contractgeek Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 I'm trying to locate the examples of a CO being held responsible for improper actions. I recall one was in the exercise of an option, I think for fuels, where the current price wasnt evaluated and the government paid a much higher price that current market price. The CO was found negligent and resigned, but, if I recall correctly, his civil service retirement was garnished as payment. Does anyone recall more details or have a link to that case? CG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napolik Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 I'm trying to locate the examples of a CO being held responsible for improper actions. I recall one was in the exercise of an option, I think for fuels, where the current price wasnt evaluated and the government paid a much higher price that current market price. The CO was found negligent and resigned, but, if I recall correctly, his civil service retirement was garnished as payment. Does anyone recall more details or have a link to that case?CG http://archive.gao.gov/legald426p4/156888.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 But see Department of Defense--Authority to Impose Pecuniary Liability by Regulation, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-280764, May 4, 2000: Over the years our Office has taken the position in a number of different contexts that agencies may not hold employees liable for losses caused the government as a result of errors in judgment or neglect of duty in the absence of administrative regulations. See, e.g., 52 Comp. Gen. 964, 967 (1973); B-266245, Oct. 24, 1996; B-194782, Aug. 13, 1979. On one occasion, we concluded that an agency solely by regulation may establish pecuniary liability for employees supervising a certifying and disbursing process. 72 Comp. Gen. 49 (1992). This conclusion was repeated in passing or in dicta in some other decisions. See e.g., B-241856, Sept. 23, 1992. Regardless of the 1992 decision, in light of the Supreme Court decisions discussed above, we believe that an agency may impose pecuniary liability only with a statutory basis. Accordingly, we will no longer accept our earlier caselaw in this regard as precedent and any decision inconsistent herewith is overruled. However, according to Westlaw, the John Martino decision has not been overruled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
contractgeek Posted July 13, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2010 Thank you! That is exactly the one I was thinking about. Please share any other examples. I have even less recall of the one other case I used to know about other than it was prior to this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts