B-161971, MAR. 7, 1968
Highlights
THEREFORE IF CLAIM IS MADE BY PRIME CONTRACTOR AND SUPPORTED IN DETAIL AS TO ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IT WILL BE CONSIDERED. RICHMOND: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 26. THIS LETTER IS IN REPLY TO OUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 11. WE HAVE NO RECORD THAT THE NOVEMBER 21 LETTER WAS RECEIVED BY OUR OFFICE. A TIMELY APPEAL FROM THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISION WAS NOT TAKEN AND THE APPEAL WAS THEREFORE REJECTED. SINCE THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY IS EXHAUSTED. IT IS REQUESTED THAT OUR OFFICE CONSIDER THE CLAIM. CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISIONS ON QUESTIONS OF FACT ARE CONCLUSIVE UNLESS APPEALED WITHIN THE REQUIRED PERIOD OF TIME. CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISIONS ON QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE UNDER THE WUNDERLICH ACT (41 U.S.C. 322).
B-161971, MAR. 7, 1968
CONTRACTS - DISPUTES - CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISIONS DECISION TO OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION RECLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL WORK PERFORMED AT MCCHORD AIR FORCE BASE. IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF A SECOND-TIER SUBCONTRACTOR WHO DID NOT MAKE TIMELY APPEAL OF CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISION, CLAIM MUST BE PREMISED UPON AN ERROR AS MATTER OF LAW IN CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISION FOR CONSIDERATION BY GAO, THEREFORE IF CLAIM IS MADE BY PRIME CONTRACTOR AND SUPPORTED IN DETAIL AS TO ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IT WILL BE CONSIDERED.
TO MR. P. T. RICHMOND:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 26, 1968, FORWARDING A COPY OF A LETTER OF NOVEMBER 21, 1967, ADDRESSED TO OUR OFFICE, REGARDING A CLAIM FOR $3,431 FOR INSULATION WORK PERFORMED AT MCCHORD AIR FORCE BASE, WASHINGTON, AND INQUIRING AS TO THE STATUS OF THE MATTER. APPARENTLY, THIS LETTER IS IN REPLY TO OUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 11, 1967, TO YOUR COMPANY, COPY HEREWITH.
WE HAVE NO RECORD THAT THE NOVEMBER 21 LETTER WAS RECEIVED BY OUR OFFICE. ACCORDING TO THE COPY OF THE LETTER, A TIMELY APPEAL FROM THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISION WAS NOT TAKEN AND THE APPEAL WAS THEREFORE REJECTED. SINCE THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY IS EXHAUSTED,IT IS REQUESTED THAT OUR OFFICE CONSIDER THE CLAIM.
CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISIONS ON QUESTIONS OF FACT ARE CONCLUSIVE UNLESS APPEALED WITHIN THE REQUIRED PERIOD OF TIME. B 140907, NOVEMBER 6, 1961. HOWEVER, CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISIONS ON QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE UNDER THE WUNDERLICH ACT (41 U.S.C. 322). THUS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR CASE, OUR OFFICE MAY ONLY ENTERTAIN A CLAIM PROMISED UPON AN ERROR AS TO A MATTER OF LAW CONSIDERED IN THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISION. IF SUCH A CLAIM IS MADE TO OUR OFFICE, IT SHOULD BE SUPPORTED IN DETAIL AS TO ANY ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
ACCORDING TO THE RECORD, YOUR COMPANY WAS A SECOND-TIER SUBCONTRACTOR OF THE PRIME CONTRACTOR. IN VIEW THEREOF, ANY CLAIM TO OUR OFFICE WOULD HAVE TO BE FILED BY THE PRIME CONTRACTOR ON YOUR BEHALF.