U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

The Appeal of INTERNATIONAL LITHOGRAPHING, INC.
Docket No. GPO BCA 18-88
February 21, 1990

MICHAEL F. DiMARIO
Administrative Law Judge

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND
DISMISSING APPEAL WITH PREJUDICE

   "RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT," filed with the
   Board on February 16, 1989, as renewed by its "REPLY TO
   APPELLANT'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
   JUDGEMENT," filed with the Board on March 16, 1989, is granted
   for the reasons set forth therein.

   In so doing, the Board notes that the "Notice of Termination
   Complete," dated April 27, 1988, specified the reason for the
   termination as "default because you failed to correct or
   replace the rejected product." and that Appellant's notice of
   appeal, filed with the Board on July 8, 1988, specified that
   it was from such decision, but that Appellant's appeal does
   not address this failure to follow the Contracting Officer's
   order to reprint as pointed out by Respondent in its Motion
   for Summary Judgement.  Nor does Appellant address such issue
   in its response to the Motion for Summary Judgement.  Rather,
   in both its pleading and its response,

Appellant attacks the question of whether or not its product was,
in fact, defective.  Notwithstanding the ultimate question of the
correctness of the Government's determination that the product
was in non-conformance with the specifications, the Government,
having made its determination in good faith based upon inspection
and testing as specified in the contract, was entitled to require
the contractor to proceed with the contract in accordance with
the Contracting Officer's directions under Section 5(d) of U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO) Contract Terms No.  1 (GPO
Publication 310.2), effective December 1, 1987, which was
incorporated into the contract by reference.  Failure of
Appellant to proceed in accordance with such direction gives rise
to the Government's right to terminate the contract without
regard to the merits of the underlying dispute.  Sterling
Electronics, Inc.,  64 BCA ¶ 4092 (1964).  We do not address the
underlying dispute since such is unnecessary to our decision.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

   It is so Ordered.