U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
The Appeal of TOTAL REPRODUCTIONS, INC.
Docket No. GPO BCA 16-88
February 2, 1990
MICHAEL F. DiMARIO
Administrative Law Judge
OPINION
This appeal, timely filed by Total Reproductions, Inc., 6901
Hamlin, Lincolnwood, IL 60645 (hereinafter "Appellant"), is
from the June 13, 1988, final decision of John J. O'Connor,
Contracting Officer (C.O.), San Francisco Regional Printing
Procurement Office (SFRPPO), U.S. Government Printing Office
(GPO) (hereinafter "Respondent"), denying Appellant's request
for adjustments in price reductions taken by Respondent in
Contract Modifications SF 201-88 and SF 356-88, respectively.
The decision of the Contracting Officer is reversed for the
reasons set forth hereinbelow.
BACKGROUND
Appellant was competitively awarded a certain contract by
Respondent's SFRPPO, identified as GPO Jacket No. 586-442,
Purchase Order No. P1141, dated February 4, 1988, to produce
given quantities of one letter and two different size 4-color
process
"Dear Dad" recruitment posters requisitioned from the Respondent
by the Department of the Army (Dept. Req. No. 8-00047). The
contract amount was $30,454.00 plus an added rate per 1,000 for
the 11 x 16" poster of $375.49 and an added rate per 1,000 for
the 16 x 20" poster of $481.88. Respondent was to furnish
Appellant two sample posters from a previous printing (one with
easel), two pieces camera copy with overlay for each poster, one
8 x 10" color transparency - shoot at two different focuses, and
one 8 1/2 x 11" letter as camera copy. Appellant was to furnish
all other materials and operations, including paper. Product was
to be shipped complete, FOB contractor's city, to 2,406
destinations by February 19, 1988.
R4 File, Tab B
Subsequently, Appellant commenced production, scheduling a
press inspection with Respondent for February 12, 1988. At
that time certain problems were discovered with whether or not
the Appellant should have varnished or applied an ultraviolet
coating and whether or not it had used the right paper for the
small poster. Therefore, Appellant did not make timely
shipment and GPO's Quality Control and Technical Department
was requested to test certain samples of the small poster
paper for compliance with the specifications (R4 File, Tab L,
page 1). As a result, Modification SF 181-88, dated February
18, 1988, was unilaterally issued by the Contracting Officer
extending the delivery date to February 22, 1988, and reducing
the contract price by 10 percent,
or $3,045.40, as consideration for such extension, with the
further proviso that if delivery were not made by February 22,
1988, the delivery date would be further extended to February 24,
1988, with an additional $3,045.40 reduction in price.
R4 File, Tab J
By letter dated February 24, 1988, Appellant's Richard
Steinberg wrote to the Contracting Officer requesting that the
Contract Modification be rescinded and that the deliver
complete date be extended to February 25, 1988 and for
reimbursement of $1,888 for certain paper stock used by it.
The letter in pertinent part, states:
. . . I cannot agree with your findings. There is just too
much grey area in the way the specifications read regarding
varnish versus U.V. Coating. This one issue alone is the
difference between meeting the required schedule or not.
There is also additional cost to us as a result which I truly
believe should be borne by the government.
In reading the specifications carefully under "Presswork", it
clearly states "Posters = 4/ [sic] Color Process plus U.V.
Coating or [sic] Varnish." This indicates an option to the
printer of in-line or off-line varnishing, or off-line U.V.
Coating. We chose the option of varnishing to be done in-line
on press. Reading further down in the same area, it states:
"Coat the 4/ [sic] Color process area with a clear varnish
with Ultraviolet (UV) or [sic] UV [sic] Coating [sic]. 1 What
this indicated to us was to use Sun Fast inks to prevent
fading. This is what we were preparing to use. When John
McManaman was asked
about this he pulled out his own specifications to check. His
specifications indicated that he wanted UV Coating only and
nothing about varnish or UV Inhibitors for the 11 x 16 easel
card. This is the point where our finishing schedule fell apart.
As I explained to you, we were prepared to do all finishing and
packing within a 3-day period beginning as late as Tuesday,
February 16th. This was a rather tight schedule but all
shipments would have been made by Friday, February 19th. As a
result of the UV Coating requirements, we were unable to get
started until Thursday evening, February 18th. Due to prior
committments [sic] by our finishing source, he did not have the
available resources needed for Friday and the weekend to at least
finish by Monday, February 22nd. Due to his other committments
[sic], the earliest he felt he could finish by was Wednesday,
February 24th and possibly Thursday, February 25th. Although, as
parts were finished, we would begin shipping earlier.
