B-71080, NOV. 7, 1956
Highlights
INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 23. WHICH SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR THE VALUE OF 70 DRUMS OF EMULSIFIED ASPHALT ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN DELIVERED DURING NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER 1941 TO THE UNITED STATES NAVAL BASE. IT IS STATED THAT "THE NAVY DEPARTMENT HAS REPORTED THAT THE WORK ON THE AIR FIELD WAS "UNDER COGNIZANCE OF THE PACIFIC AIR BASES CONTRACTOR. A REVIEW OF THE ENCLOSED LETTERS OR MEMORANDA OFFERS NO EVIDENCE IN ADDITION TO THAT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED BY OUR OFFICE UPON WHICH IT MAY BE CONCLUDED THAT ANY DELIVERY OF DRUMS BY YOU AT THE TIME WAS THE RESULT OF ANY FORMAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN YOUR FIRM AND THE NAVY DEPARTMENT RATHER THAN THE "PACIFIC AIR BASES CONTRACTOR" THEN ENGAGED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
B-71080, NOV. 7, 1956
TO W. R. BABCOCK AND COMPANY, INC.:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 23, 1956, WITH ENCLOSURES, FORWARDED TO OUR OFFICE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ON OCTOBER 10, 1956, IN EFFECT, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OFFICE DECISION OF DECEMBER 3, 1947, WHICH SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR THE VALUE OF 70 DRUMS OF EMULSIFIED ASPHALT ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN DELIVERED DURING NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER 1941 TO THE UNITED STATES NAVAL BASE, CAVITE, PHILIPPINES, UNDER A CONTRACT WITH THE NAVY DEPARTMENT.
YOUR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION APPEARS BASED ON THE MATTER CONTAINED IN THE ENCLOSURES FORWARDED WITH YOUR LETTER OF JULY 23, 1956, WHICH, WHILE HAVING REFERENCE TO CERTAIN MATTERS OF PERSONAL INTEREST TO YOU, INCLUDES INFORMATION FURNISHED BY YOUR THEN EMPLOYEES CONCERNING WHAT PURPORTS TO BE AN AWARD FROM SOME UNNAMED SOURCE FOR FURNISHING 50 DRUMS OF ASPHALT TO THE CAVITE NAVAL BASE DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION.
IN THAT PART OF THE DECISION OF DECEMBER 3, 1947, GIVING CONSIDERATION TO AN AFFIDAVIT OF ONE OF YOUR THEN EMPLOYEES, IT IS STATED THAT "THE NAVY DEPARTMENT HAS REPORTED THAT THE WORK ON THE AIR FIELD WAS "UNDER COGNIZANCE OF THE PACIFIC AIR BASES CONTRACTOR," AND THAT ITS RECORDS FAIL TO SHOW ANY INDICATION OF THE PURCHASE OR THAT THE NAVY DEPARTMENT HAD ANY DEALING WITH YOUR COMPANY.' A REVIEW OF THE ENCLOSED LETTERS OR MEMORANDA OFFERS NO EVIDENCE IN ADDITION TO THAT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED BY OUR OFFICE UPON WHICH IT MAY BE CONCLUDED THAT ANY DELIVERY OF DRUMS BY YOU AT THE TIME WAS THE RESULT OF ANY FORMAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN YOUR FIRM AND THE NAVY DEPARTMENT RATHER THAN THE "PACIFIC AIR BASES CONTRACTOR" THEN ENGAGED BY THE GOVERNMENT. ALSO, IT MIGHT BE ADDED THAT AT THE TIME YOUR CLAIM WAS FIRST RECEIVED IN OUR OFFICE IN 1947, IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE RECORDS FOR THE PERIOD OF ALLEGED DELIVERY OF ASPHALT WERE NO LONGER AVAILABLE SO THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER DELIVERY WAS MADE TO THE NAVY DEPARTMENT AND IF SO MADE, WHETHER ANY PAYMENT WAS MADE.
ACCORDINGLY, IN THE LIGHT OF THE REPORTED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DECISION OF DECEMBER 3, 1947, MUST BE AFFIRMED.