file, supporting explanations and argument regarding
written matters in the record and Exhibit ''A-l" through "A-68"
consisting of 68 random samples of the form, "Landsat Image 'A',
San Francisco."  In addition the attached proofs were made
available for inspection.  Mr. Boyer L. Veitch appeared for the
appellant, and Mr. James Lane, Office of General Counsel,
appeared for the contracting officer.  The contractor submitted a
closing statement dated September 25, 1979.

Findings of Fact

a.  This case arises out of a contract entered into by the
contractor, and the U.S. Government Printing Office, hereinafter
referred to as the GPO, for the production of a quantity of
75,000 forms, "separate face and back forms printing back in 4
color process and face in black only."  The form is titled
"Landsat Image 'A', San Francisco."

b.  The contract, designated as GPO Jacket No. 274-544, is a
fixed price agreement for the procurement of the forms, awarded
at a cost of $2,330 on October 13, 1978.  The total cost amounted
to $4,660, based on the invitation for bids for strapped jackets
Nos. 274-544 and 274-545 at a cost of $2,330 for each jacket.
Jacket No. 274-545 is not an issue in connection with this

c.  Jacket No. 274-544 is a requirement of the United States
Department of Interior, Geological Survey.  The shipping date of
November 17, 1978, was extended to February 7, 1979, by a change
order due to a delay by the Government in returning proofs.
Shipment of the items by the contractor was scheduled for
delivery to the U.S. Geological Survey, Distribution Center, 604
South Pickett Street, Alexandria, Virginia.

d.  The specifications issued on September 30, 1978 included the
following provisions:

"In accepting this contract the contractor specifically agrees to
all the provisions of GPO Form 198, U.S. Government Printing
Office Contract Terms No. 1, approved July 1, 1943 (Rev. 7-15-70)
and GPO Form 2459D, Special Terms and Conditions (Rev. 8-78)
which are hereby made an integral part of this contract except
where in conflict with these specifications.  A copy of GPO Form
2459D will be furnished to the successful bidder.

. . .

"Offset Printing:  Head to head, face side in black only and back
in 4 color process, exact register.  Contractor to select inks to
faithfully match the full color film transparencies to be

Subject Matter:  Both items contain a halftone illustration.Plus
typematter on face sides and a.full color illustration on the
back (Item 1. also contains black typematter on back). 1

". . .Clean, sharp, highest quality printing, exact register a
faithful match of the full color transparencies to be furnished
and with full, even ink coverage and reproduction quality
required throughout.  See GPO Form 2459D 'WORKMANSHIP'."

"Proofs:  Submit 1 set of color key (3M or similar) proofs for
each item.  Submit proofs, together with materials furnished for
approval before printing, to the Government Printing Office, . .

"Note:  The contractor is cautioned that these proofs must be
made from the films as used for this printing.  See hereinbefore
under 'OFFSET PRINTING' for quality of reproduction required."

THE BASIC SPECIFICATIONS) incorporated into the contract by
reference provides, in part, the following:

"WORKMANSHIP:  All workmanship in connection with the article or
product manufactured under these specifications must be first
class in every respect.

"All operations required such as imposition, press makeready,
press running, and binding must be performed with care to insure
that (1) the printing on the article or product delivered will be
good, clear, and sharp, with full and uniform ink coverage, free
from filled or broken letters, grayness, or pinpoints in the
printing, or other imperfections; . . .''

f.  The customer agency, Department of the Interior, Geological
Survey, upon taking a random sampling throughout the delivered
finished product of Jacket 274-544 concluded on March 21, 1979
that the stock had major defects in the quality of printing, as
related to the color image on the flyer on the backside.  The
Geological Survey rejected two sets of proofs until finally a
cromalin proof looked close enough to the original that it could
be approved for printing with further instructions to bring out
detail and match transparency.  Reprinting at the contractor's
expense was recommended.

g.  On April 30, 1979, the contracting officer by letter rejected
the forms produced by the contractor based on an inspection of a
random sampling which revealed poor match of furnished
transparency, printing not in register, and excessive ink causing
lack of detail.  The contractor responded on May 4, 1979, to the
effect that the rejection was unwarranted; that based "upon your
requirements calling for cromalin proofs rather than progressives
and based upon the industry-wide acknowledged problem of
separating transparencies created from ultraviolet lighting, we
contend that our reproduction was craftsmanlike and fully

h.  Mr. Emanuel Fontana, Typography and Design (GPO), upon review
of the random samples on July 11, 1979, recommended rejection of
the job, "Landsat Image Flyer'', for the following reasons:

1.  Inconsistency of ink flow thickness causing a variance of

2.  Overpacking of the black plate or blanket causing a loss of

3.  Ink was run too heavy in all colors causing a bridging of
dots which resulted in loss of detail

i.  On May 8, 1979, the contracting officer's final decision
terminating the contract for default was transmitted to the
appellant.  This was supplanted by a notice of termination on
June 20, 1979.

j.  The contractor responded by a written appeal to the Public
Printer dated May 21, 1979, that it would not reprint the form
without assurances that any additional costs would be reimbursed
by the GPO.  He reiterated in part that since the specifications
called for a "3M or similar non-press proof," industry practice
interprets such a requirement as meaning that something less than
the highest quality match is expected to be produced.  He states
that cromalin proofs were resubmitted which was marked by the
customer agency for more color intensity and detail.  The
contractor contends that no request was made by the customer
agency to visit the plant to approve the first full color sheets,
a practice normally engaged when high quality, process printing
is required.  The contractor interpreted this failure by GPO as
an absence of a request for a press proof as being evidence that
the maximum fidelity of reproduction of the transparency was not
required or expected.

Discussion and Conclusion

Having recited the operative facts in this case, the Board now
focuses on the question of the propriety of the decision by the
contracting officer to terminate Jacket 274-544 for default
following the rejection by GPO of the printed matter based on an
inspection of a random sampling which revealed poor match of the
furnished transparency, printing not in register, and excessive
ink causing lack of detail; the contractor was requested to
replace the rejected copies at no additional costs to the
Government in accordance with the terms of the contract, but
refused to do so which gave rise to this appeal.

The appellant's arguments are summarized in its post hearing
statement of September 25, 1979.  The contractor at the outset
argues that they proceeded to produce the work in accordance with
the specifications but were surprised that press proofs were not
required, nor inspection at the site of early production run
sheets for last minute modification so as to more closely match
the transparencies.  The contractor argues additionally that the
GPO printing technician at the conference proved with his
densitometer that the reading of ink thickness and the reading of
some of the random samples of the flyer revealed that his
densitometer readings were within 5 or 10 points of one another.
The appellant contends that color drift is a common occurrence in
offset printing and that one person's eyes may see things
differently from others.  The fact that the flyer was intended
for issuance to the public and that the recipient would see only
one copy without an opportunity for comparison to see the minor
variance that exists from the worst to the best flyer is a factor
that should have been considered as far as acceptance of the
product.  With regard to the criticism by the Government of
''poor match of furnished transparency," the appellant asserts
that they followed the directives on the proofs; in regard to the
complaint that "printing [is] not in register''; it is argued
that the register was well within industry standards and that as
to "excessive ink" as a complaint, the densitometer readings
indicated otherwise.

The Government contends that the appellant's products were not in
compliance with the strict requirements of the contract.  There
were at least two inspections of the random samples of the flyer
by representatives of the customer agency and GPO.  Later
rejection inspection was made by Mr. Emanuel Fontana of the
Typography and Design Division.  The contracting officer asserts
that the printed matter delivered based on the inspection of the
random samples disclosed that the subject matter failed to comply
with the specifications in that it revealed poor match of the
furnished transparency, printing not in register, and excessive
ink causing lack of detail and that since the deficiencies were
not corrected by the contractor he was justified under the terms
of the contract to terminate the contract under the "Default"

It is undisputed that under the provisions of the contract, even
though the contractor may deliver the items to be furnished on
the scheduled delivery date, he may still be terminated for
default if the items do not meet contract specifications.  The
question frequently raised in connection with this requirement is
whether the contractor must strictly comply with the
specifications or is substantial compliance or completion

It is believed that under the terms of the contract provided in
part in Article 9, United States Government Printing Office
Contract Terms No. l, which requires under Workmanship that good
quality workmanship in every respect is required and in GPO Form
2459D Special Terms and Conditions (Supplemental to the Basic
Specifications) which calls for workmanship in connection with
the item manufactured under the specifications to be first class
in every respect, we interpret that the doctrine of strict
compliance be followed as to the specifications in this contract.

The specifications required "clear, sharp, highest quality
printing, exact register a faithful match of the full, color
transparencies to be furnished and with full even ink coverage
and reproduction quality required throughout."  It is apparent
that under the terms of the specifications, the Government had a
right to insist upon strict compliance with these specifications.

The Government contends there is ample evidence based on the
random sampling that the flyer copies are defective because of
poor match of the furnished transparency, printing not in
register, and excessive ink causing lack of detail.  In
considering the evidence the Board carefully and thoroughly
compared the random samples of the form "Landsat Image 'A', San
Francisco'', Exhibits ''A-1'' through "A-68" with the revised
proof marked "O.K. to print after correction -- bring out detail
in MTS'', and concluded that the forms are not a faithful match
of the proof.  The deviations compared to what appears on the
proof are clearly patent and visible.

The contentions of the appellant in his brief and correspondence
in the file were seriously considered including the comments that
the contractor was surprised that GPO did not require press
proofs in the specifications since such a requirement normally
assures maximum fidelity of color match.  It was not provided in
the contract, but the contractor by bidding on the terms as
advertised, warranted that it was ready, willing and capable of
producing a first class item strictly in compliance with the
specifications as written.  We believe that the specifications
were clear and they were not lived up to.  The Government had a
right to obtain what it contracted for and it did not receive it.

Accordingly, in reviewing all the evidence that has been
presented and after considering all of the arguments, the Board

1.   The default termination was proper.

2.  The appeal is denied.

1  Item 1 relates to Jacket 274-544

2  GPO Contract Terms No. 1 and GPO Form 2459D are both
incorporated by reference in the contract.