Bionetics Corporation--Entitlement to Costs

B-270323.3 Published: Aug 16, 1996. Publicly Released: Aug 16, 1996. Jump To HIGHLIGHTS VIEW DECISION Highlights A firm requested reimbursement for its protests costs pursuant to an Air Force contract award for test equipment maintenance and calibration services, contending that the: (1) Air Force's evaluation scheme was flawed; and (2) Air Force unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to its protest. GAO held that the Air Force: (1) properly amended the solicitation after determining that the original evaluation scheme was flawed; and (2) did not unduly delay taking action in response to the protester's protest. Accordingly, the request for reimbursement was denied. View Decision B-123934, AUGUST 31, 1955, 35 COMP. GEN. 121 OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES - UNJUSTIFIED SUSPENSION OR REMOVAL - COMPENSATION; LONGEVITY TEP-INCREASES; LEAVE FORFEITURES COMPENSATION FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN A SUSPENSION FROM DUTY UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 26, 1950, AND SUBSEQUENT REINSTATEMENT IS LIMITED TO THE RATE AN EMPLOYEE WAS RECEIVING ON THE DATE OF SUSPENSION AND MAY NOT INCLUDE A LONGEVITY STEP-INCREASE WHICH THE EMPLOYEE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED BUT FOR THE SUSPENSION. AN EMPLOYEE WHO, AFTER COMPLETION OF MORE THAN TEN YEARS OF SERVICE IN GRADE GS-3, WAS PROMOTED TO GRADE GS-4 AND LATER DEMOTED TO GRADE GS 3 AFTER HAVING REACHED THE MAXIMUM STEP IN GRADE GS-4, MAY NOT COUNT THE SERVICE IN GRADE GS-3 PRIOR TO PROMOTION TOWARD THE THREE-YEAR CONTINUOUS SERVICE PERIOD REQUIRED BY SECTION 102 OF THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1954, FOR A LONGEVITY PAY INCREASE, AND THE NEW THREE-YEAR WAITING PERIOD SHOULD BE COMPUTED FROM THE DATE THE EMPLOYEE REACHED THE MAXIMUM STEP IN GRADE GS-4. ALTHOUGH AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS RESTORED TO DUTY AFTER SUSPENSION UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 26, 1950, IS ENTITLED TO BE CREDITED WITH ANNUAL AND SICK LEAVE FOR THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION, THE LEAVE TO BE CREDITED IS SUBJECT TO THE MAXIMUM ACCUMULATION LIMITATION OF THE ANNUAL AND SICK LEAVE ACT OF 1951 AND, THEREFORE, SUCH AN EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED TO FORFEIT ANNUAL LEAVE EARNED DURING THE INVOLVED LEAVE YEAR WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF THE LIMITATION PROVIDED IN THE LEAVE ACT. TO C. P. BATES, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AUGUST 31, 1955: YOUR LETTER OF MAY 3, 1955, REQUESTS OUR DECISION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE PAYMENT OF AN ENCLOSED VOUCHER FOR LONGEVITY PAY FOR MRS. S, COVERING THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 12, 1954, THROUGH APRIL 9, 1955. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT MRS. S RECEIVED AN APPOINTMENT AS A CAF-3 EFFECTIVE JANUARY 10, 1941, AND THAT SHE REACHED THE TOP OF GRADE GS-3 ON MAY 29, 1949. SHE WAS PROMOTED TO THE SIXTH STEP OF GRADE GS-4 ON APRIL 1, 1951, AND SHE REACHED THE TOP OF GRADE GS-4 ON MARCH 30, 1952. ON MAY 23, 1954, SHE WAS DEMOTED TO THE TOP OF GRADE GS-3. THE EMPLOYEE WAS SUSPENDED FROM DUTY AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON AUGUST 9, 1954, AND WAS RESTORED TO DUTY EFFECTIVE APRIL 4, 1955, WITH PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION AUTHORIZED FOR THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION PURSUANT TO PUBLIC LAW 733, APPROVED AUGUST 26, 1950, 64 STAT. 476, 5 U.S.C. 22-1. THE SUBMITTED PAYROLL PROPOSES PAYMENT FROM SEPTEMBER 12, 1954, THROUGH APRIL 9, 1955, FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN $3,430, THE TOP OF GRADE GS-3, AND $3,510, THE FIRST LONGEVITY STEP INCREASE OF THAT GRADE. THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY YOU RELATE PRINCIPALLY TO (1) MAY THE PAYROLL BE CERTIFIED AND PAID, (2) THE COMPUTATION OF THE EMPLOYEE'S SERVICE FOR LONGEVITY STEP INCREASES, AND (3) THE PROPER AMOUNT OF LEAVE THAT MAY BE CREDITED TO HER. THAT ACT OF AUGUST 26, 1950, UNDER WHICH THE COMPENSATION FOR THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION WAS AUTHORIZED, PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT ANY PERSON WHOSE EMPLOYMENT IS SO SUSPENDED OR TERMINATED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THIS ACT MAY, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE AGENCY HEAD CONCERNED, BE REINSTATED OR RESTORED TO DUTY, AND IF SO REINSTATED OR RESTORED SHALL BE ALLOWED COMPENSATION FOR ALL OR ANY PART OF THE PERIOD OF SUCH SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT SUCH PERSON WOULD NORMALLY HAVE EARNED DURING THE PERIOD OF SUCH SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION, AT THE RATE HE WAS RECEIVING ON THE DATE OF SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION, AS APPROPRIATE, AND THE INTERIM NET EARNINGS OF SUCH PERSON. ( ITALICS SUPPLIED.) CONCERNING YOUR STATEMENT THAT THE TWO ITALICIZED PORTIONS OF THE STATUTE APPEAR TO BE CONTRADICTORY, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT THE ENTIRE PROVISION MUST BE CONSTRUED AS A WHOLE. THE VARIOUS PHRASES AND CLAUSES MAY NOT BE SEPARATED AND CONSTRUED SEPARATELY. WHEN THE TWO ITALICIZED PROVISIONS ARE CONSIDERED TOGETHER IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AMOUNT THE EMPLOYEE WOULD NORMALLY HAVE EARNED DURING THE PERIOD OF HER SUSPENSION IS LIMITED TO THE RATE SHE WAS RECEIVING ON THE DATE OF HER SUSPENSION.