B-125483, MARCH 14, 1956, 35 COMP. GEN. 512

B-125483, MARCH 14, 1956, 35 COMP. GEN. 512

CONTRACTS - DISPUTES - APPEALS - SCOPE OF DETERMINATION AN APPEAL FROM ONE PART OF A CONTRACTING OFFICER'S FINDINGS INCORPORATED IN A CHANGE ORDER TO A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT GOES TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ENTIRE ORDER PREVENTING ANY PART FROM BECOMING FINAL, AND OPENS FOR CONSIDERATION ALL FACTORS ON WHICH THE FINDINGS WERE BASED, THEREFORE A DETERMINATION THAT THE CONTRACTOR WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE INCREASE ON THE ITEM IN DISPUTE BUT WAS INDEBTED TO THE GOVERNMENT BY REASON OF THE SUBSTITUTION OF CHEAPER MATERIAL ON OTHER WORK COVERED IN THE CHANGE ORDER, WAS PROPER.

TO TOMPKINS-1CURLETT-1WUNDERLICH, MARCH 14, 1956:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1955, PROTESTING AGAINST THE FINDING OF THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, THAT THERE IS DUE FROM YOU TO THE UNITED STATES A CREDIT IN THE NET AMOUNT OF $52,278.87 IN CONNECTION WITH CONTRACT NO. V1001C-152 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A HOSPITAL FOR THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION AT SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA.

THE ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS AFFAIRS HAS FURNISHED A COMPLETE REPORT IN CONNECTION WITH THE MATTER, FROM WHICH IT APPEARS THAT THE CLAIM AGAINST YOU IS NOW IN POSITION TO BE REPORTED TO OUR OFFICE FOR COLLECTION ACTION UNLESS PROMPT PAYMENT IS MADE BY YOU TO THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION. WILL THEREFORE FOR PRESENT PURPOSES CONSIDER THE REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR AS A FORMAL REFERRAL OF YOUR INDEBTEDNESS AS DETERMINED BY HIS AGENCY, AND YOUR LETTER AS AN OBJECTION TO THE STATEMENT OF A DEBT SETTLEMENT AGAINST YOU BY OUR OFFICE.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT, WHILE YOU WERE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK UNDER THE CONTRACT, A QUESTION AROSE AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS REGARDING THE TYPE OF MATERIAL TO BE USED FOR ENCLOSURE WALLS SURROUNDING ELEVATORS AND STAIRS IN BUILDINGS NOS. 1 TO 6, INCLUSIVE, AND 10, 11, 13 AND 15. IN RESPONSE TO YOUR REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER IN A LETTER DATED JANUARY 29, 1951, ADVISED YOU THAT " IT IS THE INTERPRETATION OF CENTRAL OFFICE THAT THE PARTITIONS AROUND ELEVATOR SHAFTS AND STAIRWAYS SHALL BE OF THE MATERIAL INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS.' SUBSEQUENTLY, BY PROCEED ORDER NO. 6, DATED APRIL 30, 1951, YOU WERE ORDERED TO PROCEED WITH WORK DETAILED IN VARIOUS CORRECTIVE INFORMATION LISTS, INCLUDING CORRECTIVE INFORMATION LIST NO. 8, DATED MARCH 20, 1951, WHICH PROVIDED THAT---

EXTERIOR WALLS MAY BE LAID WITH BRICK SPECIFIED AND BACKED WITH CINDER CONCRETE BACKING UNITS EXCEPT THAT A FULL BRICK 8 INCH SHALL BE CARRIED AROUND ALL WINDOW OPENINGS. (AN APPROPRIATE CREDIT SHOULD BE OFFERED FOR THE SUBSTITUTION HERE PERMITTED.) SOLID BRICK WALLS SHALL BE USED FOR ALL INTERIOR BEARING PARTITIONS AND FOR ENCLOSING STAIR WELLS AND ELEVATOR SHAFT.

