B-150554, MAY 28, 1963

B-150554, MAY 28, 1963

TO PEEDE AND BRAMBLETT CABINET COMPANY, INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED APRIL 30, 1963, WHEREIN YOU ALLEGE THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PREVIOUS SETTLEMENT ACTION TAKEN BY OUR OFFICE IN THIS CASE, THERE IS DUE AND OWING TO YOUR COMPANY ADDITIONAL SUMS AGGREGATING $2,902.12, REPRESENTING CERTAIN COSTS ALLEGEDLY INCURRED AS A RESULT OF A WORK SUSPENSION ORDER ISSUED BY THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT DURING PERFORMANCE OF NINE CONTRACTS (PURCHASE ORDERS) FOR FURNISHING WOOD FURNITURE.

BY LETTER DATED OCTOBER 16, 1962, YOU SUBMITTED TO OUR OFFICE A CLAIM FOR SUMS AGGREGATING $7,285.70, CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:

TABLE

1. LABOR--- DIRECT--- PLANT $1,858.15

2. SHIP COSTS--- 0.022 PERCENT 40.88

3. TRIP EXPENSE--- WASHINGTON, D.C. 1,711.48

4. TECHNICAL AND ADVISORY EXPENSES 1,000.00

5. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 2,262.79

SUB-TOTAL $6,873.30

6. INTEREST--- 6 PERCENT 412.40

TOTAL $7,285.70

UNDER DATE OF OCTOBER 26, 1962, OUR CLAIMS DIVISION FORWARDED THE CLAIM TO THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE EXAMINATION AND REPORT. THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT REPLIED BY LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 30, 1962, ADVISING THAT YOUR COMPANY FILED A CLAIM IN THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT OF $4,676.28, REPRESENTING "STAND-BY COSTS" DURING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 12 TO FEBRUARY 6, 1961. THE CLAIM WAS SUBSEQUENTLY INCREASED TO THE SUM OF $4,985.16, THE DIFFERENCE OF $308.88 COVERING EXPENSES CAUSED BY "ADDITIONAL PERSONAL CONTACTS" DEEMED NECESSARY BY YOUR COMPANY. IN OUR DECISION DATED APRIL 16, 1963, REFERENCE WAS MADE TO YOUR CLAIM AS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,676.28, WHEREAS, OF COURSE, THE AMOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS $7,285.70.

IN A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT DATED MARCH 11, 1963, THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT GAVE FURTHER CONSIDERATION TO YOUR CLAIM AND AS A BASIS FOR SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDED THAT PAYMENT BE MADE TO YOUR COMPANY OF SUMS AGGREGATING $3,087.75. BY DECISION DATED APRIL 16, 1963, WE ADVISED YOU THAT ACTION WAS BEING BEING TAKEN TO CERTIFY FOR PAYMENT TO YOUR COMPANY THE SUM OF $3,387.26, CONSISTING OF THE SUM OF $3,087.75 PLUS AN ALLOWANCE FOR PROFIT OF 9.7 PERCENT THEREON AMOUNTING TO $299.51.

THE FIRST ITEM OF YOUR PRESENT CLAIM IS FOR $1,489.72, ALLEGED TO BE DUE FOR "TRANSPORTATION," HOWEVER, YOUR LETTER CONTAINS NO INFORMATION AS TO THE NATURE OF THE TRANSPORTATION, THAT IS TO SAY, THE PURPOSE SERVED THEREBY AND THE DATE OR DATES WHEN THE SAME OCCURRED. IT HAS BEEN NOTED THAT IN YOUR CLAIM FOR $4,676.28, SUBMITTED TO THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT UNDER DATE OF FEBRUARY 6, 1962, YOU INCLUDED THE SUM OF $221.76 AS TRAVEL EXPENSE FOR TWO TRIPS TO WASHINGTON, D.C., AND RETURN ON FEBRUARY 2, 1961, AND AUGUST 18, 1961. WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT WE ALLOWED THE SUM OF $221.76 IN OUR DECISION OF APRIL 16, 1963. EXPLANATION HAS BEEN FURNISHED FOR THE INCREASE TO $1,711.48, AS SET FORTH IN THE ENCLOSURE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 16, 1962--- NOW REDUCED TO $1,489.72--- AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING AS TO THE BASIS FOR YOUR CLAIM, NO CONSIDERATION MAY BE GIVEN THERETO. IT MAY BE ADDED THAT IF THE REPORTED AMOUNT OF $1,489.72 REPRESENTS TRAVEL EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE PROSECUTION OF YOUR CLAIM BEFORE THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT AND/OR THE BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS, IT APPEARS THAT NO ALLOWANCE MAY BE MADE ON ACCOUNT THEREOF. SEE DALE CONSTRUCTION CO. V. UNITED STATES, CT.CL. NO. 85-58, MAY 10, 1963, AND CASES THERE CITED.

THE SECOND ITEM FOR $1,000, CLAIMED TO BE DUE FOR "TECHNICAL AND ADVISORY EXPENSES," IS OPEN TO THE SAME OBJECTION AS THE PRECEDING ITEM FOR $1,489.72, IN THAT YOUR COMPANY HAS FURNISHED NO INFORMATION SHOWING WHY YOU BELIEVE THE UNITED STATES IS LIABLE THEREFOR. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT IF THE INDICATED AMOUNT ARISES IN CONNECTION WITH THE PRESENTATION OF YOUR CLAIM, SUCH AS ATTORNEY'S FEES, ETC., UNDER A LONG LINE OF DECISIONS OF OUR OFFICE AND THE COURTS NO PART THEREOF MAY BE ALLOWED, IT BEING OBVIOUS THAT SUCH EXPENSE DID NOT ARISE IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT. ALSO, IT HAS BEEN NOTED THAT NO SIMILAR AMOUNT WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR CLAIM SUBMITTED TO THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT UNDER DATE OF FEBRUARY 6, 1962, THUS INDICATING THAT THE CLAIM AROSE SUBSEQUENT TO THAT DATE.

THE THIRD ITEM OF YOUR CLAIM IN THE AMOUNT OF $412.40 IS FOR "INTEREST" ALLEGED TO BE DUE. NO SIMILAR CLAIM FOR INTEREST WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR CLAIM SUBMITTED UNDER DATE OF FEBRUARY 6, 1962. IT WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR CLAIM DATED OCTOBER 16, 1962, AND IN YOUR LETTER DATED APRIL 30, 1963, BUT AGAIN WITHOUT ANY SHOWING AS TO WHY YOUR COMPANY CONSIDERS THE UNITED STATES LIABLE THEREFOR. BE THAT AS IT MAY, INTEREST IS NOT RECOVERABLE ON CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. IN THE CASE OF SMYTH V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 329, 353, THE SUPREME COURT HELD---

"THE RULE IS ESTABLISHED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRACT OR STATUTE EVINCING A CONTRARY INTENTION, INTEREST DOES NOT RUN UPON CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT EVEN THOUGH THERE HAS BEEN DEFAULT IN THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL.'

SEE ALSO NEW YORK AND PORTO RICO S.S. COMPANY V. UNITED STATES, 29 F.2D 1014, AND CONSOLIDATED ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 35 F.SUPP. 980.

FOR THE REASONS STATED, NO PART OF THE $2,902.12 REFERRED TO APPEARS TO BE ALLOWABLE.