Skip to Highlights
Highlights

SINCE CLAIM OF SECOND-TIER SUBCONTRACTOR WHICH IS INCLUDED IN CLAIM OF PRIME CONTRACTOR PRESENTLY SUBJECT TO APPEAL BEFORE ASBCA IS TYPE THAT FALLS WITHIN CONTRACT DISPUTES PROCEDURE OF CONTRACT IT MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED BY GAO UNTIL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED. 40 C.G. 674. TO OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF JULY 3 AND 19. WE HAVE RECEIVED A REPORT DATED OCTOBER 5. FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ADVISING US THAT YOU ARE A SECOND-TIER SUBCONTRACTOR OF F.S. IT IS REPORTED. THAT THE PRIME CONTRACTOR IS NOW ENTITLED TO FILE AN APPEAL TO THAT DECISION TO THE ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT WHERE A DISPUTE EXISTS BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND THE GOVERNMENT WHICH IS OF A TYPE THAT FALLS WITHIN THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THE "DISPUTES" CLAUSE OF THE CONTRACT OUR OFFICE WILL NOT CONSIDER THE MATTER UNTIL A FINAL DECISION HAS BEEN RENDERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THAT CLAUSE.

View Decision

B-161971, OCT. 11, 1967

CONTRACTS - DISPUTES - PRIOR TO EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY DECISION TO OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, SECOND-TIER SUBCONTRACTOR, CONCERNING CLAIM FOR COST OF INSULATING WORK IN CONSTRUCTION OF DENTAL CLINIC AND LABORATORY AT MCCHORD AIR FORCE BASE. SINCE CLAIM OF SECOND-TIER SUBCONTRACTOR WHICH IS INCLUDED IN CLAIM OF PRIME CONTRACTOR PRESENTLY SUBJECT TO APPEAL BEFORE ASBCA IS TYPE THAT FALLS WITHIN CONTRACT DISPUTES PROCEDURE OF CONTRACT IT MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED BY GAO UNTIL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED. 40 C.G. 674; 38 ID 749.

TO OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF JULY 3 AND 19, 1967, CLAIMING $3,431 REPRESENTING THE COST OF INSULATING RETURN AIR DUCT WORK AT THE DENTAL CLINIC AND PROSTHETICS LABORATORY, MCCHORD AIR FORCE BASE, WASHINGTON.

WE HAVE RECEIVED A REPORT DATED OCTOBER 5, 1967, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ADVISING US THAT YOU ARE A SECOND-TIER SUBCONTRACTOR OF F.S. JONES CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., AND THAT NO PRIVITY OF CONTRACT EXISTS BETWEEN YOU AND THE UNITED STATES. IT IS REPORTED, HOWEVER, THAT THE PRIME CONTRACTOR HAS PRESENTED A CLAIM TO THE GOVERNMENT WHICH INCLUDES YOUR CLAIM; THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ISSUED A FINAL DECISION TO THE PRIME CONTRACTOR ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1967, DENYING YOUR CLAIM; AND THAT THE PRIME CONTRACTOR IS NOW ENTITLED TO FILE AN APPEAL TO THAT DECISION TO THE ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS.

IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT WHERE A DISPUTE EXISTS BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND THE GOVERNMENT WHICH IS OF A TYPE THAT FALLS WITHIN THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THE "DISPUTES" CLAUSE OF THE CONTRACT OUR OFFICE WILL NOT CONSIDER THE MATTER UNTIL A FINAL DECISION HAS BEEN RENDERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THAT CLAUSE. SEE 40 COMP. GEN. 674, 678; 38 COMP. GEN. 749.

ACCORDINGLY, UNTIL THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY PROVIDED BY THE "DISPUTES" CLAUSE OF THE CONTRACT HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED OUR OFFICE WILL NOT CONSIDER YOUR CLAIM.

GAO Contacts