R4 File, Tab K
Subsequently, Appellant was apprised of the results of
Respondent's paper tests wherein it was found that the paper
was not equal to the specifications 2 since it measured only
0.01883
inches in thickness, a difference of minus six percent from the
specified .020 inches and that the Government was unilaterally
issuing a Contract Modification reducing the contract price. The
Contract Modification No. 201/88, dated March 4, 1988, in
pertinent part, states:
Change is hereby made in Jacket 586-442 to the extent that to
compensate the Government for accepting the small Poster
printed on stock not meeting the specifications, the contract
price is reduced by 25% of the quoted additional rate, or
$5,944.48.
Purchase Order P-1141 is hereby reduced in the amount of
$5,944.48.
Steinberg, thereafter, wrote to the SFRPPO, by letter dated
March 8, 1988, in pertinent part, as follows:
. . . Per your specifications, the paper required is a
.020 to .022 thick coated-one-side or coated-two-side blanks.
We opted to use .020 Coated-One Side (Bill Enclosed). The
paper used was Starcote made by Federal Paper Board Company.
All stock used was first run stock. No mill seconds were
used. After my conversation with you regarding this problem I
contacted our paper source to get more detailed information.
They offered two explanations for the discrepancy. First, the
mill has a 5% tolerance which is plus or minus .001 in their
manufacture. I would expect that the government has a similar
tolerance in paper specifications. A second very important
point which should be noted here is that due to the various
processes required on this job there could be a 5% to 8%
thinning out due to pressure. For this jacket, the paper has
been printed under high pressure, liquid laminated, and die-
cut, all processes which exert squeeze
on the sheet. Depending on the make-up of the stock, high
density or low density, this thinning can vary, but it does
exist.
. . . As I read your specifications, my interpretation is that
we can use either a .020, .021 or .022 coated-one-side or
coated-two-side blank. I chose a .020 coated-one-side, bought
the paper from a mill which the government, in a variety of
specifications, has named as a source for this type of stock.
. . .
R4 File, Tab N, page 1
The enclosed bill referenced by Appellant, from
Hobart/McIntosh, Elk Grove Village, IL, describes the paper
which Appellant purchased as:
17000 LK99-15 20 PT. C1S SBS COVER
23 X 35 - 300M
1 LKFRT EXCESS FRT
***FFA
REFER TO: H/M
35692
COMPLETE
R4 File, Tab N, page 3
Thereafter, by letter, dated May 13, 1988, Steinberg again wrote
to the Contracting Officer and, in pertinent part, stated:
. . . After our last conversation, you were going to do some
additional research regarding UV inhibitors and get back to
me. In the meantime, I see that you have changed your
specifications to correct this error. (See Jacket #587-285).
In light of our discussions and these specification changes,
I want your contract modification number SF-181-88 of
February 4, 1988 rescinded. I cannot accept an arbitrary
decision to reduce the price of this contract
when the specifications are unclear and leave options on
production methods. In addition, I request that a contract
modification be issued for the additional monies requested for UV
coating and to change the ship complete date. We performed
according to the way the specifications were written and made the
necessary adjustment when the error was discovered.
We also have received your contract modification number
201-88, which requires a 25% reduction in the contract price
because the paper for the easel card seems to be slightly
below specifications. I have had some additional tests done
by Federal Paper Company, who furnished the paper. They say
that this stock falls within their specifications for a .020
sheet. Their tests put the range of the finished product in
the .019 to .020 category. They have a plus or minus of 5%.
In addition, pending atmospheric conditions such as
temperature, humidity and pressure plus the printing processes
that the sheet undergoes, there could be some decrease in the
original thickness. Has any of this been taken into
consideration before ramming a 25% reduction at us? I feel
that if there is to be any reduction for this nicely printed
and packaged job, 25% is way to [sic] steep. The customer
has, in fact, distributed and used this product. To be fair,
I have computed the difference in cost between a .020 and a
.018 stock and would be willing to refund the difference.
This difference for 17,500 sheets of 23 x 35 would be at
$29.69/M sheets (Price Sheet Enclosed) or $519.58. I feel we
ordered the correct sheet per the specifications and I'm
willing to accept the minor deviation by the mill and
prevailing conditions.
