Appeal of
RODNEY MCCOY
Under Contract No. HCR 71262
PSBCA Nos. 2990, 3046
OPINION OF THE BOARD
This appeal is taken from a Contracting Officer's decision terminating Appellant's highway transportation contract for default. At the request of the parties a hearing was held.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Contract NO. HCR 71262 for highway
transportation services between Winnsboro and Matthew's Corner,
2. The contract contained the usual "Claims and Disputes" clause in its General Provisions (PS Form 7407, Oct. 1986). Also included in the General Provisions was a "Termination by the Postal Service for Default" clause which provided in part:
*(a) The Contracting Officer may terminate this contract for default:
(1) for Contractor's failure to perform service according to the terms of the contract." (AF-C)
3. Sometime prior to March 16, 1991,
Appellant spoke with Respondent's transportation specialist, advising the
transportation specialist that Appellant had a personal problem and wanted to
have the contract transferred to his relief driver, Linda Haywood. Appellant was going into the hospital on
March 20 for a month and thus wanted Ms. Haywood to perform the contract and be
paid directly by Respondent (Transcript (Tr.) 7-9; AF-G). Ms. Haywood wanted direct payment from
Respondent since payment to Appellant included a deduction for child support and
it would not have been profitable for her to perform the contract with that
payment deduction (AF-E 4, 5). The
transportation specialist advised Appellant that payment could not be made
directly to Ms. Haywood and that Appellant should speak with the Contracting
Officer at a Star Route Association meeting which Appellant planned to attend in
4. Appellant attended the meeting in
5. As a result of the conversations with
Appellant pertaining to Appellant's inability to continue to perform the
contract the Contracting Officer advised the transportation specialist to
terminate Appellant's contract (Tr. 5, 27). On the afternoon of
6. A letter of contract termination in the
form of a final decision was issued by the Contracting Officer on
DECISION
Appellant contends that the
termination action was improper as Appellant never failed to perform service
under the contract - the reason given by the Contracting Officer as the basis
for termination, (clause 16(a)(1) of the Contract's General Provisions). Appellant alleges that he was prevented
from performing the contract when on
Appellant's arguments are without
merit. At least twice at the
meeting in
At no time subsequent to the
Finally, in his final decision letter the
Contracting Officer properly relied on paragraph 16(a)(1) of the Contract's
General Provisions as the basis for the termination. Appellant's statement that he could not
perform the contract after March 20 constituted a "failure to perform service"
pursuant to paragraph 16(a)(1). The
default action was properly taken.
The appeals are denied.
James D. Finn, Jr.
Administrative Judge
Vice Chairman
I concur
James A. Cohen
Administrative Judge
Chairman
I concur
David I. Brochstein
Administrative Judge
Board Member
[1] Two
notices of appeal were filed with the Board. Thus the appeal was docketed twice. Appellant objected to the dismissal of
either of the appeals. Therefore,
they were consolidated for purposes of processing.