B-134781, MAY 29, 1958
Highlights
TO NORTH REFRIGERATION: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 7. THE DECISION REFERRED TO WAS RENDERED TO MR. GENERALLY WE CONSIDER THAT WE HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW A DECISION SO RENDERED AT THE REQUEST OF ANOTHER PARTY. THE DECISION INVOLVED WILL BE REVIEWED AS REQUESTED. YOU ARE. FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WHICH WERE FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 27. IT WAS POINTED OUT THEREIN THAT THE CONTRACTING FOR WORK SUCH AS HERE INVOLVED WAS A RESPONSIBILITY OF GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION AND THAT THE BUREAU OF OLD AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO EMPLOY YOU DIRECTLY TO PERFORM THE WORK. SINCE THE GOVERNMENT RECEIVED THE BENEFIT OF THE WORK YOU WERE HELD TO BE ENTITLED TO BE PAID ON A QUANTUM MERUIT BASIS WHICH CONCERNS THOSE OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY LAW.
B-134781, MAY 29, 1958
TO NORTH REFRIGERATION:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 7, 1958, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION DATED FEBRUARY 27, 1958, RELATIVE TO THE PROPRIETY OF MAKING PAYMENT OF YOUR INVOICE IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,224.50 COVERING LABOR AND MATERIALS FOR THE SERVICING OF A GOVERNMENT-OWNED AIR- CONDITIONING SYSTEM IN THE BUTLER BUILDING, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.
THE DECISION REFERRED TO WAS RENDERED TO MR. SAMUEL KOENIG IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS AN AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT, UNDER THE ACT OF JULY 31, 1894, 28 STAT. 208, AS AMENDED (31 U.S.C. 74), AND THE ACT OF DECEMBER 29, 1941, 55 STAT. 876 (31 U.S.C. 82D), AND GENERALLY WE CONSIDER THAT WE HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW A DECISION SO RENDERED AT THE REQUEST OF ANOTHER PARTY. HOWEVER, SINCE NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED IN REQUIRING YOU TO PRESENT THE MATTER AS A CLAIM, THE DECISION INVOLVED WILL BE REVIEWED AS REQUESTED.
YOU ARE, OF COURSE, FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WHICH WERE FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 27, 1958. IT WAS POINTED OUT THEREIN THAT THE CONTRACTING FOR WORK SUCH AS HERE INVOLVED WAS A RESPONSIBILITY OF GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION AND THAT THE BUREAU OF OLD AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO EMPLOY YOU DIRECTLY TO PERFORM THE WORK. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THEREFORE, AND SINCE THE GOVERNMENT RECEIVED THE BENEFIT OF THE WORK YOU WERE HELD TO BE ENTITLED TO BE PAID ON A QUANTUM MERUIT BASIS WHICH CONCERNS THOSE OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY LAW, WITHOUT REGARD TO INTENTION OR ASSENT OF THE PARTIES, FOR REASONS DICTATED BY REASON AND JUSTICE. CARPENTER V. JOSEY OIL CO., 26 F.2D 442. IN DETERMINING THE REASONABLE VALUE OF THE WORK PERFORMED, WE NECESSARILY RELIED ON THE REPORT OF GSA WHICH RESULTED IN THE DEDUCTION OF $953 FROM YOUR INVOICE WHICH AMOUNT IS NOW IN DISPUTE.
WHAT CONSTITUTES A FAIR AND REASONABLE VALUE OF MATERIAL AND LABOR IN CASES WHERE, AS HERE, THERE IS NO CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY BUT JUSTICE REQUIRES COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY OR SERVICES RENDERED, IS A QUESTION OF FACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN PAID TO YOU WAS COMPUTED BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE PRICES REPORTEDLY PAID BY GSA FOR SIMILAR SUPPLIES AND WORK UNDER COMPARABLE CIRCUMSTANCES.
SINCE OUR OFFICE INVARIABLY ACCEPTS THE FACTS AS REPORTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD OVERCOME THE CORRECTNESS THEREOF, WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO ACCEPT THE REPORT IN THE PRESENT MATTER THAT THE SUM OF $3,271.50 REPRESENTS THE FAIR AND REASONABLE VALUE OF THE MATERIALS AND LABOR WHICH YOU FURNISHED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND WITH DUE REGARD TO THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 7, 1958, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR PAYMENT OF ANY AMOUNT IN ADDITION THERETO.