U.S. Government Printing Office Contract Appeals Board Jay E. Eisen, Chairman Victor Corrado, Member Robert McArtor, Member Panel 3-80 Appeal of Broyles Typesetting Service 920 L Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001 December 3, 1979 This is an appeal filed by the Broyles Typesetting Service, Washington, D.C., herein also referred to as the contractor, under the disputes clause of the contract, Purchase Order 50297, Jacket 246-540, Article 29, U.S. Government Printing Office, Contract Terms No. 1, approved July 1, 1943, Rev. July 15, 1970. The appeal came before the Board on November 20, 1979, following a decision by the Contracting Officer on November 20, 1978, to terminate the contract Jacket 246-540, due to the failure of the contractor to perform in accordance with the terms of the contract. The appellant submitted its notice of appeal by letter dated December 1, 1978. The appellant requested an informal hearing in accordance with GPO Instruction 110.10, June 6, 1979. This procedure consists of a written submission and an informal hearing before the Board. The purpose of such a hearing generally is not to serve for introduction of new matter but to permit explanations and/or argument regarding written matters already in the record. Accordingly, no transcript of the proceedings was prepared. The decision of the Board is based upon information contained in the appeal file, supporting explanations, and argument regarding written matters in the record. Mrs. L. Hofberg appeared for the appellant and Mr. James Lane, Office of General Counsel, appeared for the Contracting Office. Mr. James Markley appeared as the Contracting Officer's representative together with Mr. James E. Willard, Printing Specialist, who acted as Technical Advisor. I. Findings of Fact: A. This case arises out of a contract entered into by the Broyles Typesetting Service and the U.S. Government Printing Office, hereinafter referred to as the GPO, on October 14, 1977, at a cost of $2,586.28, "For the Purchase of Reproduction Proofs/Camera Copy" to be used for the production of a publication for the National Aeronautical and Space Administration titled Overall Loudness of Steady Sounds According to Theory and Experiment (NASA RP--1001). GPO furnished 22 folios of manuscript copy fully prepared, typewritten, predominantly double spaced with a moderate amount of handwritten editorial markings. Five sets of galley proofs and the manuscript were scheduled to be received by GPO on or before November 2, 1977. B. The specifications provided for Hot Metal Composition and/or Photocomposition and/or Cold Type. The specifications as to composition provided the following: "NOTE: Typesetting requirements for production of this publication includes the setting of complex single-line and multi-line equations. Contractor must have the capability and all necessary special characters needed for setting complex equation matter." . . . "It is estimated there will be-(Described according to classification, i.e., Straight matter, Moderately Difficult, Difficult, Tabular, Hand Time, and Makeup): 190,000 ems of Difficult Matter, includes approximately 180 single-line equations and 170 multi-line equations, . . .) set 8 & 10 pt. Modern, . . ., in addition to the equations there are numerous special characters running in throughout the main body text. Special characters include but are not necessarily limited to: superior and inferior plus superscript and subscript figures and letters, common and advanced math signs, radicals, integrals . . .." "TABULAR MATTER: 30,000 ems 10 pt.Modern . . .." C. The specifications in regards to typefaces and methods of composition provided the following: "A. TYPEFACES AND METHODS OF COMPOSITION Hot Metal, Coldtype, Typeface Photocomposition 1. TEXT: 6, 8, and 10 pt. Modern with Hot Metal italics and small caps 2. 8 pt. Garamond with italics Hot Metal 3. 8 pt. Gothic Condensed Hot Metal 4. TABULAR: 8 pt. Modern Hot Metal 5. DISPLAY: 12 pt. Helvetica Hot Metal 6. 14 pt. Helvetica Bold Hot Metal . . . "B. Substitute typefaces /_/ will not be accepted /X/ will be accepted for item(s) 1-6 above "C. Substitute methods of composition /_/ will not be accepted /X/ will be accepted for item(s) 1-6 above If substitute typefaces and/or methods of composition will not be accepted, the bidder must use those listed above in order to meet the terms of this contract. If substitutes will be accepted, the bidder must list the proposed substitute on the line of the same number as the preferred typeface/method of composition, giving the name, point size, series and font number, and the composing machine he intends to use." D. On October 13, 1977, inquiry was made to appellant by telephone by GPO as to the method of typesetting the contractor intended to use in the performance of the requirements of the contract. The contractor indicated hot metal exclusively as confirmed by letter dated October 13, 1977 (Exhibits 5, 6). E. Consequently, GPO issued Purchase Order 50297 dated October 14, 1977, to the contractor. The 5 sets of galley proofs and the manuscript required to be mailed to GPO on or before November 2, 1977, were delivered and received by GPO on November 25. 1977. (Exhibit 14). F. Inspection of the galley proofs by the customer agency revealed that the job was not well set with equations pulled out and set in a different typeface. A second set of galley proofs was ordered and the contractor acknowledged receipt of the material on May 1, 1978. The contractor's request for a scheduled delivery date of June 19, 1978, was approved Exhibit 18). Five sets of galley proofs with manuscript was received by GPO on July 14, 1978, Exhibit 20). They were rejected because the equations were not set in text in type to match the text as marked on the first set of galley proofs and therefore returned for correction to the contractor. G. On July 21, 1978, the contracting officer issued a show cause letter to the contractor to the effect that the Government was considering terminating the contract because of failure to perform within the time required and that part of the composition job was set by the photocomposition method (Exhibit 23). H. The contractor responded to the effect that since the specifications provided for the composition to be set in hot metal and/or photo, the balance of 70 multi-line equations were set in photocomposition. Further, the contractor's initial choice was to set the formulas in monotype, but since such a service is not available in the Washington area, photocomposition was used (Exhibit 24). I. The contracting officer, by letter dated August 1, 1978, reminded the contractor that at the time the contract was being negotiated, the appellant confirmed in writing on October 13, 1977, that it would set the job in hot metal. The contracting officer requested that the equations be reset by the hot metal method (Exhibit 27). An additional set of galley proofs was received by GPO on August 7, 1978. The revised proofs were set in two different typefaces and therefore rejected (Exhibit 34). J. The contractor was notified on November 20, 1978, that the contract was terminated for default because of failure to set the type on the revised galley proofs as instructed, that the text was set in hot metal Modern typeface and the equations set in photo Times Roman which was in direct conflict with the corrections made on the first set of galley proofs and the specifications (Exhibit 35). II. Decision: Having recited the operative facts in this case, the Board now focuses on the question of the propriety of the decision by the contracting officer to terminate Jacket No. 246-540 for default following the rejection by GPO of the composition (typesetting requirements) submitted by the contractor because of failure to conform to the strict requirements of the specifications. On September 9, 1978, the contractor submitted a third set of revised galley proofs. Inspection by the GPO Composition Specification Section revealed that the contractor had reset the multi-line equations using, apparently, a mixture of hot metal and photocomposition. The text being set in Modern typeface and the equations being set in photo Times Roman. This action was in direct conflict with the specifications and not in accordance with the corrections made on the first set of galley proofs returned to the contractor. The appellant argues that the specifications in the contract provided alternative methods of composition, hot metal and/or photocomposition and/or cold type, which it interpreted permitted hot metal composition, and photocomposition for certain equations. It was reiterated by the contractor, however, that the equations were intended to be set in monotype, but the appellant contends that such a supplier is not available in the Washington area. This point was disputed by GPO. The contractor asserted, therefore, it was justified in using photocomposition for some of the complicated equations only. The Government contends that the appellant's galley proofs were not in compliance with the strict requirements of the contract. The specifications, as to typefaces and methods of composition provided for hot metal composition, but.also specified for the use of substitute typefaces other than those listed, and two other methods of composition, provided the bidder listed the proposed substitute on the line of the same number as the preferred typeface/method of composition, giving the name, point size, series and font number, and the composing machine he intended to use. The bidder did not submit proposed lists of typefaces or substitute methods of composition, and it is, therefore, concluded that the contract performance required hot metal composition and the types listed in the contract including Modern and not Times Roman. Further it appears reasonable and consistent with the entire agreement that GPO intended that the composition be submitted entirely in hot metal or photocomposition or cold metal and not in segments. The general and overriding principle is that the Government is entitled to strict compliance with the specifications. Polyphase Contracting Corp., ASBCA, 68-1 BCA ¶ 6759 (1967); Consolidated Airborne Systems, Inc., ASBCA 10602, 11154, 66-1 BCA ¶ 5582 (1966). This doctrine is enforced even when the deviations are minor, or even if the nonspecification item offered is as good or better than the item called for by the contract. In the instant case we believe that the specifications were clear and were not lived up to. The Government had a right to obtain what it contracted for and it did not receive it; the contractor had no right, except at his own risk, to deviate therefrom. Factually, the contractor was not misled in any way. Again the Government is entitled to strict compliance with the specifications in this type of contract, simply as a usual right. Contrary to appellant's suggestion at the hearing, nothing arbitrary or unconscionable appears merely from the Government's adherence to the specifications. Accordingly, in reviewing all the evidence that has been presented and after considering all of the arguments, the Board finds 1. The default termination was proper. 2. The appeal is denied.