Neal Fine, Chairman
Richard R. Heroux, Member
John A. Shay, Member

Appeal of National Typesetting, Incorporated
Panel 80-12
April 7, 1981

I.  This decision concerns an appeal dated November 20, 1980, and
received by the GPO on December 3, 1980, concerning a May 1,
1980, decision of D. B. Logan, Contracting Officer, to terminate
for default a contract identified as Purchase Order 10501, Jacket

II.  Jurisdiction of Board

The jurisdiction of the Board of Contract Appeals was established
by GPO Instruction 110.10 (June 6, 1979).  These regulations
provide,  "The Board shall consider and determine appeals from
decisions of GPO contract officers made pursuant to provisions
contained in certain GPO contracts requiring the determinations
of appeals by the Public Printer or his duly authorized
representative.  In order to accomplish this, the Public Printer
hereby delegates to the Board, as his duly authorized
representative, his authority to make final administrative
determinations of appeals falling within the scope of this
authorization...."  The Regulations further provide that an
appeal from a decision of a contracting officer shall be mailed
or filed within thirty (30) calendar days from the receipt of the
contracting officer's decision, unless a different time is
provided in the contract.

III.  Findings of Fact

1.  On October 11, 1979, the appellant, National Typesetting,
Inc., submitted a bid on GPO Jacket Number 302-236.  The Bid Form
provided that all offers were subject to Government Printing
Office Contract Terms No. 1 in effect at the time the offer was
submitted.  Exhibit 3.

2.  On October 25, 1979, Contracting Officer MacBride accepted
the bid dated October 11, 1979, submitted by the appellant for
GPO Jacket Number 302-236.  The contract was for the composition
of a NOAA Professional Paper, Exhibit 5.

3.  On February 20, 1980, GPO Contracting Officer D. B. Logan
sent a telegram to the appellant which notified appellant that
the GPO was considering terminating the contract for Jacket
Number 302-236.  Exhibit 9.

4.  On May 1, 1980, the GPO Contracting Officer D. B. Logan
issued a telegram to the appellant which notified that the
contract identified as Purchase Order 10501, Jacket Number
302-236 was terminated for default because the contractor failed
to perform according to schedule.  The telegram further informed
the appellant that under the disputes clause of Contract Terms
No. 1 the decision would be final unless a written notice of
appeal was filed within ninety (90) days from the date of receipt
of this decision.  Exhibit 13.

5.  Appellant submitted an appeal by certified mail, Certificate
No. P094614451, dated November 20, 1980, to the GPO.  The
postmark on the appeal was dated December 2, 1980.  The appeal
was received by the GPO on December 3, 1980.

6.  On January 16, 1981, the Board received a Motion to Dismiss
from James Lane, Jr., counsel for the Contracting Officer.  The
Motion averred that the appeal should be dismissed by the Board
on the grounds that appeal was untimely.

IV.  Issues.Presented

The matter at hand presents two issues for adjudication.  First,
was the appeal by National Typesetting submitted in a timely
fashion in accordance with the provisions of GPO Contract Terms
No. 1.  Second, was the decision of the Contracting Officer

V.  Conclusions

The threshold issue to be decided by the Board is whether the
appeal was timely filed.  The language in the contract
specifically provides that decisions of a contracting officer are
final unless within ninety (90) days an appeal is filed with the
Public Printer. 1  The evidence presented to this Board indicates
that the final decision of the Contracting Officer was rendered
on May 1, 1980.  The appeal was deposited in the mail on December
2, 1980, and received on December 3, 1980.  The Board finds that
215 days elapsed between May 2, 1980, and December 2, 1980.  2

1  Article 3, Disputes.

2  In computing time, the day of the event is not counted.  GPO
Instruction 110.10.

In researching the law on the issue of timeliness of appeals, the
Board finds considerable support for the Motion to Dismiss filed
by the counsel for the contracting officer.  In the case of
Zisken Construction Co., ASBCA No. 6281, July 17, 1960, the Army
Appeals Panel ruled that an appeal was not valid which had been
prepared within the thirty day time limit, but not mailed until
after the expiration of the time limit.  The Panel held that the
failure to appeal within the thirty days terminates all right of
appeal created by the contract.  Likewise in the matter of
Giuliani Contracting Company, Inc., ASBCA No. 1060, March 12,
1964, the Board ruled that upon expiration of the appeal period
that the decision of the contracting officer is final.  Finally,
in the case of Unico Industrial Service & Engineering , ASBCA No.
22845, June 19, 1978, the Board affirmed its consistently held
principle that when an appeal is made after the expiration of the
filing period that it is not timely, and the Board has no
jurisdiction to consider the matter.

Accordingly, in view of the extraordinary amount of time which
elapsed between the notice of termination and the filing of the
appeal, the Board is constrained to grant the Motion to Dismiss
filed by the counsel for the contracting officer.  In view of
this finding, the Board finds that it does not have jurisdiction
to rule on the issue of the propriety of the termination which
was raised by the appellant.