Skip to Highlights
Highlights

TO LOGAN LUMBER COMPANY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 20. WHICH WAS TERMINATED FOR DEFAULT. YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS BASED ON A RESTATEMENT OF YOUR PRIOR CONTENTION THAT. YOU MADE ARRANGEMENTS FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE REJECTED PLYWOOD AND NOTIFIED THE PORTLAND OFFICE THAT DELIVERY OF THE REPLACEMENT WAS READY PRIOR TO RECEIPT BY YOU OF THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF YOUR RIGHT TO PROCEED UNDER THE CONTRACT. IN WHICH YOU WERE ADVISED THAT THE PLYWOOD HAD BEEN REJECTED. THAT YOUR RIGHT TO PROCEED UNDER THE CONTRACT WAS TERMINATED. THE RECORD INDICATES THAT YOUR LETTER WAS RECEIVED IN SEATTLE ON AUGUST 10. YOU ASSERT THAT THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION WAS NOT RECEIVED BY YOU UNTIL AUGUST 15.

View Decision

B-124344, AUG. 3, 1955

TO LOGAN LUMBER COMPANY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 20, 1955, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING A REVIEW OF THAT PART OF OUR SETTLEMENT DATED JULY 12, 1955, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR $317.49 AS ANTICIPATED PROFITS UNDER CONTRACT NO. DA-35-026-ENG-18581, DATED MAY 19, 1953, WHICH WAS TERMINATED FOR DEFAULT. ALSO THERE HAS BEEN RECEIVED A COMMUNICATION DATED JULY 22, 1955, FROM THE HONORABLE SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, UNITED STATES SENATE, RELATIVE TO THE MATTER.

YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS BASED ON A RESTATEMENT OF YOUR PRIOR CONTENTION THAT, ACTING PURSUANT TO A REQUEST IN A LETTER OF JULY 31, 1953, FROM THE SEATTLE OFFICE, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, YOU MADE ARRANGEMENTS FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE REJECTED PLYWOOD AND NOTIFIED THE PORTLAND OFFICE THAT DELIVERY OF THE REPLACEMENT WAS READY PRIOR TO RECEIPT BY YOU OF THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF YOUR RIGHT TO PROCEED UNDER THE CONTRACT.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE PLYWOOD OFFERED FOR DELIVERY ON JUNE 15, 1953, FAILED TO MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS. IT APPEARS THAT BY LETTER OF JULY 21, 1953, IN WHICH YOU WERE ADVISED THAT THE PLYWOOD HAD BEEN REJECTED, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SUGGESTED THAT REPLACEMENT BE SECURED FROM ANOTHER MILL. IT APPEARS FURTHER THAT, WHILE THE DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER MADE A REQUEST BY LETTER OF JULY 31, 1953, FOR YOU TO ARRANGE FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE REJECTED PLYWOOD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER GAVE NOTICE BY LETTER OF AUGUST 7, 1953, THAT YOUR RIGHT TO PROCEED UNDER THE CONTRACT WAS TERMINATED, EFFECTIVE UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH NOTICE. YOU COMPLETED ARRANGEMENTS WITH ANOTHER MILL ON AUGUST 5, 1953, FOR REPLACING THE REJECTED PLYWOOD AND BY LETTER OF AUGUST 6, 1953, YOU ADVISED THE DISTRICT ENGINEER, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, THAT SHIPMENT COULD BE MADE WITHIN TWO WEEKS. THE RECORD INDICATES THAT YOUR LETTER WAS RECEIVED IN SEATTLE ON AUGUST 10, 1953, AFTER THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION HAD BEEN FORWARDED TO YOU BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. YOU ASSERT THAT THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION WAS NOT RECEIVED BY YOU UNTIL AUGUST 15, 1953, AND THAT YOU NOTIFIED THE PORTLAND OFFICE THAT THE REPLACEMENT SHIPMENT WAS "READY FOR DELIVERY" IN A LETTER OF AUGUST 12, 1953, WHICH YOU APPEAR TO ASSUME WAS RECEIVED PRIOR TO AUGUST 15, 1953. ALSO, IN A LETTER OF AUGUST 15, 1953, TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, YOU STATED THAT "IN "PHONE CONVERSATION WITH THE PORTLAND OFFICE WE UNDERSTOOD EVEN AS FAR BACK AS WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH, THAT YOU WERE THEN IN PROCESS OF ARRANGING REPURCHASE OF THIS CONTRACT AND ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHED REPURCHASE ON THURSDAY, THE 13TH.'

YOUR STATEMENT THAT INFORMATION AS TO A REPURCHASE AGAINST YOUR ACCOUNT ON AUGUST 13, 1953, WAS COMMUNICATED TO YOU IN A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION ON AUGUST 12, 1953, IS NOT UNDERSTOOD. HOWEVER, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE HAS REPORTED THAT THE REPURCHASE OF PLYWOOD WAS MADE ON AUGUST 18, 1953, AFTER YOU HAD ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION. FURTHERMORE, ASIDE FROM CONSIDERATIONS OF THE LACK OF COORDINATION OF THE ACTION BETWEEN THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IN PORTLAND AND HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE IN THE SEATTLE OFFICE, THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE PLYWOOD ORIGINALLY OFFERED BY YOU DID NOT MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS; THAT THE PERIOD FOR DELIVERY SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT HAD EXPIRED; AND THAT ALTHOUGH AMPLE TIME HAD ELAPSED FOR YOU TO INDICATE WHETHER YOU PROPOSED TO REPLACE THE REJECTED PLYWOOD THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION FROM YOU IN THAT REGARD AS LATE AS AUGUST 7, 1953. VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE ACTION DECLARING YOU IN DEFAULT AND TERMINATING YOUR RIGHT TO PROCEED UNDER THE CONTRACT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN WARRANTED.

ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR $317.49 IS SUSTAINED.

GAO Contacts