B-123751, OCT. 30, 1956

B-123751: Oct 30, 1956

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

TO WILGO: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 18. AS YOU WERE ADVISED IN OUR LETTER OF AUGUST 28. WAS REQUESTED FROM THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. THE REPORT IS QUOTED. AS FOLLOWS: "WILGO COMPLAINED AT ONE TIME THAT THE COPY RECEIVED WAS INFERIOR. OUR TYPOGRAPHY AND DESIGN SECTION ADVISED THAT ALL OF THE COPY FURNISHED TO WILGO WAS SATISFACTORY FOR REPRODUCTION. "THE CLAIMANT STATES THAT THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE ORDERS GAVE WRONG SPECIFICATIONS FOR BINDERY AND THAT NO EXTENSION OF PRODUCTION TIME WAS GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE ENSUING DELAY. "THERE WERE SOME CONFLICTING INSTRUCTIONS WHEN THE WORK WAS FIRST BEGUN ON THE PROGRAM. THE INSTRUCTIONS WERE CLARIFIED AS TO THE FOLDING. THE BINDING PRICES WILL BE FOUND ON SHEET NO. 6 OF THE CONTRACT AND ARE IDENTIFIED AS ITEM NO.'C.'.

B-123751, OCT. 30, 1956

TO WILGO:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 18, 1956, AND SUBSEQUENT CORRESPONDENCE, REQUESTING REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT DATED JULY 21, 1954, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR $12,328.87, ALLEGED DUE UNDER CONTRACT NO. CP- 7180-A.

AS YOU WERE ADVISED IN OUR LETTER OF AUGUST 28, 1956, A REPORT WITH REGARD TO THE MANY CONTENTIONS RAISED IN YOUR LETTER OF JULY 18, 1956, WAS REQUESTED FROM THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. THE REPORT OF THE PUBLIC PRINTER DATED OCTOBER 5, 1956, NOW HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND SINCE IT SETS FORTH EACH OF YOUR CONTENTIONS AND HIS REPLY THERETO, THE REPORT IS QUOTED, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:

"WILGO COMPLAINED AT ONE TIME THAT THE COPY RECEIVED WAS INFERIOR. HOWEVER, A NEGATIVE MADE IN THIS OFFICE OF A PIECE OF COPY RETURNED BY WILGO REPRODUCED VERY WELL. OUR TYPOGRAPHY AND DESIGN SECTION ADVISED THAT ALL OF THE COPY FURNISHED TO WILGO WAS SATISFACTORY FOR REPRODUCTION.

"THE CLAIMANT STATES THAT THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE ORDERS GAVE WRONG SPECIFICATIONS FOR BINDERY AND THAT NO EXTENSION OF PRODUCTION TIME WAS GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE ENSUING DELAY.

"THERE WERE SOME CONFLICTING INSTRUCTIONS WHEN THE WORK WAS FIRST BEGUN ON THE PROGRAM. HOWEVER, THE INSTRUCTIONS WERE CLARIFIED AS TO THE FOLDING, STITCHING, AND MARGINS. NONE OF THE REJECTIONS RESULTED FROM THIS. FOR INSTANCE, OUR SPECIFICATIONS STATED THAT DUMMIES WOULD BE FURNISHED TO TAKE CARE OF TWO 16-PAGE FORMS RUN SHEET WISE AND 1-16, 1-8, AND 1-4 RUN WORK-AND-TURN. WHEN WILGO DELIVERED THE PRESS SHEETS, THEY HAD FOLDED AND DELIVERED THEM AS TWO 16-PAGE SIGNATURES. WE FURNISHED FOLDING DUMMIES AND LAYOUTS WHICH WOULD DELIVER ONE 32-PAGE SIGNATURE RATHER THAN TWO 16-PAGE SIGNATURES. THE CONTRACT PROVIDES FOR BINDING 4-, 8-, 16-, OR 32-PAGES. THE BINDING PRICES WILL BE FOUND ON SHEET NO. 6 OF THE CONTRACT AND ARE IDENTIFIED AS ITEM NO.'C.'

WILGO CLAIMS THAT THE FIRST PURCHASE ORDERS CALLED FOR SADDLE-WIRE STITCHING RATHER THAN SIDE-WIRE STITCHING, AS PROVIDED IN OUR BASIC SPECIFICATIONS ON WHICH THEY SUBMITTED THEIR BID. ALL PAMPHLETS WERE DELIVERED BY WILGO SIDE-WIRE STITCHED, THEREFORE THERE WAS NO CHANGE FROM THE BID. THE QUESTION OF AN EXTENSION OF THE DELIVERY TIME DID NOT ARISE AT THAT TIME SO FAR AS WE CAN RECALL. THERE IS NOTHING IN OUR RECORDS TO SHOW THAT WILGO ASKED FOR ANY EXTENSION IN DELIVERY TIME. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN OUR POLICY AND PRACTICE TO GRANT ADDITIONAL TIME WHEN IT IS REQUESTED, IF THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR A DELAY. THIS WAS NOT A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IN THE DEFAULT OF WILGO.

"WILGO STATES THAT WE ADVISED THEM ON JUNE 27, 1951, THAT WE WERE DISSATISFIED WITH THE BOOKS DELIVERED ON PRINT ORDER NO. 5, BUT THAT WE DID NOT ADVISE THEM THAT BOOK NO. 5 WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND WOULD HAVE TO BE REPRINTED UNTIL AUGUST 3, 1951. OUR LETTER OF JUNE 27, 1951, READS IN PART AS FOLLOWS:

" "PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE GENERAL CALIBER OF THE QUALITY OF THE WORK ON PAST EDITIONS OF THIS PUBLICATION IS NOT UP TO OUR STANDARDS AND ON ALL FUTURE PUBLICATIONS MUST BE GREATLY IMPROVED.

" "WE DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO BULLETIN NO. 2-5-8, SERVICE TRADES; LAUNDRIES, CLEANING AND DYEING, PLANTS AND RELATED SERVICES. NOTE THE POOR WORKMANSHIP DISPLAYED ON 8.01, 8.25, 8.34, 8.44, 8.46, 8.48, 8.59, 8.62, 8.65, 8.66, 8.67, 8.71, 8.72, 8.94, 8.104, 8.130, AND 8.134. THESE PAGES ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES IN THIS PARTICULAR EDITION BUT THEY ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN PERFORMED BY YOU ON THIS CONTRACT.'

"AT THE TIME THIS LETTER WAS WRITTEN, WE HAD ONLY A PRELIMINARY COMPLAINT ON THIS PROGRAM FROM THE BUREAU OF CENSUS. WHEN THE BUREAU OF CENSUS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHECK THE DELIVERY CLOSELY, THEY REJECTED THE ITEM OF FLAT SHEETS IN A MEMORANDUM DATED AUGUST 1, 1951, BECAUSE "THE POOR QUALITY OF WORK DOES NOT WARRANT USING IT IN THE BOUND VOLUME.' THEREFORE ASKED WILGO BY LETTER DATED AUGUST 3, 1951, TO REPLACE THE FLAT SHEETS FOR PRINT ORDER NO. 5. THE CONTRACTOR WAS DELIVERING PART OF THE ORDER AS STITCHED PAMPHLETS AND PART OF IT AS FLAT SHEETS, WHICH WERE LATER TO BE FOLDED AND INCORPORATED INTO BOUND VOLUMES. THE PAMPHLETS WERE REQUIRED URGENTLY FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION AND WERE ACCEPTED IN MANY CASES WHILE THE FLAT SHEETS WERE REJECTED.

"THE CLAIMANT CONTENDS THAT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE AND THE BUREAU OF CENSUS SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED ALL OF THE FLAT SHEETS PRINTED UP TO THE TIME BEFORE THE RENEWAL OF THE CONTRACT AND STATES THAT IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY QUESTION AS TO THE QUALITY OF THE WORK, THE CONTRACT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RENEWED. AT THE TIME OF THE RENEWAL OF THE CONTRACT WHICH HAD A TERMINATION AND RENEWAL DATE ONLY BECAUSE OF THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR A DEFAULT. IF IT HAD BEEN DETERMINED PRIOR TO THE RENEWAL OF CONTRACT THAT WILGO COULD NOT PERFORM, WE STILL WOULD HAVE DEFAULTED THEM AND CHARGED THEM WITH ANY EXCESS COSTS INCURRED BECAUSE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO JUSTIFICATION FOR RELIEVING THEM FROM PERFORMANCE UNDER THE CONTRACT.

"WILGO STATES THAT ONLY ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1951, WHEN MR. RALPH DOGIN CAME TO WASHINGTON AND JOINED IN A MEETING WITH CENSUS AND GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE OFFICIALS DID THEY KNOW THAT DISCUSSIONS WERE TAKING PLACE REGARDING THE QUALITY OF THEIR WORK. THIS STATEMENT WAS MADE DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE FORWARDED LETTERS TO WILGO DATED JUNE 27, AUGUST 3, AUGUST 6, AUGUST 16, AND AUGUST 31, 1951, REGARDING THE POOR QUALITY OF WORK AND/OR DEMANDING IMPROVEMENT. COPIES OF THESE LETTERS WERE FORWARDED TO YOUR OFFICE WITH OUR LETTER OF MAY 25, 1954. IN THESE LETTERS WILGO WAS DIRECTED TO REPRINT FLAT SHEETS ON SEVERAL OF THE JOBS BECAUSE OF THE POOR QUALITY OF WORKMANSHIP. THEY WERE ALSO ADVISED THAT WE COULD NOT ACCEPT AN INFERIOR QUALITY OF PRINTING ON THIS PROGRAM. IT WOULD APPEAR THEREFORE, THAT WILGO WAS ON NOTICE OF THE INFERIOR QUALITY OF WORK LONG BEFORE SEPTEMBER 13, 1951, AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE AND BUREAU OF CENSUS WERE CONFERRING REGARDING THE REJECTION OF THE WORK.

"REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE HAD PREVIOUSLY HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH BUREAU OF CENSUS PERSONNEL AND THEY BROUGHT A SERIES OF BOOKS TO THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE TO BE EXAMINED. WE DID EXAMINE THE BOOKS AND MARKED CERTAIN BOOKS WHICH WE FELT POSSIBLY MIGHT BE ACCEPTED BY CENSUS. THESE APPARENTLY ARE THE BOOKS WHICH WILGO CLAIMS TO HAVE PHOTOSTATIC COPIES AND OKAYS FROM MR. MATHENY. MR. MATHENY IS ONE OF THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE EMPLOYEES WHO EXAMINED THE BOOKS. THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS MADE THE FINAL DETERMINATION AS TO WHICH BOOKS SHOULD BE REJECTED. THE CLAIMANT CONTENDS THAT ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1951, HE MET WITH DR. A. ROSS ECKLER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, AND THAT AT THIS MEETING DR. ECKLER AGREED TO ACCEPT ALL OF THE BOOKS IN QUESTION AS LONG AS THEY WERE OKAYED BY THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. IN A MEETING WITH MR. BUCKLE ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1951, WILGO CLAIMED THAT DR. ECKLER HAD MADE THIS STATEMENT. THIS STATEMENT WAS NEVER CONFIRMED BY THE BUREAU OF CENSUS.

"THE CLAIMANT STATES THAT HE SHOWED HIS WILLINGNESS TO REPRINT PRINT ORDER NO. 5 BY REQUESTING STOCK FROM MR. BUCKLE. THERE IS NO RECORD OR RECOLLECTION OF THIS REQUEST AND ACTUALLY THERE WAS NO REASON FOR SUCH A REQUEST BECAUSE ACCORDING TO OUR INVENTORY THE CONTRACTOR HAD MORE THAN ENOUGH PAPER ON HAND TO PRINT THE REQUIRED WORK. HE COULD HAVE PROCEEDED WITH THE REPRINT AT ANY TIME AND NEEDED ONLY TO NOTIFY US OF THE AMOUNT OF PAPER USED SO THAT WE COULD CHARGE IT TO HIS ACCOUNT. FURTHERMORE, HAD HE, IN GOOD FAITH, WANTED TO PROCEED WITH THE REPRINTING, HE COULD HAVE PROCURED PAPER FROM ANOTHER SOURCE.

