B-125438, SEP. 21, 1955
Highlights
TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 7. THERE WERE RECEIVED FROM MR. SSL-49-55 WERE OPENED AND THAT A LETTER ATTACHED TO THE BIDS SUBMITTED THEREON BY MR. WHICH WERE IDENTICAL WITH THOSE SUBMITTED THE PREVIOUS DAY ON SSL-48-55. STATED THAT HIS BID ON THE MAY 24 OPENING WAS SUBMITTED ON THE WRONG BROCHURE. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT THE HIGH BIDS ON ITEMS 9 AND 10 OF SALES LETTER NO. SSL-48-55 WERE INADVERTENTLY ACCEPTED ON MAY 27. N228S-10022 WAS MAILED TO MR. - BUT THAT THROUGH INADVERTENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR) HIS BIDS WERE ACCEPTED.
B-125438, SEP. 21, 1955
TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 7, 1955, WITH ENCLOSURES, FROM THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (MATERIAL), REQUESTING A DECISION AS TO THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH A MISTAKE IN BID ALLEGED BY E. J. MEYRICK, EL CERRITO, CALIFORNIA, UNDER CONTRACT NO. N228S-10022 (SITE SALES LETTER SSL-48-55), ISSUED BY THE U.S. NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA.
IT APPEARS FROM THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S STATEMENT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT AT THE OPENING OF BIDS ON MAY 24, 1955, THERE WERE RECEIVED FROM MR. MAYRICK HIGH BIDS OF $213.93 AND $373.93 ON ITEMS 9 AND 10, RESPECTIVELY, ON SITE SALES LETTER NO. SSL-48-55; THAT ON MAY 25, 1955, BIDS ON SITE SALES LETTER NO. SSL-49-55 WERE OPENED AND THAT A LETTER ATTACHED TO THE BIDS SUBMITTED THEREON BY MR. MEYRICK, WHICH WERE IDENTICAL WITH THOSE SUBMITTED THE PREVIOUS DAY ON SSL-48-55, STATED THAT HIS BID ON THE MAY 24 OPENING WAS SUBMITTED ON THE WRONG BROCHURE. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT THE HIGH BIDS ON ITEMS 9 AND 10 OF SALES LETTER NO. SSL-48-55 WERE INADVERTENTLY ACCEPTED ON MAY 27, 1955, AND THAT FORMAL AWARD UNDER CONTRACT NO. N228S-10022 WAS MAILED TO MR. MEYRICK ON JUNE 3, 1955.
THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REPORTED FURTHER THAT ITEM 9 OF SSL-48-55 DID NOT CONTAIN AIRCRAFT SEATS AND ITEM 10 OF SSL-48-55 DID NOT CONTAIN COMPASSES- -- IDENTIFYING REFERENCE TO THOSE ARTICLES HAVING BEEN INCLUDED IN THE BIDS SUBMITTED BY MR. MEYRICK--- BUT THAT THROUGH INADVERTENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR) HIS BIDS WERE ACCEPTED. ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING FACTS THE CONTRACTING OFFICER RECOMMENDED THAT RELIEF BE GRANTED THE CONTRACTOR.
IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT MR. MEYRICK NOT ONLY MADE A MISTAKE IN SUBMITTING HIS BIDS BUT THAT HE GAVE NOTICE OF SUCH ERROR PRIOR TO AWARD. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AWARD TO MR. MEYRICK SHOULD BE RESCINDED.