About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline



B-187966 1 (1977-01-31)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadejh0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 





                                                      -     krueu Charkis
 0        .                           8*                         Proc. I
 ur*-f                                      THE  COMPTROLLER ENRMAL
o               DECISION ..                      THE UNI30 STATE
                                          4 WASHINGTON. D          . 0R 48



                FILE:  B-187964                    DATE:  Janury  331 .197T

                MATTER   OF;    Fulton Shipyard


                DIGEST:


                    1.  In absence of escalation clause in cortract,
                        no basis iaisteto cospensate contractor for
                        abnormal Intation of material costs because
                        valid contraes mist be enforced as written.

                    2.  Contractor req'uesting payment for increased
                        costs due to energy crisis and unexpected
                        escalation of materikl costs who has been
                        denied extraortinary contractual relief under
                        Public Law 94-190 is notentitled to review
                        of claim by GM sincs this Office does not
                        have jurisdiction to consider such a claim.



                    This matter concarn' a.claim for price adjustment by the Fulton
               Shipyard (Pulton) under contract No. DACWl2-74-C-0104 with the
               Department of the Army (Army), Corps of Eninees.

                    Fulton states that' tiie contract for the design and fabrication
               of a 225-ton'fidoor electi ically operated traveling crane and lift-
               ing.beam was entered into!on February 22, l974, with contraet coa-
               petition scheduled for on or before Yebrtpry 17, 1975. Fuiton contends
               tha, the cessation of price controls in April 1974 and the unavail-
               ability of steel in certain sizes and quantities, coupled wit' the
               energy crisis and unexpected eacalation of material costs, have caused
               the contract to be perforued at a loam. Accordingly, it seeks a price
               adjustment in the amount cof $124,800, representing the additional
               costs incurred.

                    While we recognise that Fulton might vall have suffered a
               financial hardship s a result of rising costs, the courts have held
               that valid contracts are tole enforced and performed as written, and
               the fact that unfoisseen d&ifulties  are encountered which hinger or
               make performance more burdensome or less profitable, or even occasion
               a pecuniary loss, will neither excuse a party from performance of an
               absolute and unqualified undertaking to do a thing that is possible


I