Skip to main content

B-180329, FEB 12, 1974

B-180329 Feb 12, 1974
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

SOLE-SOURCE CONTRACTOR IS NOT ENTITLED TO ADJUSTMENT IN CONTRACT PRICE FOR ERROR IN PRICE ON ITEM IN COST PROPOSAL RESULTING FROM MISPLACEMENT OF DECIMAL POINT. SINCE CONTRACTING OFFICER DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF ERROR PRIOR TO AWARD. TITAN WAS REQUIRED TO LIST THE COST DATA OF ALL THE SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT WHICH WERE TO BE USED IN BUILDING THE OUTPATIENT CLINIC. TITAN WAS INSTRUCTED TO INCLUDE IN THE COST PROPOSAL A DISTILLED WATER SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH VA SPECIFICATION VS629 AND VS630. THE PRICE FOR THE DISTILLED WATER SYSTEM WAS LISTED IN THE COST PROPOSAL AT $650.00. TITAN CLAIMS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR HAD MISPLACED THE DECIMAL POINT AND THAT THE ENTRY SHOULD HAVE BEEN $6.

View Decision

B-180329, FEB 12, 1974

SOLE-SOURCE CONTRACTOR IS NOT ENTITLED TO ADJUSTMENT IN CONTRACT PRICE FOR ERROR IN PRICE ON ITEM IN COST PROPOSAL RESULTING FROM MISPLACEMENT OF DECIMAL POINT, SINCE CONTRACTING OFFICER DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF ERROR PRIOR TO AWARD.

TO TITAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS:

ON JUNE 30, 1972, TITAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS (TITAN) ENTERED INTO SOLE-SOURCE NEGOTIATED CONTRACT V101C-25 WITH THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION (VA) TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT AN OUTPATIENT CLINIC AS AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING VETERANS HOSPITAL IN DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA IN THE SUM OF $2,177,400.

ON APRIL 4, 1972, THE VA REQUESTED TITAN TO PREPARE A COST PROPOSAL. TITAN WAS REQUIRED TO LIST THE COST DATA OF ALL THE SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT WHICH WERE TO BE USED IN BUILDING THE OUTPATIENT CLINIC. TITAN WAS INSTRUCTED TO INCLUDE IN THE COST PROPOSAL A DISTILLED WATER SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH VA SPECIFICATION VS629 AND VS630. THE PRICE FOR THE DISTILLED WATER SYSTEM WAS LISTED IN THE COST PROPOSAL AT $650.00. TITAN CLAIMS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR HAD MISPLACED THE DECIMAL POINT AND THAT THE ENTRY SHOULD HAVE BEEN $6,500.00. TITAN REQUESTS AN INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $6,115.52 WHICH IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AWARDED AMOUNT AND THE ACTUAL INVOICED PRICE OF THE DISTILLER AND ACCESSORIES PLUS THE DIFFERENCE IN TAXES, OVERHEAD AND PROFIT.

AS A GENERAL RULE, RELIEF WILL NOT BE GRANTED FOR A CONTRACTOR'S UNILATERAL MISTAKE ALLEGED AFTER THE BID OR OFFER HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNLESS THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SUCH THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON NOTICE OF THE PROBABILITY OF MISTAKE, THUS NECESSITATING VERIFICATION BEFORE THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE BID OR OFFER. WENDER PRESSES, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 170 CT. CL. 483. THE RECORD DOES NOT INDICATE THAT ANY BASIS EXISTS TO CONCLUDE THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ERROR IN TITAN'S COST PROPOSAL. SINCE THE GOVERNMENT AWARDED THE CONTRACT IN GOOD FAITH AND THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAD NO NOTICE, EITHER ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE, OF THE MISTAKE, A VALID AND BINDING CONTRACT HAS RESULTED AND NO LEGAL BASIS CAN BE FOUND TO GRANT RELIEF. SEE B-175760, JUNE 19, 1972.

ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR AN ADJUSTMENT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs