Document: 384 U.S. 424 86 S.Ct. 1539 16 L.Ed.2d 662 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.ANTHONY GRACE & SONS, INC. No. 439. Argued March 23, 1966. Decided June 6, Louis F. Claiborne, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. David Fromson, Garden City, N.Y., respondent. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of Court. 1 In United States v. Carlo Bianchi Co., 373 709, 83 1409, 10 652, we held that, aside from questions fraud, a reviewing courts is limited to administrative record made below in determining finality be given departmental decisions and findings by Board Contract Appeals pursuant standard government disputes clause. present case are called upon decide whether court or should make original on an issue which did not resolve because it erroneously dismissed appeal before as untimely. 2 The question framed following facts. Department Air Force issued invitation bids construction military housing project at Topsham Station, Maine. included tentative minimum wage schedule contractor would have meet. It also advised that finally redetermined Secretary Labor more than 90 days prior commencement Federal Housing Commissioner then adjust contract price reflect any changes schedules.1 addition, successful bidder was required complete certain preparatory acts order close post $25,000 deposit ensure closing contract. Respondent, Anthony Grace Sons, Inc., low acceptable letter acceptability sent it. That reminded respondent failure within specified number sufficient justification warrant cancelling bid acceptability, retaining liquidated damages additional liability actual damages. A clause such decision final unless, 30 receipt decision, appealed Armed Services Contract. Appeals, whose conclusive unless fraudulent capricious arbitrary, so grossly erroneous necessarily imply bad faith, supported substantial evidence.2 After receiving subsequent schedules Labor, concluded work being placed higher categories provided specifications accompanied invitation. On basis this alleged deviation asked first raise price. These requests were refused notified unable until matter cleared up. ensuing exchange letters, contracting officer informed its canceled retained. Pursuant clause, out time without considering merits case. Respondent sued Court Claims recover resulting Government's wrongful cancellation. timely had erred reaching With Judges Davis Laramore dissenting, decided remand own trial commissioner, rather consider marits. Government us grant certiorari violation principles announced Wunderlich Act3 supra. We granted certiorari, 382 901, 234, 15 154, now reverse. 3 This anticipated Bianchi, supra, where considered what do when defective, inadequate reveals commission prejudicial error. Two suggestions given: 4 'First, there undoubtedly situations warranted, record, granting judgment need further action. Second, believed existing course, but determination could sustained under standards laid down Congress, see no reason why stay proceedings pending some action agency involved. Cf. Pennsylvania R. Co. States, 363 202, 80 1131, 1165. Such certainly justified department failed adequate provision subjected judicial scrutiny, clearly part legislative purpose achieve uniformity respect.' 717—718, 1415, 652. 5 policy reflected language, requires utilization procedures contractually bargained intended H.R.Rep.No.1380, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. (1954), U.S.Code Congressional Administrative News 1954, p. 2191; 715—718, 1413—1415; has been consistently long line See Wunderlich, 342 98, 72 96 L.Ed. 113; Moorman, 338 457, 70 288, 94 256; Joseph A. Holpuch 328 66 1000, 1192; Blair, 321 730, 64 820, 88 1039; Callahan Walker Construction 317 56, 63 113, 87 49; Kihlberg 97 398, 24 1106. Pre-eminently, grounded respect parties' rights provide their remedies. Utah Mining 383 394, 1545; 461—462, 290—291. But, beyond belief resort expeditious way settle disputes, conducive speed economy.4 735, 822. facilitate department's supervisory control over officers perhaps enhance possibility harmonious agreement. Ibid. Further, reliance few expert agencies records initially pass claims properly presented them will lead greater important business fairly interpreting contracts. 6 There can doubt dispute here cancel respondent's commitments retain one parties heard process. Barring compelling disregard provision, contractual agreement even stage litigation. 7 true said several occasions exhaust procedure if shown clear evidence 'inadequate unavailable.' 240, 1003; 736—737, 823. may officer, H. B. Zachry 344 F.2d 352, 170 Ct.Cl. 115, Southeastern Oil Florida, Inc. 115 F.Supp. 198, 127 480, unwillingness act comply with supplier concluding those thereby become 'unavailable.' Similarly, lack authority either appeals board apparent justifiably conclude relief 'unavailable.'5 But these circumstances exceptions rule inadequacy unavailability must appear party permitted circumvent his When fails reach disposes another ground—here untimeliness later rejects, sound presume promptly deal undecided chance so.6 8 attempted justify bypassing felt resolved speedily Trial passed merits. dissenting judges factual accuracy premises.7 Even premises sound, however, argument falls substantially short establishing route unavailable.8 9 Nor persuasive say remedy considers itself review determinations corresponding adjustments Commissioner. necessity validity speculative best. involved commitments, itemizing raises concerning propriety press forward regardless outstanding dispute. And this, turn, analysis accompanying specifications, custom usage trade, conduct both Obviously issues task Board, Court.9 Another advanced lacks refuse again. At fear hypothetical one. enough later, ever materializes, authorized record. regard noted suggested dealing problem: 11 'And particular substantive procedural defect inadequacy, sanction always available Court.' 718, 1415. 12 Interstate Commerce Comm. Atlantic Coast Line 576, 601, 1015.10 13 Reversed. Davis-Becon Act, 46 Stat. 1494, amended, 40 U.S.C. § 276a (1964 ed.). No jurisdiction determinations. Len Associates, 1962 B.C.A. 3498, 17,854 (ASBCA). indicated set Scretary review. Binghamton 347 171, 177, 74 438, 441, 98 594. varies somewhat reads follows: 'Failure perform all obligations prescribed just cause undertaken you connection recovery your security sum $25,000, together Department, itemized determined Contracting Officer, reduced writing furnished mail otherwise. shall thereof, head duly representative, shall, competent evidence, conclusive. paragraph afforded opportunity offer support appeal.' 68 81, 41 §§ 321—322, provides: 'That entered into relating conclusiveness representative involving arising contract, pleaded suit filed limiting cases fraud official alleged: Provided, same (sic) arbitrary evidence. 'SEC. 2. contain making law official, board.' Hearing Subcommittee Special Investigations House Committee H.R.Res. 67, Inquiry Into Administration Operation 85th Sess., 794—795 (1958). supra; C. J. Langenfelder Son, 341 600, 169 465. reason, regard, distinguish between theories damages, found liability. If, disposition appeal, becomes important, first. announce disapproves Stein Bros. Mfg. 337 861, 162 802, WPC Enterprises, 323 874, 163 1, retained after reversed Board's finding Brief Government, 20, n. 14, indicates actually take longer dispose boards. To extent worried about duplicity evidentiary hearings, 717, 1414, partially answered Morrison-Knudsen 345 833, 757, day. award full makes matters underlying issue, findings, whatever purposes, Board. hold, claim it, they otherwise satisfy relitigated Hence, only hearing. observed, 'The mutual interpretation event taken thereunder 'disputes paragraph' Letter Acceptability confers cancellation withholding security, itemization damages.' Both observed 'unresolved fact' 808, 810, 688, 691. analogy today other areas law. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Chenery Corp., 318 80, 454, 626, Connecticut Light Power Comm., 324 515, 65 749, 89 1150, ordered remanded consideration curing inadequacies below. generally, Davis, Law Treatise, 16.01, 20.06 general applies area labor arbitration. Steelworkers America Enterprise Wheel Car 593, 1358, 1424, arbitrator determine amount back pay reinstated employees entitled resolution issue. arbitrator's 'which for.' Much thing here, although course conclusions International Association Machinists Crown Cork Seal Cir., 300 127.

Category: 8