U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS The Appeal of THE PRINTERY, INC. Docket No. GPO BCA 14-87 July 7, 1989 MICHAEL F. DiMARIO Administrative Law Judge SUMMARY OPINION BACKGROUND This appeal, timely filed by The Printery, Inc., 5323 West Reno, Oklahoma City, OK 73127, by letter dated June 30, 1987, is from the June 19, 1987, final decision of R.W. Wildbrett, Contracting Officer (CO), Dallas Regional Printing Procurement Office (DRPPO), United States Government Printing Office (Respondent), directing Appellant to repair or reprint as necessary and at no additional expense to the Government, the entire order of some 3,000 saddle-stitched 76 page, plus cover, 8-1/2 x 11" 4-color publications requisitioned by the Department of the Air Force (Req. No. 7-00083) because the publications were purportedly "not printed in the 4-color process colors. It appears the blue negative was not used. Instead, it appears the yellow negative was duplicated and used in lieu of the blue negative." (Rule 4 File, hereinafter "R4 File," Tab A.) The Appellant denies the allegation made by the CO and asserts that: We made a color key proof using the negatives provided us by the Regional Office and determined that the proof did not look right. I then telephoned the Dallas office and talked with Mr. Casey and he advised me in a rather curt manner that they had furnished those same negatives to many other printers and they had never had a problem producing the job. The attitude was that we were not really capable of doing the job. I was then advised that those negatives were to be used. We ran four (4) process colors of ink. We provided a color key proof to Dallas as soon as they rejected the job. It seems that they can not [sic] see that four (4) colors were run. Anyone with a magnifier can see that all four colors were run. The problem is that the negatives furnished were not good negatives. We were told to use them as other printers had. We did not duplicate any negatives. We stripped up what was sent to us. We do not feel we should have to print this job over due to the Dallas Office furnishing bad negatives and then instructions to go ahead and use them even though I told them on the phone the job did not look right. Official File, Tab 1. Appellant enclosed a color key proof it purportedly had submitted to the DRPPO together with a sample of the rejected booklet it had printed. (Official File, Tab 1.) By memorandum to this Board dated July 30, 1987, the CO stated: The contractor was advised of the problem with the cover on June 12, 1987 and was directed to return negatives and camera copy to the DRPPO. We received negatives and color keys for the cover from the contractor on June 19, 1987. Examination of the negatives revealed the following: The negatives for the Red and Yellow plates were intact and suitable for their intended purpose. The negative for the Black plate had been cut into two pieces and restripped to conform to the configuration of a black line border on the furnished camera copy, rather than being used as furnished. The negative for the Blue plate was not the negative furnished by the Government, but rather, appeared to be a contractor duplicated negative of the furnished yellow negative that had been cut into three pieces and restripped with a "blue" key line. The contractor was advised of our findings, and was informed that we would require him to reprint the covers and repair the publications. He refused to reprint the order and on June 19, 1987, the Contracting Officer made a final decision and directed the contractor to repair or reprint as necessary. On July 1, 1987, we received a copy of a letter sent by the contractor appealing that final decision. We contacted the department on July 15, 1987, to determine if the publications had been picked up by the contractor. We were told the publications were still there. The contractor was again called regarding the reprint and told us no action had been taken because they were waiting for a response to their appeal. The contractor was referred to the disputes clause in U.S. GPO Contract Terms No. 1 and the requirement for him to "proceed diligently with the performance of the contract and in accordance with the Contracting Officers [sic] decision." At that time the contractor said he would make arrangements to pick up the publications. As of July 17, 1987, the publications were still at the Department. Official File, Tab 4. DECISION The question presented by this appeal is whether or not the product manufactured by Appellant was done in 4-color process as required by the specifications. The question is purely technical in nature and, pursuant to the terms of the contract concerning rights of inspection, is reserved to the Government to determine. The exercise of such authority by the Government is usually made by the CO, as here, and will not be overturned by the Board except upon clear and convincing evidence that it was fraudulently made or that the discretion was clearly erroneous or exercised in an arbitrary and capricious way. No such evidence having been presented by Appellant, it is the decision of this Board that the appeal be denied and the decision of the CO affirmed.