B-152038, FEB. 6, 1964

B-152038, FEB. 6, 1964

TO JOHN R. MOTT, INC.:

RECEIPT IS ACKNOWLEDGED OF YOUR LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 29, 1963, IN REGARD TO OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 31, 1963, WHEREIN WE DENIED YOUR PROTEST DATED JULY 10, 1963, AGAINST THE REFUSAL OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, BOSTON REGIONAL OFFICE, POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO YOU FOR CERTAIN MAIL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE UNDER AN INVITATION FOR BIDS ISSUED BY THAT DEPARTMENT ON MAY 6, 1963.

SINCE ALL PERTINENT FACTS REPORTED HERE BY THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT IN THE CASE WERE SET FORTH IN OUR DECISION DATED OCTOBER 31, 1963, A RESTATEMENT THEREOF AT THIS TIME IS UNNECESSARY.

YOU NOW REQUEST THAT OUR OFFICE GO BEYOND THE RECORD BEFORE US BY AN INVESTIGATION OF THE MATTER AND YOU CHARGE THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT WITH DISTORTING THE FACTS, STATING UNTRUTHS, TC., IN THE REPORTING AND HANDLING OF THIS MATTER. WITH RESPECT TO YOUR REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF THE MATTER BY OUR OFFICE, WE DO NOT FEEL THAT ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION WOULD BE WARRANTED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATED IN OUR PRIOR DECISION AND AS OUTLINED BELOW.

YOU STATE THAT YOU WERE NOT REMOVED FROM THE CONTRACT COVERING STAR ROUTE NO. 24109-T BY THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT FOR ANY DELINQUENCIES, IRREGULARITIES, ETC., ON YOUR PART BUT REFER TO DIFFERENT CHANGES IN RATES, SCHEDULES, AND OTHER ACTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT WHICH YOU ALLEGE CREATED UNDUE HARDSHIPS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT AND IMPLY THAT SUCH CONDITIONS ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN YOUR REMOVAL. IN THIS REGARD, THE RECORD BEFORE US SHOWS, AS STATED IN OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 31, 1963, THAT YOU WERE REMOVED FROM THE SUBJECT CONTRACT BY THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT FOR UNSATISFACTORY SERVICE AND THAT SUCH REMOVAL WAS UPHELD BY THE DEPARTMENT'S BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. IN ANY SUCH SITUATIONS IT IS THE LONG-ESTABLISHED RULE OF OUR OFFICE WHERE THERE IS DISAGREEMENT, AS HERE, BETWEEN THE FACTS AS REPORTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS--- THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS IN THIS CASE--- AND THOSE STATED BY THE CLAIMANT, TO ACCEPT THE FACTS ADMINISTRATIVELY REPORTED AS CONTROLLING THE DISPOSITION OF THE CLAIM IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF THEIR CORRECTNESS. SEE 16 COMP. GEN. 325; 18 ID. 799, 800; 31 ID. 288; AND 37 ID. 568, 570. IN THIS REGARD, YOU HAVE FURNISHED NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ANY OF THE MANY SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS MADE BY YOU. IT ALSO MIGHT BE REPEATED HERE, AS INDICATED IN OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 31, 1963, TO YOU, THAT THE DETERMINATION OF SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE BY A CONTRACTOR UNDER A PARTICULAR CONTRACT BASED ON SUCH FACTS IS PRIMARILY A FUNCTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY CHARGED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CONTRACT-- IN THIS INSTANCE THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. SUCH A DETERMINATION MUST, OF NECESSITY, BE BASED UPON FACTUAL INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THAT DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING OF BAD FAITH OR THE LACK OF A REASONABLE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE DETERMINATION, OUR OFFICE WILL NOT OBJECT TO THE CONCLUSION REACHED.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, OUR DECISION DATED OCTOBER 31, 1963, MUST BE AFFIRMED.