LITHO DEVELOPMENT & RESEARCH Docket No. GPO BCA 7-89 April 21, 1989 MICHAEL F. DiMARIO Administrative Law Judge ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS It is the opinion of this Board that Respondent's "Motion to Dismiss" the above-captioned appeal on the grounds that it was not timely filed since it was not lodged with the Board until"March 23, 1989," a date more than 90 days after Appellant's receipt of the Contracting Officer's (CO) "Notice of Termination"dated September 8, 1988, is without merit in light of the following information: 1. On March 19, 1989, Respondent's counsel furnished the undersigned certain correspondence received from the Office of Senator William Armstrong, of Colorado and requested that an appeal be docketed subject to the Government's right to move its dismissal for lack of timeliness. The correspondence consisted of a transmittal memorandum dated October 17, 1988, from the Denver Office of Senator Armstrong addressed to Mr. John W.Morris, Superintendent, Congressional Printing Management Division (CPMD), GPO, referencing "the attached"; a signed letter to Senator Armstrong from one Mr. John Courtie, Branch Manager,Litho Development and Research (LDR), Denver, CO, dated October 5, 1988, requesting the Senator's "review of the attached notice of appeal to the Public Printer"; and an unsigned letter from Courtie to Ralph E. Kennickell, Jr., Public Printer, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20401, dated October 5, 1988, captioned "Notice of Appeal of Termination of Contract No. 3262-88," bearing a notation "cc: Herb Jackson" on its second page. 2. On or about March 20, 1989, the undersigned caused the material received from Respondent's counsel to be examined by the Clerk of the Board. The Clerk advised that on or about October 14, 1988, Mr. Herb Jackson, CO, Materials Management Service, GPO, furnished the Clerk a photocopy of a certain unsigned "Notice of Appeal" letter from LDR concerning a folding machine which Jackson had received and which the Clerk believes was the "carbon copy" of Appellant's letter of October 5, 1988,furnished to Jackson. However, the Clerk did not respond to or docket the appeal at that time, since the correspondence did not comport with the prerequisites necessary to effect an appeal under GPO Instruction 110.12 entitled "Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedure" inasmuch as it was unsigned and not addressed to the Board. 3. Upon receipt of Respondent's "Motion to Dismiss" dated April 11, 1989, the undersigned examined the CO's "Notice of Termination" furnished as an attachment thereto and noted that stated therein was advice to the contractor respecting the necessary content of a "Notice of Appeal" and the address to which such notice must be sent, to wit: "The notice of appeal should be addressed to the Public Printer and sent to the Contracting Officer. A general letter of complaint objecting to the action taken will not be considered as notice of appeal. The notice of appeal must be signed by the contractor, identify the contract by number and this decision, state that the decision is being appealed, specify the part or parts of this decision from which the appeal is taken, and should state the reason why these parts are erroneous." 4. Thereafter, through its own inquiry, the Board determined that: a. The Superintendent, CPMD, received the correspondence from Senator Armstrong on October 27, 1988, and furnished it forthwith to the Office of the Public Printer (PP). b. The PP's office had no record of Senator Armstrong's correspondence, but there was a record of receipt on October 14, 1988, of certain correspondence from the Appellant dated October 5, 1988, respecting Contract No. 3262|-88 which was forwarded that same day to the Office of the Assistant Public Printer (Operations and Procurement) (APP (O&P)) for action. c. The APP (O&P) received the correspondence from the PP's office on October 14, 1988, and transmitted it to the Office of the Manager, Printing Procurement Service (PPS), on October 17, 1988. d. The PPS office received the transmittal from the APP (O&P) on October 17, 1988, and redirected it to the Office of the Director, Materials Management Service (MMS), that same day. e. MMS personnel had no record or recollection of having received the October 5, 1988, transmittal from PPS. Thus,the original letter has not been located for determination as to whether it comports with the GPO Instruction 110.12 requirements for content, signature, and address (or the address requirements stated in the "Notice of Termination") necessary to properly raise an appeal. Based upon the foregoing, the Board believes it prudent to conclude that a properly signed, but otherwise identical,October 5, 1988, letter of Courtie to Kennickell, was timely filed on October 14, 1988, and that such letter substantially comported with the requirements necessary to give notice of an appeal under GPO Instruction 110.12. Accordingly, the "Motion to Dismiss" is hereby denied. IT IS SO ORDERED