U.S. Government Printing Office Board of Contract Appeals Panel 1-79 Drew Spalding, Chairman Robert W. Armentrout, Member Joe W. Sapp, Member Appeal of Crystal-Date Watch Calendar Company September 28, 1979 This appeal was filed on March 27, 1978, by Crystal-Date Watch Calendar Company, 690 West Freemont Boulevard, Box 2277, Sunnyvale, California 94087, to the assessment of liquidated damages in the amount of $126.00 on GPO Jacket No. 759-385. The decision herein was reached pursuant to the Board of Contract Appeals rules of practice and procedure established in U.S. Government Printing Office Instruction 110.10 dated June 6, 1979. Course of Dealings Based on the written submissions of the contracting officer and appellant, the following sequence of dealings can be established. On December 8, 1977, Mr. Charles Baker, an employee of the Columbus Regional Printing Procurement Office of the Government Printing Office (GPO), acting on behalf of the contracting officer, solicited quotations from Mr. Arnold Buckendorf, Sales Manager, of Crystal-Date Watch Calendar Company (appellant) for the production of 7,000 watch calendars with an overall trim size of 3-3/4" x 3-1/2" to be used for promotional advertising by an army ROTC unit at Fort Knox, Kentucky (user agency). A critical portion of this conversation is somewhat in dispute. The contracting officer maintains that Mr. Baker asked for the appellant's quotation and pointed out a change in the overall size in layout from a previous GPO purchase from the appellant. The contracting officer asserts that Mr. Baker asked Mr. Buckendorf "specifically" whether the different layout size would be a problem, and Mr. Buckendorf replied that there was "no problem." (Contracting Officer's statement, dated March 28, 1978.) The appellant has submitted the statement of Mr. Buckendorf, wherein he states in part: "During this phone call at no time did I promise on behalf of [appellant] to supply any calendars other than our standard size calendar with custom imprint. The copy for the custom imprint was to be in the GPO specification. "During the phone call, I called to Mr. Baker's attention that we had supplied these calendars previously and that if the imprint copy were to be changed, this would pose 'no problem'." (Statement dated April 20, 1978.) (Emphasis in original.) 1 On the same day as the telephone solicitation, December 8, 1977, Mr. Buckendorf wrote to Mr. Baker as follows: "Re: Your Jacket Number 759-385 7,000 Crystal-Date watch calendars same size as previous order. January 1978 calendar starts, black calendars with red imprint per copy to be submitted. 7,000 $0.15 each (delivered) Artwork to be submitted by December 12, 1977. Shipping date: December 27, 1977." (Appeal File (AF), Exh. 3(b).) Purchase Order No. H1361 was executed at the Columbus Office dated December 9, 1977. The "Description" portion of this purchase order reads: "Labels, 'Watch Calendar' . . . " . . . In strict accordance with your telephone quotation Dated December 8, and our specifications." (AF, Tab 3(a).) The specifications and a proof copy of the layout were enclosed with the purchase order which was received by appellant on December 12, 1977. The specifications indicated that the GPO would furnish the contractor with one piece of camera copy by December 12, 1977, that no proof copy was required to be sent to the Columbus office by appellant and that in accepting the contract, the contractor specifically agreed to all the terms and conditions of Contract Terms No. 1 and GPO Form 2459D "Special Terms and Conditions," revised December 1, 1971. On or after December 12, 1977, appellant executed an "Acknowledgement" indicating that GPO Jacket No. 759-385 had been received on December 12, 1977. Besides showing the quantity ordered (7,000), the item is described as "Crystal-Date Watch Calendars (Custom)," at a unit price of $0.15 per item and that a "Proof" would be supplied at no charge to the GPO. The section of this "Acknowledgement" entitled "Customer's Advertising Imprint" reads in part as follows: "compliments of . . . ARMY ROTC (logo) (etc. as per copy submitted)." (AF, Tab 3(c).) The Appellant has indicated in its response to a Board inquiry that this "Acknowledgement" was included with a letter to the contracting officer of December 14, 1977. Appellant explained that when the GPO purchase order arrived, it realized the specifications called for a product different from that which it had offered. As a result, appellant prepared a proof copy showing the layout it could provide and transmitted this in the letter dated December 14, 1977, to Mr. Baker from Mr. Robert G. Merrick, President of the appellant company. (AF, Tab 8.) This letter, received by the Columbus office of the GPO on December 16, 1977, read in relevant part as follows: "Enclosed is a copy of a proof showing our layout of the color imprint. "By copy of this letter, I am transmitting a second copy of this proof