BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, DC 20401 In the Matter of ) ) the Appeal of ) ) KENNEDY GRAPHICS ) Docket No. GPOBCA 15-98 Jacket No. 531-736 ) Purchase Order E-0388 ) For the Appellant: Kennedy Graphics, Strongsville, Ohio, by Frank Toth, Jr., General Manager, pro se. For the Government: Thomas Kelly, Esq., Assistant General Counsel, U.S. Government Printing Office. Before BERGER, Ad Hoc Chairman. DECISION1 AND ORDER Kennedy Graphics (Appellant), 12102 Pearl Road, Strongsville, Ohio appeals the January 15, 1998, final decision of U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO or Respondent) Contracting Officer Susan J. Williams requiring it to replace and repack 100 damaged cartons containing brochures produced under Jacket 531-736, Purchase Order E-0388. For the reasons that follow, the Board finds no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, the Contracting Officer's decision is AFFIRMED and the appeal is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND 1. The contract, calling for the production of 225,000 copies of a 12-page brochure, was awarded to the Appellant on November 14, 1997. 2. On December 17, the brochures, packed in 292 cartons mounted on 7 pallets, were received by the U.S. Army Publications Center in St. Louis, Missouri. A Center employee signed for the shipment without noting any damage. A Center printing specialist, however, noted that approximately 100 cartons on the lower two layers of the pallets were crushed. In inspecting the cartons he discovered that no filler had been used and that there was 3/4" to 1" of empty space in the cartons. 3. On December 18 the Contracting Officer notified the Appellant of the damage. The Appellant subsequently refused to accept responsibility for the damage because no damage had been noted by the Army employee who had signed for delivery. The Contracting Officer then formally directed the Appellant to replace the damaged cartons. The Appellant arranged to have another company replace and repack the cartons, at a cost of $620. The Appellant seeks reimbursement of that amount. II. DISCUSSION This is a very simple case, easily disposed of. Approximately 100 cartons containing the brochures called for by the contract were received in damaged condition. While GPO makes no assertion that the brochures were damaged, the Appellant's obligation under the contract extends not only to producing an acceptable printed product but also to properly packaging that product. Professional Printing of Kansas, Inc., GPOBCA 28-93 (September 16, 1997), slip op. at 34 et seq. In this respect, the packing provision of the contract specifications required the Appellant to "[p]ack suitable in 275 psi shipping containers." In addition, the "packing" clause of the Supplemental Specifications, incorporated into the contract by reference, required the Appellant, "[i]n the event the material does not fit snugly on the top or sides," to add stuffer material in the form of "open-cell pads or thicknesses of corrugated board." GPO Contract Terms, Solicitation Provisions, Supplemental Specifications, and Contract Clauses, Supplemental Specifications, ¶ 2(j), GPO Pub. 310.2, effective December 1, 1987 (Rev. 9-88). This clause, which refers to the "method and manner of packaging for preservation and required storage and/or transportation," when read with the "[p]ack suitable" language, requires packing that is suitable not only for protecting the printed product during shipment, but also for "their preservation and required storage, based on the realistic assumption that delivered supplies might not be used immediately." Professional Printing of Kansas, Inc., supra, at 37. (Emphasis in original.) While the Appellant states that it did not add stuffer material to the cartons because they were packed tight, the crushed cartons with their sides bowed out (as evidenced by photographs taken by the company that repacked and replaced the cartons) supports the statement of the Army's printing specialist that in fact the cartons were not tightly packed. Cartons so damaged cannot be said to have been packed suitably for transportation (as will be required for further shipment from the Army Publications Center), preservation, and storage since the damage could lead to bursting and consequent loss or damage to the contents. In short, the contract required the Appellant to pack the cartons in a certain way (with filler material if they weren't packed tightly with the printed product), and in a manner suitable for storage and preservation as well as for transportation; on this record, the Board must conclude that the Appellant did not do so. It is firmly established that the Government has the right to insist on compliance with its specifications. Shepard Printing, GPOBCA 23-92 (April 29, 1993), slip op. at 19, 1993 WL 526848. This rule encompasses specification requirements not only for end products, but also for packing and shipping. See Resolute Paper Products Corp., ASBCA 3961, 58-1 BCA ¶ 1,738; Swift & Co., ASBCA 4303, 58-1 BCA ¶ 1,679; Comp. Gen. Dec. B-133492, Oct. 8, 1957. Accordingly, GPO's insistence that the Appellant take corrective action with respect to the damaged cartons was not improper. Although the Appellant complains that the Army's failure to note the damage when signing for the shipment will keep it from recovering from its transportation carrier, it is not clear that the carrier would be liable under these circumstances; in any event, the Army's failure to note the damage has no bearing on the Appellant's responsibility to the Government under its contract and to the consequences of its failure to meet that responsibility by not complying with the specifications. III. ORDER The Contracting Officer's decision is AFFIRMED and the appeal is DENIED. It is So Ordered. August 21, 1998 Ronald Berger Ad Hoc Chairman Board of Contract Appeals _______________ 1 This decision is issued under the Board's Small Claims Procedure pursuant to the Appellant's election filed with the Board on May 18, 1998. Under that procedure, decisions of the Board are to be issued within 120 days, when possible, of when the Board receives written notice of the Appellant's election; the decisions are to be "brief," with "summary findings of fact and conclusions," and "shall have no value as precedent and, in the absence of fraud, shall be final and conclusive and may not be appealed or set aside." Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 12, GPO Pub. 110.12 (September 17, 1984).