B-144227, OCT. 31, 1960
Highlights
THE LETTER WILL BE CONSIDERED AS A REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT DATED JANUARY 20. WAS THE FURNISHING AND INSTALLING OF 50 CROSS TIES. THAT YOUR CLAIM IS NOT BASED ON THE PURCHASE ORDER. SINCE PURCHASE ORDER NO. (34-612/57-5688 WAS THE SOLE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED. ANY CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THAT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED UNDER THE PURCHASE ORDER WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THAT ORDER. THIS PROPOSAL WAS UNEQUIVOCALLY ACCEPTED BY THE ISSUANCE OF THE PURCHASE ORDER WHICH ALSO SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH THE 50 CROSS TIES. THAT SUCH WORK WAS DONE WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE THEREFOR. THAT SUCH WORK WAS DONE WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AIR FORCE. IS CONCERNED.
B-144227, OCT. 31, 1960
TO ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY:
YOUR LETTER DATED JULY 6, 1960, TO THE BASE PROCUREMENT OFFICER, ALTUS AIR FORCE BASE, ALTUS, OKLAHOMA, REGARDING YOUR CLAIM UNDER PURCHASE ORDER NO. (34-612/57-5688, ISSUED BY THE AIR FORCE BASE ON JUNE 13, 1957, HAS BEEN REFERRED TO OUR OFFICE FOR CONSIDERATION AND APPROPRIATE ACTION. THE LETTER WILL BE CONSIDERED AS A REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT DATED JANUARY 20, 1960, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH THEREIN.
INCLUDED IN THE WORK OF REALIGNING 700 FEET OF RAILROAD TRACK IN THE DESIGNATED AREA UNDER PURCHASE ORDER NO. (34-612/57-5688, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,192, WAS THE FURNISHING AND INSTALLING OF 50 CROSS TIES. YOUR CLAIM OF $1,466.60 ARISES BY REASON OF ADDITIONAL LABOR AND MATERIALS NECESSARY TO INSTALL A REPORTED TOTAL OF 229 CROSS TIES, OR 179 IN EXCESS OF THAT SPECIFIED IN THE PURCHASE ORDER.
YOU STATE IN THE LETTER DATED JULY 6, 1960, THAT YOUR CLAIM IS NOT BASED ON THE PURCHASE ORDER, BUT RATHER ON THE ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE EXPENSE REFERRED TO IN THE LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1958, FROM THE ALTUS AIR FORCE BASE.
SINCE PURCHASE ORDER NO. (34-612/57-5688 WAS THE SOLE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED, ANY CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THAT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED UNDER THE PURCHASE ORDER WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THAT ORDER. IN THIS CONNECTION, YOU EXPRESSLY AGREED TO YOUR TELEGRAPHIC PROPOSAL--- APPARENTLY AFTER AN INSPECTION OF THE SITE OF THE WORK--- TO INSTALL, IN ADDITION TO OTHER WORK, 50 CROSS TIES FOR $1,192. THIS PROPOSAL WAS UNEQUIVOCALLY ACCEPTED BY THE ISSUANCE OF THE PURCHASE ORDER WHICH ALSO SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH THE 50 CROSS TIES. MOREOVER, THE RECORD BEFORE US INDICATES THAT YOU NOT ONLY INSTALLED THE REPORTED 179 ADDITIONAL CROSS TIES WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION THEREFOR, BUT THAT SUCH WORK WAS DONE WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE THEREFOR, BUT THAT SUCH WORK WAS DONE WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AIR FORCE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, PAYMENT OF YOUR CLAIM MAY NOT BE MADE UNDER PURCHASE ORDER NO. (34-612/57-5688.
INSOFAR AS THE AIR FORCE LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 8, 1958, IS CONCERNED, WE FIND NOTHING IN THAT LETTER WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE THE BASIS FOR PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT CLAIMED. THE REFERENCE IN THAT LETTER TO ADDITIONAL WORK BEING PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO MAINTENANCE MERELY APPEARS TO DENOTE THE GENERAL CLASSIFICATION UNDER WHICH CONSIDERATION FOR PAYMENT COULD BE GIVEN FOR SUCH ADDITIONAL WORK PROVIDED, OF COURSE, THAT THERE WAS A PROPER AUTHORIZATION THEREFOR IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. THE SAID STATEMENT MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED BY OUR OFFICE AS THE AUTHORIZATION ITSELF FOR THE ADDITIONAL WORK.