B-158196, MAR. 22, 1966
Highlights
UPON WHICH CONTRACT NO. 33/601/9461 WAS BASED. A RECITAL OF THE FACTS WHICH WERE FULLY SET OUT IN OUR DECISION IS NOT CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO OUR REVIEW OF THE MATTER. THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY YOU IS BASICALLY A REPETITION OF FACTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY ALBEIT WITH SOME FURTHER EXPLANATION. AS WAS STATED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN GRYMES V. MUST NOT HAVE ARISEN FROM NEGLIGENCE WHERE THE MEANS OF KNOWLEDGE WERE EASILY ACCESSIBLE. THE PARTY COMPLAINING MUST HAVE EXERCISED AT LEAST THE DEGREE OF DILIGENCE "WHICH MAY BE FAIRLY EXPECTED FROM A REASONABLE PERSON.'" IT IS OUR FURTHER VIEW THAT EVEN CONCEDING THAT AN ERROR HAD BEEN MADE BY STILES.
B-158196, MAR. 22, 1966
TO WARNER, NORCROSS AND JUDD:
YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 23, 1966, ENCLOSED A PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF JANUARY 3, 1966, B-158196, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE, WHEREIN WE SUSTAINED THE DEPARTMENT'S REFUSAL TO CORRECT CERTAIN ALLEGED ERRORS IN THE BID OF THE F. C. STILES CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC., SUBMITTED UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 33-601-66-24, UPON WHICH CONTRACT NO. 33/601/9461 WAS BASED. A RECITAL OF THE FACTS WHICH WERE FULLY SET OUT IN OUR DECISION IS NOT CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO OUR REVIEW OF THE MATTER.
IN THAT DECISION, WE AGREED WITH THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF ERROR DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT A MISTAKE ACTUALLY HAD BEEN MADE OR THAT THE STILES COMPANY INTENDED TO INCLUDE THE DISPUTED AMOUNT OF $56,104 IN ITS BID. WE FURTHER PREMISED OUR DECISION UPON THE FACT THAT, AFTER ALLEGING MISTAKE, THE STILES COMPANY VOLUNTARILY ENTERED INTO THE CONTRACT BY PERFORMING PURSUANT TO THE TERMS THEREOF.
THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY YOU IS BASICALLY A REPETITION OF FACTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY ALBEIT WITH SOME FURTHER EXPLANATION; HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT OFFER ANY NEW MATERIAL EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE US TO AUTHORIZE REFORMATION OF THE CONTRACT. AS WAS STATED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN GRYMES V. SANDERS, ET AL., 93 U.S. 55, 61,"MISTAKE, TO BE AVAILABLE IN EQUITY, MUST NOT HAVE ARISEN FROM NEGLIGENCE WHERE THE MEANS OF KNOWLEDGE WERE EASILY ACCESSIBLE. THE PARTY COMPLAINING MUST HAVE EXERCISED AT LEAST THE DEGREE OF DILIGENCE "WHICH MAY BE FAIRLY EXPECTED FROM A REASONABLE PERSON.'" IT IS OUR FURTHER VIEW THAT EVEN CONCEDING THAT AN ERROR HAD BEEN MADE BY STILES, THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN THE MASSMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY CASE, QUOTED IN PART IN OUR JANUARY 3 DECISION, PRECLUDES US FROM GRANTING ANY RELIEF IN THIS CASE.