to Fort Knox, Kentucky. "It would be appreciated very much if either your office or Fort Knox would approve this copy by telephone so that we could go into production and meet the shipping date of December 27, 1977. We would have to have word from you no later than December 19th in order to avoid delays." (AF, Tab 4.) On or about December 20, the Columbus office contacted the user agency and was informed that they wanted the calendars to be produced as per the specifications. As of that date, the user agency still had not received the carbon copy of the December 14th letter from Mr. Merrick to Mr. Baker with the proof copy enclosed. On approximately December 22, Mr. Merrick called the contracting officer to find out whether the proofs that they had submitted were satisfactory. According to the contracting officer's telephone log the appellant refused to print until the Columbus office gave its approval; however, appellant would expedite the order on receipt of the "ok to print." (AF, Tab 5.) On December 29, 1977, the contracting officer had another telephone conversation with Mr. Merrick in which they discussed the contract. The contracting officer's telephone log shows that Mr. Merrick indicated that the appellant could provide either watch calendars in accordance with the specifications or from off-the-shelf. (AF, Tab 5.) The contracting officer adds that the appellant indicated the specifications design would take considerably more time to produce than the off-the-shelf item. (Contracting Officer's Statement dated March 28, 1978, p. 2.) On December 30, 1977, the user agency informed the Columbus office that they had received the proofs from the appellant, and although they were not what they had wanted, due to their need for the calendars, they would accept delivery with the layout offered by appellant. On that same day, the contracting officer advised the appellant to print using the format of the proofs it had submitted. (AF, Tab 5.) By letter dated December 30, 1977, the contracting officer confirmed this telephone conversation with the appellant stating in part: "The user will accept the watch calendar labels per the proofs submitted by your firm owing to the need for the items. Please expedite shipment. "We wish to caution you relative to telephone quotations to this office. All bids must be in strict accordance with our specifications. Should you be awarded an order in the future that is not strictly in accordance with your understanding of the requirements quoted, you must notify us immediately." (AF, Tab 6.) The contracting officer did not indicate either in his phone conversation or in his letter that liquidated damages would be assessed against appellant for each day that delivery was made after the original delivery date of December 27. (AF, Tab 6, Tab 8, and response of contracting officer to Board's questions, dated July 24, 1978). In addition, no new delivery date was established at this time by the contracting officer. Appellant proceeded to produce the items in accordance with this new arrangement and made final delivery on January 13, 1978. Appellant subsequently submitted an invoice for the delivered items. The contracting officer, in turn, authorized a deduction for liquidated damages of one percent for each working day the delivery was late after December 27, for a total deduction of $126.00 in accordance with the liquidated damages provisions of GPO Form 2459D, which was referenced in the original specifications. Appellant objected to this deduction in its letter dated March 10, 1978 (AF, Tab 8), and the contracting officer responded by a letter dated March 14, 1978, which states in part: "Our order called for a custom label in accordance with specifications initially furnished and bid by telephone subsequently furnished in our written purchase order H1361. Your Acknowledgement of our order (copy attached) specified 'custom' watch calendar and imprint 'as per copy submitted' by the Government. "Your firm did not proceed diligently with performance of the contract per specifications. Instead, your firm submitted a proof offering a 'stock' item with imprints. Proofs were not requested and the alternate design offerred [sic] was not in accordance with our specifications. Delays occurred as a result of this unilateral action by your firm. . . . "We wish to point out that acceptance by the Government of the product is not to be construed as a waiver of any rights the Government may have under contract. "In order to be excused under the provisions of Contract Terms No. 1, Article 17 - Delay in Deliveries, you must demonstrate that the delay was neither foreseeable nor caused by any fault or negligence of either your firm or your firm's supplier. "We are unable to find from the available information on a basis for entitlement of a delivery schedule extension for excusable delay. . . ." (AF, Tab 9.) This letter additionally indicated that this was a final decision of the