General Porcelain Enameling & Mfg. Co. v. United States

172 Ct. Cl. 531, 1965 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 148, 1965 WL 8279
United States Court of Claims·Decided July 16, 1965·No. No. 323-57·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This case involves a contract which was terminated by the Contracting Officer, under the termination for default provision, for default. The contractor failed to appeal to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals and now claims that he was deterred from such an appeal as a result of threats and promises made by the Contracting Officer. The trial commissioner who heard the testimony has found that plaintiff’s allegations as to these threats and promises have not been proved. The court adopts the com[532] missioner’s findings and concludes that since plaintiff failed to exhaust the required administrative remedies (United States v. Blair, 321 U.S. 730 (1944); United States v. Holpuch, 328 U.S. 234 (1946) and Henry E. Wile Co. v. United States, 144 Ct. Cl. 394, 169 F. Supp. 249 (1959)), it cannot pursue its claim in this court. Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to recover and plaintiff’s petition is dismissed.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The court, having considered the evidence, the report of Trial Commissioner William E. Day and the briefs and argument'of counsel, makes findings of fact as follows:

1. The plaintiff, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois until its liquidation in 1953, had its principal office and factory at Chicago, Illinois.

2. The defendant, through the Department of the Army, Chicago Quartermaster Depot, in late October 1950, solicited bids for 2,400,000 sets of prefabricated (but unassembled) parts for 5-gallon gasoline cans.

3. The plaintiff, on November 3, 1950, submitted its bid for the furnishing of the full quantity of units as to which bids had been requested.

4. On December 18, 1950, the plaintiff was awarded Contract DA-11-009 QM-4606 (hereinafter referred to as Contract No. 4606) for 1,200,000 sets of prefabricated parts for 5-gallon gasoline cans, at a unit price of $0,714, or a total consideration of $856,800.

5. The delivery schedule in Contract No. 4606 provided as follows:

1951
16 Jan.-15 Feb. 16 Feb-15 Mar. 16 Mar.-15 Apr.
100,000 100,000 250,000
16 Apr.-15 May 16 May-15 June 16 June-15 July
250,000 250,000 250,000
This delivery schedule includes an extension of 15 calendar days in delivery period due to inability to forward notice of award within specified time limit.

[533]*5336. The schedule attached to the invitation to bid provided, at page 3, for deliveries as follows:1

Schedule of Deliveries : The supplies will be delivered at the rates indicated below:
1951
1-31 Tan. 1-28 Feb. 1-31 Mar. 1-30 Apr. 1-31 May 1-3Ó June Unit
100,000 100,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Set
The foregoing delivery requirements are predicated on the assumption that the Government will forward notice of award at least 60 calendar days prior to the first delivery date.. The Government will extend each delivery period in the delivery schedule set forth herein by the number of calendar days that this assumption is not realized.
(For the purpose oe the foregoing article, the first DELIVERY DATE SHALL BE DEEMED TO MEAN THE LAST DAY OF THE FIRST DELIVERY PERIOD).

7. The contract provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

Schedule
* * ❖ iji *
Inspection and Acceptance : Saving and reserving to the Government all rights under the Inspection provision, the procedure of inspection and acceptance at contractor’s plant will be followed.
Shipment must not be made prior to inspection by either the Chief, QM Inspection Division, Chicago Quartermaster Depot or his authorized representatives. Contractor must notify the Chief, QM Inspection Division, Chicago Quartermaster Depot, 1819 West Pershing Boad, Chicago 9, Illinois, when the items as called for herein are ready for inspection. Items should not be
PACKED IN SEALED CONTAINERS PRIOR TO INSPECTION. (If practicable 2 weeks advance notice is requested.) Should shipping point differ from that which is shown herein, contractor must so advise both the Contracting Officer and the Chief, QM Inspection Division, Chicago Quartermaster Depot.
* üc ü¡ *
[534] General Provisions
1.- Definitions
As used throughout this contract, the following térms shall have the meanings set forth below:
{a) The term “Secretary” means the Secretary, the Under Secretary, or any Assistant Secretary of the Department, and the head or any assistant head of the executive agency; and the term “his duly authorized representative” means any person or persons or board pother than the Contracting Officer) authorized to act for the Secretary.
(5) The term “Contracting Officer” means the person executing this contract on behalf of the Government, and any other officer or civilian employee who is a properly designated Contracting Officer; and the term includes, except as otherwise provided in this contract, the authorized representative of a Contracting Officer acting within the limits of Ms authority, (c) Except as otherwise provided in this contract, the term “subcontracts” includes purchase orders under this contract.
2. Changes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

General Porcelain Enameling & Mfg. Co. v. United States, 172 Ct. Cl. 531, 1965 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 148, 1965 WL 8279 (cc 1965).

172 Ct. Cl. 531 (General Porcelain Enameling & Mfg. Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related