ON APRIL 17, 1951, FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF INFORMATION LIST NO. 8, YOU SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL FOR AN EXTRA IN THE AMOUNT OF $79,814.99 WITH THE RESULT THAT BY LETTER DATED MAY 21, 1951, YOU WERE ADVISED BY THE CONTRACTING AGENCY AS FOLLOWS:

* * * AFTER A RESTUDY OF THE VARIOUS SITUATIONS OBTAINING IN THE SEVERAL BUILDINGS WHERE THIS WORK HAS TO BE PROVIDED IT HAS BEEN DECIDED TO RESCIND THE ABOVE INSTRUCTIONS AND IN PLACE THEREOF THE WALLS WILL BE BUILT AS FOLLOWS:

ENCLOSURE WALLS AROUND STAIRS AND ELEVATORS SHALL BE CHANGED FROM 8 INCH BRICK TO 6 INCH STANDARD T.C. TILE OR 6 INCH CINDER BLOCKS IN ALL BUILDINGS. (EXCEPT BUILDING NO. 11 WHICH SHALL BE BRICK, THIS BEING NECESSARY IN ORDER TO CARRY CONCRETE SLAB.)

UNDER DATE OF JANUARY 21, 1952, YOU SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL WHICH OFFERED TO CONSTRUCT THE INTERIOR ELEVATOR AND SHAFT WALLS WITH 6 INCH CINDER BLOCK IN LIEU OF THAT SHOWN ON THE PLANS EXCEPT WHERE IT IS NECESSARY TO INSTALL 8 INCH BLOCK IN ORDER TO TIE IN WITH THE DOOR BUCKS ON ALL BUILDINGS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF BUILDING NO. 11 AT NO CHANGE IN THE CONTRACT PRICE. THIS PROPOSAL WAS REJECTED AND WAS FOLLOWED BY YOUR PROPOSAL NO. 67R BY WHICH YOU OFFERED TO PERFORM THE WORK FOR $864.75. THIS LATTER PROPOSAL WAS WITHDRAWN BY YOU ON MARCH 14, 1953, AT WHICH TIME YOU SUBMITTED PROPOSAL NO. 67RR FOR AN EXTRA IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,552.97, BASED ON THE INSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED IN THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S LETTER OF MAY 21, 1951, SUPRA, AS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED BY THE GOVERNMENT SUPERINTENDENT OF CONSTRUCTION. FINALLY, ON JANUARY 4, 1954, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ISSUED CHANGE ORDER NO. 15-U IN WHICH IT WAS RECITED THAT, UNDER ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONTRACT, ENTITLED " CHANGES," AN EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT OF $1,116.37 (INCREASE) WAS IN ORDER FOR THE FOLLOWING CHANGE IN WORK:

CHANGING ENCLOSURE WALLS AROUND STAIR AND ELEVATOR FROM 8 INCH BRICK TO 6 INCH STANDARD TERRA COTTA TILE OR 6 INCH CINDER BLOCKS IN ALL BUILDINGS EXCEPT BUILDING NO. 11.

THE REFERRED TO ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONTRACT PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:

ARTICLE 3, CHANGES.--- THE CONTRACTING OFFICER MAY AT ANY TIME, BY A WRITTEN ORDER, AND WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE SURETIES, MAKE CHANGES IN THE DRAWINGS AND/OR SPECIFICATIONS OF THIS CONTRACT AND WITHIN THE GENERAL SCOPE THEREOF. IF SUCH CHANGES CAUSE AN INCREASE OR DECREASE IN THE AMOUNT DUE UNDER THIS CONTRACT, OR IN THE TIME REQUIRED FOR ITS PERFORMANCE, AN EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT SHALL BE MADE AND THE CONTRACT SHALL BE MODIFIED IN WRITING ACCORDINGLY. NO CHANGE INVOLVING AN ESTIMATED INCREASE OR DECREASE OF MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS SHALL BE ORDERED UNLESS APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. ANY CLAIM FOR ADJUSTMENT UNDER THIS ARTICLE MUST BE ASSERTED WITH 10 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE CHANGE IS ORDERED: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, IF HE DETERMINES THAT THE FACTS JUSTIFY SUCH ACTION, MAY RECEIVE AND CONSIDER, AND WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, ADJUST ANY SUCH CLAIM ASSERTED AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO THE DATE OF FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE CONTRACT. IF THE PARTIES FAIL TO AGREE UPON THE ADJUSTMENT TO BE MADE THE DISPUTE SHALL BE DETERMINED AS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 15 HEREOF. BUT NOTHING PROVIDED IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL EXCUSE THE CONTRACTOR FROM PROCEEDING WITH THE PROSECUTION OF THE WORK SO CHANGED.

