B-107411, JANUARY 22, 1952, 31 COMP. GEN. 323

B-107411: Jan 22, 1952

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

BIDS - PREPARATION RESPONSIBILITY THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF A BID IS UPON THE BIDDER. 1952: I HAVE YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 9. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT CERTAIN BIDDERS. REQUESTED THAT A CORRECTION BE MADE IN THE EXTENSION OF ITS BID ON ITEM NO. 2 SO THAT THE TOTAL BID FOR SAID ITEM COVERING 49 ANTENNAS WILL BE $877.59 INSTEAD OF $340.59 AND THAT THE AGGREGATE BID FOR THE NINE ITEMS BE INCREASED TO $214. ITS BID PRICE WAS THEREBY INCREASED TO $24.96 ON "ITEMS 1 THROUGH 8" AND REQUESTED THAT IN THE EVENT SAID REVISION IN THE BID PRICE CANNOT BE AUTHORIZED THAT IT BE ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW ITS BID. IS NOT OUT OF LINE WITH THE SIX NEXT LOWEST BIDS RECEIVED ON SAID ITEMS.

B-107411, JANUARY 22, 1952, 31 COMP. GEN. 323

BIDS - PREPARATION RESPONSIBILITY THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF A BID IS UPON THE BIDDER, WHICH INCLUDES ASCERTAINING THE EXACT COST OF ANY SUPPLIES TO BE OBTAINED FROM ITS SUPPLIER, AND THEREFORE, A BID MAY NOT BE DISREGARDED OR CORRECTED ON THE BASIS THAT THE BIDDER'S SUPPLIER INCREASED PRICES AFTER SUBMISSION OF THE BID.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL WARREN TO K.G. SPRINGEN, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, JANUARY 22, 1952:

I HAVE YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 9, 1952, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING A DECISION AS TO THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO THE REQUEST FOR AN INCREASE IN PRICE IN A BID DATED OCTOBER 29, 1951, SUBMITTED BY MCNALLY BROS. MACHINE COMPANY, GRANTSBURG, WISCONSIN.

THE AIR MATERIEL COMMAND, PROCUREMENT DIVISION, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, DAYTON, OHIO, BY INVITATION NO. ( IFB) 33-600-52-43, AS AMENDED, REQUESTED BIDS--- TO BE OPENED NOVEMBER 15, 1951--- FOR FURNISHING 11,984 ANTENNAS OF LIKE SPECIFICATIONS CALLED FOR UNDER NINE ITEMS. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE MCNALLY BROS. MACHINE COMPANY SUBMITTED A BID WHEREIN IT OFFERED TO FURNISH THE ANTENNAS UNDER EACH OF ITEMS NOS. 1 TO 9, INCLUSIVE, AT A UNIT PRICE OF $17.91. IT APPEARS THAT BID BOND ACCOMPANIED THE BID, AS REQUIRED.

IN YOUR LETTER YOU STATE THAT BECAUSE OF PREVIOUSLY NEGOTIATED PRICES AND KNOWN PROCESSING DIFFICULTIES, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT CERTAIN BIDDERS, INCLUDING MCNALLY BROS. MACHINE COMPANY, SHOULD BE REQUESTED TO VERIFY THEIR BID PRICES. BY TELEGRAM OF DECEMBER 5, AND CONFIRMING LETTER OF DECEMBER 11, 1951, THE COMPANY CONFIRMED ITS UNIT PRICE OF $17.91 ON ALL ITEMS, BUT REQUESTED THAT A CORRECTION BE MADE IN THE EXTENSION OF ITS BID ON ITEM NO. 2 SO THAT THE TOTAL BID FOR SAID ITEM COVERING 49 ANTENNAS WILL BE $877.59 INSTEAD OF $340.59 AND THAT THE AGGREGATE BID FOR THE NINE ITEMS BE INCREASED TO $214,633.44 SO AS TO REFLECT THE AFORESAID REQUESTED CORRECTION AS TO ITEM NO. 2. IN A TELEGRAM OF DECEMBER 28, 1951, THE COMPANY ADVISED THAT DUE TO A PRICE CHANGE RECEIVED FROM ITS SUPPLIER, ITS BID PRICE WAS THEREBY INCREASED TO $24.96 ON "ITEMS 1 THROUGH 8" AND REQUESTED THAT IN THE EVENT SAID REVISION IN THE BID PRICE CANNOT BE AUTHORIZED THAT IT BE ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW ITS BID.

THE ABSTRACT OF BIDS SHOWS THAT THE SIX NEXT LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDS RANGED AS FOLLOWS:

CHART

ITEM NO.: UNIT PRICE ITEM NO.: UNIT PRICE

1---------- $20.30 TO $29.67 6------------ $20.44 TO $29.67

2---------- 20.44 TO 29.67 7------------ 20.44 TO 29.67

3---------- 20.44 TO 29.67 8------------ 20.44 TO 29.67

4---------- 20.30 TO 29.67 9------------ 20.44 TO 29.67

5---------- 20.44 TO 29.67 THUS, THE UNIT PRICE OF $17.91 QUOTED BY MCNALLY BROS. MACHINE COMPANY ON EACH OF ITEMS NOS. 1 TO 9, INCLUSIVE, IS NOT OUT OF LINE WITH THE SIX NEXT LOWEST BIDS RECEIVED ON SAID ITEMS. APPEARS THAT SAID COMPANY HAS NOT AT ANY TIME ALLEGED THAT AN ERROR WAS MADE IN ITS BID, RATHER THE INCREASE IN THE BID PRICES IS REQUESTED ON THE BASIS THAT ITS SUPPLIER INCREASED ITS PRICES AFTER THE COMPANY SUBMITTED ITS BID. IN THAT CONNECTION IT MAY BE STATED THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF A BID IS UPON THE BIDDER. SEE FRAZIER- DAVIS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY V. UNITED STATES, 100 C.1CLS. 120, 123. SUCH RESPONSIBILITY INCLUDES ASCERTAINING THE EXACT COST OF ANY SUPPLIES TO BE OBTAINED FROM ITS SUPPLIER. IF THE COMPANY DID NOT OBTAIN A FIRM PRICE FROM ITS SUPPLIER ON WHICH TO COMPUTE ITS BID AND THE SUPPLIER INCREASED ITS PRICE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE COMPANY SUBMITTED ITS BID, THAT IS A MATTER WITH WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT CONCERNED AND DOES NOT AFFORD ANY BASIS FOR AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE PRICES BID BY THE COMPANY. SINCE SAID BID PRICES ARE NOT OUT OF LINE WITH THE SEVERAL NEXT LOWEST BIDS, A CONTRACT BASED THEREON WOULD NOT BE UNCONSCIONABLE.

ACCORDINGLY, UNLESS THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN THE BID FOR ACCEPTANCE--- OR ANY EXTENSION THEREOF--- HAS EXPIRED, THERE APPEARS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR DISREGARDING OR CORRECTING THE BID OF THE MCNALLY BROS. MACHINE COMPANY.