contracting officer taken in accordance with Article 29 of Contract Terms No. 1, to which appellant could appeal within the 30 days after receipt of the letter. In a letter dated March 20, 1978, and received in the Columbus office of the GPO on March 27, 1978, appellant appealed the refusal of the contracting officer to restore liquidated damages. The appellant's Mr. Merrick stated in part: ". . . apparently you [Contracting Officer] are trying to show that we acknowledged a totally custom watch calendar order, when the fact of the matter is that every order we produce for our customers is acknowledged as a 'custom' order to the extent its advertising imprint is custom. We did not take exception to the imprint submitted, only to the totally different layout called for in your specifications." (AF, Tab .10.) (Emphasis in original.) With these facts as background, we turn now to a discussion and decision on this appeal. Discussion The issues in this case, while not necessarily simple to decide, are simply stated: At what point during the course of dealings between these parties was there a binding contract, if one was created, and what were the terms? The Board must first consider whether we have the authority to decide the question of whether there was in fact a contract in this case. We conclude that this Board does have such authority and can proceed to analyze the facts to arrive at a conclusion on the issues. See, Vitro Corporation of America, ASBCA No. 14448, 72-1 BCA ¶ 9287, at page 43,027 and cases cited therein. In the normal course of Government contracting, a contractor will make a written offer to the Government which is thereafter accepted in writing by the contracting officer. In the instant case, we have a markedly different situation. As we view the facts, the phone call on December 8, 1977, from Mr. Baker to Mr. Buckendorf, and the purchase order which followed the phone call dated December 9, 1977, were in the form of offers to the contractor to produce the watch calendars with a certain prescribed overall dimension. See, Ordnance Parts & Engineering Co., ASBCA No. 12820, 68-1 BCA ¶ 6870. The question then becomes whether there was an acceptance by the appellant, resulting in a binding contract. This, in turn, depends upon an expression of the intent to accept the offer of the Government. See generally, Nash & Cibinic, Federal Procurement Law, Vol 1, Contract Formation, 3rd Edition (1977), pages 108 - 124. From the facts, it is clear that the Government's offer was not accepted unequivocally. Rather, by letter dated December 14, to Mr. Baker from Mr. Merrick, the appellant rejected the proposed offer by making a counter offer in terms of what it could produce within the available time. See, Aero Corp., ASBCA No. 8178, 1963 BCA ¶ 3665. At this point no contract had been formed and there was no meeting of the minds. The appellant presented the contracting officer with an option. The Government could either choose the off-the-shelf calendars and have them delivered timely, or it could insist upon the dimensions required in the original specifications with an attendant delay in the delivery date. The contracting officer, after consulting with the user agency, communicated another offer to produce the watch calendars on December 30, 1977. As with the earlier offer, there was no requirement that the appellant accept the offer in writing, and we believe that this is characteristic of an offer to enter into a unilateral contract which would be accepted by performance. Klass Engineering, lnc., ASBCA No. 22052, 78-2 BCA ¶ 13235. As a result, not only was there no contract until after the original delivery date, there was no new delivery date established. The contractor accepted this offer by performing in accordance with the newly reached meeting of the minds and completed delivery on January 13, 1978. It is clearly inappropriate to assess liquidated damages based upon a delivery date which precedes the formation of a contract. In addition, since no new delivery date was established by the contracting officer, and the contractor appears to have complied in a seasonable manner with the December 30, offer, we can see no basis upon which the contracting officer could have assessed liquidated damages, even assuming the new contract incorporated the liquidated damages provisions of the earlier offer. Decision We hold in favor of the appellant and sustain its appeal. The matter is remanded to the contracting officer for appropriate action in accordance with this decision. _______________ 1 At the request of the Board, the appellant submitted a copy of Mr. Buckendorf's notes taken during the conversation with Mr. Baker. These notes tend to corroborate Mr. Buckendorf's statement, since they simply contain the notation "Re-order." Also, there is no indication of the total layout size of the product which the contracting officer claimed Mr. Baker specifically discussed with Mr. Buckendorf.