B-151442, MAY 22, 1963

B-151442: May 22, 1963

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT THE ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS HAS IN DECISION NO. 8284. ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE AMOUNT CLAIMED WAS BASED ON FAIR MARKET VALUE. THE CLAIM WAS FORWARDED TO OUR CLAIMS DIVISION FOR DIRECT SETTLEMENT UNDER LETTER OF APRIL 30. THE MATTER WAS THEN APPEALED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THE ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS WHICH. DECLINED TO TAKE JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE CLAIM HAD ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY OUR OFFICE SUBJECT TO REINSTATEMENT OF THE APPEAL IN THE EVENT OUR SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS WITHDRAWN. OUR SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE INTENDED TO DISPOSE SOLELY OF THE LEGAL ISSUE AS STATED ABOVE AND WAS NOT INTENDED IN ANY MANNER TO FORECLOSE THE CONTRACTOR FROM PURSUING ANY ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AVAILABLE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT.

B-151442, MAY 22, 1963

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY:

WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT THE ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS HAS IN DECISION NO. 8284, ISSUED DECEMBER 17, 1962, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE APPEAL OF UNIVERSAL AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR PARTS INCORPORATED IN WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. DA-05 010-AV-1433, AWARDED JUNE 6, 1958, BY THE PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING DIVISION, FORT CARSON, COLORADO.

THE CONTRACTING AGENCY DECLINED TO PAY A VOUCHER SUBMITTED ON JUNE 12, 1961, IN THE AMOUNT OF$316.35 REPRESENTING THE PARTS USED, ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE AMOUNT CLAIMED WAS BASED ON FAIR MARKET VALUE, RATHER THAN THE ACTUAL NET COST TO THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REPRESENTED THE LIMIT OF REIMBURSEMENT UNDER THE CONTRACT TERMS.

THE CLAIM WAS FORWARDED TO OUR CLAIMS DIVISION FOR DIRECT SETTLEMENT UNDER LETTER OF APRIL 30, 1962, FROM THE U.S. ARMY FINANCE CENTER. SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED MAY 14, 1962, WE DECLINED PAYMENT ON THE BASIS THAT THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT PROVIDED FOR PAYMENT OF NET COST TO THE CONTRACTOR ONLY, AND THAT NO AUTHORITY EXISTED FOR PAYMENT OF FAIR MARKET VALUE. THE MATTER WAS THEN APPEALED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THE ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS WHICH, IN THE DECISION ABOVE CITED, DECLINED TO TAKE JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE CLAIM HAD ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY OUR OFFICE SUBJECT TO REINSTATEMENT OF THE APPEAL IN THE EVENT OUR SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS WITHDRAWN. OUR SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE INTENDED TO DISPOSE SOLELY OF THE LEGAL ISSUE AS STATED ABOVE AND WAS NOT INTENDED IN ANY MANNER TO FORECLOSE THE CONTRACTOR FROM PURSUING ANY ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AVAILABLE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT. TO THE EXTENT THAT OUR SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE IS SUBJECT TO ANY INTERPRETATION INCONSISTENT WITH THE FOREGOING EXPLANATION, IT IS HEREBY MODIFIED. WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION FOR PAYMENT OF A VOUCHER BASED ON THE NET COST TO THE CONTRACTOR OF THE PARTS USED.