"DURING A MEETING WITH MR. GOLDBERGER ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1951, MR. BUCKLE ASKED HIM FOR HIS PROPOSAL FOR REPLACING THE REJECTED MATERIAL AS OUTLINED IN OUR LETTERS OF SEPTEMBER 17 AND 18, TELEPHONE CALL OF SEPTEMBER 21 IN WHICH THE CONTRACTOR PROMISED TO COME TO WASHINGTON ON SEPTEMBER 25 AND GIVE PROPOSAL, AND OUR TELEGRAM OF SEPTEMBER 26 STATING PROPOSAL MUST BE IN OUR HANDS BY 4 P.M. EDST, SEPTEMBER 28. MR. GOLDBERGER STATED THAT HE COULD NOT REPRINT ANY OF THE WORK OR STAND THE LOSS ON IT BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF HIS FIRM.

"ON OCTOBER 16, 1951, OUR DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SERVICE FORWARDED A MEMORANDUM TO OUR DIRECTOR OF PURCHASES WHICH READS IN PART AS FOLLOWS: "SINCE THE EARLY PART OF LAST JUNE, THIS DIVISION HAS BEEN COMPLAINING OF THE EXTREMELY POOR QUALITY OF PRINTING PRODUCED BY THIS CONTRACTOR ON ALL JOBS FOR THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS WHICH YOUR DIVISION HAS GIVEN HIM. IMPROVEMENT HAS BEEN NOTED, DESPITE LETTERS ADDRESSED TO THIS FIRM OVER YOUR SIGNATURE IN JUNE AND SINCE. MUCH OF THE WORK IS SO POOR THAT THE FIGURES IN TABLES CANNOT EVEN BE READ ... MUCH OF THE DETAILED WORK HAS BEEN DISGRACEFULLY POOR. SOME TEN FORMS ARE YET TO BE PRINTED. THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN PATIENT AND HAS ACCEPTED ALL BUT THE WORST PORTIONS OF THE WORK. THEY WILL NOT ACCEPT WORK IN THE FUTURE THAT IS NOT FIRST CLASS. THEREFORE, I AM REQUESTING YOU TO REFUSE TO GIVE ANY NEW CENSUS JOBS TO THIS FIRM AND TO ARRANGE FOR THE PRINTING OF THE REMAINING JOBS BY SOME OTHER CONTRACTOR KNOWN TO YOU TO DO WORK IN A WHOLLY SATISFACTORY MANNER ...'

"ON OCTOBER 22, 1951, WE ADVISED WILGO THAT WE WERE DECLARING THEM IN DEFAULT OF CONTRACT BECAUSE OF THEIR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS WHICH STATE THAT "THE HIGHEST QUALITY WORKMANSHIP IS REQUIRED FOR ALL PHASES OF PRODUCTION OF THIS PUBLICATION.' WE ADVISED WILGO THAT THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ADDITIONAL CHARGES RESULTING FROM THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE WORK.

"IN THE MEANTIME, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS HAD BEEN REVIEWING ALL OF THE MATERIAL DELIVERED BY WILGO TO DETERMINE FINALLY THE WORK THAT COULD BE ACCEPTED AND THAT WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE REPRINTED. IN A MEMORANDUM DATED OCTOBER 31, 1951, FROM THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, THERE IS LISTED 17 PRINT ORDERS FOR WHICH SOME PORTION OF THE MATERIAL HAD TO BE REPLACED. PREPARED SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE REPRINTING OF THIS MATERIAL AND AWARDED A CONTRACT TO WASHINGTON PLANOGRAPH COMPANY, WASHINGTON, D.C. THIS FIRM FURNISHED THE WORK ON WHICH WILGO HAD BEEN DECLARED IN DEFAULT OF CONTRACT AND THE WORK WAS ACCEPTED BY THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS AS SATISFACTORY.

"OUR RECORDS SHOW THAT WE MADE REPEATED EFFORTS TO OBTAIN SATISFACTORY REPRINTS FROM WILGO PRIOR TO DEFAULT. DURING THIS PERIOD WILGO WOULD NOT REPLACE THE REJECTED WORK AND ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1951, MADE THE STATEMENT THAT THEY COULD NOT REPRINT ANYTHING OR STAND THE LOSS FOR ANYTHING BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THEIR FIRM. THERE IS NO RECORD IN THIS OFFICE OF ANY OFFER FROM WILGO TO REPRINT MATERIAL WHICH WAS REJECTED FOR POOR QUALITY UNTIL NOVEMBER 7, 1951, AFTER THEY HAD BEEN DECLARED IN DEFAULT OF CONTRACT. CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO WILGO'S REQUEST OF NOVEMBER 7, 1951, TO BE PERMITTED TO REPRINT THE WORK BUT BECAUSE THEY HAD FAILED TO PROCEED WITH THE WORK UP UNTIL THAT TIME WE ADVISED THEM BY LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 13, 1951, THAT WE COULD NOT GIVE THEM PERMISSION TO REPRINT ANY OF THE REJECTED WORK.

"WILGO CONTENDS THAT THE NEGATIVES MADE BY THEM WERE USED IN REPRINTING CERTAIN PAMPHLETS AND THAT THEY SHOULD BE REIMBURSED FOR THE NEGATIVES. IT SHOULD BE NOTED AT THIS POINT THAT WILGO DID NOT INCLUDE A PRICE IN THE CONTRACT FOR NEGATIVES. ITEM NO. A LINE NEGATIVE ON PAGE 6 OF THE CONTRACT SHOWS "N.C.'. WILGO'S NEGATIVES WERE NOT USED IN REPRINTING THE REJECTED WORK. OUR SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE REPRINTING (WORK PERFORMED BY WASHINGTON PLANOGRAPH) REQUIRED THE CONTRACTOR TO MAKE NEGATIVES FOR ALL OF THE PRINTED PAGES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TWO COVER PAGES WHICH WERE FURNISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. OUR RECORDS SHOW THAT THE NEGATIVES DELIVERED BY WILGO TO THE NEW YORK GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WAREHOUSE WERE HELD THERE UNTIL APRIL 1953, AND WERE THEN FORWARDED TO THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WHERE THEY WERE HELD UNTIL DESTROYED. WILGO'S NEGATIVES HAD BEEN USED TO REPRINT THE WORK THE EXCESS COSTS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME BECAUSE WE CHARGED WILGO WITH ONLY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEIR CONTRACT PRICE AND THE COST OF THE REPRINTING.

"WILGO STATES THAT ON JULY 25, 1952, THEY RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE INFORMING THEM THAT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE HAD ISSUED 512,000 SHEETS 32 BY 42, WHITE OFFSET BOOK PAPER, PROPERTY NO. 8525, AND 1,400 CARTONS, PROPERTY NO. 9053. THE CLAIMANT STATES THAT THEY WERE CREDITED WITH RECEIVING 5 SHIPMENTS OF STOCK ON SKIDS, BUT THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY WAY OF CHECKING THE EXACT AMOUNT OF STOCK ON EACH SKID OR THE EXACT NUMBER OF CARTONS IN EACH BUNDLE AND THEY QUESTION WHETHER THE TOTAL AMOUNTS OF STOCK ON EACH SKID OR THE EXACT AMOUNT OF CARTONS IN EACH BUNDLE WERE CORRECT. WILGO STATES THAT THEIR TRUCKMAN PICKING UP THE STOCK AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE NEW YORK WAREHOUSE, SIGNED FOR RECEIPTS OF SKIDS AND BUNDLES, NOT FOR INDIVIDUALLY COUNTED CARTONS IN EACH BUNDLE. WILGO STATES THAT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE CREDITS WILGO WITH USING 445,282 SHEETS OF PAPER (WE CREDITED THEM WITH USING 445,996 SHEETS) AND 941 CARTONS. WILGO RETURNED THE BALANCE OF THE CARTONS WHICH THEY HAD IN THEIR PLANT TO THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE NEW YORK WAREHOUSE AND THERE WAS NO SHORTAGE OF CARTONS. WILGO STATES THAT IN REGARD TO THE STOCK, THEIR RECORDS SHOW THAT THEY USED NET 358,112 SHEETS OF 38 BY 48 AND 53,622 SHEETS CUT TO 19 BY 25 (255,085--- 19 BY 25 SHEETS) INVOLVING 144 UNITS OF FLATS OF 4 WITH TOTAL PRESS IMPRESSION ON THE 19 BY 25 PRESS OF 510,986. IT IS STATED THAT WITH THE HEAVY AMOUNT OF CUTTING, PRINTING AND BINDING OF THE 19 BY 25 SHEETS, WILGO SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO A 15 PERCENT ALLOWANCE FOR SPOILAGE BRINGING THE TOTAL OF SHEETS USED TO 485,061, LEAVING UNACCOUNTED FOR 26,939 SHEETS. WILGO STATES THAT THE DISCREPANCY IN THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE FIGURES BETWEEN WILGO'S FIGURES IS 39,779 SHEETS, AT THE GOVERNMENT FIGURE OF $2.59 PER HUNDRED (WE CHARGED $2.17 PER HUNDRED) THAT WILGO HAS A CLAIM OF $1,030.28 DEDUCTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE FOR STOCK.

