B-142623, JUL. 6, 1964

B-142623: Jul 6, 1964

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 9. WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN THE CASE OF NAVAJO FREIGHT LINES. THE INTIMATION IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 9TH THAT YOUR FAILURE TO RECEIVE THIS MONEY IS DUE TO ARBITRARY WITHHOLDING BY OUR TRANSPORTATION DIVISION APPARENTLY MIGHT BE FOUNDED UPON MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENT BY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS AND SETTLEMENT BY LEGAL PROCESS. THE CLAIMS IN QUESTION WERE PLEADED AS CAUSES OF ACTION IN CIVIL ACTION NO. 6753 AND THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDED THAT THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED WERE DUE. TWO COURSES OF ACTION WERE OPEN TO YOUR COMPANY: (1) FORMAL DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIMS. NEITHER OF THESE ACTIONS WERE TAKEN. WAS RECEIVED HERE.

B-142623, JUL. 6, 1964

TO NAVAJO FREIGHT LINES, INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 9, 1964, WHICH PERTAINED TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 7, 1964, CONCERNING CLAIMS TOTALING $2,971.49, WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN THE CASE OF NAVAJO FREIGHT LINES, INC. V. UNITED STATES, CIVIL ACTION NO. 6753, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. THE INTIMATION IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 9TH THAT YOUR FAILURE TO RECEIVE THIS MONEY IS DUE TO ARBITRARY WITHHOLDING BY OUR TRANSPORTATION DIVISION APPARENTLY MIGHT BE FOUNDED UPON MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENT BY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS AND SETTLEMENT BY LEGAL PROCESS.

THE CLAIMS IN QUESTION WERE PLEADED AS CAUSES OF ACTION IN CIVIL ACTION NO. 6753 AND THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDED THAT THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED WERE DUE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, TWO COURSES OF ACTION WERE OPEN TO YOUR COMPANY: (1) FORMAL DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIMS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FROM THE COURT ACTION SO THAT THE CLAIMS COULD BE PAID ADMINISTRATIVELY ON SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY OUR OFFICE, OR (2) INCLUSION OF THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED IN THE JUDGMENT AMOUNT. SO FAR AS THE RECORD HERE SHOWS, NEITHER OF THESE ACTIONS WERE TAKEN. INSTEAD YOU ALLOWED JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED WITHOUT INCLUDING THESE AMOUNTS AND WITHOUT DISMISSING THE CLAIMS FROM THE SUIT. THEREAFTER YOU FILED A RELEASE OF CLAIM AND SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT CLOSING THE CASE.

IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEN YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 7, 1964, WAS RECEIVED HERE, WE WERE FACED WITH A SERIOUS QUESTION AS TO WHETHER WE COULD REMEDY THE OBVIOUS ERROR IN THE JUDGMENT BY AUTHORIZING ADMINISTRATIVE PAYMENT OR WHETHER IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO REQUIRE YOU TO REOPEN THE JUDGMENT OR BRING AN INDEPENDENT ACTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF. WE BROUGHT THIS MATTER TO THE ATTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHICH CONCURRED IN OUR VIEW THAT EQUITABLE RELIEF WAS AVAILABLE AND THAT ADMINISTRATIVE SETTLEMENT, TREATING YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 7 AS A CLAIM, WAS NOT PRECLUDED.

ON JUNE 10, 1964, WE DIRECTED ISSUANCE OF SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATES AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF THE CLAIMS IN QUESTION. THE CERTIFICATES HAVE NOW BEEN ISSUED AND THE CHECKS IN PAYMENT SHOULD REACH YOU IN DUE COURSE.