B-116541, SEP 3, 1954
Highlights
SECRETARY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 5. WHICH MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF OFFICE DECISION DATED OCTOBER 20. HAVE BEEN RESOLD UNDER A SPOT-BID SALE. THREE OF WHICH WERE REPURCHASED BY RADIVEN AND THE REMAINDER BY OTHER PURCHASERS. IDENTICAL SITUATION IS REPORTED TO EXIST WITH RESPECT TO A CONTRACT WITH JOHNSON WILD & CO. WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE HANDLED IN A LIKE MANNER. IN THE ABOVE-CITED DECISION IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT SINCE THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAD NO AUTHORITY TO CANCEL THE CONTRACT. ANY ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN PAID FOR THE SAME VEHICLES SHOULD BE REFUNDED. SINCE THE PROCEDURE RECOMMENDED BY YOUR DEPARTMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH THE ORIGINAL DECISION WAS BASED.
B-116541, SEP 3, 1954
PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE
MR. SECRETARY:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 5, 1954, WITH FURTHER REFERENCE TO THE CLAIM OF RADIVEN COMMERCIAL DEPOT, IRLAM STREET, MANCHESTER 10, ENGLAND, WHICH MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF OFFICE DECISION DATED OCTOBER 20, 1953.
YOU ADVISE THAT ALL EIGHTEEN ITEMS PREVIOUSLY SOLD TO RADIVEN UNDER CONTRACT NO. AF61(703)-S-30, DATED JUNE 27, 1952, HAVE BEEN RESOLD UNDER A SPOT-BID SALE, THREE OF WHICH WERE REPURCHASED BY RADIVEN AND THE REMAINDER BY OTHER PURCHASERS. IN VIEW THEREOF, YOU REQUEST TO BE ADVISED WHETHER THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED VOID AND REFUND MADE TO RADIVEN OF THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, WHETHER THE TOTAL AMOUNT REALIZED FROM THE RESALE ON NOVEMBER 24, 1952, LESS ALL NECESSARY EXPENSES INCIDENT TO THE RESALE, COULD BE REFUNDED ON THE THEORY THAT THE AIR FORCE RESOLD THE VEHICLES ON BEHALF OF THE CONTRACTOR - THE LATTER BEING THE COURSE OF ACTION RECOMMENDED BY YOUR DEPARTMENT. IDENTICAL SITUATION IS REPORTED TO EXIST WITH RESPECT TO A CONTRACT WITH JOHNSON WILD & CO., LTD., WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE HANDLED IN A LIKE MANNER.
IN THE ABOVE-CITED DECISION IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT SINCE THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAD NO AUTHORITY TO CANCEL THE CONTRACT, ANY ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN PAID FOR THE SAME VEHICLES SHOULD BE REFUNDED. SINCE THE PROCEDURE RECOMMENDED BY YOUR DEPARTMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH THE ORIGINAL DECISION WAS BASED, THIS OFFICE WILL INTERPOSE NO OBJECTION TO THE ACTION PROPOSED IN CONNECTION WITH THE TWO CASES MENTIONED ABOVE.
THE ENCLOSURES FORWARDED WITH YOUR LETTER ARE RETURNED HEREWITH.