BY LETTER OF FEBRUARY 9, 1954, YOU APPEALED THE DECISION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AS STATED IN CHANGE ORDER NO. 15-U, CONTENDING THAT THE INCREASE WAS INADEQUATE TO COMPENSATE FOR THE EXTRA WORK ORDERED AND THAT THE CHANGE ORDER FAILED TO INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL COST FOR CONSTRUCTING THE STAIR WALLS AND ELEVATOR SHAFTS OF BUILDING NO. 11 OF BRICK AS ORDERED IN LETTER OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DATED MAY 21, 1951, IN LIEU OF CINDER BLOCK AS SPECIFIED.

YOUR APPEAL WAS MADE THE SUBJECT OF A HEARING BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT APPEALS BOARD ON FEBRUARY 10, 1954. THE REPORT OF THAT BOARD, TOGETHER WITH YOUR REBUTTAL MEMORANDUM, WAS SUBMITTED TO THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HEAD OF THE ADMINISTRATION, WHO, UNDER DATE OF JULY 28, 1954, ADVISED YOU, IN PERTINENT PART, AS FOLLOWS:

IT IS MY DECISION THAT THE CONTRACT REQUIRES THE INSTALLATION OF SOLID BRICK WALLS SURROUNDING STAIR AND ELEVATOR SHAFTS IN THE BUILDINGS LISTED ABOVE, AND INCLUDING BUILDING NO. 11. CONSEQUENTLY, ADDITIONAL PAYMENT FOR CONSTRUCTING THE WALLS SURROUNDING STAIRWAYS AND ELEVATOR SHAFTS OF SOLID BRICK IN BUILDING NO. 11 IS NOT IN ORDER. EXAMINATION OF YOUR BASIC PROPOSAL INDICATES THAT CREDITS TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE CHANGED WORK WERE FIGURED ON THE BASIS OF THE SUBSTITUTION OF SIX INCH HOLLOW CINDER BLOCK IN LIEU OF EIGHT-INCH HOLLOW CINDER BLOCK RATHER THAN SOLID BRICK. I AM THEREFORE REMANDING THIS MATTER TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FOR EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE.

UNDER DATE OF OCTOBER 26, 1954, THE SUCCESSOR CONTRACTING OFFICER ADVISED YOU THAT, PURSUANT TO THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION THAT THE CONTRACT REQUIRED THE INSTALLATION OF SOLID BRICK WALLS AROUND STAIR WELLS AND ELEVATOR SHAFTS IN ALL BUILDINGS, AND SINCE THESE WALLS WERE NOT CONSTRUCTED OF SOLID BRICK, EXCEPT IN BUILDING NO. 11, A CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF $52,278.87 WAS DUE THE GOVERNMENT AS AN EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE.

BY LETTER OF NOVEMBER 23, 1954, YOU SERVED NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM THE FINDING OF THE SUCCESSOR CONTRACTING OFFICER AND IN RESPONSE TO YOUR INQUIRIES YOU WERE ADVISED BY THE BOARD'S LETTER OF DECEMBER 22, 1954, THAT THE DETERMINATION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS BASED UPON THE DECISION OF THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR CONSTRUCTION IN APPEALS CASE NO. 105; THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE CREDIT WAS ARRIVED AT BY COMPUTING THE QUANTITY OF BRICKS SHOWN ON THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS AND APPLYING THERETO THE UNIT COST FOR COMMON BRICK INSTALLED AS CONTAINED IN A PROPOSAL OF APRIL 2, 1951, BY YOUR SUBCONTRACTOR FOR MASONRY; AND THAT THE DECISION OF THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR CONSTRUCTION WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 15 OF THE CONTRACT AND SECTION 12B OF THE GENERAL CONDITIONS WHICH PROVIDE, AS FOLLOWS:

EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THIS CONTRACT, ALL DISPUTES CONCERNING QUESTIONS OF FACT ARISING UNDER THIS CONTRACT SHALL 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 SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE UPON THE PARTIES THERETO. IN THE MEANTIME THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DILIGENTLY PROCEED WITH THE WORK AS DIRECTED.

(B) THE OPINION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AS TO THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE DRAWINGS AND/OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE FINAL, SUBJECT TO WRITTEN APPEAL BY THE CONTRACTOR, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS, TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, WHOSE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE UPON THE PARTIES THERETO.

