B-158333, MAR. 31, 1966

B-158333: Mar 31, 1966

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

INC.: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 12. THE CONTRACT IN QUESTION WAS FOR PAINTING 14 CONCRETE BUILDINGS AND WAS AWARDED TO TUCKER ENTERPRISES. WORK UNDER THE CONTRACT WAS COMPLETED ON SEPTEMBER 28. THAT THE CONTRACT IN QUESTION WAS NOT BEING PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS IN THAT A FIELD HOUSE. WHICH WAS ONE OF THE 14 BUILDINGS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF THE CONTRACT. WAS BEING ROLLER PAINTED INSTEAD OF BRUSH PAINTED AS CALLED FOR IN THE SPECIFICATIONS. KIRSCH YOU WERE INFORMED THAT A CHANGE ORDER HAD BEEN ISSUED FOR ROLLING THE TOP STORY OF THE BUILDING. YOU ALLEGE THAT ONLY 1 COAT OF PAINT WAS APPLIED TO WINDOW TRIM "OF BOTH JOBS. WE ARE UNCERTAIN AS TO WHAT YOU MEAN BY "BOTH JOBS.

B-158333, MAR. 31, 1966

TO JOINT INDUSTRIAL COMMITTEE OF ANCHORAGE, INC.:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 12, 1966, RELATIVE TO THE CHANGE IN SPECIFICATIONS DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK UNDER CONTRACT AF 65/501/-3860 AT ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA.

THE CONTRACT IN QUESTION WAS FOR PAINTING 14 CONCRETE BUILDINGS AND WAS AWARDED TO TUCKER ENTERPRISES, THE LOW BIDDER, ON JULY 1, 1965. WORK UNDER THE CONTRACT WAS COMPLETED ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1965, AND FINAL PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE.

YOU STATE THAT YOU INITIALLY PROTESTED TO MR. JOHN KIRSCH IN A LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 1965, THAT THE CONTRACT IN QUESTION WAS NOT BEING PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS IN THAT A FIELD HOUSE, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE 14 BUILDINGS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF THE CONTRACT, WAS BEING ROLLER PAINTED INSTEAD OF BRUSH PAINTED AS CALLED FOR IN THE SPECIFICATIONS. YOU FURTHER ADVISE THAT AFTER YOUR LETTER TO MR. KIRSCH YOU WERE INFORMED THAT A CHANGE ORDER HAD BEEN ISSUED FOR ROLLING THE TOP STORY OF THE BUILDING, BUT THAT THE ENTIRE BUILDING RATHER THAN THE TOP STORY HAD BEEN ROLLER PAINTED INSTEAD OF BRUSHED. FINALLY, YOU ALLEGE THAT ONLY 1 COAT OF PAINT WAS APPLIED TO WINDOW TRIM "OF BOTH JOBS," WHILE THE SPECIFICATIONS CALLED FOR 2 COATS. WE ARE UNCERTAIN AS TO WHAT YOU MEAN BY "BOTH JOBS," BUT ASSUME THAT YOU REFER TO THE FIELD HOUSE MENTIONED ABOVE AND ONE OTHER OF THE 14 BUILDINGS COVERED BY THE CONTRACT.

THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE IN THIS CASE STATES THAT THE CHANGE ORDER REFERRED TO IN YOUR LETTER WAS ISSUED BECAUSE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE TOP STORY OF THE BUILDING IN QUESTION COULD BE MORE EFFICIENTLY PAINTED WITH ROLLERS THAN WITH BRUSHES. THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED OF RELATIVELY NEW CONCRETE BLOCK WHICH HAD ONLY HAD ONE PREVIOUS COAT OF PAINT AND WHICH COULD NOT BE ADEQUATELY COVERED BY BRUSH PAINTING BECAUSE OF THE POROUS CONDITION OF THE CONCRETE BLOCKS. THE BLOCKS, HOWEVER, COULD BE ADEQUATELY COVERED WITH ROLLERS. THE CHANGE ORDER PROVIDED FOR AN APPROPRIATE REDUCTION IN COMPENSATION TO THE CONTRACTOR AS CONSIDERATION TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE CHANGE AND WE CONCLUDE THAT IT WAS PROPERLY ISSUED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE "CHANGES" CLAUSE OF THE CONTRACT. THE AIR FORCE REPORT ALSO STATES THAT, CONTRARY TO YOUR ALLEGATION, THE REMAINDER OF THE BUILDING WAS NOT ROLLER PAINTED, BUT HAD ALREADY BEEN BRUSH PAINTED BEFORE THE CHANGE ORDER WAS ISSUED.

THE REPORT FURTHER ADVISES THAT THE CONTRACTOR'S WORK PASSED A FINAL INSPECTION BEFORE PAYMENT WAS MADE, INDICATING THAT PAINTING OF THE WINDOW TRIM MENTIONED BY YOU, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER ASPECTS OF THE CONTRACT, WAS SATISFACTORILY PERFORMED.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE SEE NO BASIS FOR LEGAL OBJECTION TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CONTRACT IN QUESTION WAS ADMINISTERED.