Skip to main content

B-125260, AUG. 6, 1956

B-125260 Aug 06, 1956
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

TO THE POSTMASTER GENERAL: RECEIPT IS ACKNOWLEDGED OF YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 26. THE PERTINENT FACTS ARE UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE SAME AS WERE BEFORE US AT THE TIME OF OUR DECISION TO YOU OF JANUARY 23. IN THE MEANTIME WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM COUNSEL FOR GENERAL HIGHWAY SERVICES. YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 26 ALSO URGES RECONSIDERATION AND IS ACCOMPANIED BY A MEMORANDUM DEALING WITH THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE INVOLVED. YOU STATED THAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THAT ACT IS SILENT ON THE REASON FOR MAKING THE STAR ROUTE LAWS APPLICABLE TO THE HIGHWAY SERVICE. YOU SAID: "THIS REQUIREMENT IN THE STAR ROUTE LAWS WAS DESIGNED. HUNTINGTON IS CONCERNED. WE ASSUME THAT YOU WILL NOT READVERTISE FOR BIDS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE NEW ACT AND OBTAIN THE BENEFIT OF THE WIDER RANGE OF COMPETITION THEREBY AFFORDED.

View Decision

B-125260, AUG. 6, 1956

TO THE POSTMASTER GENERAL:

RECEIPT IS ACKNOWLEDGED OF YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 26, 1956, REQUESTING A DECISION AS TO WHETHER A CONTRACT FOR A HIGHWAY POST OFFICE ROUTE BETWEEN PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, AND PARKERSBURG AND HUNTINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA, MAY BE AWARDED TO GENERAL HIGHWAY SERVICES, INC., WHICH SUBMITTED THE LOWEST BID.

THE PERTINENT FACTS ARE UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE SAME AS WERE BEFORE US AT THE TIME OF OUR DECISION TO YOU OF JANUARY 23, 1956, B-125260, IN WHICH WE HELD THAT GENERAL HIGHWAY SERVICES, INC., DID NOT APPEAR TO BE A QUALIFIED BIDDER FOR A PORTION OF THE SAME ROUTE NOW IN QUESTION, UNDER OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3 OF THE ACT OF MAY 31, 1940 (39 U.S.C. 425A).

IN THE MEANTIME WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM COUNSEL FOR GENERAL HIGHWAY SERVICES, INC., A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION REFERRED TO, WITH AN EXTENSIVE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS. YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 26 ALSO URGES RECONSIDERATION AND IS ACCOMPANIED BY A MEMORANDUM DEALING WITH THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE INVOLVED.

AS POINTED OUT IN YOUR MEMORANDUM THE "RESIDENCE" AND "DOING BUSINESS" QUALIFICATIONS OF THE ACT OF MAY 31, 1940, BECAME LAW BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE HIGHWAY POST OFFICE ACT OF JULY 11, 1940, HAVING BEEN DRAFTED, CONSIDERED, AND ENACTED SPECIFICALLY AND SOLELY AS LIMITATIONS ON THE AWARD OF STAR ROUTE CONTRACTS. IN YOUR LETTER OF JULY 14, 1955, TRANSMITTING TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE A DRAFT OF A BILL TO AMEND THE HIGHWAY POST OFFICE ACT, YOU STATED THAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THAT ACT IS SILENT ON THE REASON FOR MAKING THE STAR ROUTE LAWS APPLICABLE TO THE HIGHWAY SERVICE, AND, REFERRING TO THE RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS HERE IN QUESTION, YOU SAID:

"THIS REQUIREMENT IN THE STAR ROUTE LAWS WAS DESIGNED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO PUT THE STAR ROUTE SERVICE IN THE HANDS OF LOCAL RESIDENTS. THE HIGHWAY POST OFFICE SERVICE, HOWEVER, AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT TYPE OF OPERATION THAN THE STAR ROUTE SERVICE, CANNOT BE SUCCESSFULLY OPERATED UNDER THIS RESTRICTION.' (S.REP. 2291, 84TH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION.)

THE BILL PROPOSED BY YOU ACCORDINGLY PROVIDED FOR THE REPEAL OF SECTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE ACT OF JULY 11, 1940, WHICH ADOPTED THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAR ROUTE LAWS, AND PROVIDED SPECIFICALLY FOR CONTRACTS FOR HIGHWAY POST OFFICE SERVICE TO BE OBTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 3709 OF THE REVISED STATUTES AS AMENDED. INTRODUCED IN THE CONGRESS AS S. 2634, IT HAS NOW BEEN ENACTED AS PUBLIC LAW 862, 84TH CONGRESS, APPROVED AUGUST 1, 1956.

SINCE THIS ENACTMENT HAS NOW WHOLLY ELIMINATED THE RESTRICTIONS ON QUALIFICATIONS OF BIDDERS FOR HIGHWAY POST OFFICE CONTRACTS, WE FEEL THAT FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF JANUARY 23, 1956, WOULD SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE. SO FAR AS AWARD OF THE ROUTE BETWEEN PITTSBURGH, PARKERSBURG, AND HUNTINGTON IS CONCERNED, WE ASSUME THAT YOU WILL NOT READVERTISE FOR BIDS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE NEW ACT AND OBTAIN THE BENEFIT OF THE WIDER RANGE OF COMPETITION THEREBY AFFORDED.

AS TO STAR ROUTE CONTRACTS, AWARD OF WHICH IS STILL SUBJECT TO THE RESIDENCE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE ACT OF MAY 31, 1940, WE ARE NOT ADVISED THAT ANY QUESTION HAS ARISEN WHICH WOULD INVOLVE THE APPLICATION OF THE DECISION REFERRED TO, AND WE THEREFORE FEEL THAT FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE ..END :

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs