Claim for Personal Services

A firm appealed the denial of its claim for personal services allegedly performed as a prime contractor of the Bureau of the Census. The claim was disallowed because there was no evidence that the claimant was a contractor of the Bureau. At best, it was a subcontractor of a Bureau contractor, and there was no privity of contract between the claimant and the Bureau. In this appeal, the claimant contended that its employees dealt directly with the Bureau in the capacity of a prime rather than a subcontractor. Although there was no dispute that the employees had direct contact with Bureau personnel, the Bureau did not corroborate that for the services involved in the claim, it dealt with the employees as anything other than consultants of the prime contractor. The rule with respect to claims against the United States is that the claimant has the burden of proof. In this case, the claimant was unable to furnish evidence of a contract, express or implied, between itself and the Bureau. Therefore, the disallowance of the claim was affirmed.