B-127852, JUN. 4, 1956

B-127852: Jun 4, 1956

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

TO MOLINE IRON WORKS: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 27. THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 24. THE DETAILED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES REGARDING THE REPORTED LOSS OF YOUR ORIGINAL INVOICES AND THE PAYMENTS MADE TO YOU REFLECTING THE DISCOUNT IN QUESTION ARE SET FORTH IN THE SETTLEMENT AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. YOU SUGGEST THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE DISCOUNT WAS LOST BY YOU ARE SUCH AS TO WARRANT PARTIAL REIMBURSEMENT OF THE AMOUNT DEDUCTED FROM YOUR DUPLICATE INVOICES. SHOULD HAVE REACHED THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE CONCERNED ON THE DATES FOLLOWING THE BILLING AND THAT THEY WERE MISPLACED OR LOST IN THAT OFFICE. IN THE CASE OF DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT IT LONG HAS BEEN THE RULE OF THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS TO ACCEPT THE REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE REPORT OF THAT OFFICE IS ERRONEOUS.

B-127852, JUN. 4, 1956

TO MOLINE IRON WORKS:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 27, 1956, RELATIVE TO YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND OF CERTAIN DISCOUNT DEDUCTED IN CONNECTION WITH PAYMENTS MADE TO YOU UNDER DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE CONTRACT NO. AF- 04/606/-4227, DATED MAY 17, 1954. THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 24, 1956.

THE DETAILED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES REGARDING THE REPORTED LOSS OF YOUR ORIGINAL INVOICES AND THE PAYMENTS MADE TO YOU REFLECTING THE DISCOUNT IN QUESTION ARE SET FORTH IN THE SETTLEMENT AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE.

IN YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 27, 1956, WHILE FURNISHING NO ADDITIONAL MATERIAL INFORMATION NOT CONSIDERED AT THE TIME OF THE SETTLEMENT OF YOUR CLAIM, YOU SUGGEST THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE DISCOUNT WAS LOST BY YOU ARE SUCH AS TO WARRANT PARTIAL REIMBURSEMENT OF THE AMOUNT DEDUCTED FROM YOUR DUPLICATE INVOICES. IN THIS REGARD YOU CONTEND THAT THE INVOICES WHICH COVERED SHIPMENTS ON DECEMBER 31, 1954, AND JANUARY 31, 1955, SHOULD HAVE REACHED THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE CONCERNED ON THE DATES FOLLOWING THE BILLING AND THAT THEY WERE MISPLACED OR LOST IN THAT OFFICE. CONTRARY TO YOUR CONTENTION, THAT OFFICE HAS REPORTED THAT IT DID NOT RECEIVE YOUR ORIGINAL INVOICES. IN THE CASE OF DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT IT LONG HAS BEEN THE RULE OF THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS TO ACCEPT THE REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE REPORT OF THAT OFFICE IS ERRONEOUS.

OUR OFFICE HAS NO JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER ANY ADJUSTMENT IN THE MATTER ON THE BASIS SUGGESTED BY YOU. AS STATED BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS IN THE CASE OF THE PACIFIC HARDWARE AND STEEL COMPANY V. UNITED STATES, 49 C.CLS. 327, 335,"IT IS UNQUESTIONABLY TRUE THAT AN OFFICIAL OF THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO GIVE AWAY OR REMIT ACLAIM DUE THE GOVERNMENT. THIS RULE IS GROUNDED IN A SOUND PUBLIC POLICY AND IS NOT TO BE WEAKENED.'