Memorandum of Disapproval of gill for the Relief of Graphic Arts Corporation.

I AM WITHHOLDING my approval from S. 2801, "For the relief of Graphic Arts Corporation of Ohio."

S. 2801 provides that the Secretary of the Treasury be authorized and directed to pay the sum of $84,359.19 to the Graphic Arts Corporation of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio, in full settlement of all claims of the said Graphic Arts Corporation against the United States. The bill would afford financial relief to the Graphic Arts Corporation for losses alleged to have been incurred in the performance of contract W-33-038 ac-2023 with the Army Air Corps during the period 1 January to 1 June 1946.

It is the contention of the Corporation that it was not supplied with the full quantity of work contemplated by the contract during the contract period, and that the contractor was assured by representatives of the Army Air Corps that it would be protected against losses in its operation under the contract. However, it appears that the contractor did accept extensions of time and other amendments to the original contract under various change orders and supplements pertinent thereto by executing said documents. It is reported that payments totaling $2,029,185.99 were made to the contractor.

Insofar as furnishing work under the contract was concerned, it appears that there was substantial compliance by the Government within the contract period as extended.

There is an established rule that a formal written contract entered into on the basis of negotiations between the parties merges all such previous negotiations and is presumed in law to express the final understanding of the parties. Contract W-33-038 ac-2023, as amended, was entered into on a fixed-price basis. It contained no provision for payment of additional compensation merely because the contractor might suffer a loss in performance. Hence, while the contractor's claim is based primarily upon the premise that certain representations were made by Government officers at the time the contract was negotiated, to the effect that the Government would protect the contractor from any loss in performance, the terms of the contract relating to the work to be performed and to the prices to be paid therefor were clear and unambiguous and such extraneous representations, even if established, legally could not be resorted to for the purpose of imposing an additional obligation on the Government. If the contractor felt that the formal contract and change orders and extensions, et cetera, did not afford it sufficient protection against losses in performance, it should not have signed the contract and accepted the extensions. Having done so, it seems clear that there is no liability for any further payment to the contractor, based upon the contract provisions.

Government audit of the contractor's records indicates that this corporation, although claiming a loss of $67,952.31 in the operation of the "Gadi" Division for the five months' period beginning 1 January 1946, actually sustained a loss of only $46,213.94 during that period. Of this amount, the audit report shows only $29,432.29 was applicable to Army Air Corps contract W-33-038 ac-2023. Despite this loss of $29,432.29 on this contract for the first five months of 1946, the contractor actually earned a profit of $34,202.86 on the entire contract. The Audit report also discloses that this contractor earned a profit of $392,399.15 on all other Government business for the years 1944, 1945 and the first five months of 1946. Its commercial business during the same period also operated at a substantial profit.

My approval of this bill would establish the undesirable principle of Government underwriting any wartime losses incurred by contractors providing goods and services to the Government, regardless of the fact that such contractors did not sustain a net loss. I am unable to perceive any circumstances which would warrant preferential treatment for the claimant to the detriment of other wartime contractors. I am satisfied that it is my duty to oppose this bill.

Although my examination of the record in this case does not lead me to believe that there is an equitable basis for this claim, it is possible that a court through judicial processes might be led to determine otherwise. In complex situations like this one, it is my opinion that judicial rather than legislative remedy should be sought. I would, therefore, be willing to give my approval to a jurisdictional bill waiving the bar of any statute of limitations against the claim.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER