B-126667, JAN. 25, 1956

B-126667: Jan 25, 1956

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

TO HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER DATED JANUARY 16. THAT HIS BID WAS ACCEPTED AS TO LOTS 2. - IT WAS NOTED THAT THE BIDDER HAD EVIDENTLY USED THE QUANTITY SHOWN FOR LOT 3. IT WAS CONSIDERED THAT THE BIDDER HAD MADE AN ERROR IN EXTENSION RATHER THAN IN THE UNIT PRICE. IT IS REPORTED FURTHER THAT UPON RECEIPT OF THE INDICATED CONTRACT. IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT ALL OF THE EXTENSIONS ON LOTS 2. 8 WERE INCORRECT AND EVIDENTLY WERE FIGURED AT THE QUANTITIES SHOWN ON LOTS 3. IT BEING APPARENT THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON NOTICE OF PROBABLE ERROR. ARE RETURNED HEREWITH.

B-126667, JAN. 25, 1956

TO HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER DATED JANUARY 16, 1956, WITH ENCLOSURES, FROM THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (MATERIAL), REQUESTING A DECISION AS TO THE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY YOUR DEPARTMENT IN CONNECTION WITH A MISTAKE IN BID ALLEGED BY MR. F. L. HUMPHREY, P.O. BOX 466, RAYMONDVILLE, TEXAS, UNDER CONTRACT NO. N216S 17871, DATED DECEMBER 28, 1955, COVERING THE SALE OF CERTAIN MISCELLANEOUS SALVAGE MATERIAL BY THE U.S. NAVAL AIR STATION, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS.

IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION NO. B-31 56, DATED DECEMBER 2, 1955, BY MR. HUMPHREY SUBMITTED BIDS FOR VARIOUS ITEMS COVERED BY THE INVITATION, AND THAT HIS BID WAS ACCEPTED AS TO LOTS 2, 3, 12, 51, 56, AND 87. THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE NAVAL AIR STATION REPORTS THAT ON EXTENDING THE UNIT PRICE OF LOT 2 OF THE SUBJECT CONTRACT- -- 75 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS--- IT WAS NOTED THAT THE BIDDER HAD EVIDENTLY USED THE QUANTITY SHOWN FOR LOT 3--- 4 HYDRAULIC TRUCK JACKS--- IN LIEU OF THE QUANTITY GIVEN FOR LOT 2, SINCE ON ITEM 2 THE BID SHOWED A UNIT PRICE OF $2.10 AND A TOTAL BID OF $8.40, AND THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT HE HAD PLACED A BID ON LOT 3 ALSO, IT WAS CONSIDERED THAT THE BIDDER HAD MADE AN ERROR IN EXTENSION RATHER THAN IN THE UNIT PRICE.

IT IS REPORTED FURTHER THAT UPON RECEIPT OF THE INDICATED CONTRACT, THE BIDDER TELEPHONED THE NAVAL AIR STATION STATING THAT HE HAD NOT INTENDED TO PLACE A BID ON LOT 2. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM OF ERROR, THE BIDDER STATED IN AN UNDATED COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED TO THE NAVAL AIR STATION, THAT IN TRANSFERRING HIS BID FROM THE WORKSHEETS TO THE BID SUBMITTED, HE INADVERTENTLY PLACED THE PRICES OFFERED ON LOTS 2 THROUGH 6, AND LOT 8, IN LIEU OF LOTS 3 THROUGH 7, AND LOT 9, WHICH HE INTENDED TO BID ON. UPON CHECKING THE ORIGINAL BID, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT ALL OF THE EXTENSIONS ON LOTS 2, 4, 5, 6, AND 8 WERE INCORRECT AND EVIDENTLY WERE FIGURED AT THE QUANTITIES SHOWN ON LOTS 3, 5, 6, 7, AND 9.

THIS OFFICE AGREES WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMANDING OFFICER THAT RELIEF BE GRANTED IN THIS CASE, IT BEING APPARENT THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON NOTICE OF PROBABLE ERROR, SUCH AS TO REQUIRE VERIFICATION BEFORE AWARD. ACCORDINGLY, REFUND SHOULD BE MADE TO THE BIDDER OF THE AMOUNT OF THE BID DEPOSIT.

THE ENCLOSURES TO THE LETTER OF JANUARY 16, 1956, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE COMMANDING OFFICER'S LETTER OF JANUARY 4, 1956, ARE RETURNED HEREWITH.