U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS The Appeal of COPIGRAPH, INC. Docket No. GPO BCA 20-86 May 25, 1989 MICHAEL F. DiMARIO Administrative Law Judge SUMMARY OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL BACKGROUND The above-captioned appeal of Copigraph, Inc., 940 Main Street, Waltham, MA 02154 (Appellant), is from the "final decision" of R. W. Wildbrett, Contracting Officer, Dallas Regional Printing Procurement Office, U.S. Government Printing Office (CO/Respondent), dated November 20, 1986, which reduced the price the Government would pay Appellant for printing certain "Naval Institute Guides," under Jacket Nos. 662-190 through -193, and -196, Purchase Order K-6312 by 20.3 percent ($481.31). (Rule 4 File, hereinafter "R4 File," Tab A.) Appellant alleges that the price should not be reduced because: (1) It properly interpreted the following provisions of the contract to require it to manually trim the 11 1/4 x 9 1/4" covers received from the Government to 11 x 8": "TRIM SIZE: All 11 x 8 1/2 (tab dividers 11 x 9 including 1/2" tab). G.P.O. WILL FURNISH: Preprinted, two-piece, covers . . . to the contractor. Covers are .035" Green polyetylene [sic] plastic, trimmed to size." "BINDING: Punch text, tab dividers, and covers on the 11" dimension." (Emphasis supplied by Appellant.) (Official File, Tab 5.); and (2) The Roadway, Inc. trucking company's delivery receipt which it furnished shows no entry that the goods were delivered in damaged form as alleged by the CO's decision. (Official File, Tab 5.) DECISION Contrary to Appellant's theory, the issue is not whether the specifications call for the covers to be 11 x 8 1/2" but rather whether they authorized Appellant to trim the covers in any respect whatsoever. Given the "G.P.O. will furnish . . . trimmed to size." language of the specification, we think that they did not. Indeed, it is the opinion of the Board that this language creates an exclusive right in Respondent to trim the covers to any size it deemed appropriate. Therefore, since the Government has a right to enforce strict compliance with its specifications, S.S. Silberblatt, Inc. v. United States, 193 Ct. Cl. 269, 433 F.2d 1314 (1970), the Government had a right under the contract to reject the product altogether or to reduce its price, as it has done here. Additionally, the Board finds the issues respecting the cartons to be immaterial, inasmuch as the record makes clear that no consideration of such issues entered into the CO's price reduction determinations. (R4 File, Tab C.) DECISION Accordingly, the appeal is denied and the CO's decision is affirmed. IT IS SO ORDERED.