A-5284, OCTOBER 8, 1924, 4 COMP. GEN. 367

A-5284: Oct 8, 1924

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

VOLUNTARY SERVICES WHERE ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT (GEAR AND PINION) WAS SHIPPED TO THE COMPANY FROM WHICH IT WAS ORIGINALLY PURCHASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXAMINATION AND SUBMISSION OF AN ESTIMATE AS TO THE COST OF PUTTING IT INTO OPERATIVE CONDITION AND UPON RECEIPT OF THE ESTIMATE SUCH WORK WAS NOT ORDERED OR DONE THE COMPANY IS NOT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR ANY WORK PERFORMED INCIDENT TO THE INSPECTION NECESSARY TO ENABLE IT TO SUBMIT ITS BID FOR RECONDITIONING SAID EQUIPMENT. WHEREIN WAS DISALLOWED ITS CLAIM FOR $106.03 REPRESENTING PAY FOR SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH INSPECTION OF GEAR AND PINION FOR THE U.S.S. THE CLAIM IS STATED IN CLAIMANT'S LETTER OF NOVEMBER 30. IT WAS ARRANGED THAT THE DISPLACED GEARS AND PINIONS FROM TENNESSEE SHOULD BE SENT TO OUR WORKS AT SOUTH PHILADELPHIA.

A-5284, OCTOBER 8, 1924, 4 COMP. GEN. 367

VOLUNTARY SERVICES WHERE ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT (GEAR AND PINION) WAS SHIPPED TO THE COMPANY FROM WHICH IT WAS ORIGINALLY PURCHASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXAMINATION AND SUBMISSION OF AN ESTIMATE AS TO THE COST OF PUTTING IT INTO OPERATIVE CONDITION AND UPON RECEIPT OF THE ESTIMATE SUCH WORK WAS NOT ORDERED OR DONE THE COMPANY IS NOT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR ANY WORK PERFORMED INCIDENT TO THE INSPECTION NECESSARY TO ENABLE IT TO SUBMIT ITS BID FOR RECONDITIONING SAID EQUIPMENT.

DECISION BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL, OCTOBER 8, 1924:

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC AND MANUFACTURING CO. REQUESTED, SEPTEMBER 19, 1924, REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT NO. 018184, DATED APRIL 2, 1924, WHEREIN WAS DISALLOWED ITS CLAIM FOR $106.03 REPRESENTING PAY FOR SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH INSPECTION OF GEAR AND PINION FOR THE U.S.S. TENNESSEE IN 1922.

THE CLAIM IS STATED IN CLAIMANT'S LETTER OF NOVEMBER 30, 1923, AS FOLLOWS:

WHEN THE DEPARTMENT (IN THE FALL OF 1922) ORDERED SHIPMENT TO U.S.S. TENNESSEE OF GEAR AND PINION ORIGINALLY BUILT FOR U.S.S. WASHINGTON, IT WAS ARRANGED THAT THE DISPLACED GEARS AND PINIONS FROM TENNESSEE SHOULD BE SENT TO OUR WORKS AT SOUTH PHILADELPHIA, INSPECTED, AND REPORT GIVEN AS TO WHAT MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO PLACE THE MATERIAL IN GOOD OPERATING CONDITION.

THIS REPORT WAS MADE BUT AT THE TIME THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT DESIRE TO CARRY OUT THE WORK RECOMMENDED.

WE HAVE NOW RECEIVED FROM OUR SOUTH PHILADELPHIA WORKS CHARGES FOR THE INSPECTION, ETC., OF THIS MATERIAL, AND SHOULD APPRECIATE THE DEPARTMENT'S ADVICE IF WE SHOULD BE CORRECT IN SUBMITTING INVOICE FOR THIS EXPENSE.

CHART

CLEANING GEARS AND PINIONS FOR INSPECTION --------------- $40.48

PRESSING OUT SHAFT AND COUPLING ------------------------- 6.41

REASSEMBLING -------------------------------------------- 3.60

SLUSHING AND BOXING ------------------------------------- 55.54

TOTAL --------------------------------------------- 106.30

THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED FOR REASONS STATED AS FOLLOWS:

THE SERVICES FOR WHICH PAY IS NOW CLAIMED WERE RENDERED BY CLAIMANT COMPANY AS A NECESSARY INCIDENT TO SUBMITTING A BID FOR RECONDITIONING THE GEAR AND PINION AND NO PROVISION WAS MADE FOR ANY PAY FOR SUCH SERVICE.

THE FACT THAT THE NAVY DEPARTMENT DID NOT ORDER THE WORK DONE IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION FOR BILLING THE EXPENSE INCURRED IN PREPARING A PROPOSAL.

IN THE REQUEST FOR REVIEW CLAIMANT STATES:

* * * THE CHARGE WAS FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN INSPECTING THE CONDITION OF CERTAIN MATERIAL OWNED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND RETURNED TO USE FOR THAT PURPOSE, AS WELL AS ADVISING THE COST OF PUTTING THE MATERIAL INTO OPERATIVE CONDITION.

THE EXPENSE INVOLVED MUST BE CONSIDERED ENTIRELY IN CONNECTION WITH PREPARING THE MATERIAL FOR INSPECTION AND REBOXING; AND NOT AS A CHARGE FOR PREPARING A BID.

THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE INSPECTION WAS SUCH THAT THE ACTUAL MAKING UP OF ESTIMATES FOR A BID COULD BE CARRIED OUT AND NO CHARGES

MADE FOR THAT PURPOSE BUT UNTIL THE MATERIAL HAD BEEN INSPECTED THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT KNOW IN WHAT CONDITION IT WAS AND WERE UNABLE TO DETERMINE ITS DISPOSITION. THE INITIATIVE WAS TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT, WHO REQUESTED THAT WE SHOULD CARRY OUT THIS INSPECTION AND ADVISE THEM AS TO THE COST OF PUTTING THE MATERIAL INTO SUITABLE CONDITION. CONSEQUENTLY CONTEND THAT THE CHARGE MADE IS ONE FOR SERVICE RENDERED WHICH WE SHOULD REASONABLY AND JUSTLY EXPECT THE DEPARTMENT TO PAY, NO CHARGE BEING INCLUDED IN THE AMOUNT OF $106.03 FOR THE EXPENSE INVOLVED IN MAKING UP THE PROPOSAL.

THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN ANY AGREEMENT WHEREBY THE GOVERNMENT WAS TO PAY FOR SERVICE OF ANY KIND IN THIS CASE. THE GEAR AND PINION, FORWARDED TO THE CLAIMANT COMPANY FOR EXAMINATION AND SUBMISSION OF ESTIMATE AS TO THE COST OF PUTTING IT INTO OPERATIVE CONDITION, WAS EQUIPMENT WHICH HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN PURCHASED FROM THE COMPANY; AND THE SERVICE PERFORMED BY THE CLAIMANT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ONLY SUCH AS WAS INCIDENT TO THE INSPECTION NECESSARY TO ENABLE IT TO SUBMIT ITS BID FOR RECONDITIONING THE GEAR AND PINION.

THE FACT THAT THE NAVY DEPARTMENT DID NOT HAVE THE RECONDITIONING WORK DONE AFTER RECEIVING AN ESTIMATE OF THE COST THEREOF, COULD NOT OPERATE TO IMPOSE UPON THE GOVERNMENT ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PAY FOR ANY WORK INCIDENT TO INSPECTING THE EQUIPMENT, PREPARING IT FOR INSPECTION, REASSEMBLING, OR ANY OTHER WORK CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PERFORMED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.