Skip to main content

B-129758, JAN. 9, 1957

B-129758 Jan 09, 1957
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED DECEMBER 21. IN YOUR LETTER YOU CONCEDE THAT EVERYTHING STATED BY US IN OUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 14 IS CORRECT. - THAT "IT WAS ASCERTAINED THAT THERE WAS NO RECORD OF THE RECEIPT OF THE SECOND SHIPMENT OF BRUSHES.'. THIS QUOTATION IS INACCURATE. YOU WILL NOTE FROM THE LAST SENTENCE. "THAT IT WAS ASCERTAINED THAT THERE WAS NO RECORD OF THE RECEIPT OF A SHIPMENT AT THE OVERSEAS BASE.'. WE RECOGNIZED THAT THE DUPLICATE SHIPMENT MADE THROUGH THE ERROR OF ONE OF YOUR EMPLOYEES WAS RECEIVED AT THE SAN FRANCISCO PORT OF EMBARKATION. YOUR CLAIM FOR PAYMENT WAS DENIED BECAUSE "THE RECORDS DO NOT SHOW THAT THE BRUSHES WERE EVER RECEIVED OR USED BY THE OVERSEAS BASE.'.

View Decision

B-129758, JAN. 9, 1957

TO H. HERTZBERG AND SON, INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED DECEMBER 21, 1956, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION DATED DECEMBER 14, 1956, WHICH SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF THE PHOENIX BRUSH COMPANY, INC. FOR $131.25 ALLEGEDLY DUE FOR A DUPLICATE SHIPMENT OF DRAFTSMAN BRUSHES.

IN YOUR LETTER YOU CONCEDE THAT EVERYTHING STATED BY US IN OUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 14 IS CORRECT, EXCEPT THE STATEMENT--- AS QUOTED BY YOU--- THAT "IT WAS ASCERTAINED THAT THERE WAS NO RECORD OF THE RECEIPT OF THE SECOND SHIPMENT OF BRUSHES.'

HOWEVER, THIS QUOTATION IS INACCURATE. YOU WILL NOTE FROM THE LAST SENTENCE, THIRD PARAGRAPH, OF OUR LETTER THAT WE STATED, REGARDING THE SECOND SHIPMENT,"THAT IT WAS ASCERTAINED THAT THERE WAS NO RECORD OF THE RECEIPT OF A SHIPMENT AT THE OVERSEAS BASE.' WE RECOGNIZED THAT THE DUPLICATE SHIPMENT MADE THROUGH THE ERROR OF ONE OF YOUR EMPLOYEES WAS RECEIVED AT THE SAN FRANCISCO PORT OF EMBARKATION, OAKLAND ARMY BASE, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA. HOWEVER, YOUR CLAIM FOR PAYMENT WAS DENIED BECAUSE "THE RECORDS DO NOT SHOW THAT THE BRUSHES WERE EVER RECEIVED OR USED BY THE OVERSEAS BASE.'

IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF THAT THE SECOND SHIPMENT WAS RECEIVED OVERSEAS OR USED OVERSEAS OR THAT THE PERSONNEL AT THE PORT OF EMBARKATION ACTED WITH GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR IN BAD FAITH, AND FOR THE REASONS STATED IN OUR DECISION OF DECEMBER 14, 1956, THERE IS PERCEIVED NO LEGAL BASIS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs