B-151583, JUL. 26, 1963

B-151583: Jul 26, 1963

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

INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 14. THE ITEMS OF EQUIPMENT REFERRED TO WERE REQUIRED TO BE DELIVERED AS REQUIRED TO THE POST OFFICE GARAGE. PAYMENT FOR ANY SUCH ITEMS FURNISHED WAS TO BE MADE AT THE UNIT PRICES STIPULATED IN THE CONTRACT. INCORPORATED INTO THE CONTRACT BY REFERENCE WERE GENERAL PROVISIONS (STANDARD FORM 32. PARAGRAPH (F) OF CLAUSE 11 PROVIDED THAT THE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDED IN THE CLAUSE "SHALL NOT BE EXCLUSIVE AND ARE IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER RIGHTS AND REMEDIES PROVIDED BY LAW OR UNDER THIS CONTRACT.'. " PROVIDED THAT ANY DISPUTE CONCERNING A QUESTION OF FACT ARISING UNDER THE CONTRACT WAS TO BE DECIDED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER.

B-151583, JUL. 26, 1963

TO AUTO EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 14, 1963, WHEREIN YOU PROTEST AGAINST THE TERMINATION OF YOUR RIGHT TO FURNISH REBUILT GENERATORS, VOLTAGE REGULATORS, STARTERS AND ALTERNATORS FOR CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLES ON AN EXCHANGE BASIS UNDER REQUIREMENTS CONTRACT NO. 24, DATED JULY 9, 1962, ENTERED INTO WITH THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, AND PRESENT A CLAIM FOR $1,540 FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT.

UNDER THE CONTRACT, THE ITEMS OF EQUIPMENT REFERRED TO WERE REQUIRED TO BE DELIVERED AS REQUIRED TO THE POST OFFICE GARAGE, VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FACILITY, 2112 GEORGIA AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C., DURING THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1963. PAYMENT FOR ANY SUCH ITEMS FURNISHED WAS TO BE MADE AT THE UNIT PRICES STIPULATED IN THE CONTRACT.

INCORPORATED INTO THE CONTRACT BY REFERENCE WERE GENERAL PROVISIONS (STANDARD FORM 32, SEPTEMBER 1961 EDITION). PARAGRAPH (A) OF CLAUSE 11 THEREOF, ENTITLED "DEFAULT," PROVIDED THAT THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT, BY WRITTEN NOTICE OF DEFAULT TO THE CONTRACTOR, TERMINATE THE CONTRACTOR'S RIGHT TO PROCEED WITH PERFORMANCE (I) IF THE CONTRACTOR FAILED TO MAKE DELIVERY OF THE SUPPLIES OR TO PERFORM THE SERVICES WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED; OR (II) IF THE CONTRACTOR FAILED TO PERFORM ANY OF THE "OTHER PROVISIONS" OF THE CONTRACT, OR SO FAILED TO MAKE PROGRESS AS TO ENDANGER PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TERMS, AND IN EITHER OF THE LATTER TWO CIRCUMSTANCES DID NOT CURE SUCH FAILURE WITHIN A PERIOD OF 10 DAYS (OR SUCH LONGER PERIOD AS THE CONTRACTING OFFICER MIGHT AUTHORIZE IN WRITING) AFTER RECEIPT OF NOTICE FROM THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SPECIFYING SUCH FAILURE. PARAGRAPH (F) OF CLAUSE 11 PROVIDED THAT THE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDED IN THE CLAUSE "SHALL NOT BE EXCLUSIVE AND ARE IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER RIGHTS AND REMEDIES PROVIDED BY LAW OR UNDER THIS CONTRACT.' CLAUSE 12 OF THE GENERAL PROVISIONS, ENTITLED "DISPUTES," PROVIDED THAT ANY DISPUTE CONCERNING A QUESTION OF FACT ARISING UNDER THE CONTRACT WAS TO BE DECIDED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, WHOSE WRITTEN DECISION WAS TO BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE UNLESS, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT BY THE CONTRACTOR OF A COPY OF THE DECISION, THE CONTRACTOR MAILED OR OTHERWISE FURNISHED TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER A WRITTEN APPEAL THEREFROM ADDRESSED TO THE HEAD OR ASSISTANT HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT CONCERNED.

