B-148931, JUL. 23, 1962
Highlights
TO CENTRAL ENGINEERING CO.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 29. IN YOUR LETTER YOU STATE THAT YOU ARE UNAWARE THAT "THE GOVERNMENT SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED THE SERVICES BE PERFORMED UNDER THE WARRANTY CLAUSE. YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE FOLLOWING LETTERS IN THE RECORD. YARDLEY AND WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT YOU "WERE REQUESTED BY JAMES CONNALLY AIR FORCE BASE PERSONNEL TO PROVIDE WARRANTY SERVICE AT THE RADAR TOWER. CONFIRMING THAT WARRANTY SERVICES WERE REQUESTED. THE FACTS OF RECORD WERE THOROUGHLY AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED IN OUR DECISION AND. SINCE YOU HAVE FURNISHED NO NEW FACTS OR EVIDENCE NOT ALREADY CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR CLAIM. OUR PREVIOUS DECISION WHICH SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM IS AFFIRMED.
B-148931, JUL. 23, 1962
TO CENTRAL ENGINEERING CO.:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 29, 1962, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION DATED JUNE 18, 1962, WHICH AFFIRMED THE PRIOR ACTION TAKEN IN DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM. IN YOUR LETTER YOU STATE THAT YOU ARE UNAWARE THAT "THE GOVERNMENT SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED THE SERVICES BE PERFORMED UNDER THE WARRANTY CLAUSE," AND YOU REQUEST ADVICE AS TO THE BASIS OF THIS STATEMENT.
IN THIS CONNECTION, YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE FOLLOWING LETTERS IN THE RECORD, WHICH BEAR THE SIGNATURE OF JACK E. YARDLEY AND WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT YOU "WERE REQUESTED BY JAMES CONNALLY AIR FORCE BASE PERSONNEL TO PROVIDE WARRANTY SERVICE AT THE RADAR TOWER, GRAY AIR FORCE BASE: "
LETTERS DATED AUGUST 14 AND OCTOBER 13, 1961, TO LT.COL. H. E. FOIL,COMMANDER, 3565 CIVIL ENGINEER GROUP, JAMES CONNALLY AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS.
LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 2, 1961, TO THE PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING OFFICER, FORT HOOD, TEXAS.
LETTER DATED JANUARY 3, 1962, TO THE COMMANDER, AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO.
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS ALSO CONTAIN STATEMENTS BY THE JAMES CONNALLY AIR FORCE BASE PERSONNEL, WHO REQUESTED THE REPAIR SERVICE HERE IN QUESTION, CONFIRMING THAT WARRANTY SERVICES WERE REQUESTED.
THE FACTS OF RECORD WERE THOROUGHLY AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED IN OUR DECISION AND, SINCE YOU HAVE FURNISHED NO NEW FACTS OR EVIDENCE NOT ALREADY CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR CLAIM, OUR PREVIOUS DECISION WHICH SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM IS AFFIRMED.