United States Government Printing Office
Contract Appeals Board

Contractor's Appeal dated July 5, 1983
Decision dated November 4, 1983

CAB Panel 83-6
Thomas O. Magnetti, Chairman
John A. Tanner, Charlie Peel, Members

Preliminary Statement

   Total Printing Services (hereafter the contractor) has
   appealed the decision of the Contracting Officer to terminate
   for default its contract (Purchase Order 81966) with the
   United States Government Printing Office (GPO).  The
   contractor appealed this decision in accordance with the
   "Disputes" clause of the the contract.  Article 2-3, Contract
   Terms No. 1, GPO Publication 310.2, revised October 1, 1980.
   The contractor in its appeal maintains that the work was
   accepted by the Government.  Exhibit 21 of the Appeal File.

   The GPO Contract Appeals Board has jurisdiction over this
   appeal pursuant to GPO Instruction 110.10B, entitled "Board of
   Contract Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedure" and Contact
   Terms No. 1, supra.  As the contractor was given the
   opportunity to have its appeal heard at an informal hearing
   but did not so request, this decision is based solely on the
   record, an Appeal File containing the 25 exhibits.

Statement of Facts

1.) The contract at issue called for the printing and binding of
1000 copies of the Chemline workbook.  Exhibit 3.  Each workbook
contained a colored cover, an insert and textual matter and was
to be produced from camera copy furnished by the Government.  Id.
As this contractor provided the lowest, responsive bid, it was
awarded the contract by issuance of Purchase Order 81966, dated
April 20, 1983.  Exhibits 2 and 3.  The Purchase Order set out
the qualitative level that the work would have to attain in order
to comply with the standards for this type of work.  Exhibit 3.
These standards are set out in the Quality Assurance Through
Attributes (QATA) Program (GPO Publication 310.1).  Exhibit 25.
Although the contract was with the GPO, the contractor was
required to ship the workbooks to the Department of Health &
Human Services (HHS).  Exhibits 1 and 3.

2.) The original delivery date was May 4, 1983.  However, as the
contractor did not receive camera-ready copy of the cover until
April 28, 1983, an extension on the delivery date was granted.
Exhibits 5 and 6.  The documents were shipped on May 9 and
received by HHS on May 19, 1983.  Exhibits 7 and 22.

3.) HHS inspected a random sample of the documents.  It
determined from this inspection that the books were of poor
quality.  Exhibits 9 and 12.  Following receipt of HHS'
complaint, the GPO Quality Control and Technical Department
inspected thirteen books and determined that there were defects
in the uniformity and quality of the type and in the color match.
Exhibit 10.  The documents also failed to meet the standards set
for extraneous marks.  Id. Their report indicated that the work
should be rejected by the GPO and reprinted by the contractor.
Id. The job was rejected on May 23, 1983.  Exhibit 17.  The
contractor was informed of the results of the inspection and was
directed to reprint and redeliver by June 7, 1983.  Exhibit 11.

4.) The contractor did reprint the documents and delivered them
on June 6, 1983.  An inspection of a random sample of this
printing indicated that the reprinted product was as defective as
the first printing.  Exhibit 13.  This printing was rejected on
June 7, 1983.  Exhibit 17.

5.) The GPO telephonically communicated its dissatisfaction with
the poor quality of the contractor's work.  Exhibit 15.  The
record indicates that at that time the contractor asked to be
defaulted.  Id. The GPO proceeded with the termination for
default based upon the inability of the contractor to produce a
satisfactory product.  Exhibits 17 and 19.  The contractor was
notified of this decision by letter dated June 24, 1983.  Exhibit

6.) The contractor appealed this default termination by letter
dated July 5, 1983, arguing that the agency (HHS) had accepted
the job.  Exhibit 21.  The contractor claimed that it had
requested that samples be returned and the books be held for
pickup.  Id.  The contractor then alleged that the samples were
not sent and the job not made available and that these actions
constituted acceptance by the agency.  Id.

7.) The Government maintains that Miriam Perkins, an employee of
HHS, packed the defective books up and delivered them to the
loading dock in order that they could be picked up by the
contractor.  Exhibit 23.  Since, the documents had not been
picked up by June 30, 1983, the HHS had the workbooks destroyed.

