B-128133, JUN. 19, 1956

B-128133, JUN. 19, 1956

TO WINDER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF LOSSES, AGGREGATING $5,050.50, ALLEGEDLY SUSTAINED BY YOU IN THE PERFORMANCE OF YOUR CONTRACT NO. AF 33/600/30620, DATED JUNE 28, 1955, COVERING THE MANUFACTURE OF 1,850 REFLECTORS, ANTENNA X-BAND RADAR REVOLVING, AS SPECIFIED, FOR THE WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, DAYTON, OHIO.

YOU BASE YOUR CLAIM SUBSTANTIALLY UPON THE PREMISE THAT THE GOVERNMENT ALLEGEDLY CHANGED THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE METAL TO BE USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF THE ITEM FROM A RELATIVELY SOFT ALUMINUM TO A HARDER CONDITIONED METAL AND THAT, AS A RESULT, YOU ENCOUNTERED WELDING DIFFICULTIES WHICH, IN TURN, INCREASED YOUR MANUFACTURING COSTS. SUBSTANTIATION OF YOUR CLAIM YOU HAVE COMPILED AND SUBMITTED CERTAIN COST DATA DESIGNED TO PROVE THAT IT ACTUALLY COST YOU $8.55 TO MANUFACTURE EACH UNIT, OR $2.73 IN EXCESS OF YOUR QUOTED BID PRICE ON THE ITEM, THUS RESULTING IN A TOTAL CLAIM OF $5,050.50 ON THE 1,850 UNITS CONTRACTED FOR.

THE RECORD IN THE CASE DISCLOSES THAT THE MERITS OF YOUR CLAIM WERE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED BY THE OFFICIALS OF THE GOVERNMENT WHO EXERCISED PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER THE ADMINISTRATION OF YOUR CONTRACT. THE RESULTS OF THIS INVESTIGATION ARE SUMMARIZED IN A REPORT DATED MAY 31, 1956, PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF HEADQUARTERS, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO, WHICH READS, IN PERTINENT PART:

"THE FACTS DO NOT SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE MANUFACTURING COSTS INCURRED BY CLAIMANT OVER AND ABOVE SUBJECT PRICE WERE DUE TO ANY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE CLAIMANT'S ALLEGATION THAT THE GOVERNMENT CHANGED THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE METAL TO BE USED IN MANUFACTURING ITEM NO. 1 IS NOT BORNE OUT BY THE FACTS NOR HAS THE CLAIMANT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS ALLEGATION. THE FACTS ESTABLISH THAT THE CLAIMANT DID NOT PROCESS SUFFICIENT ,KNOW HOW" OR FACILITIES TO PRODUCE ITEM NO. 1 AND, WITHOUT THE "KNOW-HOW" OR FACILITIES TO PRODUCE ITEM NO. 1, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE CLAIMANT'S MANUFACTURING COSTS WOULD BE INCREASED IN PRODUCING ITEM NO. 1. IT ALSO FOLLOWS THAT THE CLAIMANT MUST BEAR THE EXPENSES OF ACQUIRING THE ,KNOW-HOW" OR THE FACILITIES TO PRODUCE ITEM NO. 1. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THIS HEADQUARTERS CONCURS IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AND HAS, THEREFORE, ADMINISTRATIVELY DISAPPROVED PAYMENT OF THIS CLAIM.'

THUS, IN LIEU OF A CHANGE IN THE SPECIFICATIONS, AS ALLEGED BY YOU, THE RECORD IN THE CASE CLEARLY INDICATES THAT YOUR DELAY IN COMPLETING THE CONTRACT ON TIME AND THE INCREASED PERFORMANCE COSTS ENCOUNTERED BY YOU IN ITS COMPLETION WERE DUE PRINCIPALLY TO YOUR ANXIETY TO SECURE THE INSTANT AWARD AT ANY COST, AND TO YOUR GENERAL LACK OF KNOW-HOW OR EXPERIENCE IN PERFORMING THE TYPE OF WORK REQUIRED.

IN MATTERS OF THIS CHARACTER, WHEREIN THERE ARE INVOLVED STRICTLY DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT, YOU CAN REALIZE THAT WE HAVE NO FIRST-HAND OR DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUE FACTS PREVAILING IN A GIVEN SITUATION AND, AS A GENERAL RULE, MUST RELY UPON THE CORRECTNESS AND ACCURACY OF THE FACTS AS REPORTED TO US BY THE RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS OF THE GOVERNMENT. SEE 3 COMP. GEN. 51; 16 ID. 1101; ID. 1105; 18 ID. 799.

IN VIEW OF THE ADVERSE FACTS AS HEREINABOVE ADMINISTRATIVELY REPORTED TO US WITH RESPECT TO YOUR CLAIM, WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE IN THE MATTER BUT TO CONCUR IN THEIR RECOMMENDATION THAT YOUR CLAIM BE DISALLOWED.