B-125173, MAY 19, 1961

B-125173: May 19, 1961

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Ralph O. White
(202) 512-8278
WhiteRO@gao.gov

Kenneth E. Patton
(202) 512-8205
PattonK@gao.gov

 

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

REPRESENTING THE LOSSES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED BY YOU IN THE PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACTS NOS. YOUR CLAIM WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DECISIONS OF MAY 9. REPRESENTING THE OPERATING LOSSES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED BY YOU IN THE PERFORMANCE OF TWO CONTRACTS. THE AMOUNT CLAIMED IS REPRESENTED AS CONSISTING OF $14. IT IS REPORTED. SMALL AMOUNT" WAS TURNED DOWN. CERTAIN AGENCIES ARE AUTHORIZED TO AMEND OR MODIFY CONTRACTS WITHOUT CONSIDERATION ON THE BASIS THAT SUCH ACTION WOULD FACILITATE THE NATIONAL DEFENSE. OUR OFFICE IS NOT ONE OF THESE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND. WAS NOT THE CONTRACTING AGENCY IN YOUR CASE. SUCH ACTIONS ARE NOT SUBJECTS OF REVIEW BY THIS OFFICE. WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO COMMENT ON OR EXPLAIN THE ACTION OF THE BOARD CONCERNING THE MATTER YOU MENTION.

B-125173, MAY 19, 1961

TO MORGAN STEEL PRODUCTS, INC.:

WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 19, 1961, RELATING TO A CLAIM FOR $20,249.57, REPRESENTING THE LOSSES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED BY YOU IN THE PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACTS NOS. DA-20-113-ORD-11091 AND DA 20-113-ORD -11895, ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY. YOUR CLAIM WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DECISIONS OF MAY 9, 1957, AND AUGUST 16, 1955 (B 125173), WHEREIN WE SUSTAINED ITS DISALLOWANCE.

BRIEFLY, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT BY A LETTER OF JULY 28, 1955, YOU REQUESTED REVIEW OF OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF MAY 23, 1955, DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM FOR $20,249.57, REPRESENTING THE OPERATING LOSSES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED BY YOU IN THE PERFORMANCE OF TWO CONTRACTS, COVERING A QUANTITY OF ENGINE OVERHAUL STANDS FABRICATED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY. THE AMOUNT CLAIMED IS REPRESENTED AS CONSISTING OF $14,335.24 AS ERRONEOUS OMISSIONS IN THE COMPUTATION OF EXPECTED COSTS PRIOR TO THE PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF YOUR BIDS ON THE SUBJECT CONTRACTS, AND $5,914.33 AS LOSSES SUSTAINED AS THE RESULT OF A NATION-WIDE STEEL STRIKE WHICH OCCURRED DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SUBJECT CONTRACTS. WE DENIED THE CLAIM ON THE BASIS THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ACCEPTED YOUR BIDS WITHOUT EITHER ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF ERROR, AND ON THE BASIS THAT THE CONTRACTS DID NOT PROVIDE FOR REIMBURSEMENT IN EXCESS OF CONTRACT PRICE FOR ADDITIONAL COSTS ARISING DUE TO UNFORESEEN CONTINGENCIES SUCH AS A NATION-WIDE STEEL STRIKE (B-125173, AUGUST 16, 1955).

SUBSEQUENTLY, BY LETTER OF APRIL 2, 1957, YOU INFORMED US THAT YOUR PETITION FOR RELIEF, FILED ON THE ABOVE MATTERS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT OF 1941, 55 STAT. 838, AS AMENDED, HAD BEEN DENIED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY. YOU REQUESTED REVIEW OF OUR PREVIOUS DECISION. UNDER DATE OF MAY 9, 1957, WE SUSTAINED OUR PREVIOUS DECISION OF AUGUST 16, 1955, AS YOU DID NOT PRESENT ANY NEW OR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OR CONTENTIONS IN SUPPORT OF YOUR CLAIM.

YOU NOW CALL OUR ATTENTION TO A NEWSPAPER ACCOUNT OF A CASE WHERE, IT IS REPORTED, THE ARMY CONTRACT ADJUSTMENT BOARD, UNDER PUBLIC LAW 85-804, INCREASED THE CONTRACT PRICE UNDER A DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CONTRACT WITH THE FIRM OF BLAW-KNOX CO., OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, BY $1,965,934 (REPRESENTING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL BID AND THAT OF THE NEXT LOW BIDDER). SPECIFICALLY, YOU ASK WHY THE FIRM OF BLAW-KNOX CO., RECEIVED AN INCREASE WHILE YOUR ,SMALL AMOUNT" WAS TURNED DOWN.

UNDER AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN THE PROVISIONS OF PUBLIC LAW 85-804, APPROVED AUGUST 28, 1958, 72 STAT. 972, 50 U.S.C. 1431; AND THE RELATED EXECUTIVE ORDER, CERTAIN AGENCIES ARE AUTHORIZED TO AMEND OR MODIFY CONTRACTS WITHOUT CONSIDERATION ON THE BASIS THAT SUCH ACTION WOULD FACILITATE THE NATIONAL DEFENSE. OUR OFFICE IS NOT ONE OF THESE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND, OF COURSE, WAS NOT THE CONTRACTING AGENCY IN YOUR CASE.

AS FOR THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ARMY CONTRACT ADJUSTMENT BOARD WITH REGARD TO YOUR PETITION, OR WITH REGARD TO A PETITION FILED BY ANOTHER CONTRACTOR, SUCH ACTIONS ARE NOT SUBJECTS OF REVIEW BY THIS OFFICE. CONSEQUENTLY, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO COMMENT ON OR EXPLAIN THE ACTION OF THE BOARD CONCERNING THE MATTER YOU MENTION.