B-124553, AUG. 1, 1955

B-124553: Aug 1, 1955

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

TO SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 5. WAS BASED. THE CONTRACTOR'S CONTENTION THAT ITS BID ON LOT NO. 2 WAS INTENDED FOR LOT NO. 1 IS REASONABLY SUBSTANTIATED BY ITS WORK-COPY OF THE BID AND BY THE APPARENT FACT THAT THE BID PRICE IS MORE IN LINE WITH THE BIDS RECEIVED ON LOT NO. 1 AND MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE ACQUISITION COST OF THAT LOT. THERE IS A GREAT DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE BID AND THE ONLY OTHER BID RECEIVED ON LOT NO. 2 AND. IT IS OBVIOUSLY IMPROBABLE THAT A BIDDER. SINCE THERE APPEARS NO DOUBT THAT A BONA FIDE ERROR WAS MADE IN THE BID. SINCE THE FACTS OF RECORD WARRANT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE TAKEN NOTICE OF THE PROBABILITY THAT THE BID WAS ERRONEOUS AND REQUESTED VERIFICATION PRIOR TO ITS ACCEPTANCE.

B-124553, AUG. 1, 1955

TO SECRETARY OF THE ARMY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 5, 1955, WITH ENCLOSURES, RELATIVE TO AN ALLEGED ERROR IN A BID DATED APRIL 4, 1955, SUBMITTED BY PROGRESSIVE ENGINEERING ON LOT NO. 2 OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED PROPERTY ADVERTISED FOR SALE AT SCHENECTADY GENERAL DEPOT, ON WHICH CONTRACT NO. O.I. (S) 30-127-55-488 DATED APRIL 18, 1955, WAS BASED.

THE CONTRACTOR'S CONTENTION THAT ITS BID ON LOT NO. 2 WAS INTENDED FOR LOT NO. 1 IS REASONABLY SUBSTANTIATED BY ITS WORK-COPY OF THE BID AND BY THE APPARENT FACT THAT THE BID PRICE IS MORE IN LINE WITH THE BIDS RECEIVED ON LOT NO. 1 AND MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE ACQUISITION COST OF THAT LOT. THERE IS A GREAT DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE BID AND THE ONLY OTHER BID RECEIVED ON LOT NO. 2 AND, MOREOVER, IT IS OBVIOUSLY IMPROBABLE THAT A BIDDER, IN A SALE OF ANY LOT OF SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, INTENTIONALLY WOULD BID 68.7 PERCENT MORE THAN ITS ADVERTISED AND KNOWN ACQUISITION COST.

ACCORDINGLY, SINCE THERE APPEARS NO DOUBT THAT A BONA FIDE ERROR WAS MADE IN THE BID, AS ALLEGED, AND SINCE THE FACTS OF RECORD WARRANT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE TAKEN NOTICE OF THE PROBABILITY THAT THE BID WAS ERRONEOUS AND REQUESTED VERIFICATION PRIOR TO ITS ACCEPTANCE, THE AWARD SHOULD BE CANCELED AND THE BID DEPOSIT REFUNDED TO THE BIDDER.

THE PAPERS ARE RETURNED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A COPY OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S FINDING OF FACT, THE WORK-COPY OF THE BID WITH THE COPY OF THE BIDDER'S FORWARDING LETTER ALLEGING MISTAKE ..END :