U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS The Appeal of MATTHEW'S PRINTING, INC. Docket No. GPO BCA 31-88 March 14, 1990 MICHAEL F. DiMARIO Administrative Law Judge OPINION This appeal, timely filed by Matthew's Printing, Inc., 1315 Northwest Industrial Drive, Bridgeton, MO 63044 (hereinafter "Appellant"), is from the July 28, 1988, final decision of James L. Leonard, Contracting Officer (C.O.), U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC 20401 (hereinafter "Respondent"), partially terminating GPO contract, dated April 9, 1988, Jacket 210-460, Purchase Order 34486, for default because of Appellant's inability to furnish an acceptable product within the terms of the contract. The decision of the C.O. is affirmed for the reasons set forth hereinbelow. BACKGROUND Appellant was competitively awarded the above cited contract in the amount of $24,500 to produce some 2,798 copies of a 416-page book with two piece cover and six tab dividers, entitled "Annual Cancer Statistics Review Including Cancer Trends 1950-1985," as requisitioned from Respondent by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), requisition number 8-00609. Product quality was to be at Level III in accordance with the GPO Quality Assurance Through Attributes Program (GPO Pub 310.1) in effect on the date of the order. For this reason, the contract specified General Inspection Level I of MIL-STD-105 for Non-Destructive Tests and required that Appellant furnish Respondent 13 random samples selected by dividing the order into 13 equal sub-lots and selecting one sample from each. 1 The product was to be shipped complete by April 25, 1988. (Rule 4 File, Tab A) The product was produced and delivered by Appellant. (Rule 4 File, Tabs C and D) Thereafter, by letter, dated July 5, 1988, the C.O. advised Appellant's Ms. Debra Randazzo that an examination of samples had revealed the following defects: GPO Contract Terms Supplemental Specifications-1. Quality (missing tab dividers "Cancer Trends: 1950-1985") GPO Contract Terms Supplemental Specifications-1. Quality (duplicate tab dividers-other than specified-in wrong place (Incidence") F-12: Missing Pages F-16: Wrong Pagination 2 and that based on these results the order had been determined to be rejectable and therefore was to be corrected at no additional cost to the Government in strict accordance with the specifications. (Rule 4 File, Tab K) Appellant reworked the order and redelivered the products as directed. However, an examination of an additional 88 randomly selected samples by the Department on July 14, 1988, (Rule 4 File, Tab L) and an additional 13 randomly selected samples by the Respondent on July 22, 1988, (Rule 4 File, Tab Q) revealed that the product was still defective in the following particulars: F-12: Missing pages F-16: Wrong pagination (dup pgs) Also noted - contract terms violations Cartons not 200 p.s.t. Cartons not packed solidly Cartons have contractor's name printed on outside Several cartons did not have shipping label Accordingly, the C.O., with the concurrence of the GPO Contract Review Board, terminated the contract for partial default, advising Appellant that the same or similar items terminated were subject to reprocurement with Appellant liable for any excess costs associated with such action. (Rule 4 File, Tabs R-U) Appellant thereafter appealed to this Board as follows: . . . We corrected all the above mentioned and with all the checking and double checking we did, I can not [sic] see where these books were still wrong. We corrected the errors and then inspected each book page by page to verify that the book was correct, this inspecting was done by the bindery dept. manager and 1st and 2nd shift assistant managers exclusively. We then reshipped the 1130 reworked books to Columbia, MD and 80 to Silver Springs [sic], MD as attached copies will show. On August 12, 1988 we were contacted saying they rejected 1210 books form [sic] the Columbia, MD office--we reworked only 1130 form [sic] this paticular [sic] place, the other 80 we reworked were from Silver Springs [sic], MD. I contacted Brenda Edwards at Silver Springs [sic] MD who informed me that they still had there 80 books that Matthew's Printing reworked, she also stated that GPO contacted her about defaulting the reworked books--in talking to Jimmy Leonard he said 3 quality assurance officers went out to inspect books at Columbia, MD, at no time was Silver Springs [sic] checked. I contend that the 1130 form [sic] Columbia, MD that we reworked were not the ones they checked, they still had other books that were'nt [sic] available for us to repair. I do not believe we should have to pay the $14,042.75. We have the books in house and went through 10 random cartons and could not find any mistakes. We would like in addition to the 14,042.75, our record cleared for a default on these books and any interest the board deems appropriate on the amount listedabove [sic], also our cost in presenting this dispute. Respondent, by ANSWER of February 6, 1989, denied Appellant's allegation that the products which were reinspected were not in fact products which it had reworked. Respondent furnished copies of shipping records and cited evidence already existing in the record to support its position that they in fact were reworked randomly selected copies. The case comes before the Board for decision in this form. DISCUSSION A careful review of the entire record by the Board failed to disclose any probative evidence to support Appellant's allegation. Indeed, as accurately represented by Respondent in its ANSWER, there is clear evidence that the HHS inspection was of 88 reworked books supplied by Appellant. Shipping receipts furnished by Respondent show that Appellant returned 1140 reworked books to Biospherics, Inc., Columbia, MD, in three shipments. The first shipment was of 36 boxes and was received on July 8, 1988. The second was of 48 boxes and was received on July 13, 1988. The third was of 31 boxes and was received on July 14, 1988. Each box in each shipment contained 10 reworked books. (Respondent's ANSWER, Attachments 1, 2, and 3) Seventy-two (72) of such books (2 books from each box from the first shipment) were sent by Biospherics to HHS in Silver Spring, MD, where they were inspected together with 16 reworked books (2 from 8 boxes of 10 received directly by HHS from Appellant) and found to be defective. (Rule 4 File, Tab N, Page 2) Moreover, the July 22, 1988, inspection report by Respondent's Quality Assurance Inspector (Rule 4 File, Tab Q) shows that the additional 13 samples upon which a decision to reject the reworked product was based were randomly selected from unopened boxes in the second and third shipments of reworked books returned by Appellant to Columbia, MD. DECISION Since Appellant's allegation is completely specious, the Board concludes that there is no genuine dispute among the parties concerning a material issue of fact and no need for a hearing. Accordingly, the Board dismisses the appeal with prejudice, upon the written record, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The decision of the Contracting Officer is thus affirmed. It is so Ordered. _______________ 1 The sample size of 13 was derived from the multiple sampling plan specified in "Table X-H-2-SAMPLING PLANS FOR SAMPLE SIZE LETTER CODE H" of MIL-STD-105. 2 The GPO Inspection Report supporting this information is at Tab G, Rule 4 File.