B-165401, NOV. 12, 1968

B-165401: Nov 12, 1968

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

GINSBURG'S REQUEST ON THE BASIS THAT THE MATTER WAS NOT PROPERLY BROUGHT BEFORE THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL. GINSBURG DOES NOT HAVE AN OFFICIAL POSITION WITH NASA AT THIS TIME. NEITHER THAT ADMINISTRATION NOR THE CERTIFYING OFFICER CONCERNED WITH THE DISBURSEMENT INVOLVED HAS ASKED FOR THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S VIEWS IN THE MATTER AS IS PROVIDED FOR BY ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES. OUR REVIEW OF A BOARD'S DECISION IS USUALLY INITIATED IN THE DISCHARGE OF THE NORMAL FUNCTIONS OF THIS OFFICE. IN THE EVENT IT IS YOUR DESIRE TO SUBMIT ANY ARGUMENTS FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. IN ADDITION TO THOSE WHICH ARE A PART OF THE BOARD'S RECORDS. IT IS REQUESTED THAT YOU SO ADVISE AT YOUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE.

B-165401, NOV. 12, 1968

TO MILLER, GROEZINGER, PETTIT, EVERS AND MARTIN:

WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 21, 1968, AS ATTORNEYS FOR SOUTHWESTERN ENGINEERING COMPANY, ASKING THAT WE DO NOT ENTERTAIN THE REQUEST OF MR. GILBERT J. GINSBURG (FORMER COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT) FOR THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE TO REVIEW, AS A QUESTION OF LAW, FINDING NO. 5 OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS IN THE APPEAL OF SOUTHWESTERN ENGINEERING COMPANY, NASA BCA NOS. 87 AND 465-15, DECIDED MARCH 29, 1968.

YOU ASK THAT WE DENY MR. GINSBURG'S REQUEST ON THE BASIS THAT THE MATTER WAS NOT PROPERLY BROUGHT BEFORE THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL. YOU POINT OUT THAT MR. GINSBURG DOES NOT HAVE AN OFFICIAL POSITION WITH NASA AT THIS TIME, AND NEITHER THAT ADMINISTRATION NOR THE CERTIFYING OFFICER CONCERNED WITH THE DISBURSEMENT INVOLVED HAS ASKED FOR THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S VIEWS IN THE MATTER AS IS PROVIDED FOR BY ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES. YOU SUGGEST THAT TO RECOGNIZE A GRATUITOUS REQUEST FOR REVIEW OUTSIDE OF SUCH PROCEDURES WOULD RENDER EACH ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION INVOLVING PAYMENT OF FUNDS SUBJECT TO QUESTION BY ANY PERSON, AND WOULD ESTABLISH AN UNDESIRABLE PRECEDENT.

ALTHOUGH, AS YOU CONTEND, OUR REVIEW OF A BOARD'S DECISION IS USUALLY INITIATED IN THE DISCHARGE OF THE NORMAL FUNCTIONS OF THIS OFFICE, OR PURSUANT TO THE REQUEST OF A PARTY AFFECTED THEREBY, WE PERCEIVE NO COGENT REASON WHY WE SHOULD REFRAIN FROM CONSIDERING A BOARD'S FINDING, WHICH APPEARS TO WARRANT CLOSE STUDY, MERELY BECAUSE THE MATTER CAME TO OUR ATTENTION FROM OUTSIDE THE NORMAL CHANNELS.

ACCORDINGLY, PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT WE PLAN TO REVIEW FINDING NO. 5, AS REQUESTED BY MR. GINSBURG. IN THE EVENT IT IS YOUR DESIRE TO SUBMIT ANY ARGUMENTS FOR OUR CONSIDERATION, IN ADDITION TO THOSE WHICH ARE A PART OF THE BOARD'S RECORDS, IT IS REQUESTED THAT YOU SO ADVISE AT YOUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE.