B-309267, Relief of Accountable Officer at Veterans Affairs Medical Center, January 15, 2008

B-309267 Jan 15, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights This responds to your request of March 26, 2007, that we relieve Joan C. Jackson, former principal cashier at the Washington, D.C., Veterans Affairs Medical Center, for physical losses that occurred in February and March 2001 and January 2003. Letter from Edward J. Murray, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Finance, Department of Veterans Affairs, to Gary L. Kepplinger, General Counsel, GAO, Mar. 26, 2007. At issue here are two losses--one of $3,280 that occurred in 2001 and a second of $123 that occurred in 2003. We deny relief for the loss of $3,280 in patient funds receipts from 2001. In 1991, GAO delegated to agencies the authority to resolve losses of less than $3,000. B-243749, Oct. 22, 1991. Thus, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) may resolve administratively the loss of $123 in patient funds receipts from 2003 in a manner consistent with this decision and our prior decisions. We deny relief for the loss of $3,280 in patient funds receipts from 2001. In 1991, GAO delegated to agencies the authority to resolve losses of less than $3,000. B-243749, Oct. 22, 1991. Thus, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) may resolve administratively the loss of $123 in patient funds receipts from 2003 in a manner consistent with this decision and our prior decisions. View Decision B-236035, Nov 6, 1989, 89-2 CPD *** PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - Patent infringement - GAO review DIGEST: Protest relating to the government's rights to use drawings covered by a patented system will not be considered by General Accounting Office because questions of patent infringement are not encompassed by bid protest function but by statute are for resolution in the Claims Court. Diversified Technologies; Almon A. Johnson, Inc.: Diversified Technologies and Almon A. Johnson, Inc., protest the terms of invitation for bids (IFB) No. DTMA91-89-B-90026, issued by the Maritime Administration (MARAD) for the conversion of the SS CHESAPEAKE into an offshore petroleum discharge system (OPDS). Diversified and Johnson contend that the solicitation includes their proprietary drawings which are protected by Diversified's patent and request that the solicitation be canceled and all of the drawings retrieved or, in the alternative, that the drawings be used with the appropriate restrictive markings and all bidders be required to "use the protesters as the sole-source for the design effort on this procurement and all future procurements." /1/ We dismiss the protest. After MARAD issued the solicitation on May 4, 1989, Diversified and Johnson protested to MARAD on May 12 complaining that the solicitation included drawings of a launch and retrieval system (LARS) to be used in the conversion which was created by those firms and was covered by a patent application filed by Diversified. On June 8, the agency amended the solicitation to state that Diversified's LARS was developed under a former government contract and that the government has full license rights under any patent issued for that system. In its protest to this Office, filed on June 29, the protester argues that the solicitation includes drawings of the LARS to which Diversified owns the patent rights. According to the protester, it made LARS information available to MARAD only for work on another MARAD ship, the ST AMERICAN OSPREY, under a contract with American Foreign Shipping Co., Inc. (AFS). The protester argues that information given to AFS and MARAD under the previous contract included restrictive markings which MARAD is now ignoring. In this regard, the protester states that the contract with AFS was a private agreement, not a government contract. Thus, it maintains that MARAD is violating the government's policy of honoring the rights of private parties to data which the government has not purchased and that the solicitation invites offerors to infringe Diversified's patent rights by using the proprietary information. In response to the protest, MARAD argues that the LARS was developed under the contract between Diversified and Johnson and MARAD's agent, AFS. MARAD points out that Diversified's contract with AFS stated that it was "between the U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, American Foreign Shipping Co., Inc., Government Agent ... and Diversified Technologies/Almon A. Johnson, Inc." Thus, MARAD argues since it was clear that the earlier contract was with the government and that the LARS was developed under the contract, the government acquired full license rights to the LARS which includes the use of the drawings. The record shows that on November 21, 1988, Diversified applied for, and on September 12, 1989, received final approval of its patent on the LARS.