B-120108, JAN. 26, 1956
Highlights
TO TYLER SERVICE PARTS COMPANY: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE CLAIMS DIVISION OF OUR OFFICE IN REJECTING A CLAIM OF YOUR COMPANY WHICH AROSE OUT OF THE PURCHASE OF 40 CHEVROLET ENGINE ASSEMBLIES FROM THE RED RIVER ARSENAL. IT IS A QUESTION OF FACT AS TO WHETHER THE EQUIPMENT DELIVERED TO YOUR COMPANY WAS THE SAME AS THAT WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN LOTS 32 AND 33. YOUR BASIC CONTENTION IN THE MATTER WAS BELIEVED TO BE PROPERLY FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER THE DISPUTE CLAUSE OF THE CONTRACT OF SALE WHICH IS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISION ON ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT INVOLVED IN DISPUTES ARISING UNDER THE CONTRACT SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE ON THE PARTIES.
B-120108, JAN. 26, 1956
TO TYLER SERVICE PARTS COMPANY:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE CLAIMS DIVISION OF OUR OFFICE IN REJECTING A CLAIM OF YOUR COMPANY WHICH AROSE OUT OF THE PURCHASE OF 40 CHEVROLET ENGINE ASSEMBLIES FROM THE RED RIVER ARSENAL, TEXARKANA, TEXAS, PURSUANT TO AWARDS MADE ON ITEMS 32 AND 33 OF INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 41-117-S-53 18, DATED APRIL 3, 1953.
IT IS A QUESTION OF FACT AS TO WHETHER THE EQUIPMENT DELIVERED TO YOUR COMPANY WAS THE SAME AS THAT WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN LOTS 32 AND 33. THUS, YOUR BASIC CONTENTION IN THE MATTER WAS BELIEVED TO BE PROPERLY FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER THE DISPUTE CLAUSE OF THE CONTRACT OF SALE WHICH IS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISION ON ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT INVOLVED IN DISPUTES ARISING UNDER THE CONTRACT SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE ON THE PARTIES, SUBJECT ONLY TO YOUR RIGHT OF APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS TO THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
SINCE THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAD MADE NO DECISION, WE REQUESTED AN ADDITIONAL REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY RELATIVE TO YOUR CLAIM. IT HAS RECENTLY BEEN REPORTED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT A DECISION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS SENT BY REGISTERED MAIL TO YOUR COMPANY AND THAT THE TIME FOR THE FILING OF AN APPEAL FROM SUCH DECISION HAS EXPIRED. APPARENTLY, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISION WAS UNFAVORABLE TO THE POSITION TAKEN BY YOUR COMPANY ON THE FACTUAL ISSUES OF THE CASE.
IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT A CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IS BARRED BY THE FAILURE OF THE CLAIMANT TO EXHAUST ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES UNDER CONTRACT PROVISIONS SUCH AS WERE PRESCRIBED IN THE DISPUTES CLAUSE OF YOUR CONTRACT. SILAS MASON COMPANY, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 90 C.CLS. 266, ID. 105 C.CLS. 27; UNITED STATES V. CALLAHAN WALKER COMPANY, 317 U.S. 56, 61; UNITED STATES V. BLAIR, 321 U.S. 730, 735, 736; UNITED STATES V. HOLPUCH CO., 328 U.S. 234, 239, 240.
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT THERE IS PERCEIVED NO PROPER BASIS UPON WHICH WE WOULD BE WARRANTED IN AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF ANY AMOUNT ON YOUR CLAIM.