B-126927, JAN. 7, 1957

B-126927, JAN. 7, 1957

TO QUEEN CITY MANUFACTURING COMPANY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER OF OCTOBER 9, 1956, FROM YOUR ATTORNEYS, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 30, 1956, AFFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ITEMS 11 AND 48 OF YOUR CLAIM. ALTHOUGH YOUR CLAIM COMPRISED VARIOUS ITEMS, YOU HAVE REQUESTED AT THIS TIME A REVIEW OF ONLY ITEMS 11 AND 48.

REGARDING YOUR CLAIM DESIGNATED AS ITEM 11, YOU CONTEND THAT THE CROSS MEMBER GUSSETS DID NOT APPEAR IN ANY WAY ON SCHEDULE A, AND YOU POINT OUT THAT THE PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT SET FORTH ON PAGE 8-A, PARAGRAPH C3 WHICH STATES THAT "ONLY PARTS DESIGNATED IN SCHEDULE "A"- - ARE TO BE DELIVERED---" PROVES CONCLUSIVELY THAT YOU DID NOT INCLUDE THE COST OF THE GUSSETS IN YOUR BID.

WE HAVE BEEN INFORMALLY ADVISED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DIVISION, AUTOMOTIVE BRANCH, ORDNANCE CORPS THAT "PARTS LIST NO. E-7353090," APPEARING IN THE HEADING OF SCHEDULE A, REFERRED TO A DRAWING OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE COMPLETE CAB, AND THAT, WHILE THIS DRAWING CONTAINED A REFERENCE TO TWO OTHER DRAWINGS, ONE OF WHICH REFERENCED A DRAWING DESIGNATED AS B-7352763, COVERING THE GUSSET IN QUESTION, THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO DRAWING B- 7352763 ON THE ASSEMBLY DRAWING E-7353090, NOR WAS THERE ANY REFERENCE TO THE GUSSET DRAWING CONTAINED IN ANY OF THE DRAWINGS REFERRED TO BY ITEMS 1 THROUGH 272 OF SCHEDULE "A.' SINCE YOUR BID WAS BASED UPON THE FURNISHING OF ITEMS LISTED ON SCHEDULE "A" IT REASONABLY MAY BE CONCLUDED, AS CONTENDED BY YOU, THAT YOUR BID DID NOT INCLUDE THE COST OF THE GUSSETS AND, THEREFORE, YOUR CLAIM FOR THE EXTRA COST IS ALLOWED IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,669.36.

REGARDING YOUR CLAIM DESIGNATED AS ITEM 48, WHICH AROSE FROM LOSSES RESULTING FROM A SHUT DOWN OF YOUR PRODUCTION FOR SEVEN DAYS, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE SEPTEMBER 3, 1953, INSTRUCTION TO YOU TO SUSPEND SHIPMENTS WAS FOLLOWED IMMEDIATELY BY A NOTICE FROM YOU THAT YOU WOULD BE FORCED TO STOP PRODUCTION FOR LACK OF STORAGE SPACE AND HANDLING FACILITIES UNLESS SHIPPING INSTRUCTIONS AND TRANSPORTATION WERE FORTHCOMING. THE RECORD FURTHER SHOWS THAT YOU ATTEMPTED TO MAKE ADDITIONAL SPACE AVAILABLE IN ORDER TO PREVENT A COMPLETE SHUT DOWN OF YOUR ASSEMBLY OPERATION. SEEMS APPARENT, THEREFORE, THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO STOP ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT, THE SHUT DOWN OF YOUR PRODUCTION RESULTED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO DESIGNATE A SHIPPING POINT. SINCE THE GOVERNMENT WAS OBLIGATED BY THE CONTRACT TO DESIGNATE A SHIPPING POINT, ITS FAILURE TO DO SO WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME CONSTITUTED A BREACH OF THE CONTRACT FOR WHICH YOU ARE ENTITLED TO BE COMPENSATED. IN VIEW THEREOF AND SINCE YOU ATTEMPTED TO MITIGATE THE EXTENT OF THE DAMAGES RESULTING FROM A COMPLETE STOPPAGE OF PRODUCTION, YOUR CLAIM FOR ITEM 48 IS ALLOWED IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,029.28 COMPUTED ON THE SAME BASIS AS ITEM 47. INASMUCH AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT STATES, HOWEVER, THAT THE COMPANY PERSONNEL USED TO MAKE ADDITIONAL SPACE AVAILABLE CONSISTED OF TWO MAINTENANCE MEN, ONE LABORER, ONE CHIEF ENGINEER AND FIFTY-FIVE MINUTES OF TIME, THIS OFFICE CAN ALLOW ONLY $11.00 FOR THE ACTUAL LABOR COSTS BASED ON YOUR STATED COSTS OF $3.00 PER HOUR.

ACCORDINGLY, THE AMOUNT OF $3,698.64 WILL BE ALLOWED AS IN FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT OF YOUR CLAIM.