Skip to Highlights
Highlights

ROY NORQUIST: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED MARCH 6. SINCE ALL PERTINENT FACTS IN THE RECORD BEFORE US WERE SET FORTH IN OUR DECISION DATED FEBRUARY 19. A RESTATEMENT THEREOF AT THIS TIME IS UNNECESSARY. THE ACCESS ROAD WAS NOT OVERBUILT. THAT SUCH ROAD WAS CONSTRUCTED WITH THE LEAST AMOUNT OF WORK POSSIBLE AND AT A MINIMUM COST. SINCE THE PART OF OUR DECISION PERTAINING TO THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WAS BASED ON FACTS REPORTED TO US BY THE FOREST SERVICE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THERE IS A DISPUTED QUESTION OF FACT BETWEEN YOU AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE. IT IS THE LONG ESTABLISHED RULE OF OUR OFFICE THAT WHERE THERE IS DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FACTS REPORTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND THOSE STATED BY THE CLAIMANT.

View Decision

B-153278, APR. 14, 1964

TO MR. ROY NORQUIST:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED MARCH 6, 1964, WHICH, IN EFFECT, REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF THAT PART OF OUR DECISION DATED FEBRUARY 19, 1964, THAT DISALLOWED $480 OF THE $995 CLAIMED BY YOU FOR EXTRA WORK PERFORMED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ABERT-CAN SPRINGS SALE UNDER DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CONTRACT NO. 12-11-026; 45965.

SINCE ALL PERTINENT FACTS IN THE RECORD BEFORE US WERE SET FORTH IN OUR DECISION DATED FEBRUARY 19, 1964, A RESTATEMENT THEREOF AT THIS TIME IS UNNECESSARY.

IN YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 6, 1964, YOU CONTEND THAT CONTRARY TO THE STATEMENTS MADE IN OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 19, 1964, THE ACCESS ROAD WAS NOT OVERBUILT; THAT THE PRIME CONTRACTOR HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD OR ITS USE BY THE COMPANY'S WIDE BUNK TRUCKS; AND THAT SUCH ROAD WAS CONSTRUCTED WITH THE LEAST AMOUNT OF WORK POSSIBLE AND AT A MINIMUM COST. SINCE THE PART OF OUR DECISION PERTAINING TO THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WAS BASED ON FACTS REPORTED TO US BY THE FOREST SERVICE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THERE IS A DISPUTED QUESTION OF FACT BETWEEN YOU AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE. IT IS THE LONG ESTABLISHED RULE OF OUR OFFICE THAT WHERE THERE IS DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FACTS REPORTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND THOSE STATED BY THE CLAIMANT, TO ACCEPT THE FACTS ADMINISTRATIVELY REPORTED AS CONTROLLING THE DISPOSITION OF THE CLAIM IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF THEIR CORRECTNESS. SEE 16 COMP. GEN. 325; 18 ID. 799, 800; 31 ID. 288; AND 37 ID. 568, 570. IN THIS REGARD, YOU HAVE FURNISHED NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF YOUR SELF-SERVING DECLARATION THAT THE ACCESS ROAD WAS NOT OVERBUILT.

MOREOVER, THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 19, 1964, WERE THE BASES FOR OUR AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT TO BE MADE TO YOU IN THE AMOUNT OF $515. HOWEVER, NEITHER SUCH REASONS NOR THE FACT,AS CONTENDED BY YOU, THAT THE EXTRA WORK COULD HAVE BEEN PERFORMED MORE REASONABLY WHILE YOUR EQUIPMENT, ETC., WAS ON THE SITE, MAY BE ACCEPTED AS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PAYMENT OF ANY ADDITIONAL AMOUNT CLAIMED BY YOU OVER AND ABOVE THE $515, PARTICULARLY WHEN PAYMENT OF THE $515, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, COULD BE AUTHORIZED ONLY ON A QUANTUM MERUIT BASIS AND NOT BY REASON OF ANY CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION. IN ADDITION, THE FOREST SERVICE REPORTED THAT BECAUSE OF THE ADDITIONAL EXCAVATION NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT THE INTERSECTION, FILL MATERIAL REQUIRED BY YOU FOR ROAD NO. 3624 IN THAT VICINITY BECAME AVAILABLE TO YOU CLOSER THAN IT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN AND SUCH CONDITION UNDOUBTEDLY INURED TO YOUR BENEFIT.

GAO Contacts