Skip to main content

B-148464, SEP. 14, 1965

B-148464 Sep 14, 1965
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

WHEREIN WE HELD THAT YOU WERE INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $21. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER WERE FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR DECISION OF MAY 7. A COPY OF WHICH WAS FURNISHED TO YOU WITH OUR APRIL 19 DECISION. WE DO NOT FEEL THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO RESTATE THOSE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. YOU POINT OUT THAT WHILE IT IS APPARENT THAT THE RECORD OF THE PREAWARD SURVEY MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE FACTS REGARDING PLACE OF MANUFACTURE AND INTENDED SHIPPING POINT. WAS FULLY INFORMED OF YOUR INTENTION TO MANUFACTURE AND SHIP FROM STANFORD. YOU WERE ADVISED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT: "A THOROUGH REVIEW OF THE PRE-AWARD SURVEY SUBMITTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF NAVAL MATERIAL.

View Decision

B-148464, SEP. 14, 1965

TO CONSOLIDATED DIESEL ELECTRIC CORPORATION:

BY LETTER DATED JUNE 10, 1965, AS SUPPLEMENTED BY YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 30, 1965, YOU REQUESTED RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF APRIL 19, 1965, WHEREIN WE HELD THAT YOU WERE INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,420, REPRESENTING EXCESS FREIGHT COST BORNE BY THE GOVERNMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE SHIPMENT OF 21 AIR TRANSPORTABLE MOTORS UNDER NAVY CONTRACT NO. N600/17/52069.

THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER WERE FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR DECISION OF MAY 7, 1962, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, A COPY OF WHICH WAS FURNISHED TO YOU WITH OUR APRIL 19 DECISION. HENCE, WE DO NOT FEEL THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO RESTATE THOSE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.

YOU POINT OUT THAT WHILE IT IS APPARENT THAT THE RECORD OF THE PREAWARD SURVEY MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE FACTS REGARDING PLACE OF MANUFACTURE AND INTENDED SHIPPING POINT, THE INSPECTOR OF NAVAL MATERIAL AT BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT, WAS FULLY INFORMED OF YOUR INTENTION TO MANUFACTURE AND SHIP FROM STANFORD, CONNECTICUT. HOWEVER, IN A LETTER DATED AUGUST 28, 1961, YOU WERE ADVISED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT:

"A THOROUGH REVIEW OF THE PRE-AWARD SURVEY SUBMITTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF NAVAL MATERIAL, BRIDGEPORT DOES NOT REVEAL A DISCUSSION AS TO POINT OF MANUFACTURE ON CONTRACT N600/17/52069. AS EXPLAINED DURING A MEETING ON 24 AUGUST 1961, THE INSPECTOR INDICATED IN A LETTER OF 19 JUNE 1959, AT THE TIME THE QUESTION WAS FIRST RAISED, NO SUCH DISCUSSION HAD TAKEN PLACE.'

CONSIDERING THE LAPSE OF TIME SINCE THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED (JUNE 3, 1959) AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE-QUOTED STATEMENT, WE DO NOT FEEL THAT ANY WORTHWHILE PURPOSE COULD BE SERVED BY QUERYING THE INSPECTOR AT THIS DATE. IN ANY EVENT, ANY STATEMENT THAT NOW MAY BE ELICITED FROM THE INSPECTOR WHO HAD NO AUTHORITY TO BIND THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTUALLY WOULD HAVE NO PROBATIVE EFFECT ON THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM. SEE, GENERALLY, PULASKI CAB CO. V. UNITED STATES, 141 CT.CL. 160.

ACCORDINGLY, WE RENEW OUR DEMAND THAT THE SUM OF $21,420 BE PROMPTLY REMITTED TO OUR OFFICE; OTHERWISE, THE CLAIM WILL BE TRANSMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR APPROPRIATE COLLECTION PROCEEDINGS.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs