B-160778, FEB 5, 1971
Highlights
DECISIONS OF THE GAO ARE REVIEWED BY SEVERAL STAFF MEMBERS. THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE CHARGE THAT BIAS AND LACK OF GOOD FAITH CONTRIBUTED TO THE RESULT IN THIS CASE. INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 12. WAS FORWARDED TO OUR OFFICE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AND WAS AUTHORIZED TO BE DISTRIBUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DAVIS-BACON ACT BY OUR DECISION B-160778. YOU NOW ALLEGE THAT THE ATTORNEY TO WHOM YOUR CLAIM WAS ASSIGNED RENDERED A DECISION WHICH WAS ARBITRARY. UNBIASED PERSON WHO IS NOT ENTIRELY SYMPATHETIC TO THE UNION LABOR MOVEMENT AND WHO WILL RENDER A DECISION BASED ON THE FACTS AS THEY EXIST. WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DECISION ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF SUBMITTING A SUGGESTED COURSE OF ACTION IN THE CASE.
B-160778, FEB 5, 1971
CONTRACTS - DAVIS-BACON ACT - WITHHELD FUNDS REAFFIRMING PRIOR DECISION DIRECTING THE SUM OF $410.47, WITHHELD TO COVER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE DAVIS-BACON ACT, BE DISTRIBUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY TO UNPAID WORKERS. DECISIONS OF THE GAO ARE REVIEWED BY SEVERAL STAFF MEMBERS; THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE CHARGE THAT BIAS AND LACK OF GOOD FAITH CONTRIBUTED TO THE RESULT IN THIS CASE.
TO SOUTHWEST ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 12, 1971, REQUESTING REVIEW OF YOUR CLAIM FOR THE SUM OF $410.47, WITHHELD TO COVER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE DAVIS-BACON ACT UNDER CONTRACT NO. DA-23-028-ENG 7904. THE SUM, REPRESENTING UNPAID WAGES DUE TO 13 WORKERS, WAS FORWARDED TO OUR OFFICE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AND WAS AUTHORIZED TO BE DISTRIBUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DAVIS-BACON ACT BY OUR DECISION B-160778, DATED AUGUST 19, 1970.
YOU NOW ALLEGE THAT THE ATTORNEY TO WHOM YOUR CLAIM WAS ASSIGNED RENDERED A DECISION WHICH WAS ARBITRARY, NOT BASED UPON THE FACTS, AND NOT RENDERED IN GOOD FAITH. YOU THEREFORE REQUEST THAT THE ENTIRE MATTER BE REVIEWED BY AN IMPARTIAL, UNBIASED PERSON WHO IS NOT ENTIRELY SYMPATHETIC TO THE UNION LABOR MOVEMENT AND WHO WILL RENDER A DECISION BASED ON THE FACTS AS THEY EXIST.
THE ATTORNEY MENTIONED IN YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 12, 1971, WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DECISION ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF SUBMITTING A SUGGESTED COURSE OF ACTION IN THE CASE. OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 19, 1970, REPRESENTED THE VIEWS OF THE OFFICE AND YOU MAY BE ASSURED THAT THOROUGH AND CAREFUL CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO THE FACTS OF RECORD BY SEVERAL MEMBERS OF MY STAFF BEFORE REJECTION OF YOUR CLAIM.
WHILE DECISIONS OF THIS OFFICE ARE ALWAYS SUBJECT TO RECONSIDERATION IF ERROR OF FACT OR LAW IS ALLEGED, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE REQUESTER TO IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC ERRORS ON WHICH THE REQUEST IS BASED. WE SEE NO BASIS FOR DEPARTING FROM THAT PROCEDURE IN THE INSTANT CASE, AND SINCE YOU HAVE FAILED TO IDENTIFY ANY ERRORS OF EITHER FACT OR LAW IN OUR DECISION AS RENDERED, WE MUST DENY YOUR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE PRESENT RECORD.