U.S. Government Printing Office Board of Contract Appeals Panel 16-79 I. Appeal of Admiral Envelope and Printing Company, Inc. This appeal was filed on June 21, 1979 by Admiral Envelope and Printing Company, Inc., 401 E. Oliver Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, hereinafter referred to as the contractor, under the disputes clause of the U.S. Government Printing Office Contract for Marginally Punched Continuous Forms, Article 2.27 "Disputes." II. Issue Presented. The issue presented is whether the Government Printing Office, hereinafter referred to as GPO, properly rejected the initial printing of envelopes produced on Jackets 275-400 and 275-401, Purchase Order Nos. 41882 and 41884. As a result of these rejections and subsequent reprinting by the contractor, the contractor submitted a bill for $4,779.32 to cover the cost of materials of the rejected envelopes which was denied by GPO. III. Sequence of Events. Based on the written submissions of the contractor and GPO, the following sequence of events can be established: On approximately January 12, 1979, invitations for bids for the foregoing jackets were telephoned by GPO an-d described the production of 300,000 envelopes and 50,000 envelopes, 3-5/8 x 6-1/2 inches and 3-7/8 x 8-7/8 inches, respectively. All envelopes were required to be manufactured from White 100% Fine Writing Paper, sub. 56, printed blue and affixed, 2 up, flap open, to a suitable backing sheet in a manner which would allow removal without damage and leave no visible residue when the envelopes were sealed. The contracts were awarded to the contractor, the only bidder for either requirement, on January 12, 1979, for $10,532.50 for Jacket 275-400 and $2,343.75 for Jacket 275-401. Five other prospective bidders were solicited on each jacket, but did not submit bids. On approximately March 20, 1979, the GPO was advised by the customer agency that the envelopes were rejected because of poor printing quality. Subsequent to the contractor being informed of the customer rejection, the contractor verbally verified that all the envelopes were printed letterpress and that the quality was equal throughout the orders. An examination of the printed envelopes selected at random and furnished by the customer and the contractor, was made by the contracting officer's technical representative. As a result, it was concluded that the printing was generally poor. The contractor verbally objected to this conclusion citing that the printing was commercially acceptable and that the GPO did not specify a particular printing process. These objections were denied. By letter dated April 10, 1979, the contracting officer rejected the orders. Although the contractor disputed the rejection, they progressed with reprinting. The contractor reasserted their position by letter dated May 10, 1979 and requested $4,779.32 to cover the cost of materials. This request was denied. IV. Findings. Our review of the facts and evidence presented by the parties in the case file indicate that the GPO was remiss in this case for the following reasons: a. There is no evidence that "first class" workmanship was discussed during the telephone solicitation nor is there any requirement or notation on the telephone bid form for "first class." Further, no printed sample was furnished from the previous printing, nor was a prior to production sample requested. A "White House" requirement should merit some special attention by the contracting officer to insure the quality of the printed product. b. In the normal course of Government contracting, it is the responsibility of the contracting officer to solicit bids from a sufficient number of bidders depending on the complexity and value of the procurement to assure adequate competition. The previous supplier is generally invited to bid on procurements of reprints and term contracts. There is no evidence that this procedure was followed nor is there any evidence that a determination was made that the bid was in exact accordance with specifications, that the price was fair and reasonable, or that a GPO estimate was prepared and that the bid was in line with the estimate. c. As part of our review, we asked the GPO if there was a previous printing. If so, we requested that we be provided the contractor's name, quantity, price, and printed samples. By memorandum dated December 19, 1979, we were advised that the White House had previously purchased these products directly from Word Pro Products, Inc. of St. Louis, Missouri which is now defunct and that printed samples from that procurement were no longer available. d. A comparison of the costs of the previous printing provided by Word Pro Products, Inc. and the bid offer from Admiral Envelope and Printing Company, Inc. shows a difference of approximately $18,009. See below: Quantity Contractor and Size Price Word Pro Products, Inc. 321,300 $25,299.00 (3-5/8 x 6-1/2") 55,000 5,585.00 (3-7/8 x 8-7/8") $30,884.00 Admiral Envelope and 300,000 $10,532.00 Printing Company, Inc. (3-5/8 x 6-1/2") 50,000 2,343.00 (3-7/8 x 8-7/8") $12,875.00 This comparison clearly indicates that the offer (bid) submitted by the Admiral Envelope and Printing Company, Inc. was so out of line to have charged the contracting officer with actual or constructive knowledge of a potential error or the possibility that the Government's offer was not accepted unequivocally. V. Decision. We hold in favor of the contractor and sustain the appeal. The matter is remanded to the contracting officer for appropriate action in accordance with this decision. LOUIS A. LOPEZ, JR. Chairman, Contract Appeals Board Panel 16-79 EUNICE KAHN Member, Contract Appeals Board ROBERT BECKETT Member, Contract Appeals Board February 13, 1980