Applicable Contract Provisions

2-12. Inspection and Tests
(a) All supplies . . . shall be subject to inspection and test by
the Government, to the extent practicable at all times and places
including the period of manufacture, and in any event prior to

(b) In case any supplies or lots of supplies are defective in
materials or manufacture or otherwise not in conformity with the
requirements of the contract, the GPO shall have the right either
to reject them (with or without instructions as to their
disposition) or to require their correction.  Supplies or lots of
supplies which have been rejected or required to be corrected
shall be removed . . . by and at the expense of the contractor
promptly after notice, and shall not thereafter be tendered for
acceptance unless the former rejection or requirement of
correction is disclosed.  If the contractor fails to promptly
remove such supplies or lots of supplies which are required to be
removed, or to promptly replace or correct such supplies or lots
of supplies the GPO . . . may terminate the contract for default
as provided in the article entitled "Default'' of these contract
terms. . . .

2-18. Default
(a) The Government may . . . by written notice of default to the
contractor, terminate the whole or any part of the contract in
any one of the following circumstances:
(1) If the contractor fails to make delivery of the supplies or
to perform the services within the time specified herein or any
extension thereof; or
(2) If the contractor fails to perform any of the other
provisions of the contract, or so fails to make progress as to
endanger performance of the contract in accordance with its
terms, and in either of these two circumstances does not cure
such failure within a period of 10 days (or such other period as
the Contracting Officer may determine to be reasonable and
authorize in writing) after receipt of notice from the
Contracting Officer specifying such failure.


   The evidence of record indicates that the contractor never
   delivered goods that were in conformance with the terms of the
   contract.  Inspection of the printed material indicated that
   the product was defective and substandard.  This failure to
   provide a conforming product permitted the GPO to reject the
   goods and require their correction.  See Article 2-12, supra.
   The contractor was given an opportunity to correct the
   defects.  However, it again provided defective books that did
   not conform with the standards established in the QATA program
   for this level of printing.  The results of these inspections
   have not been challenged by the contractor.  Confronted with
   the contractor's inability to supply a conforming product
   within the time allotted under the contract or any extension
   thereof, the GPO terminated the contract for default.
   Articles 2-12 and 2-18, supra. Moreover, there is evidence in
   the record that indicates that the contractor may have
   acquiesced to this course of action.  Exhibit 15.  Given the
   above set of facts, this Board finds the termination of this
   contract to be appropriate.

The contractor now claims that HHS, by its actions, accepted the
books.  Exhibit 21.  There is no indication in the record that
there was any act of acceptance on the part of either HHS or the
GPO.  The second printing was delivered on June 6, 1983.  A
representative sample was inspected the next day. Exhibits 13 and
17.  The record indicates that the shipment was rejected
immediately after the inspection had taken place.  Exhibit 17.
On June 8, 1983, the defective books were packed up and delivered
to the HHS loading dock to be picked up by the contractor.
Exhibit 23.  The contractor was contacted telephonically on June
9, 1983, concerning a possible default.  Exhibit 15.  The GPO
moved formally to default the contractor on June 24, 1983.
Exhibit 19.  These actions do not indicate acceptance of the
tendered product.  The rejection of the second shipment and
default occurred so soon after delivery that it would be
unreasonable for the contractor to believe that acceptance of the
nonconforming product had taken place.  There is no evidence of
record that would indicate that HHS took any actions that might
have constituted acceptance.  See Exhibits 22 and 23.

The contractor alleges in its appeal that, despite its request,
the shipment was not held by HHS for pick-up by the contractor.
The evidence of record indicates otherwise.  The defective goods
were made available to the contractor.  Exhibit 23.  It is the
contractor's responsibility under the contract to make suitable
arrangements to remove the rejected items.  Article 2-12, supra.
Since the contractor has submitted no proof that it was prevented
from retrieving the rejected books, the Board finds that the
Government acted appropriately in disposing of books after their


Based upon the foregoing analysis, the decision of the
Contracting Officer to terminate this contract for default is
affirmed.  Accordingly, the contractor's appeal is denied in its