ON JANUARY 26, 1955, YOUR SECOND APPEAL, IDENTIFIED AS APPEALS CASE NO. 137, WAS HEARD, FOLLOWING WHICH THE REPORT OF THE BOARD AND YOUR ATTORNEY'S " MEMORANDUM OF LAW" WERE REFERRED TO THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR HIS CONSIDERATION AND DETERMINATION. BY LETTER OF AUGUST 25, 1955, YOU WERE ADVISED BY THAT OFFICIAL THAT HE SUSTAINED THE FINDING OF THE SUCCESSOR CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT THE EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE UNDER CHANGE ORDER NO. 15-U WAS A CREDIT TO THE GOVERNMENT IN THE NET AMOUNT OF $52,278.87.

THE BASIC ARGUMENT PRESENTED BY YOUR ATTORNEY IN THIS CASE IS THAT CHANGE ORDER NO. 15-U CONSTITUTED A VALID MODIFICATION OF THE CONTRACT AND THAT, THEREFORE, NEITHER THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, NOR ANY OTHER PERSON, HAD THE LEGAL RIGHT TO ABROGATE THE CHANGE ORDER AS RESPECTS THE AMOUNT OF CREDIT DUE THE UNITED STATES BY REASON OF CHANGES IN MASONRY CONSTRUCTION OF ALL BUILDINGS OTHER THAN NO. 11. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THERE NEVER WAS ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REGARDING THE INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT PRICE ARISING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS NOS. 1 TO 6, 10, 13 AND 15 AND THAT, ALTHOUGH THE CONTRACTOR DID APPEAL A DISPUTE ARISING FROM THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S FAILURE TO GRANT AN INCREASE BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING NO. 11, SUCH APPEAL COULD NOT, BY IMPLICATION, CREATE A DISPUTE RESPECTING THE INCREASE FOR THE OTHER BUILDINGS.

WE CANNOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION THAT THE SUBJECT CHANGE ORDER WAS SEVERABLE SO THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN DIRECTED SOLELY TO THE DISPUTE ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING NO. 11. THE LETTER OF JANUARY 29, 1951, REFERRED TO ABOVE, WHICH PRECIPITATED THE DISPUTE, STATED THAT THE PARTITIONS AROUND ELEVATOR SHAFTS AND STAIRWAYS SHALL BE OF "THE MATERIAL INDICATED IN THE DRAWINGS.' IN ITS REPORT OF MAY 3, 1954, TO THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR CONSTRUCTION, A COPY OF WHICH WAS FURNISHED YOU, THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT APPEALS BOARD CONCLUDED THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS AND THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS CLEARLY INDICATE SOLID BRICK ENCLOSING WALLS AT STAIRWAYS AND ELEVATORS INSOFAR AS BUILDING NO. 11 IS CONCERNED AND THAT EXAMINATION OF LARGE SCALE DETAILS OF MASONRY SURROUNDING WALLS OF ELEVATORS AND STAIRWAYS IN THE OTHER BUILDINGS REFERRED TO IN CHANGE ORDER NO. 15-U SHOWS THAT SOLID BRICK IS INDICATED IN THOSE BUILDINGS. SO FAR AS THOSE FINDINGS ARE CONCERNED, TO THE EXTENT THEY INVOLVE MATTERS OF FACT, WE ARE BOUND, BY THE ACT OF MAY 11, 1954, 68 STAT. 81, TO CONSIDER THEM AS FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE UNLESS "FRAUDULENT OR CAPRICIOUS OR ARBITRARY OR SO GROSSLY ERRONEOUS AS NECESSARILY TO IMPLY BAD FAITH, OR * * * NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.' UPON REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, WE FIND NO SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR REFUSING TO ACCEPT THE DETERMINATIONS OF THE BOARD AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR.

SINCE CHANGE ORDER NO. 15-U PROVIDED FOR CHANGING THE ENCLOSURE WALLS AROUND STAIR AND ELEVATORS FROM 8 INCH BRICK TO 6 INCH STANDARD TERRA COTTA TILE OR 6 INCH CINDER BLOCKS IN ALL BUILDINGS EXCEPT BUILDING NO. 11, AN EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT WAS REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONTRACT, SUPRA. IN REACHING HIS DECISION AS TO THE AMOUNT OF THE PRICE ADJUSTMENT, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE INCREASED COST OF ELECTRICAL WORK, AND THE SAVING RESULTING FROM THE SUBSTITUTION OF 6 INCH TILE OR CINDER BLOCK FOR THICKER AND MORE COSTLY MATERIAL, AND ALLOWED AN INCREASE BASED ON THE NET ADDITIONAL COST. YOU CONTEND, IN EFFECT, THAT YOUR APPEAL OPENED UP ONLY THE AMOUNT OF THE INCREASED ITEMS--- INCLUDING THOSE CLAIMED ON BUILDING NO. 11 WHICH WERE NOT ALLOWED--- AND LEFT THE CREDIT FOR SAVINGS FIXED AND NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW. SINCE THE FINALITY OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S FINDINGS WAS "SUBJECT TO APPEAL," WE ARE OF OPINION THAT YOUR APPEAL PREVENTED ANY PART OF THE FINDINGS FROM BECOMING FINAL AND OPENED UP FOR CONSIDERATION ALL FACTORS UPON WHICH THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S FINDING WAS BASED. CAREFUL CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE VIEWS PRESENTED IN YOUR ATTORNEY'S BRIEFS AND THE SEVERAL ADMINISTRATIVE AND COURT DECISIONS WHICH HE BELIEVES SUPPORT THE PROPOSITION THAT, PAYMENT HAVING BEEN MADE ON MARCH 23, 1954, OF THE AMOUNT PROVIDED FOR IN CHANGE ORDER NO. 15-U, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT, LEGALLY, CONSIDER THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISION AS CONTAINED IN THE CHANGE ORDER. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT PROVIDED FOR IN THE CHANGE ORDER WAS MADE, YOUR APPEAL WAS STILL PENDING. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THEREFORE, AND SINCE, AS INDICATED ABOVE, THE APPEAL WENT TO THE ENTIRE CHANGE ORDER, THERE APPEARS NO ANALOGY BETWEEN THIS CASE AND THOSE CITED BY YOUR ATTORNEY IN WHICH NO DISPUTES HAD ARISEN IN RESPECT TO THE CHANGE ORDERS OR CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS THERE INVOLVED. SEE, IN THIS CONNECTION, BELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION V. THE UNITED STATES, 120 C.1CLS. 398 (AFFIRMED BY EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT, 344 U.S. 860) PRINCIPALLY RELIED UPON BY YOUR ATTORNEY. THAT CASE IT WAS HELD (PAGE 453) THAT A DETERMINATION MADE BY A CONTRACTING OFFICER REGARDING ALLOWABLE ITEMS OF COST UNDER A COST-PLUS-A- FIXED-FEE CONTRACT, FOLLOWED BY ACTUAL PAYMENT TO THE CONTRACTOR, IS FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE "UNLESS THE CONTRACTOR, BEING DISSATISFIED WITH THE DECISION, MAKES AN OBJECTION TO IT WHICH WOULD RESULT IN A DISPUTE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE MEANS PROVIDED IN THE DISPUTES ARTICLE OF THE CONTRACT.' ( ITALICS SUPPLIED.)

IN ADDITION TO THE FOREGOING, AND AS STATED BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS IN ITS REPORT OF JUNE 6, 1955, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SUCCESSOR CONTRACTING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT CASE DID NOT CHANGE OR ABROGATE A DECISION BY HIS PREDECESSOR IN THE SENSE THAT SUCH WAS DONE BY THE SUCCESSOR CONTRACTING OFFICER IN THE BELL AIRCRAFT CASE. THE DECISION OF OCTOBER 26, 1954, WAS MADE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HEAD OF THE CONTRACTING AGENCY FOLLOWING THE LATTER'S DECISION IN APPEALS CASE NO. 105. THE SUCCESSOR CONTRACTING OFFICER MERELY ACTED AS THE AGENT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR IN DETERMINING THE TOTAL MONEY CREDIT DUE THE GOVERNMENT AS A RESULT OF THE CHANGES IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE ENCLOSURE WALLS AS STIPULATED IN CHANGE ORDER NO. 15-U, THE AMOUNT OF WHICH WAS NECESSARILY PREREQUISITE TO A COMPLETE ADJUDICATION OF YOUR APPEAL ON THE BASIS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD.

ACCORDINGLY, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT UNLESS APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE BY YOU TO LIQUIDATE THE AMOUNT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS WE SHALL PROCEED, UPON FORMAL NOTIFICATION FROM THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, WITH COLLECTION PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ESTABLISHED PRACTICE.