B-151904, AUG. 19, 1963

B-151904, AUG. 19, 1963

TO CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD:

WE HAVE RECEIVED YOUR REPORT DATED AUGUST 1, 1963, ON THE PROTEST OF HOOVER REPORTING COMPANY, INC., AGAINST THE AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. BB 64 (17) TO THE ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC., FOR STENOGRAPHIC REPORTING SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1964. TWO BIDS WERE SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION AS FOLLOWS:

TABLE

"UNIT PRICE FOR DELIVERY

AS FOLLOWS

WITHIN WITHIN

UNIT 5 3 DAILY

DAYS DAYS "1. REPORTING SERVICE:

SHALL INCLUDE ALDERSON 0 0 0

SERVICES OF REPORTING,

TRANSCRIBING, AND

FURNISHING ONE (1)

ORIGINAL AND THREE

(3) CARBON COPIES OF HOOVER 0 0 0

TRANSCRIPTION.

(QUOTE PRICE PER

PAGE PER SET ....... "2. REPORTING SERVICE:

SHALL INCLUDE ALDERSON 70 90 1.25

SERVICES OF REPORTING,

TRANSCRIBING ON

DUPLICATION MASTER,

DUPLICATION, AND HOOVER 75 85 1.00

FURNISHING

TRANSCRIPTIONS TO THE

PUBLIC. (QUOTE PRICE

PER PAGE" ..........

THE HOOVER BID CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:

"IT IS FURTHER AGREED THAT HOOVER REPORTING CO., INC., WILL PAY TO THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY CERTIFIED CHECK THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($555.00) FOR THE AWARD OF THIS CONTRACT.'

SINCE BIDS FOR ITEM 1 WERE IDENTICAL, THERE WAS PRESENTED THE PROBLEM OF WHETHER OR NOT TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION OF $555 OFFERED BY HOOVER. IT WAS DECIDED THAT SINCE THE INVITATION DID NOT PROVIDE FOR CONSIDERATION OF A BONUS, THE OFFER OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN EVALUATING BIDS. ACCORDINGLY, EVALUATION WAS BASED ON THE BIDS SUBMITTED FOR ITEM 2 AND ON JUNE 28, 1963, THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED TO ALDERSON. THIS AWARD WAS PROTESTED BY HOOVER IN A LETTER DATED JUNE 27, 1963.

OUR OFFICE HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT WHERE THE INVITATION DOES NOT OTHERWISE PROPERLY PROVIDE, SECTION 3709 R.S., 41 U.S.C. 5, REQUIRES THE CONSIDERATION OF BONUS PAYMENTS OFFERED TO THE GOVERNMENT BY BIDDERS FOR STENOGRAPHIC REPORTING AS ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION FOR THE AWARD; AND THAT THE FACT THAT THE BIDDER OFFERING THE GREATEST BONUS CHARGES HIGHER PRICES FOR COPIES OFFERED TO THE PUBLIC MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN EVALUATING BIDS UNLESS SUCH PRICES ARE ADMINISTRATIVELY DETERMINED TO BE EXORBITANT. COMP. GEN. 26; CF. 37 COMP. GEN. 12 AND B-110359, DATED SEPTEMBER 3, 1952. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE MAXIMUM PRICES AT WHICH HOOVER INTENDS TO SELL COPIES TO THE PUBLIC DO NOT APPEAR UNREASONABLE, AND IT HAS NOT BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THEY ARE EXORBITANT. ACCORDINGLY, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT A PROPER EVALUATION OF THE BIDS REQUIRES THE DETERMINATION THAT THE AWARD TO ALDERSON WAS IMPROPER AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE CANCELED AND THE CONTRACT AWARDED TO HOOVER.

IN REGARD TO HOOVER'S ALLEGATION THAT IT WAS THE "LOWEST BIDDER IN THE AGGREGATE," WE HAVE HELD THAT THE LOW BID FOR STENOGRAPHIC SERVICES CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY ADDING THE RATES OFFERED BY EACH BIDDER TO THE PUBLIC ACCORDING TO THE SEVERAL DELIVERY SCHEDULES, SINCE SUCH A SUM WOULD PROVIDE NO INDICATION OF TOTAL COST. B-128465, DATED JULY 9, 1956. THE PROPER BASIS FOR EVALUATION OF THESE PRICES WOULD BE THE TOTAL OF THE COSTS TO THE PUBLIC. SEE 33 COMP. GEN. 606. HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT WHERE THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CAN ESTIMATE SUCH COSTS FROM INFORMATION AS TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES SOLD AT THE VARIOUS DELIVERY SCHEDULES UNDER THE PREVIOUS CONTRACT, BIDDERS SHOULD BE ADVISED IN THE INVITATION OF THE RELATIVE WEIGHTS WHICH WILL ..END :