IN A LETTER DATED AUGUST 9, 1962, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ADVISED YOU THAT ON JULY 2ND, 3RD, 13TH, 17TH AND 26TH, 1962, THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT HAD CALLED UPON YOU TO FURNISH (PRESUMABLY A TOTAL OF) 6 STARTERS, 4 GENERATORS AND 1 REGULATOR UNDER THE CONTRACT; THAT HE HAD BEEN ADVISED BY THE "WASHINGTON GARAGE" THAT IN NONE OF THESE CASES DID YOU HAVE THE ITEMS IN STOCK, WHICH MADE IT NECESSARY FOR YOU TO PICK UP, REBUILD AND RETURN THE DEPARTMENT'S OWN EQUIPMENT AND RESULTED IN DELAYS IN REPAIRS TO POSTAL VEHICLES AND THE RETURN THEREOF TO SERVICE. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REMINDED YOU IN THE LETTER THAT THE CONTRACT REQUIRED THE ITEMS OF EQUIPMENT INVOLVED TO BE FURNISHED ON AN EXCHANGE BASIS, STATING THAT THE CONTRACT HAD BEEN PREPARED IN THIS MANNER IN ORDER TO AVOID SUCH DELAYS AS THE ONES IN QUESTION. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER STATED THAT, PRIOR TO AWARD OF THE CONTRACT, YOUR REPRESENTATIVE HAD ASSURED HIS OFFICE THAT DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS COULD AND WOULD BE MET WITHOUT DELAYS. YOU WERE FURTHER ADVISED IN THE LETTER THAT, UNLESS FUTURE DELIVERIES WERE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS, STEPS WOULD BE TAKEN TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT AND READVERTISE, IN WHICH EVENT YOU MIGHT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR EXCESS COSTS TO THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NEW CONTRACT. THE LETTER CONCLUDED WITH THE REQUEST THAT YOU ADVISE THE AGENCY OF THE STEPS WHICH YOU WERE TAKING TO "FURNISH THESE ITEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT.'

YOU REPLIED TO THE ABOVE LETTER BY LETTER OF AUGUST 13, 1962, AS FOLLOWS:

"I HAVE INVESTIGATED THE CASES OF THE 6 STARTERS, 4 GENERATORS AND 1 REGULATOR YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 9. IN EVERY CASE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE 1 REGULATOR, WE HAD THE EXCHANGES IN STOCK. THE PROBLEM SEEMS TO BE THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE UNITS TO BE EXCHANGED. MOST CASES THERE ARE NO IDENTIFYING LABELS ON THE UNITS TO BE EXCHANGED, AS MOST OF THEM HAVE BEEN REBUILT BEFORE. THE CALL FOR EXCHANGES HAS COME FROM A PERSON WHO SIMPLY SAYS,"WE HAVE 2 GENERATORS TO EXCHANGE.' THIS MAN, HAVING MANY OTHER DUTIES, IS NOT TRAINED TO IDENTIFY THE UNITS. THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO PICK UP THE UNITS, IDENTIFY THEM AND RETURN THEM TO YOU.

"THIS IDENTIFICATION PROBLEM CAME TO MY ATTENTION EARLY LAST WEEK. MR. BUSH VISITED YOUR GARAGE TWICE, AND TODAY WE HAVE BOXED AND LABELED ALL THE SPARE UNITS YOU HAVE IN STOCK. FROM NOW ON IT WILL BE POSSIBLE TO TAKE THE EXCHANGE UNIT FROM THE BOX, PUT THE OLD CORE IN THE BOX, AND PLACE THE BOX ON THE FLOOR FOR EXCHANGE. WHEN THE ORDER IS PLACED FOR THE EXCHANGE, THE PERSON CALLING WILL HAVE A UNIT NUMBER TO ORDER BY, AND WE WILL BE ABLE TO SEND THE PROPER EXCHANGE UNIT PROMPTLY.

"IN THE CASE OF THE ONE REGULATOR THAT WE DID NOT HAVE AN EXCHANGE FOR, THERE IS A REASON. THE REGULATOR WAS FOR A WILLYS ALTERNATOR, AND SO FAR WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO BUY VOLTAGE COILS TO REPAIR THESE UNITS. THIS IS A PROBLEM CREATED BY THE ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS, AND WE, AS A VERY SMALL BUSINESS, ARE AT THEIR MERCY. WE DID HAVE IN STOCK A NEW REPLACEMENT, IF NECESSARY. THERE MAY BE A FEW OTHER INSTANCES WHERE WE ARE TEMPORARILY OUT OF AN EXCHANGE UNIT BECAUSE OF PARTS TROUBLE, OR BECAUSE SOME OTHER GOVERNMENT CUSTOMER HAS NOT RETURNED THE OLD CORES FOR US TO REBUILD. THESE CASES, EVERY POSSIBLE CONSIDERATION FOR PRODUCTION SPEED WILL BE GIVEN, AS WELL AS OUR ASSURANCE THAT THESE INSTANCES WILL BE KEPT TO AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM.

"I ALSO BELIEVE THAT IF OUR BOXING PROGRAM IS FOLLOWED, WE WILL ELIMINATE THE DELAYS OF THE PAST MONTH, AND RENDER THE SERVICE YOU DESIRE.'

UNDER DATE OF JANUARY 7, 1963, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WROTE YOU AS FOLLOWS:

"REFERENCE IS MADE TO MY LETTER DATED AUGUST 9, 1962 AND YOUR REPLY OF AUGUST 13, 1962 REGARDING THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR CONTRACT NO. 24 FOR REBUILT GENERATORS, VOLTAGE REGULATORS, STARTERS, AND ALTERNATORS ON EXCHANGE BASIS. FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION ON OR ABOUT DECEMBER 14, 1962 ON THIS SAME SUBJECT.

"IN ABOVE REFERENCED LETTER AND TELEPHONE CONVERSATION, NUMEROUS INSTANCES WERE POINTED OUT TO YOU WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT WERE NOT MET RESULTING IN DELAYS IN REPAIRS TO OUR POSTAL VEHICLES. YOUR LETTER OF REPLY YOU REFERRED TO A SYSTEM WHICH WOULD OVERCOME THESE PROBLEMS AND ALLOW YOU TO COMPLY WITH THE CONTRACT, HOWEVER NO APPRECIABLE IMPROVEMENT HAS BEEN NOTED.

"THIS IS TO ADVISE THAT AS OF JANUARY 18, 1963 YOU WILL BE DECLARED IN DEFAULT ON THIS CONTRACT AND WE WILL RE-ADVERTISE FOR SERVICE FOR THE REMAINDER OF FISCAL YEAR 1963. ALSO, ANY ADDITIONAL COST FOR OBTAINING THESE PARTS WILL BE CHARGED TO YOUR ACCOUNT.

"IT WILL BE APPRECIATED IF YOU WILL REPLY IN WRITING TO THIS LETTER BEFORE THE ABOVE DATE.'

ACCORDING TO THE RECORD, THE ONLY ACTION TAKEN BY YOU AS A RESULT OF THE RECEIPT OF THE ABOVE LETTER CONSISTED IN THE WRITING OF THE FOLLOWING LETTER, WHICH YOU ADDRESSED TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER UNDER DATE OF JANUARY 15, 1963:

"WE HAVE READ YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 7, 1963, WITH RESPECT TO CONTRACT NO. 24.

"WE BELIEVE THAT OUR SERVICE DURING THE CONTRACT PERIOD HAS BEEN MORE THAN ADEQUATE, AND ARE WILLING TO CONTINUE PERFORMANCE UNDER THE CONTRACT. WE DO NOT FEEL YOUR PROPOSED ACTION IN DECLARING US IN DEFAULT IS WARRANTED.'

IN A LETTER DATED MARCH 12, 1963, ADDRESSED TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, WHICH REFERRED TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 15, 1963, AND THE FACT THAT YOU HAD NEVER RECEIVED A REPLY THERETO, YOU STATED THAT YOU HAD RECEIVED ORDERS FROM CENTRAL AUTO PARTS WHICH, YOU HAD BEEN ADVISED, WERE FOR POST OFFICE REQUIREMENTS, AND YOU REQUESTED TO BE ADVISED WHETHER THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SERVICES SPECIFIED IN CONTRACT NO. 24 WERE BEING DIVERTED TO OTHER SUPPLIERS.

IN REPLYING TO THE ABOVE LETTER BY LETTER OF MARCH 19, 1963, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ADVISED YOU, IN EFFECT, THAT CONTRACT NO. 24 HAD BEEN TERMINATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADVICE CONTAINED IN HIS LETTER OF JANUARY 7, 1963, SUPRA, AND THAT ITEMS PREVIOUSLY OBTAINED THEREUNDER HAD, SINCE JANUARY 18, 1963, BEEN PURCHASED USING GSA SCHEDULES WITH MANUFACTURERS' DISTRIBUTORS AND DEALERS. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FURTHER ADVISED YOU THAT, SO LONG AS THESE DISTRIBUTORS AND DEALERS MET THE REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS ON THE GSA SCHEDULES, THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT CONCERNED WITH AND HAD NO MEANS OF KNOWING THEIR SOURCES OF SUPPLY. HE ALSO INFORMED YOU THAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS OVERHAULING AND REBUILDING ITEMS PREVIOUSLY COVERED BY CONTRACT NO. 24 IN ITS OWN ,VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FACILITY," AND THAT A CHANGE IN THIS PROCEDURE WAS NOT BEING CONTEMPLATED.