"WHEN THE PAPER WAS PICKED UP BY WILGO FROM OUR NEW YORK WAREHOUSE, WE OBTAINED RECEIPTS FROM THEM SHOWING THE QUANTITY OF PAPER PICKED UP. WE WERE NEVER NOTIFIED BY WILGO THAT THEY HAD NOT RECEIVED THE QUANTITY OF PAPER WHICH WE HAD CHARGED TO THEM. THIS QUANTITY OF PAPER WAS ENTERED ON OUR PAPER INVENTORY SHEET WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO WILGO AND AS PRINT ORDERS WERE ISSUED, THE AMOUNT OF STOCK ALLOWED FOR EACH PRINT ORDER (BASED ON FORM NO. 982, WHICH FORM WAS PART OF THE CONTRACT) WAS DEDUCTED FROM WILGO'S INVENTORY. WILGO WAS ALLOWED 445,996 SHEETS OF PAPER TO PRINT THE WORK ORDERED. AT THE END OF THE CONTRACT PERIOD, WILGO SHOULD HAVE HAD A BALANCE OF 66,004 SHEETS OF PAPER TO RETURN TO THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. APPARENTLY WILGO HAD NO BALANCE ON HAND BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO RETURN ANY PART OF THE PAPER TO THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. THE PAPER WAS VALUED AT $2.17 PER HUNDRED SHEETS OR A TOTAL OF $1,432.29. WILGO'S CONTENTION THAT WE SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED A STRAIGHT 15 PERCENT SPOILAGE ALLOWANCE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS THIS WOULD BE AT VARIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT.'

OUR OFFICE, HAVING NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS, MUST NECESSARILY RELY ON THE REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE WITH RESPECT TO THE FACTUAL SITUATIONS ARISING UNDER THE CONTRACT. IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF THE CORRECTNESS THEREOF, IT IS THE INVARIABLE RULE OF THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT TO ACCEPT THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AS REPORTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE PRESENT RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE APPLICATION OF A DIFFERENT RULE TO THIS CASE.

THE ACTION TAKEN IN CHARGING YOU WITH THE EXCESS COSTS INVOLVED WAS TAKEN PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT TERMS, WHICH PROVIDE THAT IF THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO COMPLETE THE WORK WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED THE GOVERNMENT MAY TERMINATE THE RIGHT OF THE CONTRACTOR TO PROCEED AND DECLARE HIM IN DEFAULT, SECURE THE WORK ELSEWHERE, AND CHARGE THE CONTRACTOR WITH ANY RESULTING EXCESS COSTS. FURTHERMORE, THE CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE PUBLIC PRINTER IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO DELIVER MATERIAL MEETING THE SPECIFICATIONS WOULD BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE.