B-124105, JAN. 23, 1956

B-124105: Jan 23, 1956

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 26. UNDER THE CONTRACT IT WAS AGREED THAT THE CONTRACTOR WOULD DESIGN. WITH THE FULL RIGHT TO ACCEPT OR REJECT ALL OR ANY PART THEREOF THAT WAS DEFECTIVE OR DID NOT MEET SPECIFICATIONS. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS GIVEN THE FULL RIGHT TO HAVE IT REPLACED OR CORRECTED AND TO DEDUCT THE COST THEREOF FROM ANY MONEY DUE THE CONTRACTOR. TESTS WERE TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT TO DETERMINE THE EFFICIENCY. IN ARTICLE 22 OF THE CONTRACT THE EXTENT OF THE CONTRACTOR'S LIABILITY UNDER THE GUARANTEE CLAUSE WAS SET FORTH AS FOLLOWS: "CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES - THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE LIABLE FOR GENERAL. PROVIDED THAT ALL DISPUTES CONCERNING QUESTIONS OF FACT ARISING THEREUNDER WERE TO BE DECIDED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SUBJECT TO WRITTEN APPEAL BY THE CONTRACTOR WITHIN 30 DAYS TO "THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT CONCERNED OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

B-124105, JAN. 23, 1956

TO HONORABLE E. H. CHAMBERLIN, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 26, 1955, REQUESTING (1) REMOVAL OF GAO EXCEPTIONS NOS. 600001 AND 600002, DATED AUGUST 6, 1955, STATED AGAINST D.O. VOUCHERS NOS. 30892 AND 27435, IN THE FEBRUARY 1953, JANUARY 1953 ACCOUNTS OF GEORGE C. LUMPKIN, COVERING PAYMENT TO GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY OF THE SUMS OF $2,955.87 AND $ 8,939.02, UNDER NACA CONTRACTS NOS. NA1-1984 AND NA1-1981, DATED AUGUST 8 AND SEPTEMBER 15, 1952, RESPECTIVELY, FOR REPAIRING CERTAIN EQUIPMENT FURNISHED BY THE CONTRACTOR UNDER CONTRACT NO. NAW-5450, DATED AUGUST 12, 1947, AND (2) APPROVAL OF THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE COMMITTEE OF THE SUM OF $91,340.73 PROPOSED TO BE PAID BY GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY IN FULL SETTLEMENT OF A CLAIM FOR $147,860.50 ASSERTED BY NACA AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR UNDER THE SAME CONTRACT.

UNDER THE CONTRACT IT WAS AGREED THAT THE CONTRACTOR WOULD DESIGN, MANUFACTURE, FURNISH AND INSTALL PROPELLER DRIVES FOR CERTAIN INTEGRATED SUPERSONIC WIND TUNNELS FOR A STATED LUMP-SUM CONSIDERATION, AND THAT SUBPARAGRAPH (A) OF PARAGRAPH 3-14 OF THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS, ENTITLED INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE, PROVIDED THAT ALL MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT DELIVERED AND LABOR OR WORK PERFORMED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT ANY TIME DURING THE PROGRESS OF THE WORK AND PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND PAYMENT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER OR OTHER AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT, WITH THE FULL RIGHT TO ACCEPT OR REJECT ALL OR ANY PART THEREOF THAT WAS DEFECTIVE OR DID NOT MEET SPECIFICATIONS. IT ALSO PROVIDED THAT THE CONTRACTOR WOULD, AT HIS OWN EXPENSE, WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, REMEDY ANY DEFECTIVE OR UNSATISFACTORY MATERIALS, ARTICLES, OR WORK, AND IN THE EVENT OF HIS FAILURE TO DO SO, AFTER DUE NOTICE, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS GIVEN THE FULL RIGHT TO HAVE IT REPLACED OR CORRECTED AND TO DEDUCT THE COST THEREOF FROM ANY MONEY DUE THE CONTRACTOR. SUBPARAGRAPH (B) OF THE SAME PARAGRAPH PROVIDED THAT, UPON COMPLETION OF THE WORK, THE CONTRACTOR WOULD GIVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF HIS READINESS FOR FINAL INSPECTION AND TESTS SPECIFIED TO BE MADE BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. IN REGARD TO THE TESTS CONTEMPLATED, PARAGRAPH 4-04 (E) OF THE SPECIFICATIONS PROVIDED THAT, SUBSEQUENT TO "THE COMPLETE INSTALLATION OF THE EQUIPMENT FURNISHED UNDER THIS CONTRACT," THE CONTRACTOR WOULD RUN THE EQUIPMENT, AT HIS RESPONSIBILITY, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SPEED RANGE IN PRESENCE OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE, AND TURN THE EQUIPMENT OVER TO THE GOVERNMENT "IN A COMPLETE AND SATISFACTORY OPERATING CONDITION.' AT SUCH TIME, TESTS WERE TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT TO DETERMINE THE EFFICIENCY, POWER FACTOR, REGULATION AND GENERAL PERFORMANCE OF THE EQUIPMENT.

PARAGRAPH 3-38 OF THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

"3-38. GUARANTEES:

"/A) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE ALL WORK, ARTICLES, MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, AND APPLIANCES FURNISHED, INSTALLED, OR SUPPLIED BY HIM, UNDER THIS CONTRACT, TO BE FREE FROM DEFECTS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, OR AS OTHERWISE HEREIN STATED, FROM DATE OF FINAL COMPLETION OF THE WORK.

"/B) SUCH GUARANTEE SHALL BE FURNISHED BY THE CONTRACTOR, IN WRITING, TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AT THE COMPLETION OF THE WORK AND PRIOR TO FINAL PAYMENT.

"/C)THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE WITHOUT COST TO THE GOVERNMENT ANY AND ALL PARTS FOUND BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THE GUARANTEE, TO BE DEFECTIVE IN MATERIALS OR WORKMANSHIP.'

IN ARTICLE 22 OF THE CONTRACT THE EXTENT OF THE CONTRACTOR'S LIABILITY UNDER THE GUARANTEE CLAUSE WAS SET FORTH AS FOLLOWS:

"CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES - THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE LIABLE FOR GENERAL, BUT NOT FOR SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL, DAMAGES CAUSED BY * * * FAILURE TO MANUFACTURE OR TO COMPLY WITH THE GUARANTEE, WHEN DUE TO ITS FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE.'

ARTICLE 15 OF THE CONTRACT, ENTITLED DISPUTES, PROVIDED THAT ALL DISPUTES CONCERNING QUESTIONS OF FACT ARISING THEREUNDER WERE TO BE DECIDED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SUBJECT TO WRITTEN APPEAL BY THE CONTRACTOR WITHIN 30 DAYS TO "THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT CONCERNED OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE," WHOSE DECISION WAS TO BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE UPON THE PARTIES.

BY LETTER OF FEBRUARY 6, 1952, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ADVISED THE CONTRACTOR, IN MATERIAL PART, THAT ALL ITEMS UNDER THE CONTRACT WERE ACCEPTED AS OF APRIL 4, 1951, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ROTORS OF THE TWO MAIN DRIVE MOTORS IN THE 16-FOOT TRANSONIC TUNNEL AND CERTAIN OTHER EQUIPMENT NOT HERE INVOLVED. ON AUGUST 7, 1952, A FAILURE OCCURRED IN A "DC GENERATOR" FURNISHED AS PART OF THE 16-FOOT TUNNEL DRIVE EQUIPMENT DUE TO A DEFECTIVE COIL, AND NACA CONTRACTED (CONTRACT NA1-1984) TO HAVE IT REPAIRED BY GENERAL ELECTRIC AT A COST TO THE GOVERNMENT OF $2,955.87. A SECOND FAILURE OCCURRED IN THE SAME PIECE OF EQUIPMENT ON AUGUST 29, 1952, AND NACA CONTRACTED (CONTRACT NA1-1981) TO HAVE IT REPAIRED BY GENERAL ELECTRIC AT A COST TO THE GOVERNMENT OF $8,939.02. THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE LATTER FIGURE REPRESENTS ONE-HALF OF THE ACTUAL COST OF REPAIR, AND THAT THE CONTRACTOR, ALTHOUGH DISCLAIMING RESPONSIBILITY ON THE BASIS THAT THE ONE-YEAR GUARANTEE PERIOD HAD EXPIRED, NEVERTHELESS AGREED TO BEAR 50 PERCENT OF THE COST AS A MATTER OF GOOD WILL.

