[Protest of DOE Subcontract Award for Paging Services]
Highlights
A firm protested a Department of Energy subcontract award for paging services, contending that the prime contractor should have rejected the awardee's bid as technically unacceptable, since it did not meet the solicitation specifications. GAO held that: (1) it would not review the proposed implementation plan, since it was a matter of contract administration; (2) the awardee's bid met the solicitation's material requirements; and (3) the protester untimely filed its additional protests more than 10 days after it knew the basis of protest. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed in part and denied in part.
B-220193, DEC 17, 1985
DISBURSING OFFICERS - RELIEF - ERRONEOUS PAYMENTS - NOT RESULT OF BAD FAITH OR NEGLIGENCE DIGEST: RELIEF IS GRANTED ARMY DISBURSING OFFICIAL AND HIS SUPERVISOR UNDER 31 U.S.C. SEC. 3527(C) FROM LIABILITY FOR IMPROPER PAYMENT RESULTING FROM PAYEE'S NEGOTIATION OF BOTH ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE MILITARY CHECKS. PROPER PROCEDURES WERE FOLLOWED IN THE ISSUANCE OF THE SUBSTITUTE CHECK, THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF BAD FAITH ON THE PART OF THE DISBURSING OFFICIAL AND HIS SUPERIOR, AND SUBSEQUENT COLLECTION ATTEMPTS ARE BEING PURSUED. HOWEVER, IN THE FUTURE, WE WILL DENY RELIEF IF ARMY DELAYS MORE THAN 3 MONTHS IN PROCESSING THE DEBIT VOUCHER.
MR. CLYDE E. JEFFCOAT
PRINCIPAL DEPUTY COMMANDER
U.S. ARMY FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING CENTER
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46249
THIS RESPONDS TO YOUR REQUEST OF AUGUST 30, 1985, THAT WE RELIEVE MAJOR (MAJ) W. M. OBERST, FINANCE CORPS, FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER, U.S. ARMY AVIATION CENTER, FORT RUCKER, ALABAMA, UNDER 31 U.S.C. SEC. 3527(C) FOR AN IMPROPER PAYMENT OF A $243 CHECK PAYABLE TO MR. ROBERT M. WOOSLEY (FORMERLY E-1). FOR THE REASONS STATED BELOW, RELIEF IS GRANTED.
THE LOSS RESULTED WHEN THE PAYEE NEGOTIATED BOTH THE ORIGINAL AND A SUBSTITUTE CHECK. BOTH CHECKS WERE IN THE SAME AMOUNT. THE SUBSTITUTE CHECK WAS ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF THE PAYEE'S ALLEGATION THAT THE ORIGINAL CHECK HAD NOT BEEN RECEIVED AND A REQUEST FOR STOP PAYMENT HAD BEEN MADE. BOTH CHECKS WERE ISSUED BY THE ARMY UNDER AUTHORITY DELEGATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. 31 C.F.R. SEC. 245.8.
THIS OFFICE HAS AUTHORITY UNDER 31 U.S.C. SEC. 3527(C) TO RELIEVE A DISBURSING OFFICER FROM LIABILITY WHEN THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE DISBURSING OFFICER ACTED WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF DUE CARE AS ESTABLISHED BY APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF BAD FAITH ON THE PART OF THE DISBURSING OFFICER AND THAT A DILIGENT EFFORT WAS MADE TO COLLECT THE OVERPAYMENT. 62 COMP.GEN. 91 (1982).
IT APPEARS THAT THE REQUEST FOR STOP PAYMENT AND THE ISSUANCE OF A SUBSTITUTE CHECK IN THIS CASE WERE WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF DUE CARE AS ESTABLISHED BY ARMY REGULATIONS. SEE AR 37-103, PARAS. 4-161, 4-162 AND 4 -164. THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF BAD FAITH ON THE PARTS OF THE DISBURSING OFFICER AND IT APPEARS THAT ADEQUATE COLLECTION EFFORTS ARE NOW BEING MADE. ACCORDINGLY, WE GRANT RELIEF.
ALTHOUGH WE HAVE GRANTED RELIEF TO THE DISBURSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE, THE ARMY'S COLLECTION PROCEDURES TAKEN TOGETHER DO NOT APPEAR TO MEET THE DILIGENT CLAIMS COLLECTION REQUIREMENT OF 31 U.S.C. SEC. 3527(C). ONCE NOTICE OF THE LOSS WAS RECEIVED FROM TREASURY, IT TOOK ARMY OVER A YEAR TO REFER THE MATTER TO ITS COLLECTION DIVISION. AS WE INDICATED IN OUR LETTER TO YOU, B-220836, NOVEMBER 29, 1985, WE WILL NO LONGER GRANT RELIEF IF ARMY DELAYS MORE THAN 3 MONTHS IN PROCESSING THE DEBIT VOUCHER FOR COLLECTION BY THE ARMY'S COLLECTION DIVISION. HOWEVER, SINCE THIS CASE OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE TIME SPECIFIED IN OUR NOTICE TO YOU, WE WILL NOT DENY RELIEF HERE.