MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED,
                  MOTION FOR SUMMARY RELIEF REJECTED:
                              June 3, 1993
                                                      
 
                             GSBCA 12338-TD
 
 
                   SPREAD INFORMATION SCIENCES, INC.,
 
                                                     Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                      DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
 
                                                     Respondent.
 
        Stella Wang, Contracting Coordinator  for Spread Information
   Sciences, Inc., Bayside, NY, appearing for appellant.   
 
        William  L. Murphy, Office of General Counsel, Department of
   the Treasury, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges HENDLEY, BORWICK, and NEILL.
 
   NEILL, Board Judge.
 
 
        This is an  appeal from a contracting  officer's decision to
   terminate for  default a  contract awarded  to appellant,  Spread
   Information  Sciences,  Inc.,   for  the  supply  of   51  laptop
   computers.   The contract  was awarded by  the Department  of the
   Treasury.  
 
        In filing  its answer  to appellant's complaint,  respondent
   has moved that we dismiss this appeal in accord with Rule 8(c)(1)
   for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or,
   alternatively,  that   we  grant  summary   relief  pursuant   to
   Rule 8(c)(3).
 
        For  the  reasons set  out  below,  we  deny the  motion  to
   dismiss.    Furthermore,  we reject  for  processing respondent's
   motion for summary  relief on the ground that  respondent has not
   yet complied with the procedural requirement of Rule 8(g).  
   Motion to Dismiss
 
 
        In  bringing its motion to dismiss, respondent contends that
   there is  no basis  to appellant's objections  to the  testing of
   delivered laptop  computers and  to the  rejection and return  of
   this equipment.  Respondent claims that these actions are totally
   in accordance with applicable contract provisions.  
 
        In the final  analysis, respondent may be  correct regarding
   these  matters.   What respondent  overlooks,  however, is  that,
   quite   apart  from  these   objections  by  appellant,   is  the
   fundamental  dispute over  the propriety  of  the termination  of
   appellant's  contract  for default.    In  its  complaint and  in
   supporting documentation provided with  that complaint, appellant
   contends that  the contracting  officer's decision  was based  on
   incorrect  and inaccurate information  provided by the contacting
   officer's technical representative.   This representative is said
   to  have   incorrectly  operated  and   misjudged  the  delivered
   equipment.  We  find this to be an adequate  basis for contesting
   the  contracting  officer's  decision  to  terminate  appellant's
   contract for default.   Accordingly, we deny  respondent's motion
   to dismiss this appeal  for failure to  state a claim upon  which
   relief can be granted.  
 
 
   Motion for Summary Relief
 
        Rule 8(g) states:
 
        With each  motion for  summary relief,  there shall  be
        served and filed  a statement of the material  facts as
        to which the  moving party contends there is no genuine
        issue, and  this statement shall include  references to
        the supporting affidavits and documents, if any, and to
        the Rule 4  appeal file exhibits  relied on to  support
        such statement.  
 
   48  CFR  6101.8(g)  (1992).     We  find  no  such  statement  in
   respondent's request for summary relief.  
 
        The  answer filed  by respondent  does  contain a  "Contract
   Chronology" with useful references to  appeal file documentation.
   This chronology does not appear to us, however, to be a statement
   of material facts on  which there is  no genuine issue.   Indeed,
   given the dispute  regarding the adequacy of the  testing done by
   the contracting  officer's technical representative,  we consider
   it highly unlikely that critical  material facts in this case are
   not in  issue.   In any event,  respondent's request  for summary
   relief is rejected at this  time for further processing until the
   requisite statement is provided.  
 
 
                                Decision
 
        Respondent's  motion to  dismiss this  case  for failure  to
   state  a  claim upon  which  relief  can  be granted  is  DENIED.
   Respondent's request  in the  alternative that  we grant  summary
   relief is REJECTED  and will not be processed  further unless and
   until respondent files a statement  of material facts as to which
   there is no genuine issue.  
   __________________________
 
                                           EDWIN B. NEILL
                                           Board Judge 
 
   We concur:
 
 
   _______________________
   ANTHONY S. BORWICK
   Board Judge 
 
 
   _______________________
   JAMES W. HENDLEY
   Board Judge