B-170192, OCT. 6, 1970
Highlights
WHO COMPLAINS THAT THE AGENCY'S EXTRA INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER CERTAIN CONTRACTS WHICH HAVE CAUSED ADDITIONAL WORK AND EXPENSE. MUST FIRST HAVE THE MATTER ACTED UPON BY THE ADMINISTRATION INVOLVED UNDER THE STANDARD CHANGES AND DISPUTE CLAUSES BEFORE GAO CAN CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE CASE. INC.: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF JUNE 24. HAVE BEEN IMPOSED UPON YOUR COMPANY BY DCASD. YOUR LETTERS INDICATE THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS HAVE CAUSED YOUR COMPANY ADDITIONAL WORK AND EXPENSE. THAT TO COMPUTE THE AMOUNT OF YOUR CLAIM WILL REQUIRE A REVIEW OF ALL OF YOUR CONTRACTS WITH THE ARSENAL. THAT DCASD WILL NOT MAKE SUCH A REVIEW UNLESS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED TO DO SO BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.
B-170192, OCT. 6, 1970
CONTRACTS - DISPUTES - ADDITIONAL WORK DECISION TO MOLDED ELECTRONICS, INC., ADVISING THAT THE INCREASED INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS OVER AND ABOVE THOSE SET OUT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACTS FOR REDSTONE ARSENAL COMES UNDER THE "CHANGES AND DISPUTES" CLAUSES, AND AS A PREREQUISITE MUST UNDERGO ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION BY THE AGENCY BEFORE GAO CAN ACT. CONTRACTOR, WHO COMPLAINS THAT THE AGENCY'S EXTRA INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER CERTAIN CONTRACTS WHICH HAVE CAUSED ADDITIONAL WORK AND EXPENSE, MUST FIRST HAVE THE MATTER ACTED UPON BY THE ADMINISTRATION INVOLVED UNDER THE STANDARD CHANGES AND DISPUTE CLAUSES BEFORE GAO CAN CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE CASE.
TO MOLDED ELECTRONICS, INC.:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF JUNE 24, AUGUST 10, AND SEPTEMBER 10, 1970, IN WHICH YOU ADVISE THAT INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS, OVER AND ABOVE THOSE SET OUT IN YOUR CONTRACTS, HAVE BEEN IMPOSED UPON YOUR COMPANY BY DCASD, SPRINGFIELD, DURING YOUR PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR REDSTONE ARSENAL.
YOUR LETTERS INDICATE THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS HAVE CAUSED YOUR COMPANY ADDITIONAL WORK AND EXPENSE; THAT TO COMPUTE THE AMOUNT OF YOUR CLAIM WILL REQUIRE A REVIEW OF ALL OF YOUR CONTRACTS WITH THE ARSENAL; AND THAT DCASD WILL NOT MAKE SUCH A REVIEW UNLESS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED TO DO SO BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE. YOU ASK FOR OUR COMMENTS ON THE VALIDITY OF YOUR CLAIMS AND FOR ADVICE AS TO HOW TO APPLY FOR COMPENSATION FOR "THESE UNILATERAL CONTRACT CHANGES." ALTERNATIVELY, YOU ASK THAT THIS OFFICE REQUEST DCASD TO MEET WITH YOU TO REVIEW YOUR CONTRACTS OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS WITH REDSTONE ARSENAL. IT APPEARS TO BE YOUR BELIEF THAT THIS REVIEW IS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS OF YOUR CLAIMS.
FROM OUR REVIEW OF THE RECORD, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT YOUR CONTRACTS CONTAIN THE STANDARD INSPECTION CLAUSE, AND SHOULD ALSO CONTAIN THE STANDARD CHANGES AND DISPUTES CLAUSES. SINCE THE NATURE OF YOUR CLAIMS WOULD APPEAR TO BE SUCH AS TO PROPERLY BRING THEM UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHANGES AND DISPUTES CLAUSES, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT YOU CONSIDER FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES SET OUT IN THE DISPUTES CLAUSE IN PRESENTING YOUR CLAIMS TO THE APPROPRIATE CONTRACTING OFFICERS.
SINCE CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS OF THIS NATURE BY THE CONTRACTING AGENCY IS A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO CONSIDERATION OF SUCH CLAIMS BY THIS OFFICE, WE BELIEVE IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME TO OFFER ANY COMMENT ON THE VALIDITY OF YOUR CLAIMS, OR TO MAKE ANY REQUEST OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CONTRACTING AGENCY RELATIVE TO THE PROCEDURES WHICH SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN ESTABLISHING THE AMOUNT, OR DETERMINING THE MERITS, OF YOUR CLAIM.
WE REGRET THAT WE ARE UNABLE TO OFFER ANY OTHER ADVICE OR ASSISTANCE AT THE PRESENT TIME.