THE BASIS FOR ISSUANCE OF THE EXCEPTIONS WAS THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO GIVE FINAL ACCEPTANCE TO ANY PART OF THE EQUIPMENT PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF ALL OF THE WORK AND PERFORMANCE OF THE TESTS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH 4-04 (E) OF THE SPECIFICATIONS; THAT THE PROJECT HAD NOT BEEN COMPLETED AT THE TIME THE DEFECTS IN THE DC GENERATOR WERE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CONTRACTOR; AND THAT THE LATTER WAS, THEREFORE, REQUIRED TO TO CORRECT THEM WITHOUT COST TO THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE GUARANTEE CLAUSE, WHICH WAS OPERATIVE FOR ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF "FINAL COMPLETION OF THE WORK.'

IN YOUR LETTER, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE CONTRACT "AS ORIGINALLY DRAWN" DID NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WOULD UNDERTAKE TO ACCEPT FINALLY ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT A PART OF THE EQUIPMENT WITH THE VIEW TO STARTING THE RUNNING OF THE ONE-YEAR GUARANTEE PERIOD WITH RESPECT THERETO AT SUCH TIME, RATHER THAN ON THE DATE WHEN THE WHOLE PROJECT SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.

HOWEVER, YOU STATE THAT, ALTHOUGH THE LETTER OF FEBRUARY 6, 1952, DID NOT SO STATE, THE INTENT OF THE GOVERNMENT IN ACCEPTING THE EQUIPMENT INVOLVED AS OF APRIL 4, 1951, WAS TO RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR OF FURTHER RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH EQUIPMENT OTHER THAN TO WHICH WOULD ARISE UNDER THE GUARANTEE CLAUSE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ITS ACCEPTANCE, AND THAT THIS WAS DONE IN CONSIDERATION OF THE CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO PLACE THE EQUIPMENT IN OPERATION PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE.

IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION FOR THE PREMATURE ACCEPTANCE OF THE EQUIPMENT, WHICH IS REASONABLY SUPPORTED BY THE CORRESPONDENCE TRANSMITTED WITH YOUR LETTER, AND SINCE THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT BE SAID TO HAVE HAD A VESTED RIGHT UNDER THE CONTRACT TO PLACE IT IN OPERATION PRIOR TO COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT, THE EXCEPTIONS INVOLVED WILL BE REMOVED.

RELATIVE TO THE SECOND QUESTION PRESENTED IN YOUR LETTER, IT APPEARS THAT PERFORMANCE TESTS WERE RUN ON THE ROTORS OF THE TWO MAIN DRIVE MOTORS FOR THE 16-FOOT TUNNEL ON NOVEMBER 5 AND NOVEMBER 6, 1952, AND THEY WERE ACCEPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS COMPLYING WITH CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS ON THE LATTER DATE. THE GOVERNMENT CONTINUED TO OPERATE THE PROPELLER-DRIVE EQUIPMENT ON RESEARCH PROJECTS FROM THAT DATE UNTIL MAY 5, 1953, WHEN CERTAIN MECHANICAL DEFECTS DEVELOPED IN THE ROTORS, WHICH GENERAL ELECTRIC WAS REQUESTED TO RECTIFY UNDER THE GUARANTEE CLAUSE. THE CONTRACTOR, IN REFUSING TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY IN THE MATTER, CONTENDED THAT THE DAMAGE TO THE ROTORS HAD BEEN CAUSED BY THE EXCESSIVE VIBRATION TO WHICH THEY HAD BEEN SUBJECTED WHILE IN USE; THAT THE VIBRATION WAS DUE TO AERODYNAMIC INTERACTION OF THE TUNNEL PROPELLERS; AND THAT THE LATTER PHENOMENON RESULTED FROM THE FAULTY DESIGN OF THE WIND TUNNEL, FOR WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WAS RESPONSIBLE.

