U.S. Government Printing Office
Contract Appeals Board

Appeal.of Studio Printing, Inc.
Panel 84-8
February 24, 1986



   Studio Printing, Inc. (hereafter the contractor) has appealed
   the rejection by a Contracting Officer of the U.S. Government
   Printing Office (GPO) of a monetary claim for work performed
   under two print orders of Program A-589-S.  The contractor
   appealed the rejection of its claim in a timely fashion and in
   accordance with the "Disputes" clause of the contract.  See
   Article 2-3, Contract Terms No. 1, GPO Publication 310.2,
   revised October 1, 1980.  The contractor requested a hearing
   which was held on September 19, 1984.  At this hearing, the
   contractor argued that it had performed color operations for
   which it was not adequately compensated.

   In accordance with Contract Terms No. 1 and GPO Instruction
   110.10B, entitled "Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Practice
   and Procedure," the GPO Contract Appeals Board had
   jurisdiction over the matters raised in this appeal.  The
   decision of the Board is based solely on the appeal record
   which consists of the exhibits accepted into the record and
   the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing.  As agreed to
   by the parties, no transcript of the testimony was taken.


   1. By Purchase Order 27243, dated February 8, 1983, the GPO
   awarded the contract to produce a pamphlet entitled Army
   Logistician to the contractor.  Exhibit 7.

   2. The specifications for this contract required the
   contractor to produce the pamphlet with separate 4-color
   process covers.  Exhibit 2.  The operations included were
   composition, color separation, film making, printing, binding,
   packing, and distribution.  Section 4 of the specifications
   required that each prospective bidder provide a price which
   would include the cost of all required materials and
   operations for each item listed.

   3. According to the specifications, an illustration charge was
   allowed for an element that was not furnished in position on
   the Government furnished material and/or required a separate
   exposure.  The price quoted had to include the cost of all
   proofs, materials, and operations required to produce the
   illustration in its final form as an integral part of the
   basic trim/size film.  Exhibit 2, p. 14.  Timework was defined
   as operations which could not be properly classified under any
   other item.  The GPO reserved the right to determine the
   acceptable amount of time to be allowed for such charges. Id.

   4. According to these specifications, each bidder was directed
   to provide a price per set of flat tones, duotone halftones
   and Color Corrected Four-color Process films of Illustrations.
   The contractor bid on those items as follows:

(b) Line   per illustration   $3.00
(c) Square-finish halftone   per illustration   $6.00
(d) Combination line and halftone   per illustration   $12.00
(e) To 25 sq. in. image   per set   $125.00
(f) Over 25 to 50 sq. in. image   per set   $125.00
(g) Over 50 to 75 sq. in. image   per set   $150.00
(h) Over 75 to 100 sq. in. image   per set   $150.00
(i) Each additional sq. in. over 100 sq. inches   per set   $2.00

Exhibit 4.

   5. The list of bidders indicated that although the contractor
   was the lowest overall responsive bidder, other contractors
   provided lower bids on the operations priced in the items set
   out in Finding No. 4.  Exhibit 5.

   6. In September 1983 and again in November 1983, the
   contractor complained that it had performed work on Print
   Orders 502 and 503 for which it had submitted invoices for
   payment but had not been paid.  Exhibits 10 and 11.

   7. By letters dated November 9 and 26, 1983, respectively, the
   contractor's claims for four combination line and halftone
   illustrations for the pamphlet covers for Print Orders 502 and
   503 were denied by the contracting officer.  Exhibits 12 and

   8. By letter dated January 24, 1984, the contractor appealed
   the denial of its claims, arguing that it had to perform
   operations connected with four color process printing for
   which it was not being compensated under the contract.
   Exhibit 1.  This work was in fact being performed for the
   contractor by subcontractors.

   9. By letter dated September 25, 1984, the contractor
   submitted the amount in dispute.  The contractor claimed that
   while it cost $442.15 to produce the cover for Print Order
   502, it was compensated only $177.00 by the GPO.  In regards
   to the cover for Print Order 503, the contractor contended
   that its costs were $495.00 but that it was paid only $175.50
   by the GPO.  According to the contractor, its total claim
   for.these two Print Orders was $584.65.


   The issue to be resolved in this appeal is whether the
   contractor should have factored into its bid price the cost of
   color processing operations which the contractor claims it
   performed but for which the contractor was not compensated.

   In its appeal, the contractor has alleged that in producing
   the color work on the cover for Print Orders 502 and 503, the
   contractor was required to perform operations which should
   have been considered "timework" and billed separately from the
   work billed under the specific Illustration items set out in
   the specifications.  At the hearing, the Government contended
   that the specifications, if properly interpreted, required a
   prospective bidder to submit a bid for the Illustration items
   which would include the costs for all operations required to
   produce the illustration in its final form.  Further,
   according to Paul Barlow, the Government's witness, to permit
   the contractor to charge this work under timework would in
   effect allow the contractor to bill the Government twice for
   the same operation.

   The contract clearly provided that the bid price for
   illustrations should include the cost of all proofs,
   materials, and operations required to produce the illustration
   in its final form.  The operations which were performed by the
   contractor or its subcontractor were operations which were
   required to produce the cover in its final form.  As these
   operations could be classified under the illustration item
   charges, they cannot be construed as "timework." The
   specifications were clear enough to put a reasonably prudent
   bidder on notice of what a bid for an illustration item should

   Therefore, based upon the evidence of record, this Board rules
   that the contract required all bidders to include in their
   bids the cost of all operations necessary to produce the
   illustration in its final form.  Consequently, the contractor
   was bound by its bid for these items.  Accordingly, the
   contractor's appeal is denied in its entirety.