https://www.gao.gov/products/430436

B-137991: Sep 29, 1959

ATTORNEY AT LAW: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF NOVEMBER 5 AND 10. IT IS CONTENDED THAT WALLAS SUFFERED A LOSS OF OVERHEAD COSTS ARISING FROM DELAYS IN COMMENCING WORK UNDER THE CONTRACTS DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE PROMPTLY REVISED SPECIFICATIONS. A THOROUGH AUDIT REVIEW OF THE CLAIM WAS MADE BY OUR OFFICE TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH A LOSS OF OVERHEAD DID. WHETHER SUCH LO...

https://www.gao.gov/products/414407

B-137991: Jul 29, 1960

YOU POINT OUT THAT AN ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT APPROACH WAS TAKEN BY OUR OFFICE IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM BY DECISION DATED JUNE 28. THAT YOU AND YOUR CLIENT WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT THE CLAIM WOULD BE ALLOWED IF SUPPORTED BY AN AUDIT OF YOUR CLIENT'S BOOKS AND RECORDS. AN AUDIT REVIEW WAS MADE OF THE CLAIM AND. THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY DECISION DATED SEPTEMBER 29. ON THE BASIS THAT THE CLAIM WAS NO...

https://www.gao.gov/products/465134

B-137991: Jun 28, 1960

INTERNATIONAL OFFICE BUILDING: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 11. THE CLAIM IS ALLEGED TO HAVE ARISEN ON ACCOUNT OF THE DELAYS OF THE GOVERNMENT IN PROVIDING REVISED SPECIFICATIONS. IT APPEARS FROM THE CONTRACT FILES THAT CHANGE ORDERS INCREASING THE CONTRACT PRICES WERE NEGOTIATED WITH THE CONTRACTOR AFTER PRODUCTION HAD BEEN COMMENCED. THAT PRICE INCREASES OF ABOUT $8 PER UNIT W...