U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

The Appeal of PENNSYLVANIA PRINTED PRODUCTS, INC.
Docket No. GPO BCA 29-87
June 7, 1990

MICHAEL F. DiMARIO
Administrative Law Judge

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

   In the Board's opinion, detailed design specifications of the
   type furnished by the Government, require extraordinary
   precision and clarity in draftsmanship in order to convey to
   the contractor the exact design intended so that the
   contractor need make no substantive decision respecting the
   design.  Ambiguity exists when specifications are "capable of
   being understood in two or more possible senses or ways." 1

   In the case at bar, Respondent asserts that its intention in
   using the words "top half of collection box" and "bottom half
   of collection box" in the specifications was to limit the
   placement of silver and blue inks to the top and bottom
   halves, respectively, of the illustration of the collection
   box, itself.  On the other hand,

Appellant, seeing nothing but the illustration of the collection
box on the camera copy, understood such words to mean top half
and bottom half of the face card.   The directional arrows
obviously did nothing to dispel such interpretation.  Thus, the
facts of the case, in and of themselves, tend to show that the
terms of the specifications were capable of being understood in
two or more possible ways.  Moreover, in the Board's opinion,
more than a few persons, including other experienced printers,
would draw the same conclusion reached by Appellant, unless
directed to concentrate their intellect solely upon the
illustration.  Couple this with the variance in clear direction
respecting the application of black ink, identified by Appellant
in its opposition to the said motion, and we find a confusion
which design specifications ought not have.  Accordingly, we
retain our conclusion that the specifications were ambiguous.

   Further, the Board finds the Government's argument that the
   contractor is under an obligation to examine materials it
   receives and to raise questions concerning ambiguities before
   proceeding with the work, while contractually correct, to be
   without merit since such provision presupposes that the
   ambiguities will be noticed, which obviously was not the case
   here.

   Turning to the Government's argument that an enforceable
   extension of time had been agreed to based upon the theory
   that the consideration for such agreement was Appellant's
   promise "to complete the job 'on a rush basis' and provide
   proofs to the Postal Service" in exchange for Respondent's
   promise "to relax the terms of the contract by allowing
   Appellant to complete performance by shipping the product on
   the due date, instead of the original contract term which
   required Appellant to have completed delivery by the due
   date," suffice it to say that this Board can find nothing in
   the facts to support a conclusion that such consideration was
   in the contemplation of the parties.

   Accordingly, the Board denies the said Motion for
   Reconsideration of its Order dated January 22, 1990.

It is so Ordered.

_______________

1 Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1985, Merriam-
Webster, Inc., Springfield, MA.