B-143855, NOV. 22, 1960
Highlights
TO PRINTON CORPORATION: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 1. RELATIVE TO AN ERROR ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN YOUR BID SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF INTENT TO PURCHASE NO. THE MATTER WAS SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FOR DECISION HERE AND BY OUR DECISION DATED SEPTEMBER 15. IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR MODIFYING THE PRICE SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT. OUR OFFICE IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE CLAIMS BY OR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF EQUITABLE OR MORAL CONSIDERATIONS. ITS JURISDICTION IS RESTRICTED TO THE CONSIDERATION AND DETERMINATION OF SUCH MATTERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE LAW OR UNDER THE TERMS OF A VALID AGREEMENT EXECUTED PURSUANT TO LAW.
B-143855, NOV. 22, 1960
TO PRINTON CORPORATION:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 1, 1960, RELATIVE TO AN ERROR ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN YOUR BID SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF INTENT TO PURCHASE NO. CHI-1129-60, ISSUED BY HEADQUARTERS, CHICAGO REGION, MILITARY SUBSISTENCE SUPPLY AGENCY, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS,FOR FURNISHING 612,100 PLASTIC-FOIL-POLYESTER LAMINATED BAGS. THE MATTER WAS SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FOR DECISION HERE AND BY OUR DECISION DATED SEPTEMBER 15, 1960, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR MODIFYING THE PRICE SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT.
YOU DO NOT QUESTION THE LEGALITY OF THE DECISION BUT SUGGEST THAT IN FAIRNESS YOU SHOULD BE GRANTED AN INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT PRICE OF THE BAGS BECAUSE YOU, AS A SMALL COMPANY, CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE $5,000, THE AMOUNT OF YOUR ALLEGED LOSS IN PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT. OUR OFFICE IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE CLAIMS BY OR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF EQUITABLE OR MORAL CONSIDERATIONS. ITS JURISDICTION IS RESTRICTED TO THE CONSIDERATION AND DETERMINATION OF SUCH MATTERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE LAW OR UNDER THE TERMS OF A VALID AGREEMENT EXECUTED PURSUANT TO LAW. WHILE A PROPER APPLICATION OF THE LAW MAY PRODUCE A HARSH RESULT IN SOME CASES, WE WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AN EXCEPTION IN RESPECT TO YOUR CLAIM.
WITHOUT A COMPENSATING BENEFIT TO THE UNITED STATES, AGENTS AND OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO DISPOSE OF THE MONEY OR PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES, TO MODIFY EXISTING CONTRACTS, OR TO SURRENDER OR WAIVE CONTRACT RIGHTS THAT HAVE VESTED IN THE GOVERNMENT. SIMPSON V. UNITED STATES, 172 U.S. 372; UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN SALES CORP., 27 F.2D 389, AFFIRMED 32 F.2D 141, CERTIORARI DENIED 280 U.S. 574; PACIFIC HARDWARE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 49 CT.CL. 327; BAUSCH AND LOMB OPTICAL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 78 CT.CL. 584.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THERE APPEARS NO LEGAL BASIS ON WHICH WE WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING THE RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1960, MUST BE AFFIRMED.