Skip to main content

B-143526, DEC. 7, 1960

B-143526 Dec 07, 1960
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

TO MUNSTON ELECTRONIC MANUFACTURING CORPORATION: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 7. FAILURE TO INCLUDE IN YOUR BID A LISTING OF ALL OF THE SPARE PARTS THAT WERE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED BY THE INVITATION. WAS NOT A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR SUBJECT TO CORRECTION AS AN OBVIOUS MISTAKE ON THE FACE OF THE BID WHICH. RATHER WAS AN ERROR OF OMISSION RENDERING YOUR PROPOSAL INCOMPLETE AND THEREFORE NONRESPONSIVE. WE HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT YOUR ALLEGATION THAT THE DEFICIENCES IN YOUR BID WERE INADVERTENT. IN THE EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSALS THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO PERFECT YOUR BID BY SUPPLYING THE MISSING ITEMS AND DEFICIENT QUANTITIES OF SPARE PARTS INVOLVED. THE COST OF WHICH IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN UNKNOWN TO THE PROCUREMENT OFFICIALS AT THE TIME OF AWARD.

View Decision

B-143526, DEC. 7, 1960

TO MUNSTON ELECTRONIC MANUFACTURING CORPORATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 7, 1960, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION DATED OCTOBER 24, 1960, WHICH REJECTED YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ARMY SIGNAL SUPPLY AGENCY IN TREATING YOUR LOW BID SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. SC- 36-039-60-256-A1, AS BEING NONRESPONSIVE.

AS INDICATED IN OUR DECISION, FAILURE TO INCLUDE IN YOUR BID A LISTING OF ALL OF THE SPARE PARTS THAT WERE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED BY THE INVITATION, WAS NOT A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR SUBJECT TO CORRECTION AS AN OBVIOUS MISTAKE ON THE FACE OF THE BID WHICH, UNDER NORMAL GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT PRACTICES, WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CORRECTION, BUT RATHER WAS AN ERROR OF OMISSION RENDERING YOUR PROPOSAL INCOMPLETE AND THEREFORE NONRESPONSIVE. WE HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT YOUR ALLEGATION THAT THE DEFICIENCES IN YOUR BID WERE INADVERTENT. HOWEVER, IN THE EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSALS THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO PERFECT YOUR BID BY SUPPLYING THE MISSING ITEMS AND DEFICIENT QUANTITIES OF SPARE PARTS INVOLVED, THE COST OF WHICH IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN UNKNOWN TO THE PROCUREMENT OFFICIALS AT THE TIME OF AWARD.

AS ALSO INDICATED IN OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 24, 1960, WE DO NOT REGARD AS CONTROLLING HERE THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED IN OFFICE DECISION OF APRIL 21, 1955, BECAUSE OF THE DISSIMILARITY OF THE ATTENDANT FACTS. IN THE CITED CASE NO PARTS WERE OMITTED FROM THE BID, NOR WERE THE QUANTITIES OF ANY ITEMS DEFICIENT. THE BIDDER MERELY FAILED TO SHOW THE PRICE, IF ANY, TO BE CHARGED FOR ONE ITEM (DRAWINGS) WHICH WAS LISTED IN THE BID DOCUMENT BUT WITHOUT A QUOTED COST THEREFOR. HERE, REQUIRED ITEMS WERE OMITTED AND OTHERS WERE DEFICIENT IN THEIR RESPECTIVE QUANTITIES.

SINCE YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE MATTER PRESENTS NO NEW EVIDENCE OR LEGAL ARGUMENTS NOT HERETOFORE CONSIDERED, OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 24, 1960, B-143526, WILL NOT BE DISTURBED.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs