B-127080, MAR. 28, 1956

B-127080: Mar 28, 1956

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

KING AND COMPANY: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 8. WHEREIN THERE WAS DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR $15 UNDER PURCHASE ORDER NO. (08 606/54-4503. YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS BASED ON THE CONTENTION THAT A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SIGNED RECEIPT FOR THE ORIGINAL SHIPMENT WAS SENT TO THE PATRICK AIR FORCE BASE WHICH SHOWED THAT ALL ITEMS COVERED BY PURCHASE ORDER NO. (08-606/54-4503. WERE RECEIVED BY THE TRANSPORTATION OFFICER. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE ADVISES THAT YOU HAVE PURSUED YOUR CLAIM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT ON THE BASIS THAT THE CARRIER HELD A SIGNED RECEIPT FOR THE 38 PACKAGES DELIVERED. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SIGNED RECEIPT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OFFICER. IS BASED ON HIS RECEIPT OF THE 38 PACKAGES.

B-127080, MAR. 28, 1956

TO CHARLES E. KING AND COMPANY:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 8, 1956, REQUESTING A REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 3, 1956, WHEREIN THERE WAS DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR $15 UNDER PURCHASE ORDER NO. (08 606/54-4503, DATED JUNE 28, 1954.

IT APPEARS THAT UNDER THE PURCHASE ORDER YOU AGREED TO FURNISH TO THE PATRICK AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA, ITEMS NOS. 1 THROUGH 5, COVERING VARIOUS QUANTITIES OF FIBERBOARD BOXES, CHIPBOARD FOLDING CARTONS AND COTTON WRAPPING TWINE FOR A TOTAL PRICE OF $875.75. UPON INFORMATION FROM THE AIR FORCE BASE THAT ITEM NO. 5, WHICH COVERED THE COTTON WRAPPING TWINE, HAD NOT BEEN RECEIVED YOU MADE A SHIPMENT OF THIS ITEM. YOU NOW CLAIM $15 AS A RESULT OF AN ALLEGED DUPLICATE SHIPMENT.

YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS BASED ON THE CONTENTION THAT A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SIGNED RECEIPT FOR THE ORIGINAL SHIPMENT WAS SENT TO THE PATRICK AIR FORCE BASE WHICH SHOWED THAT ALL ITEMS COVERED BY PURCHASE ORDER NO. (08-606/54-4503, WERE RECEIVED BY THE TRANSPORTATION OFFICER.

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE ADVISES THAT YOU HAVE PURSUED YOUR CLAIM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT ON THE BASIS THAT THE CARRIER HELD A SIGNED RECEIPT FOR THE 38 PACKAGES DELIVERED. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SIGNED RECEIPT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OFFICER, TO WHICH YOU REFER, IS BASED ON HIS RECEIPT OF THE 38 PACKAGES, AS EVIDENCED BY THE RECEIPT HELD BY THE CARRIER. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE RECEIVING REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE DOES SHOW RECEIPT OF 38 INDIVIDUAL PACKAGES, BUT IT ALSO SHOWS THAT THE 38 PACKAGES CONSISTED OF ITEMS NOS. 1 THROUGH 4 ONLY. FURTHER, IT IS REPORTED THAT AFTER YOU ALLEGED THAT ITEM NO. 5 WAS SHIPPED WITH THE OTHER FOUR ITEMS A RECHECK WAS MADE BY THE PATRICK AIR FORCE BASE OF THE ITEMS RECEIVED WHICH STILL REVEALED ITEM NO. 5 TO BE MISSING FROM THE SHIPMENT. ALTOGETHER, A RECEIVER AND TWO INSPECTORS HAVE STATED THAT THE COTTON WRAPPING TWINE SPECIFIED UNDER ITEM NO. 5 WAS NOT RECEIVED IN THE ORIGINAL SHIPMENT.

ACCORDINGLY, ON THE RECORD AS PRESENTED HERE, THE SETTLEMENT OF FEBRUARY 3, 1956, MUST BE SUSTAINED.