Simbraw, Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 February 1961 |
| Docket Number | B-144353 |
| Court | Comptroller General of the United States |
| Parties | SIMBRAW, INC. |
Further reference is made to your letter of October 24, 1960, and enclosures, relative to contract dealings with the public buildings service, general services administration. There have been received also your four letters of January 25 1961, with their enclosures. Your letters and their enclosures relate to 46 projects performed during the past four years by Simbraw, Inc., and savoye construction company Inc. (corporations under the same management), both of which corporations you state have been forced to discontinue business because of improper retention of funds and other improper actions by the public buildings service. In your letter of October 24, 1960, you state that you especially want to recover your invested capital of $27, 981.61 which has been withheld over a year; in one of the letters of January 25, 1961, you list alleged losses in the amount of $85, 991.14; and in another letter of January 25, 1961, you list alleged losses in the amount of $117, 106.27.
In a report received from the administrator, general services administration, it is stated that representatives of that agency had conferred with you repeatedly in efforts to resolve your problems, which problems resulted from your failure to follow the specifications and/or drawings and your refusal to accept their interpretations of contracts in instances where questions have arisen. It is stated further that you have been instructed as to your right to appeal the decisions of the contracting officer but that you have refused to appeal in the manner prescribed by the contracts.
The correspondence and other papers included in the file indicate that the contentions of general services administration in that respect are correct. There is not perceived any sound basis for your complaint that some officials or employees of the contracting agency serve in dual capacities--- for example, as contracting officer and as head of a division. The contracts specifically authorize the contractor to appeal to the head of the department or agency from the contracting officer's decisions, thus protecting the contractor against improper or prejudicial decisions by any subordinate personnel.
It is not primarily a function of our office to resolve disputed questions of fact. Upon disputed questions of fact between Administrative Officers of the government and a claimant or other person dealing with the government, the long-established rule of the accounting officers is to accept the statements of fact furnished by the Administrative Officers, in the absence of evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of the correctness thereof. 16 Comp.Gen. 325; Id. 410.
There is noted your contention that in some instances your corporations were improperly refused awards of contracts for the stated reason that they were not responsible bidders. It is well established, both by decisions of the courts and our office, that an administrative determination of the responsibility of a prospective contractor is conclusive unless it is shown that such determination was not based on substantial evidence demonstrating the bidder's lack of responsibility. See 38 l.R.A. (NS) 653; wilson v. City of new castle, 152 A. 102, 103; sanderlin v. Luken, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial