B-138648, APR. 18, 1960
Highlights
TO SUNROC CORPORATION: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED MARCH 8. REGARDING YOUR CLAIM FOR DISCOUNTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN IMPROPERLY DEDUCTED UNDER GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION CONTRACTS NOS. THE ORIGINAL CLAIM OF $455.01 WAS DISALLOWED IN GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE SETTLEMENT DATED JANUARY 21. THE SETTLEMENT WAS SUSTAINED ON REVIEW BY OUR DECISION OF JULY 24. IN THAT DECISION THERE ALSO WAS DISALLOWED THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF $1. IT IS STATED THAT YOU ASSUME THE RECENT FAVORABLE DETERMINATION FOR THE PAYMENT OF CLAIM NO. Z-71812/17) IN THE AMOUNT OF $583.35 WILL RESULT IN THE PAYMENT OF YOUR CLAIM UNDER CONTRACTS NOS. SINCE THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO CLAIMS. THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE MATTER WERE SET FORTH IN DETAIL IN OUR DECISION TO YOU DATED JULY 24.
B-138648, APR. 18, 1960
TO SUNROC CORPORATION:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED MARCH 8, 1960, REGARDING YOUR CLAIM FOR DISCOUNTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN IMPROPERLY DEDUCTED UNDER GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION CONTRACTS NOS. GS-00S 19521 AND GS-00S- 19522, DATED SEPTEMBER 2, 1958. THE ORIGINAL CLAIM OF $455.01 WAS DISALLOWED IN GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE SETTLEMENT DATED JANUARY 21, 1959, AND THE SETTLEMENT WAS SUSTAINED ON REVIEW BY OUR DECISION OF JULY 24, 1959, TO YOU. IN THAT DECISION THERE ALSO WAS DISALLOWED THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF $1,458.37 CLAIMED BY YOU UNDER THESE CONTRACTS.
IN YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 8, 1960, IT IS STATED THAT YOU ASSUME THE RECENT FAVORABLE DETERMINATION FOR THE PAYMENT OF CLAIM NO. Z-71812/17) IN THE AMOUNT OF $583.35 WILL RESULT IN THE PAYMENT OF YOUR CLAIM UNDER CONTRACTS NOS. GS-00S-19521 AND GS-00S-19522, SINCE THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO CLAIMS.
THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE MATTER WERE SET FORTH IN DETAIL IN OUR DECISION TO YOU DATED JULY 24, 1959, AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. WOULD APPEAR SUFFICIENT TO POINT OUT TO YOU THAT PAYMENT OF THE CLAIM FOR $583.35 WAS AUTHORIZED BECAUSE WE FOUND, IN EFFECT, THAT THE CORRECTIONS CONSIDERED NECESSARY BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TO BE MADE ON THE NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT, AS A PREREQUISITE TO PAYMENT, DID NOT JUSTIFY THE RESULTING DELAY IN MAKING SUCH PAYMENT. HOWEVER, THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM UNDER CONTRACTS NOS. GS-00S-19521 AND GS 00S-19522 WAS BASED ON OUR DETERMINATIONS--- FIFTH PARAGRAPH OF DECISION DATED JULY 24, 1959--- THAT YOUR ATTEMPT TO ASSIGN THE MONIES DUE UNDER INDIVIDUAL PURCHASE ORDERS WHICH, INCIDENTALLY, WAS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8A OF THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF STANDARD FORM 32, RATHER THAN TO ASSIGN ALL AMOUNTS PAYABLE UNDER THE CONTRACTS THEMSELVES, WAS THE PRIME CAUSE OF THE ULTIMATE DELAY IN MAKING PAYMENT. THERE IS, THEREFORE, A DEFINITE DISTINCTION, IN RESPECT TO THE CAUSE OF THE DELAYS, BETWEEN THE TWO CLAIMS.
ACCORDINGLY, ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS OF RECORD, OUR DECISION OF JULY 24, 1959, IS AFFIRMED.