B-147638, DEC. 11, 1961

B-147638: Dec 11, 1961

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

A. HOOPER COMPANY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 13. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE REPAIRS WERE EFFECTED THROUGH YOUR SUBCONTRACTOR AT THE REQUEST OF A STAFF OFFICER OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN THE BELIEF THAT THE BREAK WAS PROBABLY YOUR RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE ENGINEER CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF THE LINE. THAT SINCE IT WAS ASCERTAINED THAT THE BREAK WAS NOT THE RESULT OF ANY DEFECT IN INSTALLATION THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS ADVISED YOU THAT THE CLAIM SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE AIR FORCE AS THE OCCUPYING AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE WATER LINE. ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE AIR FORCE THE CLAIM WAS ALLOWED IN THE AMOUNT OF $232 AND THE BALANCE OF THE AMOUNT CLAIMED.

B-147638, DEC. 11, 1961

TO C. A. HOOPER COMPANY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 13, 1961, REQUESTING REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT OF OCTOBER 6, 1961, WHICH DISALLOWED $68 OF YOUR CLAIM FOR $300 FOR REPAIR OF A WATER LINE BREAK AT THE K. I. SAWYER AIR FORCE BASE, MICHIGAN, FOLLOWING COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT NO. DA-20-064-ENG-2980.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE REPAIRS WERE EFFECTED THROUGH YOUR SUBCONTRACTOR AT THE REQUEST OF A STAFF OFFICER OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN THE BELIEF THAT THE BREAK WAS PROBABLY YOUR RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE ENGINEER CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF THE LINE; THAT ON DECEMBER 2, 1960, YOUR COMPANY SUBMITTED AN INVOICE IN THE AMOUNT OF $232 TO THE DISTRICT ENGINEER, BUT THAT SINCE IT WAS ASCERTAINED THAT THE BREAK WAS NOT THE RESULT OF ANY DEFECT IN INSTALLATION THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS ADVISED YOU THAT THE CLAIM SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE AIR FORCE AS THE OCCUPYING AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE WATER LINE. ON FEBRUARY 20, 1961, YOU FILED A REVISED CLAIM FOR $300 FOR THE SAME WORK WITH THE AIR FORCE, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO BILLINGS REPRESENTING AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF $40 FOR TELEPHONE CHARGES, ETC., AND AN INCREASE IN YOUR OVERHEAD CHARGES FROM 5 PERCENT TO 15 PERCENT. ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE AIR FORCE THE CLAIM WAS ALLOWED IN THE AMOUNT OF $232 AND THE BALANCE OF THE AMOUNT CLAIMED, NAMELY $68 WAS DISALLOWED.

SINCE THERE WAS NO FORMAL CONTRACT FOR THE WORK THE ONLY BASIS FOR ANY ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM WAS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF QUANTUM MERUIT FOR THE WORK PERFORMED. THE AMOUNT OF RECOVERY PERMITTED UNDER THAT DOCTRINE IN A SITUATION SUCH AS HERE INVOLVED IS GENERALLY THE REASONABLE VALUE OF THE SERVICES. 98 C.J.S. WORK AND LABOR SEC. 825; AM.JUR., WORK AND LABOR SECS. 35 AND 39.

THE ALLOWANCE MADE IN THIS CASE WAS NOT BASED SOLELY UPON YOUR FIRST BILLING TO THE ENGINEERS, BUT ALSO UPON THE DETERMINATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE AIR FORCE OFFICIAL THAT THE REASONABLE VALUE DID NOT EXCEED $232. SINCE THAT SUM HAS BEEN PAID AND RECEIVED BY YOUR COMPANY PAYMENT OF ANY ADDITIONAL AMOUNT IS NOT AUTHORIZED. 76 ALR 1412-1413; 58 AM.JUR., WORK AND LABOR, 35. ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF OCTOBER 6, 1961, IS SUSTAINED.