. . . Please issue your final decision to me. . . . I am
going to take this to appeals.
R4 File, Tab O
This was followed by the Contracting Officer's final decision
letter, supra, wherein he stated, in pertinent part,
After further review I cannot disprove your contention that the
specifications could have been interpreted as allowing you an
option to varnish rather than UV coat the small
poster. With this in mind I will authorize payment of the
additional cost of the UV coating not to exceed $1888.00 upon
submission of evidence supporting this claim. ($1,888.00 is the
amount you requested in your letter of February 24). In
documenting your claim you should show the cost of the UV coating
minus the cost of varnishing (broken down as to plate, makeready,
run, etc). Also you should subtract any savings you accrued in
not using the Sun Fast inks upon which you based your original
bid.
With regard to the timeliness of this order, I do not however
accept your contention that the UV coating caused your late
delivery. I believe there is ample evidence to show that you
were behind in production virtually from the beginning.
In your letter of February 24 you made the following statements:
". . . . . we were prepared to do all finishing and packing
within a 3-day period beginning as late as Tuesday February 16th.
This was a rather tight schedule but all shipments would have
been made by Friday, February 19th. As a result of the UV
coating requirements, we were unable to get started until
Thursday evening, February 18th. Due to prior commitments by our
finishing source, he did not have the available resources needed
for Friday and the weekend to at least finish by Monday, February
22nd. Due to his other commitments, the earliest he felt he
could finish by was Wednesday, February 24th and possibly
Thursday, February 25th."
Our records indicate that it would have been impossible for you
to follow the specifications and still maintain the schedule
outlined in your earlier letter.
On February 8, at 8:00 am you questioned Mr. Baker of this
Office, about the 1 day proof hold time. During that
conversation Mr. Baker pointed out that the 1 day hold could be
accomplished because Army would do the proofing at your plant.
He also reminded you that the specifications required 72 hours
advance notice.
On February 9, at 2 p.m. you informed this office that proofing
could be done at 10:00 a.m., February 11. At this point it
became evident that you were seriously behind schedule.
According to the specifications the Government representative had
72 hours to attend the proofing at the
contractor's plant. Therefore, for planning purposes, you were
aware that proofing could be done as late as Friday, February 12,
at 2 pm. In fact, with a 1 working day proof hold time, proof
approval by the Government was not required until 2 pm February
16. (Monday February 15 was a Government holiday). Upon receipt
of proof approval, if you had immediately given the 72 hours
notice of press inspection required by the specifications; you
could not have begun your presswork until 2pm Friday, February
19th. You have already stated that your finishing source had
prior commitments which would not have enabled you to complete
the order before February 24th or 25th.
Contract modification SF 181-88 extended the delivery date twice,
ultimately to February 24, in return for a total reduction of 20%
of the contract price. It is obvious, from the facts which I
have just outlined, that such adjustment would have been
appropriate even if you produced the order with varnish rather
than UV coating.
In essence the specifications required that the contractor plan
in his schedule at least 7 days from first notification to the
Government of availability of proofs to receiving a final OK to
proceed with presswork. In fact, the Government gave the OK to
proceed with the presswork only 3 days after first notification
of proof availability. This 4 day savings would have provided
adequate time to accomplish the UV coating and still deliver on
time had you been on schedule from the beginning of this job. In
addition to this, Total Reproductions breached the contract in
failing to allow the Government the opportunity to be present
during the actual color separation process on the image enhancing
equipment. This again, in essence, provided you with more
production time and an unfair advantage over other bidders. It
is also clear that the Government suffered some damage in not
having the opportunity to consult with the color separator while
the separations were being done.
I feel that the Government, thru [sic] its handling the proofs
and press inspection in less than half the time called for in the
schedule, actually provided an adequate number of days to
accomplish the UV coating. However I am willing to extend the
date from February 19 to February 22 as an additional allowance
for this operation. The final extension of time from February 22
to 24 and the corresponding reduction of 10% of the contract
price will be retained as originally written in contract
modification SF 181-88.
You have also taken exception to modification number 201-88 which
took a 25% reduction in the value of the small poster because the
stock used did not meet specifications.
Jacket 586-442 required that the small poster be printed on
"White Board, 5 ply, C1S or C2S Blanks, .020 to .022" thick."
The specifications are perfectly clear in the requirement for 5
ply blanks and the thickness of 5 plies is .021". We allowed the
same deviation in thickness from the specified stock as you have
stated is the tolerance called for by the mill. By your own
admission you ordered an .020" stock rather than a 5 ply blank.
