B-147692, JAN. 24, 1962

B-147692, JAN. 24, 1962

TO WORRELL-CONSOLIDATED LABORATORIES, INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF NOVEMBER 14, 1961, AND JANUARY 5, 1962, REQUESTING REVIEW OF GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE SETTLEMENT DATED OCTOBER 17, 1961, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,485 (CORRECT AMOUNT APPARENTLY $1,578.50) FOR FLOORPOLISHING MATERIAL DELIVERED BY YOU TO CHARLESTON AIR FORCE BASE, CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA. THE FORMAL CLAIM WAS MADE BY YOU IN LETTER DATED MARCH 3, 1961, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE TRANSMITTED THE CLAIM TO OUR OFFICE FOR DIRECT SETTLEMENT, DISAPPROVAL BEING RECOMMENDED. BY THE SETTLEMENT DATED OCTOBER 17, 1961, THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASONS SET OUT IN THE SETTLEMENT.

THE FILE INCLUDES COPIES OF LETTERS DATED NOVEMBER 8, 1960, AND DECEMBER 15, 1960, FROM COLONEL BURROUGHS, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, MATS HEADQUARTERS, SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, ILLINOIS, TO LIEUTENANT COLONEL E. M. HOCKWALD, TERMINAL OFFICER, CHARLESTON AIR FORCE BASE, SOUTH CAROLINA, IN WHICH IT IS STATED THAT DAS AT MATS MONITORS THE JANITORIAL SERVICES AND THAT YOUR PRODUCT, SYN-REZ, HAD BEEN FOUND TO BE SUPERIOR. COLONEL BURROUGHS STATED FURTHER THAT HE WAS REQUESTING YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TO CONTACT LIEUTENANT COLONEL HOCKWALD AS TO SENDING HIM ENOUGH OF YOUR PRODUCT FOR A TRIAL ON THE TERMINAL FACILITIES AT CHARLESTON AIR FORCE BASE. IN THE LETTER OF DECEMBER 15, 1960, COLONEL BURROUGHS EXPRESSED HIS DESIRE THAT A PROCEDURE BE ESTABLISHED WHEREBY YOUR PRODUCT COULD BE REQUISITIONED WITHOUT A JUSTIFICATION.

IT APPEARS THAT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE CONTACTED LIEUTENANT COLONEL HOCKWALD AND WAS ADVISED THAT THE BASE PROCUREMENT OFFICE AT CHARLESTON AIR FORCE BASE COULD NOT ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER FOR ITEMS THAT HAVE ONLY A SINGLE SOURCE OF SUPPLY WITHOUT AN UNQUESTIONABLE JUSTIFICATION, WHICH JUSTIFICATION COULD NOT BE FURNISHED THERE. LIEUTENANT COLONEL HOCKWALD STATES THAT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE RETURNED THE NEXT DAY AND STATED THAT HE HAD TALKED WITH THE PRESIDENT OF YOUR CORPORATION AND THAT ARRANGEMENTS HAD BEEN MADE WITH MATS FOR YOUR PRODUCT TO BE SHIPPED TO CHARLESTON AIR FORCE BASE AND USED FOR A TEST. HE STATES FURTHER THAT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE WAS AGAIN ADVISED THAT CHARLESTON AIR FORCE BASE COULD NOT ENTER INTO ANY AGREEMENT ABOUT THE MATTER; AND THAT HE GAVE THE SAME ADVICE TO YOUR PRESIDENT BY TELEPHONE. THE MATERIAL WAS RECEIVED AT CHARLESTON AIR FORCE BASE IN DECEMBER 1960 AND HAS BEEN STORED THERE, NOT HAVING BEEN USED. IN A LETTER DATED JUNE 27, 1961, THE STAFF PROCUREMENT OFFICER AT CHARLESTON AIR FORCE BASE REQUESTED YOU TO FURNISH INSTRUCTIONS FOR RETURNING THE MATERIAL TO YOU.

IT IS NOT PRIMARILY A FUNCTION OF OUR OFFICE TO RESOLVE DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT. UPON DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND A CLAIMANT OR OTHER PERSON DEALING WITH THE GOVERNMENT, THE LONG-ESTABLISHED RULE OF THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS IS TO ACCEPT THE STATEMENTS OF FACT FURNISHED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF THE CORRECTNESS THEREOF. 16 COMP. GEN. 325; ID. 410.

MOREOVER, IT LONG HAS BEEN THE ESTABLISHED RULE OF OUR OFFICE AND THE COURTS THAT THOSE ASSERTING CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES HAVE THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THEIR VALIDITY, AND THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT ARE NOT REQUIRED OR AUTHORIZED TO CERTIFY FOR PAYMENT CLAIMS NOT SO ESTABLISHED. LONGWILL V. UNITED STATES, 17 CT.CL. 288, 291, CT.CL. 19 316, 319; 18 COMP. GEN. 199; 26 ID. 776, 781.

IN THE INSTANT MATTER, YOU CONCEDE THAT NO PURCHASE ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY YOU. ALTHOUGH THE PURCHASE OF YOUR PRODUCT WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE STATES THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT ANY COMMITMENT WAS MADE OR THAT ANY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GOVERNMENT REQUESTED SHIPMENT OF THE MATERIAL. THERE IS NOTED ALSO THE PRINTED STATEMENT ON YOUR SALES SLIPS, "ORAL AGREEMENTS NOT RECOGNIZED.'

IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS MATTER, THERE IS NOT FOUND ANY LEGAL BASIS FOR PAYMENT OF YOUR CLAIMS. THEREFORE THE SETTLEMENT OF OCTOBER 17, 1961, DISALLOWING THE CLAIM, APPEARS CORRECT AND HEREBY IS SUSTAINED.