B-152151, AUG. 19, 1963
Highlights
THIS CONTRACT WAS AWARDED PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF SECTION 108 OF THE MUTUAL EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE ACT OF 1961. YOU HAVE CLAIMED ON INVOICE NO. 4399 THE SUM OF $1. THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY REPORTS THAT NO CHANGE IN THE ORIGINAL SCHEDULE OF SERVICES WAS REQUESTED WHICH WOULD HAVE NECESSITATED ADDITIONAL SERVICES OVER AND ABOVE THOSE WHICH WERE CALLED FOR IN THE PURCHASE ORDER. WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE STATEMENT OF A CLAIMANT AND THE REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE. IT IS A LONG ESTABLISHED RULE OF THIS OFFICE TO ACCEPT THE LATTER. THERE WERE NO DISCUSSIONS AS TO THE QUANTITY OR PRICE OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES FOR WHICH THE AGENCY HAD INTENDED TO ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER.
B-152151, AUG. 19, 1963
TO RICHARD RUSH STUDIO, INC.:
IN YOUR LETTER OF JULY 19, 1963, YOU REQUEST RECONSIDERATION OF OUR SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 23, 1963, DISALLOWING $2,352.88 OF YOUR CLAIM FOR $3,326 UNDER PURCHASE ORDER CONTRACT NO. 22-3404 FOR PLASTIC BLOCKS SCULPTURED ACCORDING TO THE DESIGN OF THE OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. THIS CONTRACT WAS AWARDED PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF SECTION 108 OF THE MUTUAL EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE ACT OF 1961, APPROVED SEPTEMBER 21, 1961, PUB.L. 87-256, 75 STAT. 534, 22 U.S.C. 2458 (SUPP. IV).
YOU HAVE CLAIMED ON INVOICE NO. 4399 THE SUM OF $1,875 AS ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR INCREASED COSTS ALLEGEDLY RESULTING FROM CHANGES IN THE DESIGN ORDERED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY REPORTS THAT NO CHANGE IN THE ORIGINAL SCHEDULE OF SERVICES WAS REQUESTED WHICH WOULD HAVE NECESSITATED ADDITIONAL SERVICES OVER AND ABOVE THOSE WHICH WERE CALLED FOR IN THE PURCHASE ORDER. THIS CREATES A DISPUTED QUESTION OF FACT. WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE STATEMENT OF A CLAIMANT AND THE REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, IT IS A LONG ESTABLISHED RULE OF THIS OFFICE TO ACCEPT THE LATTER, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUFFICIENTLY CONVINCING TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF THE CORRECTNESS THEREOF. SEE 37 COMP. GEN. 568.
YOU ALSO REQUESTED ON INVOICE NO. 4398 THE SUM OF $1,451 REPRESENTING COSTS INVOLVED IN BOXING AND IN USING SCREWS ON THE PANELS, OF WHICH AMOUNT WE AUTHORIZED $973.12 IN OUR SETTLEMENT DATED APRIL 23, 1963. ALTHOUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY HAD INDICATED IN LETTER DATED JANUARY 25, 1962, THAT IT WOULD ISSUE A SEPARATE PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE WORK FOR WHICH YOU CLAIMED $1,451, IT FAILED TO DO SO. THERE WERE NO DISCUSSIONS AS TO THE QUANTITY OR PRICE OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES FOR WHICH THE AGENCY HAD INTENDED TO ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER. SINCE THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE MATERIALS AND SERVICES WERE FURNISHED BY YOU AT THE REQUEST OF THE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT ANY AGREEMENT AS TO PRICE PAYMENT OF $973.12 WAS ALLOWED IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 23 ON A QUANTUM MERUIT BASIS. UNDER A QUANTUM MERUIT THEORY, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION ONLY FOR THE REASONABLE VALUE OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES WHICH YOU FURNISHED. SEE CLARK V. UNITED STATES, 95 U.S. 539. THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY HAS DETERMINED THAT $973.12 REPRESENTS SUCH REASONABLE VALUE. FOR REASONS ALREADY STATED, WE ARE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE FACTUAL DETERMINATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY.
THE BURDEN IS ON CLAIMANTS TO FURNISH EVIDENCE CLEARLY AND SATISFACTORILY ESTABLISHING THEIR CLAIMS (23 COMP. GEN. 907; 18 ID. 980; 17 ID. 831), AND THE RECORD, AS PRESENTED, DOES NOT ESTABLISH BY SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THE LEGAL LIABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT CLAIMED AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH EVIDENCE, OUR OFFICE IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO CERTIFY YOUR CLAIM FOR PAYMENT.