About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

B-174227 1 (1972-01-18)

handle is hein.gao/gaobablch0001 and id is 1 raw text is: <7 RESTMCTED - M~et to b. ien d Wu the en r271_ by the Ca es of congrewslonal Reltns, P COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED S WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548 RELEASED B-174227 J 1 8 1972 Sr Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to your letter of September 24, 1971, and in accordance with arrangements made with your Committee's office, we have investi- gated the statements made by Mr. VeLoyce G. Winslow, an employee of the Defense Contract Audit Agenc',, in his letter of September 20, 1971. We interviewed Mr. Winslow, and.'our investigation included an examination of pertinent records and discussions with appropriate Defense Contract 4 Audit Agency officials at the regional and Washington levels. According to Mr. Winslow two Defense Contract Audit Agency offices issued audit reports on the same def nt-racfor. h'rr t e bame location under id-fh1-6tci$rcumstances with - nominal time span between the reports. He said that Audit Report No. 702-07-0-0125 did not question the costs incurred by the contractor in storing Air Force-owned property but that Audit Report No. 709-04-0-0119 questioned all costs claimed for the storage of Army-owned property. The circumstances under which costs were claimed by the contractor for storage of Government-owned property, discussed in the two reports, were not identical. Report No. 702-07-0-0125, dated September 26, 1969, was on a claim for costs under contract termination procedures. Report No. 709-04-0-0119, dated March 27, 1970, was on a claim for costs under a completed contract. We believe that the position taken in each report was appropriate in the circumstances. We found no evidence to substan- tiate Mr. Winslow's statement that the Defense Contract Audit Agency had condoned and encouraged violations of law. Mr. Winslow said that, in a dispute between the contractor and the Government, his supervisor had insisted that a contractor's claim be increased by over $250,000 because of his interpretation that the con- tractor was entitled to the profit on the sale of an asset at termina- tion of a complex lease. We found no evidence to substantiate this statement. Mr. Winslow accused his supervisor of falsifying the time record of an employee under Mr. Winslow's supervision by showing that the ~~a4OF OC

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most