It is not surprising therefore that both your tests and ours
found the paper to be below the minimum .020" thickness.
The small poster was clearly rejectable however, in lieu of
rejection we accepted the product with a 25% reduction. I
therefore, will not make any adjustment in the reduction taken
under contract modification 201-88.
R4 File, Tab P
The Contracting Officer unilaterally issued Contract
Modification No. SF 356-88, dated June 13, 1988, in
conjunction with the letter as follows:
Change is hereby made in Jacket 586-442 as follows:
Contract Modification SF 181-88 (dated 2-4-88) is cancelled [sic]
in its entirety.
To accomplish UV coating of the small poster by subcontract the
schedule is adjusted as follows:
The requirement for 72 hours notice for review of proofs and
color separation during the separation process is waived. In
addition, the requirement for 72 hour notice for press inspection
is reduced to 20 hours. The scheduled delivery date is also
extended from February 19 to February 22, 1988.
These changes are necessary to reflect the fact that the absolute
requirement for UV coating, rather than varnishing, was unclear
in the specifications.
For the additional expense incurred in the application [of] UV
coating rather than varnishing, you will be reimbursed in an
agreed upon amount not to exceed $1,888.00.
Further change is made to the effect that the delivery date is
extended from February 22 to February 24, 1988. For this
extension, the contract price is reduced by 10% or $3,045.40.
Purchase Order P-1141 is hereby reduced in the net amount of
$1,157.40.
Thereafter, Steinberg, by letter of July 12, 1988, appealed to
the Board. The letter, in pertinent part, states:
. . . My appeal is based upon two aspects of this contract,
delivery schedule penalties and interpretation of paper stock
(specifications enclosed).
Regarding delivery schedule, we agreed to meet the schedule by
acceptance of the order. We were prepared to meet the final "at
destination" date of February 19, 1988. We worked closely with
both GPO San Francisco and the Army to achieve this date. It was
then discovered that there was an error in the writing of the
specifications which seemed to allow us the option of varnish or
U.V. coating. This in fact was not the case. The Army wanted
U.V. coating only. Up to this point, with everyone's
cooperation, the schedule would have been met. As a result of
changing from an in-line, on press varnish to an off-line,
subcontracted U.V. coating, we required as [sic] additional four
working days to complete the job. The error was discovered on
Friday afternoon, February 12, 1988, at the press inspection. It
was not until Monday, February 15, that we were able to send the
job to a U.V. coating source who was not able to deliver it back
to us until Thursday afternoon, February 18. As I had explained
to Mr. O'Connor, our source for doing the easel assembly and
packaging, due to other committments [sic], was unable to
complete this work until February 25.
In summary, as of February 12, when we went to press, we were on
a schedule which would have met the final ship date. Due to an
error in the specifications we required an additional four
working days. I feel the 10% penalty which Mr. O'Connor has
imposed is unfair in light of these arguments. We wish to have
it rescinded.
In addition to the late penalty, we have also received
notification of a $5,944.48 reduction as a result of paper
meeting specifications. My interpretation of the specifications
were to supply a C-1S board either .020, .021, or .022. Based
upon the tight schedule, my interpretation was that any of those
three thicknesses were acceptable, giving me the option, based
upon availability to meet the schedule. I was able to find a
good, first run, .020 board which I felt met these
specifications. I did not feel there were any shortcuts taken
with the stock. As a matter of reference, the stock was visually
checked here in our plant with a micrometer by one of the GPO
representatives present at the press inspection who indicated to
us that it seemed OK. . . .
By internal Government Memorandum, dated July 19, 1988, the
Contracting Officer notified Respondent's Financial Management
Service to take the following action:
Jacket 586-442 was awarded to Total Reproductions in the
amount of $30,454.00. The VO PS History File indicates that
the full amount (minus the prompt payment discount) has been
paid.
Since the award, several adjustments have taken place:
Contract Modification 181-88 was written but subsequently
cancelled [sic] by Mod #356-88.
Contract Modifications #201-88 and 356-88 are adjustments to the
purchase order which remain in effect and should be reflected in
an adjustment to the contractors [sic] account.
Modification #201-88 reduces the purchase order amount by
$5,944.48, for the use of paper not equal to the specifications.
Modification #356-88 pays the contractor additional money for
application of a UV coating. It also extends the delivery date
in return for a reduction in the purchase order amount. The net
result is a reduction of $1,157.40.
The combined effect of these two modifications is a reduction in
the original purchase order amount of $7,101.88.
Please take the necessary action to recover this amount from any
monies owed to this contractor.
R4 File, Tab S
Subsequently, a prehearing conference was held on March 14,
1989, at which time the Appellant, Steinberg, stated that at
no time did he request additional time to complete the order
and that he did not agree with or sign any of the Contract
Modifications.
The Appellant indicated that the tests which he had done
(Appellant's letter of May 13, 1988, supra ) found the paper
to be between .0192 to .0197 inches in thickness and, as a
result, that he had sent additional samples to GPO to be
tested but never heard any more from GPO. Appellant was not
familiar with the ply of the paper but indicated that the
paper he had purchased was of a purported higher grade than
the specifications required. Appellant further stated that he
felt that the 25 percent reduction bore no rational
relationship to any injury to the Government. On the other
hand, the Contracting Officer indicated that this reduction
was based upon the GPO Quality Assurance Through Attributes
Program (QATAP) paper attributes tables.
The Appeal comes now before the Board in this form for
decision.
DISCUSSION
The Board, having thoroughly examined the facts of the case in
the light of the contract between the parties, concludes that
both modifications under appeal should be vacated.
First, the contract adopts all the terms and conditions of
U.S. Government Printing Office Contract Terms No. 1, Revised
October 1, 1980 (GPO Publication 310.2), by reference on page
1 of the Specifications. Those terms have no provision
granting the Contracting Officer authority to impose a price
reduction in consideration of his unilaterally extending the
contract schedule in anticipation of probable contractor
default in delivery. Rather, they contemplate in Article
2-18(a)(1) that "If the contractor . . . so fails to make
progress as to endanger performance of the contract in
accordance with its terms . . . " he be given reasonable
notice of the potential default and an opportunity to "cure"
such defect prior to the Government's taking default action by
either terminating the contract or, under Article 2-19,
allowing the contractor to deliver the requisite product
beyond the established delivery date subject to a reduction of
the contract price. Such reduction is to be by way of "actual
damages" to the Government unless the parties have overridden
such provision elsewhere in the contract, which in this case
they have not done. The term "Actual Damages" contemplates
that the Government has suffered some real injury measurable
in dollars. In the case at bar there is no evidence that the
10 percent figure is related to any real injury whatsoever.
(The unrequested relinquishment of a contractual entitlement
to time for review of proofs is clearly not an injury
encompassed within such concept.) Rather, it is taken as a
matter of reduced contractual "consideration" owed by the
Government to the contractor -- an entirely different legal
concept from "damages" owed by the contractor to the
Government as compensation for resultant injuries caused by
the delay. The Contracting Officer clearly exceeded his
authority in this regard. 3 Moreover, the facts support a
conclusion that the delay in delivery was excusable. While
the Board itself would not have acquiesced to the contractor's
contention that the contract was ambiguous respecting the
small poster coating, this being a post award claim, once such
acquiescence was given, the Government became liable for the
delay. Thus, the contractor was entitled to an automatic
extension of the contract schedule (such extension to be
measured in "work days," not calendar days) under the
provisions of Article 2-11, with the possibility of even more
time if such were requested and demonstrated to be necessary.
Additionally, if the coating process demanded by the
Government required the use of a subcontractor, as the
contractor claims, the scheduling delay caused by such use
would indeed constitute an unforeseeable cause beyond the
control and without the fault or negligence of the contractor.
Thus, no damages of any sort could be imposed given the
provisions of Article 2-21. The facts, while inconclusive on
this point, tend to support the contractor's claim.
Second, the Board is in disagreement with the Contracting
Officer's conclusions respecting the small poster paper:
(1) The Board finds the specifications to be ambiguous as
alleged in that the dictionary defines the word "to" both to
denote a "series" as alleged by Appellant and "limits" 4 as
alleged by the Contracting Officer. Moreover, the use of the term
"5 ply" in the "Specifications," coupled with the mere fact that
one company, Beveridge, as shown by Respondent, manufactures its
.021 stock only in 5 ply, is insufficient proof to alter this
conclusion. There are untold numbers of other paper
manufacturers, including those who specially manufacture to
order who might produce .020 or .022 5 ply stock. Additionally,
there is nothing in the record to show that the stock furnished
by Appellant was not 5 ply. Nor, in the knowledge of this Board,
could such "ply" provision be readily tested for by the
Government's own laboratories. This being the case, the
interpretation of the specifications must go against the interest
of the Government as the drafting party. (Contract
interpretation is a matter of law and not of fact and must be
dealt with accordingly.)