THE NEXT LINK IN THE CHAIN OF CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS MATTER CONSISTED OF YOUR LETTER OF MAY 13, 1963, TO THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, WHEREIN YOU REFERRED TO THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAD ADVISED YOU IN THE LETTER OF JANUARY 7, 1963, OF "HIS INTENTION TO TERMINATE OUR RIGHT TO PROCEED WITH PERFORMANCE UNDER CONTRACT NO. 24," AND STATED THAT THE PURPOSE OF YOUR LETTER WAS TO SUBMIT A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,540, FOR "THE ACTION TAKEN SO UNWARRANTEDLY.'

IN YOUR LETTER OF MAY 14, 1963, TO OUR OFFICE, WITH REFERENCE TO THE MATTER, YOU STATE THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU PERFORMED SATISFACTORILY WITH RESPECT TO ORDERS AWARDED YOU UNDER THE CONTRACT, ALTHOUGH YOU ADMIT THAT ON OCCASION "ARGUMENTS AROSE DURING THE COURSE OF PERFORMANCE" AND THAT, APPARENTLY "AS A RESULT OF ONE SUCH DISCUSSION," THE ABOVE-QUOTED LETTER OF JANUARY 7, 1963, WAS WRITTEN TO YOU. YOU CONTEND, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT YOU WERE NEVER GIVEN ADVICE OF "CONDITIONS TO BE CURED," AND THAT SUCH TERMINATION ACTION AS WAS TAKEN WAS ILLEGAL "AS THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO TERMINATE WAS INADEQUATE, AND NO TERMINATION IN FACT OCCURRED.' HENCE, YOU CONTEND THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT STATED, AS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT.

ASSUMING THAT THE MATTERS OF CONTRACT PERFORMANCE COMPLAINED OF IN THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S LETTER OF AUGUST 9, 1962, MAY BE SAID TO HAVE INVOLVED THE QUESTION WHETHER YOU HAD COMPLIED WITH THE "OTHER PROVISIONS" OF THE CONTRACT, AND, HENCE, THAT YOU WERE ENTITLED TO THE 10-DAY NOTICE- TO-CURE PROVIDED FOR IN CLAUSE 11 (A) (II) OF THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT, SUPRA, AS A CONDITION TO THE GOVERNMENT'S EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF TERMINATION UNDER THE "DEFAULT" CLAUSE, WE BELIEVE THAT THE CORRESPONDENCE SET FORTH ABOVE IS ADEQUATE TO CONSTITUTE SUCH NOTICE. THE DEFICIENCIES IN CONTRACT PERFORMANCE AS FOUND BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WERE BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION IN HIS LETTER OF AUGUST 9, 1962, AND YOU WERE ADVISED THEREIN THAT, UNLESS FUTURE DELIVERIES WERE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS, STEPS WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT. NOT UNTIL HE WROTE THE ABOVE-QUOTED LETTER OF JANUARY 7, 1963, DID THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TAKE ANY ACTION TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT. IN ADVISING YOU IN THE LETTER THAT YOU WOULD BE DECLARED IN DEFAULT ON THE CONTRACT AS OF JANUARY 18, 1963, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DREW ATTENTION TO HIS PREVIOUS LETTER AND TO A SUBSEQUENT TELEPHONE CONVERSATION HELD WITH YOU ON THE SUBJECT OF YOUR DEFICIENCIES IN CONTRACT PERFORMANCE AND STATED THAT NO APPRECIABLE IMPROVEMENT THEREIN HAD BEEN NOTED. THIS IN SUBSTANCE APPEARS TO AMOUNT TO A DETERMINATION THAT YOU HAD FAILED TO MAKE DELIVERIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT.

IN OUR OPINION, THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ADVISED YOU IN HIS LETTER OF JANUARY 7, 1963, THAT "AS OF JANUARY 18, 1963 YOU WILL BE DECLARED IN DEFAULT ON THIS CONTRACT" DID NOT PREVENT THE LETTER FROM CONSTITUTING A WRITTEN NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND TERMINATION OF THE TYPE REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED YOU UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE 11 (A) OF THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT, SUPRA. EVEN A CURSORY READING OF THE LETTER LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS INTENDED AS A NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT, EFFECTIVE AS OF THE DATE STATED, AND NOT MERELY AS A NOTICE OF INTENTION TO TERMINATE. MOREOVER, IF YOU HAD ANY DOUBT AS TO THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACT HAD BEEN TERMINATED, IT WAS NECESSARILY DISPELLED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S LETTER OF MARCH 19, 1963, SUPRA.

AS PREVIOUSLY INDICATED, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ADVISED YOU IN THE LETTER OF AUGUST 9, 1962, THAT HE HAD FOUND YOU WERE NOT SUPPLYING THE ITEMS CALLED FOR UNDER THE CONTRACT ON AN EXCHANGE BASIS. OBVIOUSLY THIS WAS A BREACH OF THE CONTRACT ENTITLING THE GOVERNMENT TO TERMINATE THE SAME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE "DEFAULT" CLAUSE, UNLESS YOU CORRECTED THE SITUATION, AT LEAST. IN YOUR REPLY OF AUGUST 13, 1962, YOU ADVISED THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT THE NEW PROCEDURE WHICH YOU HAD INITIATED WOULD ENABLE YOU TO "SEND THE PROPER EXCHANGE UNIT PROMPTLY" IN THE FUTURE. HOWEVER, YOU WERE INFORMED IN THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S LETTER OF JANUARY 7, 1963, THAT SINCE NO APPRECIABLE IMPROVEMENT HAD BEEN NOTED IN THE MANNER OF YOUR CONTRACT PERFORMANCE UNDER THE NEW ,SYSTEM," THE CONTRACT WAS BEING TERMINATED. IT THUS APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DETERMINED THAT YOU HAD FAILED TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TERMS, AND THAT HE EXERCISED THE RIGHT--- EXPRESSLY RESERVED IN THE "DEFAULT" CLAUSE--- TO TERMINATE THE SAME. IN THE EVENT THAT YOU DISAGREED WITH THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION THAT YOU WERE INITIALLY AT FAULT IN FAILING TO FURNISH THE CONTRACT ITEMS ON AN EXCHANGE BASIS, OR HIS DETERMINATION THAT YOU HAD FAILED TO CORRECT THIS FEATURE OF YOUR CONTRACT PERFORMANCE, IT WAS UP TO YOU TO FURNISH THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WITH A WRITTEN APPEAL FROM HIS DECISION AS EMBODIED IN THE LETTER OF JANUARY 7, 1963, ADDRESSED TO THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF SUCH DECISION, AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE "DISPUTES" CLAUSE. YOU NOT ONLY FAILED TO DO THIS, BUT YOU TOOK NO SUCH APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER YOU RECEIVED THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S LETTER OF MARCH 19, 1963, CONFIRMING THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACT HAD BEEN TERMINATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTENTION EXPRESSED IN THE JANUARY 7, 1963, LETTER. HAD YOU TAKEN SUCH AN APPEAL AND BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL IN OBTAINING A REVERSAL OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISION, YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN IN A POSITION TO PRESS YOUR PRESENT CLAIM BEFORE THIS OFFICE, OR THE COURTS, WHICH COULD THEN CONSIDER, AMONG OTHER THINGS, WHETHER THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISION IN THE MATTER WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. IF IT WERE FOUND NOT TO BE SO SUPPORTED, IT WOULD THEN BE IN ORDER TO CONSIDER YOUR CLAIM ON ITS MERITS, AND TO CONSIDER AWARD OF SUCH COMPENSATION BY WAY OF DAMAGES AS THE FACTS APPEARED TO WARRANT. HOWEVER, IT HAS LONG BEEN HELD THAT WHERE, AS HERE, THE PARTIES HAVE PROVIDED IN THE CONTRACT FOR A METHOD OF SETTLING DISPUTES OF FACT ARISING THEREUNDER, THIS OFFICE AND THE COURTS WILL NOT CONSIDER CLAIMS THE MERITS OF WHICH ARE MADE TO DEPEND UPON FACTUAL ISSUES PROPERLY WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE DESIGNATED ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL, UNLESS THE CLAIMANT HAS EXHAUSTED THE REMEDIES, INCLUDING THE RIGHT OF APPEAL, AVAILABLE TO HIM ADMINISTRATIVELY. SEE 37 COMP. GEN. 568; 38 ID. 749; AUTOMATIC SCREW PRODUCTS COMPANY V. UNITED STATES (1959), 145 CT.CL. 94, 169 F.SUPP. 951.

Jan 25, 2021

Jan 22, 2021

Jan 21, 2021

Jan 19, 2021

Looking for more? Browse all our products here