B-152081, FEB. 3, 1964

B-152081: Feb 3, 1964

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 JANUARY 3. WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR QUESTIONING THE ACTION BY THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT IN REFUSING TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH YOU FOR SERVICES COVERING MAIL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE ON STAR ROUTE NO. 24109-T FROM BOSTON. THE REPORTED FACTS ARE FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR DECISIONS AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. IN YOUR LETTER YOU AGAIN ASSERT THAT THE BOSTON REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT WAS IN ERROR WHEN IT ADVISED YOU ON JANUARY 25. THAT YOUR READJUSTMENT REQUEST UNDER 39 U.S.C. 6423 WAS DENIED BECAUSE YOU "DID NOT INCUR OR ASSUME ANY INCREASED COSTS.'. YOU HAVE NOT PRESENTED ANY CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE DEPARTMENT'S STATEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO YOUR RELATIONS WITH MOTT.

B-152081, FEB. 3, 1964

TO ELMER T. JONES, INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 3, 1964, RELATIVE TO OUR DECISIONS OF OCTOBER 23 AND DECEMBER 9, 1963, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR QUESTIONING THE ACTION BY THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT IN REFUSING TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH YOU FOR SERVICES COVERING MAIL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE ON STAR ROUTE NO. 24109-T FROM BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, TO ALBANY, NEW YORK, FOR THE 4-YEAR PERIOD BEGINNING JULY 1, 1963.

THE REPORTED FACTS ARE FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR DECISIONS AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE.

IN YOUR LETTER YOU AGAIN ASSERT THAT THE BOSTON REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT WAS IN ERROR WHEN IT ADVISED YOU ON JANUARY 25, 1963, THAT YOU HAD FAILED TO LIVE UP TO YOUR OBLIGATION TO PERFORM THE SERVICES SINCE YOU HAD IMPROPERLY DELEGATED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OPERATION, INCLUDING THE ASSUMPTION OF INCREASED COSTS, TO MOTT, INC., THE DEFAULTED CONTRACTOR, AND THAT YOUR READJUSTMENT REQUEST UNDER 39 U.S.C. 6423 WAS DENIED BECAUSE YOU "DID NOT INCUR OR ASSUME ANY INCREASED COSTS.' HOWEVER, YOU HAVE NOT PRESENTED ANY CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE DEPARTMENT'S STATEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO YOUR RELATIONS WITH MOTT, INC., AS SET FORTH IN OUR DECISION OF DECEMBER 9, 1963, ARE INCORRECT. PARTICULAR REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE STATEMENT THAT MR. MOTT WAS FURNISHING THE TRUCKS AND DRIVERS AND THAT ALL RECORDS CONCERNING THE COST OF OPERATIONS WERE KEPT BY MR. MOTT. THESE SERVICES WERE RENDERED AFTER THE REMOVAL OF MR. MOTT BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR UNSATISFACTORY SERVICE AND AFTER THE DEPARTMENTAL ORDER OF JULY 25, 1960, WAS ISSUED, WHEREIN YOU WERE RECOGNIZED AS SUBCONTRACTOR AT THE THEN EXISTING ANNUAL RATE OF $23,016.95 BUT WITH THE EXPRESS STATEMENT THAT JOHN R. MOTT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PERSONALLY OPERATE THE ROUTE.

YOU HAVE NOT INDICATED THE AMOUNT OF READJUSTMENT CLAIMED AND, UNLESS YOU HAVE ALREADY DONE SO, A DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE AMOUNT AS CLAIMED SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE POSTMASTER GENERAL WHO IS CHARGED BY STATUTE (39 U.S.C. 6423) WITH GRANTING READJUSTMENTS IN COMPENSATION FOR STAR ROUTE CONTRACTORS.

Jan 14, 2021

Jan 13, 2021

Looking for more? Browse all our products here