AMERICAN DRAFTING & LAMINATING CO.
GPO BCA 15-85
June 25, 1986
MICHAEL F. DiMARIO, Administrative Law Judge
OPINION
This appeal timely filed by American Drafting & Laminating
Company (hereinafter "ADL" or "Appellant"), P.O. Box 62464,
Virginia Beach, VA 23462, arises under the "Disputes" clause
of the U.S. Government Printing Office Contract Terms No. 1,
revised October 1, 1980 (GPO Publication 310.2) which was
incorporated in each of two certain contracts between the
Appellant and the U.S. Government Printing Office (hereinafter
"GPO" or "Respondent"), the contracts being identified as
Jacket No. 739-923 and Jacket No. 740-101. Under each
contract Appellant submitted a voucher for certain sums of
money it deemed due and owing for work performed. Thereafter,
Respondent remitted reduced payments to the Appellant
disputing Appellant's method of computing charges for
composition of text matter. Appellant then requested
reconsideration of the payment reduction and asked for
clarification of the method of composition measurement used by
the Government. After two reviews and certain modifications
to the Government's position, not important to the current
appeal, the dispute remains unresolved. Thus, Appellant
appealed to this Board for resolution of the appeal requesting
that the matter be decided upon the written record using
accelerated procedures. The appeal is denied for reasons set
forth hereinbelow.
BACKGROUND
The Appellant in its notice of appeal states that: The
dispute "centers upon the method of measurement used to
compute composition payments. ADL submitted its' [sic] bid
and vouchers based upon the bid specification terms of 'per
column inch basis,' white areas not included. The GPO is
believed to have computed payment based upon line count."
Subsequently, by letter of December 23, 1985, Appellant,
having reviewed the Contracting Officer's appeal file
(hereinafter "R4 File") of November 20, 1985, stated:
[t]he GPO has since conceded that column inch measurement was
proper . . . .
After conceding [this] . . ., the GPO's reason given for
voucher reductions has now been changed to ADL billing for
white space and space for illustrations in line I(a)(l) and
I(a)(2). (Exhibit W, Chronology of Events paragraph 8 and
Finding of Fact paragraph 2.) ADL, the Contracting Officer
and FME all concur that all other lines were billed
correctly and paid accordingly. (Exhibits S, T, U, W.)
Accepting that, the dispute now centers only on the above
named lines and the supposed white spaces within them billed
as text. ADL again states its column inch measurements did
not include illustration spacing. Any small white areas
that were included were integral to running text spacing or
measured to include the folio number which is considered
text composition in the contracts (Exhibits B and G, Text
matter . . .)
Official Record, Tab 6
Respondent's narrative explanation of November 1, 1985, signed
by Daniel H. Clurman, Acting Manager, Hampton Regional
Printing Procurement Office, R4 File, Exhibit W, together with
the statement of reexamination of the disputed vouchers by G.
W. Berard, Voucher Examination Branch, dated October 31, 1985,
and related memoranda and documents in the R4 File, set forth
Respondent's reasons for disallowing Appellant's composition
measurements. The case comes to the Board in this format.
DECISION
There being no factual disputes, this case presents a single
legal question which must be resolved. The legal question is
one of contract language interpretation which is a matter of
law. Thus, any decision by this Board concerning such
question is subject to review by the courts pursuant to the
Wunderlich Act (41 U.S.C. 321 et seq). This Board believes
that the contract speaks precisely to the question of
composition measurement and whether or not white spaces
falling between text matter is to be included within the
measurement of column inches of composition for payment
purposes under the terms of the contract. The contract
expressly states that "[t]ext matter will be paid for on a per
column inch basis for lines up to 30 picas and for lines over
30 picas." (Emphasis added) The Schedule of Prices upon which
the contractor sets forth his bid includes under I.(a) an all-
inclusive price for text composition up to 30 picas per column
inch, and I.(2) an all-inclusive price per text composition
over 30 picas per column inch. "Text matter" is defined in
the contract "as all type set in sizes up to and including 14-
point except for legends, captions, running heads, and
typematter within an illustration." (Emphasis added) The law
of contract interpretation requires that words be given their
plain meaning unless there is some ambiguity which would
require the use of interpretative rules to ascertain the
intention of the parties. Kass v. William Norwitz Co., 509
F.Supp. 618 (D.D.C. 1980). In the case at hand, text matter
is type. The word type is qualified only by reference to
point size and exclusion of material which would otherwise be
included within the ordinary meaning of type; that is, printed
legends, captions, running heads, and type matter within an
illustration. Certainly, there is no intention to include
within the word "type" white space or space between groupings
of text or text and illustrations. The Board, therefore,
holds that under the terms of the contract, the proper method
of measuring text matter for payment for composition purposes
would be to measure text material excluding white spacing,
such as white spaces between paragraphs, and white spaces
between text and illustrations in calculating the number of
column inches of composition for which the Appellant is
entitled to be paid. Since the Respondent has apparently
followed this method of measurement, the Board affirms the
Respondent's decision and denies the appeal. The Board has
not and does not intend to review the arithmetic used by the
Respondent. It directs the Respondent, however, to assure
that the Appellant has been paid in accordance with the
decision of this Board as to the proper method of measurement
pursuant to the contract specifications. Denied.