BEFORE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS PANEL 79-13 Appeal of F.C.L. Graphics, Incorporated This is an appeal filed on February 16, 1979, by F.C.L. Graphics, Incorporated (Appellant or F.C.L.) of 4626 N. Olcott Avenue, Harwood Heights, Illinois 60656, under the "Disputes" clause article 29, U.S. Government Printing Office Contract Terms No. 1, as revised July 15, 1970, which is an integral part of the contract between F.C.L., and the Government Printing Office (GPO) for the printing of a brochure. I. Proceedings before the Board of Contract Appeals (the Board) This decision is rendered pursuant to the procedures established in GPO Instruction 110.10, dated June 6, 1979, a copy of which was supplied to the Appellant by letter of July 18, 1979. The Appellant was at that time advised that it could request a hearing before the Board or could elect to rely on written submissions alone. No response to this letter was ever received by the GPO or the Board. As a result, we have arrived at our decision evaluating only the written and documentary material submitted by the Contracting Officer and the Appellant which was included in the Appeal File. II. Statement of facts 1. On November 13, 1978, Appellant was awarded a contract by GPO, Jacket No. 650-249, for the printing of 1,500 copies of a four color process brochure for the Department of Energy (the Department). The contract specifications required "A-1 Quality." 2. Page 3 of the specifications required the Appellant to provide two sets of Cromalin or equal proofs of the covers and text for approval before printing. In this connection the specifications further required that the Appellant notify the GPO Contract Compliance Officer, Chicago Regional Printing Procurement Office (RPPO), three (3) working days in advance of the time of inspection. In addition the Appellant was to notify the Contract Compliance Officer, (RPPO), three working days in advance of expectation of press run for inspection of quality conformance during actual production at the contractor's plant. 3. On December 5, 1978, representatives of the Department from Argonne, Illinois, visited the subcontractor's plant to review the Cromalin proofs. They completed the inspection the same day making various changes. Neither F.C.L. nor the Department notified the Chicago RPPO of any changes marked by the agency at the time of proof inspection. 4. On December 6, 1978, Mr. Arnold Stenvog, Chicago RPPO, Contract Compliance Officer, telephoned Mr. Michael Keegan, F.C.L. Production Supervisor. Mr. Keegan advised Mr. Stenvog that F.C.L. would be plating after making corrections and then go to press. No date or time of press run was provided to Mr. Stenvog, although it appears no date was requested by Stenvog. 5. On December 11, 1978, the Department contacted F.C.L. and was advised the covers for the order were being printed and that the text would be printed about 6:00 p.m. that day. The Department representative could not attend the press inspection on that day because of insufficient prior notification, however, F.C.L. proceeded to complete the press run. 6. The order was subsequently rejected because of deficiencies found in the printing. The Department cited some 21 specific complaints regarding the quality of the printed brochure. These complaints included color density, photographs out of register, improper folding of pages, and loss of detail. 7. In a letter to Appellant dated January 17, 1979, the Chicago RPPO Manager conveyed his final decision to reprint the brochure and hold the Department responsible for all charges for the proofing, filming, and plating operations of the order and to hold the Appellant responsible for the printing, binding, and shipping operations. This decision was appealed by F.C.L. in a letter dated February 16, 1979. III. Appellant's Argument 1. In a letter dated February 16, 1979, Mr. Nicholas J. Vergoth, Vice President of F.C.L. contented that F.C.L. did notify Mr. Stenvog that the film proofs were okayed and that F.C.L. was plating and going directly to press. F.C.L. further contented that Mr. Stenvog acknowledged the report in his "usual manner" and requested no further information. F.C.L. contented that Mr. Stenvog has done this in the past and that it has meant to F.C.L. that the Government was not going to send a representative to the press O.K.. F.C.L. further contended that when the Government has wished to send a representative Mr. Stenvog has requested dates and times. 2. F.C.L. did not contest the determination that the quality of the product was inadequate. 3. No further communication, representation, or evidence was provided by F.C.L. in the Appeal. IV. Position of the Government 1. The contract was specific as to the prior notification requirements for proof and press inspections. The contract was specific as to the requirement for proof at print location and checking of press run. V. Opinion A contract was entered into between a contractor and the GPO for the printing of a brochure for the Department of Energy. The specification for the printing clearly required prior notification of proof inspection and press inspection three days in advance. The specification required that this notification be made to the Contract Compliance Officer, Chicago, RPPO. It is unrefuted that the Appellant did not provide date and time of press inspection tot he Chicago RPPO as required by the contract. The printing was subsequently rejected because of poor quality, a result which might have been avoided if the Appellant had adhered to the contract terms and given GPO proper notification. In this case the contract is clear as to obligations of the Appellant. It is clear that the Government is entitled to strict compliance with specifications. In Ideal Restaurant Supply Co., Inc., VACAB No. 570, 67-1 BCA par. 6237 at p. 28,847, the Board states: "The Board must decide if Appellant was justified in not following strictly the provisions of the specifications, relying on custom and precedent, if the government was correct in demanding exact compliance with the specifications. Contracting Officers have the right to insist upon strict compliance with specifications." Slingerland Drum Co., (6 CCF par. 61,830) ASBCA 2688; Farwell Company v. U.S., 137 C. Cls. 832; A.E. Minstein Construction Co., VACAB-174 (June 27, 1950). In the instant case, the specifications were clear and were not lived up to. The Appellant had an obligation to contact the Contract Compliance Officer before the press run was started to secure approval for that press run. When the Appellant went ahead on his own without such approval he did so at his peril. The Government may reject the offered product and require the product to be reprinted. See, USGPO Contract Terms No. 1, Article 13, Inspection and Tests. VI. Decision The Appeal is denied. JOHN D. LIVSEY, JR. Chairman, Panel 79-13 ROBERT COX Member MELVIN JACOB Member January 25, 1980