B-118297, AUG. 26, 1955

B-118297: Aug 26, 1955

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

SUFRIN: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 19. WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 12. AS YOU WERE ADVISED UNDER DATE OF NOVEMBER 3. WAS FORWARDED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ON AUGUST 12. IN RESPONSE THERETO THE DESIRED REPORT WAS FURNISHED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE. AT YOUR REQUEST NO ACTION WAS TAKEN IN THE MATTER UNTIL YOU WERE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO PERSONALLY DISCUSS THE CASE WITH A REPRESENTATIVE OF THIS OFFICE. SUCH INTERVIEW WAS HAD. FULLY STATED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE AND THEY WILL NOT BE REPEATED HERE. WHICH SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT THE ONLY OFFER MADE WAS "A QUARTER OF A CENT PER BOX" WHICH FIGURE WAS MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES DURING THE DISCUSSION.

B-118297, AUG. 26, 1955

TO I. AND M. SUFRIN:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 19, 1954, IN EFFECT REQUESTING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR $2,740, WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 12, 1953, AND THAT ACTION SUSTAINED UPON REVIEW BY OUR DECISION OF JANUARY 29, 1954.

AS YOU WERE ADVISED UNDER DATE OF NOVEMBER 3, 1954, YOUR LETTER OF JULY 19, 1954, WAS FORWARDED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ON AUGUST 12, 1954, WITH A REQUEST THAT A COMPLETE REPORT BE FURNISHED ON THE CONTENTIONS SET FORTH IN YOUR APPEAL LETTER. IN RESPONSE THERETO THE DESIRED REPORT WAS FURNISHED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, BUT AT YOUR REQUEST NO ACTION WAS TAKEN IN THE MATTER UNTIL YOU WERE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO PERSONALLY DISCUSS THE CASE WITH A REPRESENTATIVE OF THIS OFFICE. SUCH INTERVIEW WAS HAD, AND THEREAFTER YOUR ATTORNEY, DAVID A. BRODY OF WASHINGTON, D.C., ALSO REQUESTED THAT FURTHER ACTION BE DEFERRED UNTIL HE HAS SUFFICIENT TIME TO STUDY THE CASE. THIS OFFICE NOW HAS BEEN ADVISED INFORMALLY BY MR. BRODY, THAT HE DOES NOT INTEND TO INTERCEDE IN THE PROCEEDINGS, AND SUGGESTED THAT THE CLAIM BE DISPOSED OF ON THE BASIS OF YOUR LETTER OF JULY 19, 1954.

THE DECISION OF JANUARY 29, 1954, SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM, ORIGINALLY FILED ON THE BASIS THAT YOUR PRICE REDUCTION OFFER EXPIRED BY OPERATION OF LAW, FULLY STATED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE AND THEY WILL NOT BE REPEATED HERE. YOU NOW CONTEND THAT DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS CONCERNING AN ADJUSTMENT IN THE CONTRACT PRICE, IN CONSIDERATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF YOUR DELIVERY SCHEDULE UNDER THE CONTRACTS, YOU OFFERED TO REDUCE THE CONTRACT PRICE BY $250 AS TO THE UNDELIVERED BALANCE THEN IN DEFAULT. IN REFUTATION OF THAT ALLEGATION THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE HAS FORWARDED AFFIDAVITS, EXECUTED BY THE THREE PROCUREMENT OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS, WHICH SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT THE ONLY OFFER MADE WAS "A QUARTER OF A CENT PER BOX" WHICH FIGURE WAS MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES DURING THE DISCUSSION.

IN CASES WHERE, AS HERE, THERE IS A DIRECT CONFLICT BETWEEN THE FACTS ALLEGED BY A CLAIMANT AND THOSE REPORTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT, IT HAS BEEN AN UNBROKEN RULE OF THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS TO ACCEPT THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AS REPORTED BY THOSE OFFICIALS AS CORRECT, IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR SHOWING TO THE CONTRARY. MOREOVER, THE CLEAR AND PERSUASIVE STATEMENTS SWORN TO BY THE THREE PROCUREMENT OFFICIALS REFERRED TO ABOVE, MUST BE HELD TO BE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE SELF-SERVING DECLARATION CONTAINED IN YOUR LETTER JULY 19, 1954.

ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION HERETOFORE TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO YOUR CLAIM IS AFFIRMED.