AFTER NOTICE TO GENERAL ELECTRIC, THE EQUIPMENT WAS REPAIRED BY GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL, AND THE CONTRACTOR WAS BILLED FOR THE SUM OF $147,860.50 AS REPRESENTING THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE GOVERNMENT. ON JULY 21, 1955, GENERAL ELECTRIC SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IN WHICH IT OFFERED TO PAY THE GOVERNMENT THE SUM OF $91,340.73 AS A COMPLETE AND FINAL SETTLEMENT OF ALL OBLIGATIONS OF THE COMPANY UNDER THE CONTRACT. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM AND THE AMOUNT OFFERED IN SETTLEMENT, OR $56,519.77, REPRESENTS CHARGES FOR EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION AND INSPECTION WORK PERFORMED BY NACA RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING PERSONNEL DURING THE STUDIES AND TESTS CONDUCTED IN 1953 TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE ROTOR FAILURE AND THE EFFECT OF THE AERODYNAMIC DESIGN OF THE TUNNEL ON THE PROPELLER-DRIVE EQUIPMENT. IN ITS LETTER OF JULY 21, 1955, SUBMITTING THE OFFER OF SETTLEMENT, THE CONTRACTOR STATES THAT COSTS OF THE TYPE FOR WHICH THE SUM OF $56,519.77 IS CLAIMED ARE NOT PROPERLY ALLOCABLE TO THE COST OF REPAIRING THE ROTORS. ALSO, THE LETTER STATES THAT THE OFFER OF SETTLEMENT IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN ADMISSION BY THE CONTRACTOR OF ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER FOR THE REPAIR COSTS OR ANY OTHER LIABILITY UNDER THE CONTRACT.

BY LETTER OF DECEMBER 3, 1954, YOU HAD, AS THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, ADVISED THE CONTRACTOR THAT NACA WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE TESTS CONDUCTED BY THE GOVERNMENT CONCLUSIVELY PROVED THAT NO AERODYNAMIC FORCES WERE THE CAUSAL OR CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THE EXCESSIVE VIBRATIONS WHICH RESULTED IN THE ROTOR FAILURE, AND THAT IT WAS YOUR DETERMINATION THAT THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN REPAIRING THE EQUIPMENT, WHICH AMOUNTED TO $147,860.50, WERE PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO THE CONTRACTOR UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT. THE RECORD FAILS TO SHOW THAT THE CONTRACTOR FORMALLY APPEALED YOUR DECISION TO THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE DISPUTES CLAUSE OF THE CONTRACT, BUT YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 26, 1955, REFERS TO TWO CONFERENCES HELD BY NACA OFFICIALS WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CONTRACTOR ON JANUARY 17 AND JANUARY 27, 1955, IN AN EFFORT TO SETTLE THE CONTROVERSY. AT THE LATTER CONFERENCE IT WAS AGREED THAT THE BREAKDOWN OF COSTS INCLUDED IN THE FIGURE OF $147,860.50 WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE CONTRACTOR'S ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IN RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, FOR REVIEW. IT APPEARS FROM YOUR LETTER THAT THE COST DATA WERE REVIEWED IN DETAIL BY NACA AND GENERAL ELECTRIC REPRESENTATIVES ON JUNE 6, 1955, WHEN THE CHARGES INCLUDED IN THE AMOUNT OF $56,519.77 "WERE QUESTIONED AS NOT BEING PROPERLY ALLOCATED TO THE REPAIR COSTS.' THE OFFER OF SETTLEMENT HERE INVOLVED FOLLOWED.

YOU STATE THAT THE CONCLUSION EXPRESSED IN YOUR DECISION OF DECEMBER 3, 1954, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE DAMAGE TO THE ROTORS WAS DUE TO THE FAULT OF THE CONTRACTOR, REMAINS UNCHANGED, AND THAT THE COMMITTEE IS OF THE VIEW THAT GENERAL ELECTRIC SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE UNDER ITS GUARANTEE FOR THE COST OF MAKING NECESSARY REPAIRS TO THE EQUIPMENT. HOWEVER, YOU STATE THAT YOU ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAS A SOUND LEGAL POSITION IN CONTENDING THAT THE AMOUNT PROPERLY ALLOCABLE TO THE REPAIR THEREOF SHOULD HAVE BEEN NO MORE THAN $91,340.73, ON THE BASIS THAT ITEMS OF THE TYPE INCLUDED IN THE REFERRED-TO SUM OF $56,519.77 ARE, IN PRACTICE, GENERALLY NOT INCLUDED IN REPAIR COST ACCUMULATIONS. ALSO, YOU STATE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH 3-38 (B), WHICH LIMIT THE CONTRACTOR'S LIABILITY TO REPLACING WITHOUT COST TO THE GOVERNMENT "ANY OR ALL PARTS FOUND WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THE GUARANTEE TO BE DEFECTIVE IN MATERIALS OR WORKMANSHIP," WOULD ALSO SEEM TO SUPPORT GENERAL ELECTRIC'S CONTENTION THAT THE COST OF THE EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION AND TESTS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ROTOR FAILURE ARE NOT PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO THE CONTRACTOR UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT.

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE GUARANTEE CLAUSE, AS LIMITED BY ARTICLE 22 OF THE CONTRACT, THE CONTRACTOR WAS TO BE LIABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR GENERAL, BUT NOT FOR SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL, DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ITS FAILURE TO MANUFACTURE OR TO COMPLY WITH THE GUARANTEE, WHEN DUE TO ITS FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE. NACA HAS FINALLY DETERMINED, INFORMALLY, AT LEAST, THAT THE DEFECTIVE CONDITION WHICH DEVELOPED IN THE ROTORS WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE FAULT OF THE CONTRACTOR, THEREBY ESTABLISHING THE LATTER'S LIABILITY FOR ANY GENERAL DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS A RESULT OF THE BREACH OF GUARANTEE. SINCE IT WAS ESSENTIAL TO ASCERTAIN AND ELIMINATE THE CAUSE OF THE EXCESSIVE VIBRATION IN ORDER FOR THE REPAIRS MADE TO THE ROTORS TO HAVE ANY LASTING EFFECT, THE REASONABLE COST OF SUCH INVESTIGATORY AND INSPECTION WORK AS WAS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE INDUCEMENT OF THE VIBRATION, AS WELL AS THE ACTUAL COST OF REPAIRS, WOULD HAVE TO BE REGARDED AS A DIRECT ELEMENT OF DAMAGES INCURRED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS A RESULT OF THE BREACH OF GUARANTEE AND, HENCE, PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO THE CONTRACTOR UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT. THIS IS IN ACCORD WITH THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW RELATING TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF WARRANTIES OR GUARANTEES, AND WITH THOSE GOVERNING THE MEASUREMENT OF DAMAGES GENERALLY. THESE ARE TO THE EFFECT THAT, IN CASE OF DEFECTIVE PERFORMANCE, RECOVERY MAY BE HAD FOR THE REASONABLE COST OF MAKING THE WORK PERFORMED OR THE ARTICLE FURNISHED CONFORM TO THE CONTRACT. SEE WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS, REV.ED., VOL. 5, SEC. 1393; 15 AM.JUR., DAMAGES, SEC. 46. HOWEVER, OUR DIVISION OF AUDITS REPORTS THAT A REVIEW OF THE METHOD USED BY NACA IN ARRIVING AT THE AMOUNT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM AGAINST GENERAL ELECTRIC LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT NO MORE THAN $91,340.73 OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED CAN BE REASONABLY SUBSTANTIATED. OUR REPRESENTATIVES STATE THAT THIS IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT A LARGE PART OF THE LABOR COSTS WERE INCLUDED THEREIN ON THE BASIS OF AN ESTIMATE MADE A CONSIDERABLE TIME AFTER THE ROTORS HAD BEEN REPAIRED, AND THAT THE CHARGES INCLUDED THEREIN FOR OVERHEAD WERE BASED UPON RATES WHICH ARE NOT SUPPORTABLE BY THE RECORD. IN THIS CONNECTION, SEE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES V. UNITED STATES (U.S. DIST. CT. S.D. CALIFORNIA), 131 F.SUPP. 329.

ACCORDINGLY, THE OFFER OF THE GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY TO PAY $91,340.73 IN FULL SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIM SHOULD BE ACCEPTED.