B-126635, JAN. 31, 1956

B-126635: Jan 31, 1956

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

INC.: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 20. WHEREIN THERE WAS DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR $260.09. A SHIPMENT OF CARBON STEEL WAS MADE BY YOU UNDER THE CONTRACT. YOU ALLEGE THAT AN INVOICE COVERING PAYMENT FOR SUCH SHIPMENT WAS MAILED ON JANUARY 28. IN MAKING PAYMENT OF THIS INVOICE A DISCOUNT OF $260.09 WAS DEDUCTED. THEREUPON YOU FILED A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF THE AMOUNT DEDUCTED BASED ON THE DISCOUNT NOT HAVING BEEN PROPERLY EARNED SINCE PAYMENT WAS NOT MADE ON THE INVOICE MAILED ON JANUARY 28. FOR REVIEW APPEARS TO BE FOUNDED ON THE CONTENTIONS THAT THE FACT THE ORIGINAL INVOICE WAS NOT RETURNED TO YOU IS EVIDENCE OF ITS MISCARRIAGE IN THE NEW YORK NAVAL SHIPYARDS. THAT THE SHIPYARD WAS DILATORY IN ITS DUTY IN NOT REQUESTING AN INVOICE FROM YOU WITHIN A SHORT TIME AFTER RECEIPT OF THE GOODS.

B-126635, JAN. 31, 1956

TO VIRGINIA MACHINERY AND WELL COMPANY, INC.:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 20, 1955, REQUESTING REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT DATED DECEMBER 19, 1955, WHEREIN THERE WAS DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR $260.09, UNDER CONTRACT NO. N155S-14630, DATED NOVEMBER 22, 1954, WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.

IT APPEARS THAT IN THE LATTER PART OF JANUARY 1955, A SHIPMENT OF CARBON STEEL WAS MADE BY YOU UNDER THE CONTRACT. YOU ALLEGE THAT AN INVOICE COVERING PAYMENT FOR SUCH SHIPMENT WAS MAILED ON JANUARY 28, 1955, TO THE NEW YORK NAVAL SHIPYARD, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK. LATER, UPON BEING ADVISED THAT THE SHIPYARD HAD NO RECORD OF THE RECEIPT OF THE INVOICE, YOU FORWARDED AN INVOICE ON APRIL 15, 1955. IN MAKING PAYMENT OF THIS INVOICE A DISCOUNT OF $260.09 WAS DEDUCTED. THEREUPON YOU FILED A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF THE AMOUNT DEDUCTED BASED ON THE DISCOUNT NOT HAVING BEEN PROPERLY EARNED SINCE PAYMENT WAS NOT MADE ON THE INVOICE MAILED ON JANUARY 28, 1955.

YOUR REQUEST OF DECEMBER 20, 1955, FOR REVIEW APPEARS TO BE FOUNDED ON THE CONTENTIONS THAT THE FACT THE ORIGINAL INVOICE WAS NOT RETURNED TO YOU IS EVIDENCE OF ITS MISCARRIAGE IN THE NEW YORK NAVAL SHIPYARDS; ALSO, THAT THE SHIPYARD WAS DILATORY IN ITS DUTY IN NOT REQUESTING AN INVOICE FROM YOU WITHIN A SHORT TIME AFTER RECEIPT OF THE GOODS.

SINCE YOU DO NOT CONTEST THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT UPON WHICH THE TIME FOR THE TAKING OF DISCOUNTS WOULD BE COMPUTED, AS SET FORTH IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF THE SETTLEMENT DATED DECEMBER 19, 1955, IT APPEARS THAT THE SOLE QUESTION FOR DETERMINATION HERE IS WHETHER THE DISCOUNT PERIOD IS PROPERLY TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ORIGINAL INVOICE ALLEGED BY YOU TO HAVE BEEN MAILED ON JANUARY 28, 1955, TO THE NEW YORK NAVAL SHIPYARD. IN THIS REGARD THE SHIPYARD SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT IT HAS NO RECORD OF THE RECEIPT OF THIS INVOICE. WHILE IT MAY BE THAT THE INVOICE INADVERTENTLY WAS MISPLACED BY THE NEW YORK NAVAL SHIPYARD, AS CONTENDED BY YOU, YET THE RECORD BEFORE OUR OFFICE IS JUST AS DEVOID OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW THIS TO BE A FACT AS IT IS TO ESTABLISH THE ACTUAL MAILING OF THE INVOICE BY YOU. THE PRESENT STATE OF THE RECORD IT IS JUST AS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT YOU FAILED TO MAIL THE INVOICE AS IT IS TO ASSUME THAT IT WAS MISPLACED OR IMPROPERLY HANDLED BY THE NEW YORK NAVAL SHIPYARD. MOREOVER, WHILE THE SHIPYARD MAY HAVE BEEN REMISS IN ITS DUTY WITH RESPECT TO REQUESTING AN INVOICE WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME AFTER RECEIPT OF SHIPMENT, THIS FACT, WITHOUT MORE, DOES NOT RESULT IN THE FORFEITURE OF ANY RIGHT WHICH THE SHIPYARD OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE TO THE DISCOUNT. THAT DUTY IS IN NO WAY DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE DISCOUNT PERIOD WHICH, IN THIS CASE, ONLY BEGAN TO RUN UPON RECEIPT OF A PROPERLY EXECUTED INVOICE.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, AND SINCE PAYMENT WAS MADE ON THE INVOICE RECEIVED BY THE NEW YORK NAVAL SHIPYARD ON APRIL 18, 1955, WITHIN THE APPLICABLE DISCOUNT PERIOD, THERE APPEARS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM.