B-149995, JAN. 23, 1963

B-149995, JAN. 23, 1963

TO LEONARD L. SILVERSTEIN, ESQUIRE:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED DECEMBER 26, 1962, IN EFFECT REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF SETTLEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 30, 1962, BY WHICH OUR CLAIMS DIVISION DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR THE SUM OF $2,500, REPRESENTING AN AMOUNT ALLEGED TO BE DUE FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN THE PREPARATION OF AN ARTICLE RELATING TO CERTAIN TAX ASPECTS OF THE 1958 SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT ACT.

AS A BASIS FOR YOUR CLAIM YOU STATE THAT THE INDICATED ARTICLE WAS PREPARED PURSUANT TO A REQUEST OF CERTAIN OFFICIALS OF THAT AGENCY, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT COMPENSATION WOULD BE PAID THEREFOR, BUT THAT NO AMOUNT WAS EVER AGREED UPON.

IN THE SETTLEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 30, 1962, YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED PRIMARILY FOR THE REASON THAT THE RECORD IN THIS CASE DOES NOT SHOW THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE PREPARATION OF THE ARTICLE OR THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION TO BE PAID. IN YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 26, 1962, YOU ADVISED THAT NO SPECIFIC TERMS WERE AGREED UPON AS TO COMPENSATION, IT BEING GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE WORK WOULD BE DONE ON A QUANTUM MERUIT BASIS. YOU THEN INQUIRED WHETHER, IF YOU ACTUALLY RENDERED THE SERVICES IN QUESTION, YOUR CLAIM IS ONE WHICH OUR OFFICE MAY RECOGNIZE.

UNDER DATE OF AUGUST 16, 1962, THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION FORWARDED YOUR CLAIM TO OUR CLAIMS DIVISION FOR DIRECT SETTLEMENT AND, AFTER SETTING FORTH CERTAIN ACTIONS OF THAT AGENCY, THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH:

"IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ATTACHED FILE THAT THIS AGENCY DID REQUEST THE TAX STUDY, ALTHOUGH AS INDICATED, A CONTRACT WAS NEVER EXECUTED AND AVAILABLE EVIDENCE IS NOT CLEAR AS TO THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION, IF ANY, WHICH WAS TO HAVE BEEN PAID FOR THE STUDY. THIS AGENCY PURCHASED 3,000 COPIES OF THE REPRINT.'

THE RECORD IN THIS CASE APPEARS TO BE AT VARIANCE WITH YOUR CONTENTION THAT IT WAS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD THAT YOU WOULD BE COMPENSATED ON A QUANTUM MERUIT BASIS. BOTH YOU AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE HAVE REFERRED TO A CONTRACT WHICH WAS PREPARED BY THE SBA AND SUBMITTED TO YOU, BUT WE HAVE BEEN FURNISHED NO INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CONTENTS OF THE PROPOSED CONTRACT, OR WHETHER IT CORRECTLY STATED TERMS PREVIOUSLY AGREED UPON OR IN WHAT RESPECTS IT DID NOT.

IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND CONSIDERING ALSO THE FACT THAT IT APPEARS THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE SBA APPARENTLY WAS TO OBTAIN AN ARTICLE FOR PUBLICATION BY IT, WHEREAS THE ARTICLE FURNISHED BY YOU COULD NOT BE SO USED, AND THE FURTHER FACT THAT SBA HAS FURNISHED NO FINDING AS TO THE VALUE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED, WE ARE FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE CLAIM IS TOO DOUBTFUL TO JUSTIFY ALLOWANCE BY THIS OFFICE. SEE LONGWILL V. UNITED STATES, 17 CT.CL. 288, 291, AND CHARLES V. UNITED STATES, 19 CT.CL. 316, 319.

THE ACTION TAKEN IN THE SETTLEMENT OF NOVEMBER 30, 1962, IS THEREFORE, SUSTAINED.