B-135187, MAY 13, 1958

B-135187, MAY 13, 1958

TO GREENFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY:

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HAS REFERRED TO OUR OFFICE FOR DIRECT SETTLEMENT A CLAIM IN THE AMOUNT OF $811.96 ALLEGED TO BE DUE THE UNITED STATES REPRESENTING AN ADJUSTMENT IN THE CONTRACT PRICE AS THE RESULT OF CHANGES REQUESTED BY YOU IN THE PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT NO. DA-30-280-QM- 23872 FOR THE MANUFACTURE AND DELIVERY OF 55,000 OVERCOATS.

THE INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE OF RECORD DISCLOSE THAT THIS MATTER HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF EXTENSIVE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN YOUR FIRM AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY. FROM A REVIEW THEREOF, IT APPEARS THAT A NUMBER OF DEVIATIONS OR CHANGES IN THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS WERE REQUESTED BY YOU AND GRANTED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. IT ALSO APPEARS, HOWEVER, THAT A PROPER ADJUSTMENT IN THE CONTRACT PRICE, REFLECTING THE DECREASE IN THE COST OF CONTRACT PERFORMANCE BY REASON OF SUCH CHANGES, WAS NOT MADE AS PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACT. AS A RESULT THE PRESENT RECORD REASONABLE ESTABLISHES THAT YOU WERE PAID THE SUM OF $811.96 IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT PROPERLY PAYABLE UNDER THE CONTRACT.

IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT THE GOVERNMENT, INDEPENDENTLY OF STATUTE, HAS THE RIGHT TO RECOVER FUNDS WHICH ITS AGENTS HAVE WRONGFULLY, ERRONEOUSLY, OR ILLEGALLY PAID. THIS RIGHT EXISTS WHETHER SUCH PAYMENTS WERE MADE UNDER MISTAKE OF LAW OR FACT; WHETHER BECAUSE IN EXCESS OF AUTHORITY OR BASED UPON AN ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF A CONTRACT LATER FOUND TO BE INCORRECT, OR BECAUSE OF THE RELIANCE UPON FACTS FOUND SUBSEQUENTLY NOT TO EXIST. SEE CHORPENNING V. UNITED STATES, 94 U.S. 397, 399; STEELE VE. UNITED STATES, 113 U.S. 128, 134; HUME V. UNITED STATES, 132 U.S. 406; UNITED STATES V. WURTS, 303 U.S. 414; UNITED STATES V. SUTTON, 11 F.2D 24, 26; AND THE OTHER CASES COLLECTED IN 63 A.L.R. 1346. MOREOVER, LACHES ON THE PART OF GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND AGENTS DOES NOT ESTOP THE GOVERNMENT FROM SECURING RECOVERY OF THE RESULTING OVERPAYMENTS. SEE SUTTON V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 575, AND HEIDT V. UNITED STATES, 56 F.2D 559; ALSO UNITED STATES V. HOLLEY, 199 F.2D 575, 578, AND THE CASES COLLECTED IN 54 AM.JUR. 630, 631.

YOU CONTEND IN YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 1, 1957, TO THE PHILADELPHIA QUARTERMASTER DEPOT, AND IN SUBSEQUENT CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, THAT THE REDUCTION IN COST RESULTING FROM THE PERMITTED CHANGES SHOULD BE CREDITED TO YOUR ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE LOSS ALLEGEDLY INCURRED BY YOU IN PERFORMING THE CONTRACT. MANIFESTLY, YOUR CONTENTION IS WITHOUT MERIT AS SUCH A CREDIT WOULD NOT BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT. CF. LANGOMA INDUSTRIES V. UNITED STATES, DECIDED BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS, MARCH 6, 1956, 133 C.CLS. 248, AND FARWELL V. UNITED STATES, DECIDED BY THE SAME COURT MARCH 6, 1957, 148 F.SUPP. 947. HENCE, YOUR CONTENTION MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED AS AFFORDING A PROPER BASIS FOR RELIEVING YOUR FIRM OF ITS LIABILITY TO THE UNITED STATES TO REFUND THE EXCESSIVE PAYMENT RECEIVED UNDER THE CONTRACT.

ACCORDINGLY, AND IN ORDER THAT FURTHER STEPS TOWARD THE COLLECTION OF THIS INDEBTEDNESS WILL NOT BE NECESSARY, THE AMOUNT OF $811.96 SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO OUR OFFICE BY CERTIFIED CHECK MADE PAYABLE TO THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES.