B-128171, JUN. 14, 1956

B-128171: Jun 14, 1956

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

TO EMCO METAL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED APRIL 20. AN EXTENSION IN THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE WAS GRANTED BECAUSE OF THESE CONDITIONS BUT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ADVISED YOU THAT HE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO GRANT ANY INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT PRICES. NO PROVISION IS MADE THEREIN WHICH OBLIGATES THE GOVERNMENT TO BEAR ANY INCREASED COST TO YOU IN THE FURNISHING OF THE BUCKLES. IT IS A WELL-SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT VALID CONTRACTS ARE TO BE ENFORCED AND PERFORMED AS WRITTEN. IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ENTITLE A CONTRACTOR TO COMPENSATION IN ADDITION TO THAT PROVIDED IN THE CONTRACT. YOU WERE BOUND TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TERMS AND AT THE STIPULATED PRICES.

B-128171, JUN. 14, 1956

TO EMCO METAL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED APRIL 20, 1956, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING AN INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT PRICES OF BELT BUCKLES FOR DELIVERY TO THE MARINE CORPS UNDER CONTRACT NO. N50M 11583, DATED JUNE 23, 1955.

IT APPEARS THAT YOU REQUESTED THE SUCCESSOR CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT YOU BE GRANTED AN EXTENSION IN THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE BECAUSE OF STRIKES IN THE COPPER MINING INDUSTRY AND FLOOD DAMAGE TO THE ROLLING MILLS AND THAT YOU BE ALLOWED A GENERAL INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT PRICES. AN EXTENSION IN THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE WAS GRANTED BECAUSE OF THESE CONDITIONS BUT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ADVISED YOU THAT HE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO GRANT ANY INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT PRICES.

AN EXAMINATION OF THE CONTRACT DISCLOSES THAT IT CONTAINS NO QUALIFICATION OF YOUR ABSOLUTE UNDERTAKING TO PERFORM THE REQUIRED SERVICES AT THE SPECIFIED PRICES, AND NO PROVISION IS MADE THEREIN WHICH OBLIGATES THE GOVERNMENT TO BEAR ANY INCREASED COST TO YOU IN THE FURNISHING OF THE BUCKLES, EXCEPT AS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 10 WITH REFERENCE TO TAXES, NOT APPLICABLE HERE.

IT IS A WELL-SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT VALID CONTRACTS ARE TO BE ENFORCED AND PERFORMED AS WRITTEN, AND THE FACT THAT INTERVENING OR UNFORESEEN CAUSES RENDER PERFORMANCE MORE BURDENSOME OR LESS PROFITABLE OR EVEN OCCASION A LOSS, IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ENTITLE A CONTRACTOR TO COMPENSATION IN ADDITION TO THAT PROVIDED IN THE CONTRACT. COLUMBUS RY. POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY V. COLUMBUS, 249 U.S. 399, 412; BLAUNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY V. UNITED STATES, 94 C.CLS. 503, 511; 19 COMP. GEN. 903, AND CASES THERE CITED. SINCE THE CONTRACT HERE INVOLVED MADE NO PROVISION FOR ANY COMPENSATION IN CASE OF INCREASED COST OF PERFORMANCE SUCH AS HERE INVOLVED, YOU WERE BOUND TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TERMS AND AT THE STIPULATED PRICES. INCREASED COST OF PERFORMANCE, WHETHER FORESEEN OR UNFORESEEN, IS ONE OF THE HAZARDS OF A CONTRACT WHICH NEITHER EXCUSES PERFORMANCE NOR ENTITLES A CONTRACTOR TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION. SEE SATTERLEE ADMX., ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 30 C.CLS. 31.

ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE PAYMENT BY OUR OFFICE OF ANY INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT PRICES.