BNUMBER: B-259208
DATE: March 6, 1996
TITLE: Government Printing Office--Environmental Protection
Agency--Interagency Orders--Appropriations
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Government Printing Office--Environmental Protection
Agency--Interagency Orders--Appropriations
File: B-259208
Date: March 6, 1996
DIGEST
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is only liable for the
publication services that authorized personnel requisitioned from the
Government Printing Office (GPO). After having enlarged the
publication project without first receiving the approval of authorized
EPA officials, GPO cannot charge the requesting agency for the costs
of the expanded project.
DECISION
This responds to the request from the General Counsel of the
Government Printing Office (GPO) asking for an opinion concerning a
$304,334 bill that his agency submitted to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for publication services. For the following
reasons, we conclude that EPA's liability for the publication services
is limited to the $14,000 that it obligated through requisitions, and
that GPO must cover the additional costs incurred.
Background
In June 1992, EPA submitted a requisition to GPO ordering an
electronic publication at a total cost, as estimated by GPO, not to
exceed $9,000. According to the EPA technical representative for the
project, GPO was to convert the sixteen volumes of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) from its paper format to an
electronic format at a GPO-estimated cost of approximately $600 per
volume. The EPA volumes of the CFR were the first of the 200 CFR
volumes that GPO planned to convert. In April 1993, EPA submitted
another requisition, at GPO's request, for an additional $5000 to add
graphics to the publication, committing EPA to a total of $14,000.
The GPO General Counsel states that as work under these two
requisitions progressed, verbal instructions from the EPA technical
representative for the project, John Richards, caused GPO to enlarge
the scope of its work beyond the $14,000 already committed. The
General Counsel asserts that GPO incurred over $300,000 in project
costs because Richards "provided the impression to GPO representatives
that funding for the enlarged and evolving experimental project would
be available."
Prior to the April 1993 requisition where authorized EPA officials
fixed EPA's total commitment at $14,000, the EPA Chief, Printing
Management Section, in a memorandum to GPO dated November 17, 1992,
identified the EPA employees who were authorized to commit the agency
to printing services. The memorandum does not identify Richards as an
official authorized to order printing services nor does GPO argue that
Richards was given such a designation at one of the several meetings
between the two agencies. According to EPA, Richards' sole function
on the project was to act as a technical advisor, available to assist
GPO in the use of microcomp, an electronic document format adopted by
several federal agencies, to produce the electronic publication.
The EPA Associate General Counsel, Contracts, Claims and Property
Division, states that EPA never had any anticipation of funding the
project at a level greater than the $14,000 that it obligated. He
further asserts that even if Richards gave GPO the "impression" that
additional funding would be available, the technical advisor had no
authority to commit EPA appropriations to expenses exceeding the
amounts in the requisitions. Richards, himself, denies that he asked
GPO to enlarge the project, and states that the bill from GPO for
additional work came as a "total surprise" to him.
Analysis
The agreement between EPA and GPO for the electronic publication was
governed by the two GPO Standard Form 1 Printing and Binding
Requisitions that EPA used to order the work. After an ordering
agency certifies that it requires the services of GPO, the Public
Printer is required to furnish an estimate of the cost of the services
pursuant to which the ordering agency may make a requisition for
performance from GPO. 44 U.S.C. sec. 1103. GPO must then adhere to the
terms of the requisition since, as a legal matter, "[p]rinting may not
be done without a special requisition . . . filed with the Public
Printer." 44 U.S.C. sec. 1102(c).
Agencies are responsible for establishing procedures to safeguard
against overexpenditures when placing or filling interagency orders
for goods or services. GAO's Policy and Procedures Manual for
Guidance of Federal Agencies states that "[w]hen the total cost of
performance is not known in advance, costs should be estimated, and
this estimated amount should constitute a ceiling on the costs that
may be incurred by the performing agency without notifying, and
receiving approval from, an authorized official of the requesting
agency." GAO, Policy and Procedures Manual for Guidance of Federal
Agencies, tit. 7, Sec. 2.4(C)(2)(b) (TS No. 7-43, May 18, 1993).
In this case, EPA officials, using the GPO requisition forms,
established a $14,000 ceiling for the project. See 59 Comp. Gen. 386,
388 (1980). Before incurring expenses exceeding the ceiling, GPO
should have given EPA new cost estimates and obtained requisitions
from EPA, in accordance with GPO statutes.
GPO apparently based its decision to exceed the ceiling and expand the
project on comments from the project's technical advisor. The record
does not establish that the technical advisor requested the additional
work. Richards denies that he asked GPO to exceed the scope of the
work contracted for in the EPA requisitions, and GPO has no
documentation that he ordered the additional work. Even if we assume
that Richards requested the additional work, EPA points out that he
lacked the authority to bind the agency. In this regard, EPA is not
bound by unauthorized or misleading representations of its employees,
because when a government employee acts outside the scope of the
authority actually held by him, those who deal with him are deemed to
have notice of the limitations on his authority. 56 Comp. Gen. 131,
136 (1976). See, e.g., B-182081, Jan. 26, 1977 (GPO invoice could not
be paid since the authority of the government employee to place the
order had expired). Thus, although GPO presented no evidence to
substantiate its assertion that Richards approved the additional work,
even if we were to accept GPO's assertion, we must conclude that since
Richards was not authorized to contract for printing services, he
lacked the authority to commit EPA to expenditures beyond those in the
requisitions.
Accordingly, since authorized EPA officials obligated a total of only
$14,000 in their requisitions for the electronic publication, the
agency is not liable for the $304,334 in additional expenses that GPO
incurred. GPO should use its own appropriations to cover all costs
above the amounts authorized in the EPA requisitions.
/s/ Robert P. Murphy
for Comptroller General
of the United States