![]() ![]() Had he been provided notice, Appellant argues that he would have arranged for the contractor he had engaged to replace the roof on that post office to first perform emergency repairs. By letter dated August 27, 1996, Appellant filed a timely appeal of the contracting officer’s decision (AF B21).Īppellant argues in this appeal that he was not notified of the need for emergency repairs of the roof of the Highland Hills Post Office. By final decision dated July 15, 1996, the contracting officer denied Appellant’s claim, finding that Appellant had received sufficient notice to have allowed him to carry out the repairs prior to the Postal Service having had to accomplish them (AF B20).ġ4. Appellant claimed that he should have been notified prior to Respondent undertaking the repairs. By letter dated July 12, 1996, Appellant filed a claim for return of the $900.00 deducted from the June rent payment, plus $200.00 in unspecified administrative costs. On June 11, 1996, Appellant was notified that $900.00 had been deducted from the June rent on the Highland Hills Post Office to cover the cost of the emergency roof repair (AF B18).ġ2. These emergency repairs were necessary, reasonable and well done and the amount charged appropriate for the work accomplished (Declaration of Robert Belden).ġ1. On March 27, 1996, Respondent had emergency repairs made to the roof of the Highland Hills Post Office at a cost of $900.00 (AF B16, D1, D2). (Declaration of Arthur Jimenez Declaration of Robert Belden).ġ0. Nevertheless, as of March 27, 1996, no roof repair or replacement work had been accomplished. In these conversations, Appellant repeatedly assured Respondent that he would soon award a contract to have the post office roof replaced. In addition to the letters and facsimiles sent to Appellant, the contracting officer had numerous telephone conversations with Appellant during this same time period. ![]() Similar warnings were issued to Appellant by facsimile on March 7, and by letter on Ma(AF B9, B10).ĩ. In two facsimiles, sent on March 6, 1996, the contracting officer again demanded that, unless Appellant acted immediately to repair the roof, Respondent would make its own arrangements to have the roof repaired to correct a significant safety hazard (AF B5, B6). Appellant was advised that Respondent’s cost to repair the roof, plus administrative costs, would be charged to Appellant and deducted from rental payments owed. Appellant was requested to repair the roof that same day and warned that if it did not do so, Respondent would have no choice but to make its own arrangements to have the roof repaired to insure the safety of its customers and employees. By letter dated March 5, 1996, the contracting officer again informed Appellant that the roof continued to leak, causing wet and slippery floors which constituted a significant safety hazard for the customers and employees of the post office. On March 1, 1996, Appellant notified Respondent’s contracting officer that a roofing contractor would send someone to the post office “as soon as possible” and to advise him if no one showed up. Appellant was requested to immediately arrange for roof repairs to take place no later than the following day. By letter dated February 29, 1996, Respondent’s contracting officer notified Appellant that the roof on the Highland Hills Post Office was leaking and that the situation was urgent. (Declarations of Charles Juarez, Robert Belden, Arthur Jimenez, Kathy Davis AF B2).ĥ. By February 1996, the roof leaked in six different locations whenever it rained. The roof on the Highland Hills Post Office is approximately 37 years old. In accordance with Paragraph (c)(2) of the Maintenance Rider to the lease, the lessor is responsible for all structural repairs to the demised premises, including all parts of the roof system (AF A1).Ĥ. Appellant purchased the property in 1992 (AF A3 Declaration of Arthur Jimenez).ģ. The lease contained two five-year options, which have been exercised. Respondent leased the Highland Hills Post Office, San Antonio, Texas from Appellant’s predecessor-in-interest for an initial term beginning on Jand ending June 30, 1991. ![]() Only entitlement is at issue in this appeal.ġ. The parties have elected to submit their cases on the record in accordance with 39 C.F.R. Appellant, Nationwide Postal Management, has appealed the decision of the contracting officer denying its claim for $1,100 for alleged improper deductions from rent owed by Respondent, United States Postal Service, to Appellant. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |