B-132335: May 18, 1960

K.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED MARCH 31. IN VIEW THEREOF AND SINCE THERE IS NOTHING CONTAINED IN YOUR RECENT LETTER OR IN YOUR EARLIER LETTERS THAT CAN BE ACCEPTED AS ALTERING THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE MATTER AS SET FORTH IN OUR PREVIOUS DECISIONS. YOU ARE ADVISED THAT THE PRIOR ACTION TAKEN IN DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM IS AFFIRMED AND MUST BE CONSIDERED FINAL...

B-132335: Oct 20, 1961

TO MIMASU SANGYO GOMEI KAISHA: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 21. THERE IS NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 21 WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED PREVIOUSLY. WE STATED THAT A REEVALUATION OF THE FACTS BEFORE US INDICATED THAT THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE AMOUNTS ALLEGED TO BE DUE FOR LOSS IN PROFIT OR DROP IN THE MARKET PRICE OF MATERIAL SOLD TO YOU BUT THA...

B-132335: Aug 26, 1960

TO MIMASU SANGYO GOMEI KAISHA: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED JULY 1. THERE IS NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE LETTER OF JULY 1. WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED PREVIOUSLY...

B-132335: Jun 10, 1958

K.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 10. WAS DISALLOWED. YOUR VARIOUS CONTENTIONS RELATIVE TO THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM WERE THOROUGHLY CONSIDERED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE DECISION OF JANUARY 27. THAT YOU WERE REQUIRED TO CERTIFY THE SHIPPING DOCUMENT OR SUFFER CANCELLATION OF THE CONTRACT. THERE IS NOTHING OF RECORD TO SUPPORT ANY IMPLICATION THAT YOUR CERTIFICATION OF RECEIPT OF THE MATERI...

B-132335: Jul 22, 1959

K.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED MARCH 21. THE MATTERS PRESENTED IN SUPPORT OF YOUR CONTENTION WERE CONSIDERED IN OUR DECISION OF JANUARY 27. THE ACTION PREVIOUSLY TAKEN BY OUR OFFICE IN THE MATTER IS AFFIRMED. ALL CLAIMS FOR AND AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ARE SUBJECT TO SETTLEMENT IN THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE. OUR DECISIONS ARE BINDING UPON ALL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES OF THE EXECUTI...

B-132335: Jan 27, 1958

K.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 10. WE HAVE NOW RECEIVED THE ADDITIONAL REPORT WHICH WE REQUESTED FROM THE UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES. YOUR CLAIM THAT YOU RECEIVED 110 TONS OF BULKY SCRAP WHICH WAS NOT A PART OF THE ORIGINAL PILE WHEN FIRST INSPECTED PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF YOUR BID. ONE OF THESE WAS THE PRACTICE OF MAINTAINING A COMMON SCRAP PILE FROM WHICH CONTRACTORS RECEIVED THE...