BNUMBER:  B-271163
DATE:  May 22, 1996
TITLE:  Combination Industries, Inc.

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Combination Industries, Inc.

File:     B-271163

Date:May 22, 1996

DIGEST

A claim against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for 
operating an advisory radio system at an airport during a 4-month 
period before the FAA entered into an agreement with the claimant to 
provide the service, may be paid on a quantum meruit/quantum valebant 
basis, since the FAA had a statutory duty to operate such a system at 
the airport, and the airport, which had been paying the claimant for 
providing the service previously, had terminated its agreement to do 
so.

DECISION

Robert Doyle on behalf of Combination Industries, Inc., requests 
payment of $6,044.40, from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
for operating the Unicom advisory radio system at the Marquette County 
Airport, Michigan, for the period January-April 1995.  The claim may 
be paid.

BACKGROUND

Combination had two separate contracts for services at the Airport 
when the events leading to its claim arose, one with the FAA to 
provide auxiliary weather observation services at the Airport, and one 
with the Marquette County Airport to provide Unicom services.  On 
February 12, 1994, Public Law 103-211, section 409, was enacted, which 
required FAA to establish and operate an Auxiliary Flight Service 
Station (AFSS) at the Marquette County Airport no later than September 
1, 1994.  FAA subsequently decided that it could meet its statutory 
obligation by including the Unicom services being provided by 
Combination under its contract with the Airport into its existing 
contract with that firm for auxiliary weather observation services.

The facts concerning the effective date of the FAA's agreement to take 
over the cost of providing Unicom services at the Airport are 
disputed.  According to the Airport, an agreement was reached late in 
1994 between the FAA and the Airport for the FAA to take over the cost 
of these services starting January 1, 1995. However, for various 
reasons the FAA did not formally incorporate the change into its 
contract until May 1, 1995.  Combination has submitted a letter dated 
June 27, 1995, received from the Marquette County Airport, responding 
to its request for payment for the first 4 months of 1995.  The letter 
advises Combination, confirming for the first time in writing the 
content of previous telephone conversations, that it had terminated 
its obligation to pay for operating the Unicom system on January 1, 
1995, and states that it did so because it understood that the FAA had 
assumed responsibility for payment as of that date.

The FAA, for its part, denies that any of its officials were 
authorized to agree to assume the cost of Unicom services at the 
Airport any earlier than May 1, 1995.  FAA notes in this regard that 
the contract between the Airport and Combination was not formally 
terminated until Combination received the June 27 letter from the 
Airport.

OPINION

Clearly, Combination had no contract to provide Unicom services to the 
FAA before May 1, 1995.  Nonetheless, under the doctrines of quantum 
meruit and quantum valebant, the government is liable for the value of 
what it has received from a contractor even in the absence of a 
binding contract.  Prestex Inc. v. United States, 320 F.2d 367, 373 
(Ct. Cl. 1963); Mohawk Data Science Corporation, 69 Comp. Gen. 13 
(1989).  The criteria for payment under these doctrines consist of the 
following four elements.  First, the goods or services for which 
payment is sought would have been a permissible procurement had the 
proper procedures been followed.  Second, the government must have 
received and accepted a benefit.  Third, the claimant must have acted 
in good faith.  Fourth, the amount to be paid must not exceed the 
reasonable value of the benefit received.  69 Comp. Gen. at 14-15.

The third and fourth elements of a quantum meruit and quantum valebant 
claim are clearly met here.  There is no question but that Combination 
performed its services in good faith.  The FAA does not suggest 
otherwise.  As to the value of its services, when Combination's 
services were incorporated into the FAA contract on May 1, Combination 
received an additional amount of $2,400.00 per month; its claim for 
the preceding 4 months is based on a figure of only $1,500.00 per 
month, the same amount that it was receiving under its contract with 
the Airport.  Thus, the amount claimed does not exceed the reasonable 
value of the services provided during the 4 months in question.

The FAA argues, however, that the first and second elements of a 
quantum meruit and quantum valebant claim are missing.  It argues that 
because Combination was providing its services prior to May 1 under a 
contract with the Airport, the FAA has no obligation to pay for these 
services, and it would not have been proper for the FAA to have 
entered into a contract for the same services.

We conclude that the first and second elements of a quantum meruit and 
quantum valebant claim are established  in the record.   The critical 
fact is that under Pub. L. No. 103-211, the FAA had a statutory duty 
to establish and operate an AFSS system at the Airport by September 1, 
1994, and it decided to do so by arranging for the Unicom services at 
the Airport as provided by Combination.  The procurement of the 
services provided by Combination was fully consistent with the 
statutory mandate and thus ultimately authorized by the mandate.  
Similarly, the second element is met:  Combination's provision of the 
services made it possible for the FAA to bring itself into compliance 
with the mandate, constituting a clear benefit to the FAA.  
 
Although the FAA states that it cannot find any evidence to show that 
it had agreed to take over funding responsibility for Unicom services 
before May 1, the lack of such evidence does not defeat Combination's 
claim.  The FAA was authorized to assume the cost of providing these 
services, regardless of whether the Airport had properly terminated 
its existing contract with Combination, in order to ensure that an 
AFSS system was in operation at the Airport.

Apparently, the cognizant contracting officials at the FAA were 
unaware at that time that the Airport had withdrawn its own funding of 
Combination's services effective January 1, 1995, since Combination 
had continued its performance in the belief that it would receive 
payment from either the Airport or the FAA.  Had these contracting 
officials known beforehand that the Airport intended to terminate its 
funding on January 1, the FAA could have entered into a valid contract 
for these services starting on that date.  Moreover, while the FAA did 
not enter into a contractual agreement with Combination until May 1, 
Combination's performance of these services during the prior 4 months 
benefited the FAA because it ensured the FAA's compliance with the 
statutory mandate.  

Accordingly, all the elements of a quantum meruit and quantum valebant 
claim are met.  Combination may be paid the amount of $6,044.40, as 
claimed.[1]

/s/Lowell Dodge
for Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel

1. The FAA also objected to payment of the claim on the basis that it 
was presented by Mr. Robert Doyle of Diversified Credit Services (DCS) 
and that DCS lacks standing to present Combination's claim.  In 
response, DCS has furnished this Office with copies of its collection 
agreement with Combination and an order to collect the amount at 
issue.  These documents comply with the authorization requirements of 
4 C.F.R.  sec.  31.3, regarding a claim filed by a claimant's agent.