B-155425, DEC. 14, 1964

B-155425, DEC. 14, 1964

TO GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED OCTOBER 14, 1964, REQUESTING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR THE AMOUNT OF $85.82, STATED TO BE AN OPEN AND UNPAID ACCOUNT UNDER PURCHASE ORDER NO. 63026/2/000741 DATED JUNE 28, 1962, WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE SETTLEMENT DATED OCTOBER 6, 1964.

IT APPEARS THAT PURSUANT TO GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY'S QUOTATION OF MAY 10, 1962, THE SUPPLY AND FISCAL OFFICER, U.S. MARINE CORPS AIR FACILITY, NAVY 580, FPO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, ISSUED PURCHASE ORDER NO. PO 63026/2/000741, DATED JUNE 28, 1962, FOR CERTAIN ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT. THE PURCHASE ORDER REQUIRED SHIPMENT OF THE ITEMS TO THE RECEIVING OFFICER, FTO. NSC, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA FOR TRANSHIPMENT TO THE OVERSEAS PURCHASING OFFICER. THE PRESENT MATTER IS CONCERNED ONLY WITH AN ALLEGED OVERSHIPMENT BY GRAYBAR OF ITEMS 2 AND 7 OF THE PURCHASE ORDER. ITEM 2 WAS AN ORDER FOR FIVE EACH FLUORESCENT LAMP FIXTURES AT $18.23 EACH AND ITEM 7 CALLED FOR FOUR EACH OF NO. DS1812 (CROUSE HINDS) SWITCH COVERS AT $4.20 EACH. IT IS MAINTAINED BY GRAYBAR THAT THEY SHIPPED A TOTAL OF NINE FLUORESCENT LAMPS, FOUR MORE THAN ORDERED; SEVEN CROUSE HINDS SWITCH COVERS NO. DS1812, THREE MORE THAN ORDERED; AND THE DELIVERY OF THE EXCESS ITEMS WAS ACCEPTED AND PAYMENT HAS NOT BEEN MADE FOR THE OVERSHIPMENT.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO GRAYBAR FOR ALL ITEMS LISTED IN THE PURCHASE ORDER AND THE PURCHASING OFFICE REPORTS THAT IT HAS RECEIVED NO ITEMS IN EXCESS OF THOSE ORDERED.

IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM FOR OVERSHIPMENT OF FLUORESCENT LAMPS AND CROUSE HIND COVERS, CERTAIN DELIVERY RECEIPTS, CATALOG DESCRIPTIVE DATA SHEETS, AND OTHER DATA WHICH ARE STATED TO CONCLUSIVELY SHOW THE RECEIPT BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE OVERSHIPMENT, HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. IT IS CONTENDED IN THE PRESENT LETTER THAT CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF DELIVERY OF EXCESS QUANTITY OF FIXTURES AND COVERS HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY:

"1. THE UNITED PARCEL PROOF OF DELIVERY OF AUGUST 15, 1962 WITH A SIGNATURE OF MR. MAGARI.

2. FREIGHT BILL NO. 5342 OF COAST DRAYAGE DATED JULY 19, 1962.

3. FREIGHT BILL NO. 5580 DATED JULY 20TH, 1962.

4. THE DETAILED LISTING OF ITEMS ACCORDING TO UNIT WEIGHT AND TOTAL WEIGHT REFERRED TO IN OUR LETTER OF MARCH 2D TO LT. COMMANDER GOLDSTEIN.

5. THE BILL OF LADING OF JULY 19TH WITH THE SIGNATURE OF MR. COWLES.

6. THE MODIFICATION ORDER SIGNED BY LT. COMMANDER GOLDSTEIN HIMSELF ON MAY 14, 1963 INCREASING THE UNIT QUANTITY OF ITEM 2 TO 9 AND ITEM 7 TO 6.

7. THE LETTER WHICH MISS VIVIAN WEST FORWARDED TO MR. GOLDSTEIN ON FEBRUARY 12TH ESTABLISHING THE FACT THAT THE NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER IN OAKLAND HAD ACTUALLY TRANSHIPPED THE DISPUTED MATERIAL TO OKINAWA.'

WE CANNOT AGREE THAT THE REFERENCED DOCUMENTS FORM CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT OVERDELIVERY HAS BEEN MADE.

THE UNITED PARCEL DELIVERY SHEET NO. 591774, SHOWING A DELIVERY DATE OF AUGUST 15, 1962, ALTHOUGH SHOWING A GRAYBAR SENDER'S MEMO NO. 54021, AND RECEIPTED BY A "MAGARI," FAILS TO INDICATE THE NUMBER OF PACKAGES OF GRAYBAR IN THE DELIVERY, OR IN ANY WAY IDENTIFY THE ITEMS DELIVERED, AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE DELIVERY SHEET DOES NOT OF ITSELF INDICATE THAT THE DELIVERY WAS MADE TO AN AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

THE MEMORANDUM COPY OF BILL OF LADING DATED JULY 19, 1962, WITH GRAYBAR AS SHIPPER, IS SIGNED BY "COWLES" AS AGENT FOR THE CARRIER, AND PROVIDES FOR THE CARRIAGE OF SEVEN BOXES FROM GRAYBAR CONSIGNED TO THE RECEIVING OFFICER, FTO, NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA. THE SEVEN BOXES ARE DESCRIBED IN THE MEMORANDUM AS CONSISTING OF THREE BOXES OF LIGHT FIXTURES FLUORESCENT WITH EQUIPMENT--- 92 POUNDS; 3 BOXES OF ELECTRIC WIRING SOCKETS--- 15 LBS; AND ONE BOX OF CONDUIT FITTINGS--- 42 POUNDS, TOTALLING 149 POUNDS. DELIVERY RECEIPT NO. 5342, DATED JULY 19, 1962, OF THE COAST DRAYAGE BEARS A RECEIPT STAMP NUMBERED 712085, DATED JULY 23, OF THE NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER AT OAKLAND. THE RECEIPT SHOWS THE DELIVERY FROM GRAYBAR TO THE NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER OF THREE BOXES OF LIGHT FIXTURES, WEIGHT--- 92 POUNDS; THREE BOXES OF ELECTRIC WIRING SOCKETS, WEIGHT 15 POUNDS; AND ONE BOX OF CONDUIT FITTINGS, WEIGHT 42 POUNDS, TOTALLING 149 POUNDS. YOU LIST IN YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 2, 1964, THE ITEMS, THEIR QUANTITY, UNIT SHIPPING WEIGHT OF EACH ITEM AS SHOWN IN THE CATALOG SPECIFICATION SHEETS, AND EXTENDED WEIGHT TO INDICATE THE ITEMS COMPRISING THE JULY 19, 1964 SHIPMENT. THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ITEMS INTO SEVEN BOXES IS NOT SHOWN, BUT USING YOUR REASONING AND THIS LIST AND SHIPPING WEIGHTS AS APPLIED TO THE JULY 19 SHIPMENT WE HAVE THE RESULT THAT FOUR FLUORESCENT FIXTURES AT 20 POUNDS EACH WERE SHIPPED IN THREE BOXES HAVING A GROSS SHIPPING WEIGHT OF 92 POUNDS. IN ADDITION, ALL CROUSE HINDS COVERS IN THE SHIPMENT, INCLUDING THREE DS1812 COVERS, WOULD RESULT IN 27 COVERS PACKED IN THREE BOXES HAVING A GROSS WEIGHT OF 52.1 POUNDS, AS COMPARED TO THE WEIGHT OF 42 POUNDS FOR THESE ITEMS ON THE DRAYAGE BILL. AS TO THE HUBBELL FITTINGS, THEIR WEIGHT IN BOTH INSTANCES IS SHOWN AS 15 POUNDS. THE SAME CONFUSION APPLIES TO THE COAST DRAYAGE DELIVERY RECEIPT NO. 5580, DATED JULY 20, 1962, AND BEARING RECEIVED STAMP NO. 712084, OF JULY 23 OF THE NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER, AT OAKLAND. THIS RECEIPT RECITES THAT THREE BOXES OF LIGHT FIXTURES WEIGHING 90 POUNDS WERE DELIVERED, AND YOU CONTEND THE THREE BOXES CONTAINED FOUR FIXTURES.

WE CANNOT CONCLUDE ON THE PRESENT RECORD THAT YOU HAVE CONCLUSIVELY PROVED AN OVERSHIPMENT OF FIXTURES AND CROUSE HIND COVERS.

AS TO YOUR REFERENCE TO THE MODIFICATION ORDER OF MAY 14, 1963, INCREASING THE UNIT QUANTITIES OF FIXTURES AND COVERS, IT APPEARS THAT THE ORDER WAS ISSUED IN ERROR AT THE OVERSEAS FACILITY PREMISED ON A MISUNDERSTOOD TELEGRAM RECEIVED FROM THE OAKLAND FACILITY.

WHERE, AS HERE, THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE STATEMENT OF A CLAIMANT AND THE REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, AND CONSEQUENTLY, DOUBT EXISTS AS TO THE ACTUAL FACTS IN ISSUE, IT HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO BE THE DUTY OF THE ACCOUNTING OFFICES TO REJECT THE CLAIM AND LEAVE THE CLAIMANT TO HIS REMEDY IN THE COURTS. SEE LONGWILL V. UNITED STATES, 17 CT.CLS. 288, AND CHARLES V. UNITED STATES, 19 ID. 316.