U. S. Government Printing Office Office of the General Counsel Contract Appeals Board Appeal of Uscher Business, Inc. Docket 75-1 February 28, 1975 Alan S. Zuckerman Associate General Counsel Mr. William Uscher, President Uscher Business Forms, Inc. 629 Grove Street Jersey City, New Jersey 07302 Reference is made to the appeal to the Public Printer from the decision of the contracting officer rejecting the printing of 50,000 sets of forms and terminating the contract for default. The forms were purchased under GPO purchase order 59360 dated May 22, 1974. Such appeal was made pursuant to the "Disputes" clause of the contract. This is the decision of the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Government Printing Office, the authorized representative of the Public Printer for the determination of such appeals. The specifications require in pertinent part that;. "CONSTRUCTION: . . . . The carbon shall be affixed to the form by an adhesive of the type that will leave little residue on the form when removed and will not mar the printed form when carbon is removed . . . . The carbon must be attached in such a manner as to allow clear and easy separation . . . . Strip pasting is not acceptable." The supplies furnished were constructed in such a way that when separated, a 1/8" strip of a carbon sheet running the full width of the printed page remained on the printed page. The remaining strip of carbon runs through the printed seal of the Department of the Interior. In the context of the entire specification, it is clear that the "little residue" referred to was a residue of adhesive, not a residue of paper. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the product delivered fails to meet the specifications in the following additional respects: (1) The printed form is marred by the remaining strip of carbon running through the printed seal of the Department after carbon separation. (2) The carbon was not attached in such a manner as to allow clear and easy separation. (3) The carbon was attached by strip pasting. The Government is entitled to a product which has been manufactured in exact conformance with the specification. Inasmuch as the product delivered by your firm failed to meet the specifications in several respects, the supplies furnished were properly rejected. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is denied.