[Protest of Army Cancellation of Solicitation for Gas Line Replacement]
Highlights
A firm protested the Army's cancellation of a solicitation for gas line replacement, contending that the Army improperly cancelled and resolicited the procurement during its bid acceptance period. GAO held that the Army: (1) properly cancelled the original solicitation, since funds were not available for contract award; and (2) was not required to make award to the protester, since the new solicitation contained additional requirements. Accordingly, the protest was denied.
B-79300, MAY 28, 1968
TO MRS. CONCEPCION C. L. MEEK:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER DATED JANUARY 8, 1968, WITH ENCLOSURES, FROM THE COMMANDER, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS, ADDRESSED TO THE UNITED STATES ARMY FINANCE CENTER, WHICH WAS RECENTLY FORWARDED TO OUR OFFICE FOR REPLY, WHEREIN HE REQUESTED ON YOUR BEHALF FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR QUARTERS AND RATIONS ALLOWANCES BELIEVED TO BE DUE YOUR LATE SON, ERNEST W. MEEK, INCIDENT TO HIS SERVICE AS A FIRST LIEUTENANT, AUS, FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 27, 1942, TO JUNE 16, 1945.
AS YOU KNOW, A SETTLEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,107.96 WAS ISSUED BY THIS OFFICE IN OCTOBER 1949 IN FAVOR OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE ARMY AS THE DULY APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ERNEST W. MEEK. THAT SETTLEMENT WAS BASED UPON A DETERMINATION MADE BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT, NOW DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 9 OF THE MISSING PERSONS ACT, APPROVED MARCH 7, 1942, CH. 166, 56 STAT. 145, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP. 1009 (1946 ED.), WHICH PROVIDED IN EFFECT THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, OR SUCH PERSON AS HE MAY DESIGNATE, IS AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNTS DUE UNDER THAT ACT AND THAT SUCH FINDINGS ARE "CONCLUSIVE" ON ALL ACCOUNTING OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT.
IT IS NOW CONTENDED THAT UNDER SECTION 10 OF PUBLIC LAW 607, 77TH CONGRESS, APPROVED JUNE 16, 1942, 56 STAT. 353, YOUR SON WAS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE QUARTERS AND RATIONS ALLOWANCES WHICH ALLOWANCES WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT MENTIONED ABOVE.
AS WAS EXPLAINED TO YOU IN OUR LETTER OF JUNE 7, 1950, YOU ARE NOT A PROPER PARTY TO SEEK REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT MADE. UNDER PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 136, APPROVED JUNE 14, 1947, AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 209, APPROVED JUNE 1, 1948, THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE ARMY WAS ESTABLISHED AS ADMINISTRATOR IN THE CASES OF DECEASED MILITARY PERSONNEL WHO WERE PHILIPPINE CITIZENS, WITH PAYMENT TO THE PROPER HEIRS BEING WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF SAID ADMINISTRATOR. CONSEQUENTLY, ANY QUESTION CONCERNING THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO THAT OFFICIAL. THERE APPEARS TO BE NO NEED TO DO SO IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, SINCE SECTION 10 OF THE 1942 ACT IS APPLICABLE TO ENLISTED MEN. YOUR SON WAS AN OFFICER.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE INFORMATION, OUR LETTER OF JUNE 7, 1950, CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF THE ITEMS OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOUND DUE. AMONG THE ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT WAS ONE FOR $853.40 AS SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE (RATIONS) FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 27, 1942, TO JUNE 16, 1945. TO RENTAL ALLOWANCE (QUARTERS), SINCE YOUR SON WAS AN OFFICER, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT ANY ENTITLEMENT WHICH HE MAY HAVE HAD WOULD BE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 OF THE 1942 ACT. IN THIS REGARD, WE DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF THAT ACTION WHICH PROVIDES THAT NO RENTAL ALLOWANCE SHALL ACCRUE TO AN OFFICER HAVING NO DEPENDENTS WHILE HE IS ON FIELD DUTY.
SINCE THE SETTLEMENT WAS MADE UNDER THE MISSING PERSONS ACT, THIS OFFICE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO MAKE ANY DETERMINATION IN THE MATTER AND WE TRUST, THEREFORE, THAT YOU WILL UNDERSTAND WHY WE MAY NOT CONSIDER YOUR CLAIM FURTHER. SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR CLAIM, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THEY BE DIRECTED TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:
JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL
ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES
MANILA ..END :