B-168624, JAN. 5, 1970

B-168624, JAN. 5, 1970

CONTRACTS--TERMINATION DECISION TO CHICAGO TRANSPARENT, INC; HOLDING THAT TERMINATION OF CONTRACT WITH NAVY SHIPS PARTS CONTROL CENTER FOR CONVENIENCE OF GOVERNMENT IS MATTER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION AND OBJECTION BY GAO IS NOT POSSIBLE.

TO CHICAGO TRANSPARENT, INCORPORATED:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 12, 1969, PROTESTING AGAINST THE TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE OF CONTRACT NO. N00104-69-D 0519 BY THE UNITED STATES NAVY SHIPS PARTS CONTROL CENTER, MECHANICSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA.

IT HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE COURTS AND BY OUR OFFICE THAT THE AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT INCLUDES AUTHORITY TO TERMINATE IT WHEN TO DO SO WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND TO MAKE A BINDING AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTRACTOR IN FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT OF HIS TERMINATION CLAIM. SEE 44 COMP. GEN. 466 (1965); UNITED STATES V. CORLISS STEAM-ENGINE COMPANY, 91 U.S. 321 (1875). IN THIS REGARD, THE DETERMINATION WHETHER A CONTRACT SHOULD BE TERMINATED FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT IS A MATTER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION WHICH DOES NOT REST WITH OUR OFFICE. SEE 47 COMP. GEN. 1 (1967), AND CASES CITED. SEE SECTION VIII OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (ASPR) FOR THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO THE TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT.

ACCORDINGLY, OUR OFFICE MAY NOT PROPERLY OBJECT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IN THIS MATTER.