(2) The Board also finds that the contract is silent
respecting the application of any special paper standard for the
small poster paper, although "Government Paper Specification
Number 8," dated April 1977, is made applicable to the white
offset book paper specified for the letter. Given this, the
Board must conclude that the parties intended sub-silentio the
adoption of those standards extant in the paper industry. But
the request for tests (R4 File, Tab L) shows that the instruction
to the Government's laboratory was to test the samples "for
compliance with Government Paper Specifications Standards." And
we must assume that that is what the laboratory did in making its
determination that the paper was defective. Accordingly, we
conclude that the Government has failed to prove that the paper
was, in fact, defective.
(3) Even if this were not the case, the Board would
reverse the imposition of the 25 percent reduction in price,
since such reduction is totally inconsistent with the intent of
the contract. Article 2-12 of Contract Terms No. 1 in pertinent
part provides that " . . . Unless the contractor corrects or
replaces such supplies within the established delivery schedule,
the Contracting Officer may require delivery of such supplies at
a reduction in price which is equitable under the circumstances."
(Emphasis added by the undersigned.) Clearly, a 25 percent
reduction is not what was contemplated within the meaning of the
term "equitable," especially since there is no evidence
whatsoever of diminished product usability. Moreover, the
Contracting Officer when asked in the prehearing conference to
explain how he had arrived at the reduction responded that he had
used the QATAP; i.e., Respondent's Quality Assurance Through
Attributes Program (GPO Publication 310.1), even though the
contract did not adopt the QATAP for the paper attribute but only
for printing and registration attributes. Ignoring this fact, we
have nevertheless examined the 9-2-86 version of the QATAP. From
this we conclude that the correct application of the Paper
Attribute provision as a measure of Product Quality would not
have resulted in a discount at all. Paragraph 4-3 of that
publication provides that the paper characteristic will be tested
in accordance with the current edition of "Government Paper
Specification Standards." That edition was determined by the
Board to be the May 1, 1986, revision. In "Part 4 - Acceptance
Criteria" the revision shows that paper which has no special
designation in a contract solicitation and which when tested is
shown to be "4-8 pct" at variance with the specification is
categorized as a "Major defect" and is to receive 12 demerits.
Interpolating these demerits in the Tolerance Table for the
"Paper Attribute" under QATAP, paragraph 4-3, we find that a
product which receives less than 31 demerits is to be classified
(in contradistinction to the paper specification standard) as
having no defects at all. Since the Government's tests show the
paper tested to be minus 6 percent defective, we conclude that it
should not have been rejected under this standard.
For all of the above reasons the Board reverses the final
decision of the Contracting Officer in its entirety and
remands the case back to the Contracting Officer for payment
to the contractor of the full contract price and appropriate
correction of all records respecting the contractor's
performance.
It is so Ordered.
_______________
1 The pertinent provision of the specifications under the
caption "PRESSWORK," sub-caption "Format," states:
. . . Item 2, Small Poster, 11/16", type prints in black ink,
illustration prints in 4-color process w/type reversed out to
white for 63,325 copies. Coat the 4color process area (approx
llx12 7/8") with a clear varnish with ultraviolet (UV) inhibitor
and firmly attach a suitable easel, approx. 15" high and approx.
.040" to .045" thick, single wing, self-locking chipboard or
cardboard, centered on the 11" bottom dimension. Follow sample
furnished. Item 3, Large Poster, 16x20", type prints in black
ink, illustration prints in 4-color process w/type reversed out
to white for 8,775 copies. Coat the 4-color process area
(approx. 16x17 5/8" with a clear, non-yellowing gloss varnish.
2 The specifications require the contractor to furnish for the
small poster "White Board, 5 ply, C1S or C2S blanks, .020 to .022
inches thick."
3 The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Cooke
v. United States, 91U.S.389 (1874), at 398, has said that when
the United States Government "comes down from its position of
sovereignty and enters the domain of commerce, it submits itself
to the same laws that govern individuals there." As an axiom of
this, a Government Contracting Officer has no authority over a
contractor's performance by mere virtue of his office.
4 WEBSTER'S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY, G. & C. Merriam Company,
at 1225-1226 (1977).