Appeal of
ROGER DEAN BARRETT
Under Contract No. HCR 72666
PSBCA No. 2490
APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANT
Roger Dean Barrett
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT
Patrice R. Dickey, Esq.
OPINION OF THE BOARD ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Appellant
(Roger Dean Barrett) requests reconsideration of the Board's decision dated
In its decision upholding the contract termination, the Board concluded that Appellant had not complied with the Contracting Officer's instructions to deliver a substantial amount of accumulated bulk business mail to addresses on his route. The Board also concluded that Appellant had not shown his failure to deliver all classes of mail was excusable.
In his motion, Appellant asserts he did not "refuse to work back-logged Bulk Business Mail," but had stated he "would work the mail when they gave me enough hours to do so." He appears to be arguing that he disagreed with the Contracting Officer about his schedule hours and additional compensation and that this disagreement served as an excuse for his non-delivery of the bulk business mail.
Appellant
had adequate warning of the consequences of his failure to deliver the
accumulated bulk business mail. His
remedy under the contract if he disagreed with the Contracting Officer's
instructions was to file a claim under the Claims and Disputes clause of the
contract and to request a Contracting Officer's decision, while performing the
work under protest. He was not entitled
under the contract to disregard the instructions and perform only a portion of
his contract duties nor was his disagreement about hours and compensation an
excuse for his failure to perform the contract fully. Irving Stumer, PSBCA No. 1256
(February 6, 1985), reaffirmed on recon.
(
In view of the above conclusion, other minor assertions in Appellant's motion regarding the authority or actions of several postal employees are irrelevant and serve as no basis for reopening the factual record in this case.
If Appellant believes he is entitled to additional compensation for work performed prior to the termination of the contract, he may file a claim detailing the amount and basis for his claim with the Contracting Officer and request a decision on such a claim. The only matter that this Board had jurisdiction to consider, as indicated in the prior decision, is Appellant's appeal from the default termination of his contract.
Accordingly, on reconsideration, the Board's prior decision is reaffirmed.
Joan B. Thompson
Administrative Judge
Board Member
I concur
James A. Cohen
Administrative Judge
Chairman
I concur
James D. Finn, Jr.
Administrative Judge
ice Chairman