B-126999, FEB. 27, 1956

B-126999: Feb 27, 1956

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

TO THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 14. WAS AWARDED. OVER THREE MONTHS AFTER THE AWARD WAS MADE. WHICH WAS THE PRICE QUOTED BY ITS SUBCONTRACTOR. WHEREAS THE COST SHOULD HAVE BEEN $9 SINCE THE SUBCONTRACTOR'S ERROR WAS DUE TO INCORRECTLY MULTIPLYING 36 FEET OF LEATHER BY ?25 PER FOOT. THE ABSTRACT OF BIDS SHOWS THAT NINE OTHER BIDS WERE RECEIVED WHICH RANGED IN PRICE FROM $1.41 TO $2.50. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REPORTS THAT WHILE THE CONTRACTOR'S UNIT PRICE BID WAS LOWER THAN THE OTHER BIDS RECEIVED. WAS AWARDED ON JANUARY 25. APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACTOR FAILED TO OBTAIN A CORRECT QUOTATION FROM ITS SUBCONTRACTOR IS AN ERROR OR OMISSION WHICH WAS IN NO WAY INDUCED OR CONTRIBUTED TO BY THE GOVERNMENT.

B-126999, FEB. 27, 1956

TO THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 14, 1956, WITH ENCLOSURES, FROM THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY (LOGISTICS), REQUESTING A DECISION AS TO THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN REGARDING AN ERROR M. SHAPIRO COMPANY, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, ALLEGES IT MADE IN ITS BID DATED FEBRUARY 19, 1955, ON WHICH CONTRACT NO. DA 36-030-QM-5233 DATED MARCH 1, 1955, WAS AWARDED.

BY INVITATION NO. QM 36-030-55-551, ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 10, 1955, THE PHILADELPHIA QUARTERMASTER DEPOT REQUESTED BIDS, TO BE OPENED FEBRUARY 21, 1955, FOR FURNISHING F.O.B. DESTINATION, 96,712 PAIR OF GLOVE SHELLS, LEATHER, 5 FINGER SHEATHS, BLACK, IN TWO SIZES IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL STOCK NUMBERS. IN RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION THE M. SHAPIRO COMPANY OFFERED TO FURNISH UNDER ITEM 1A, 15,000 PAIRS, GLOVE SHELLS, SIZE 4 (MEDIUM), AT A UNIT PRICE OF $1.30 A PAIR AND A TOTAL CONTRACT PRICE OF $19,500.

IN A LETTER DATED JUNE 2, 1955, OVER THREE MONTHS AFTER THE AWARD WAS MADE, THE CONTRACTOR STATED THAT ITS SUPPLIER HAD MADE AN ERROR IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE COST FOR LEATHER. THE CONTRACTOR STATES THAT IN ARRIVING AT ITS BID PRICE IT CALCULATED THE COST OF LEATHER FOR A DOZEN PAIRS OF GLOVES TO BE $8, WHICH WAS THE PRICE QUOTED BY ITS SUBCONTRACTOR, WHEREAS THE COST SHOULD HAVE BEEN $9 SINCE THE SUBCONTRACTOR'S ERROR WAS DUE TO INCORRECTLY MULTIPLYING 36 FEET OF LEATHER BY ?25 PER FOOT. WITH THE LETTER THE CONTRACTOR SUBMITTED A BREAKDOWN OF THE OPERATIONS NECESSARY FOR MANUFACTURE OF THE GLOVE SHELLS AND REQUESTED THAT AN ADDITIONAL ?09 PER PAIR BE ALLOWED FOR THE MANUFACTURE.

THE ABSTRACT OF BIDS SHOWS THAT NINE OTHER BIDS WERE RECEIVED WHICH RANGED IN PRICE FROM $1.41 TO $2.50. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REPORTS THAT WHILE THE CONTRACTOR'S UNIT PRICE BID WAS LOWER THAN THE OTHER BIDS RECEIVED, HE DID NOT CONSIDER IT TO BE UNUSUAL SINCE 78,488 PAIRS OF THE INVOLVED ITEM, TO BE DELIVERED AT THE SAME DESTINATION, WAS AWARDED ON JANUARY 25, 1955, AT A UNIT PRICE OF $1.22. ALTHOUGH, AFTER AWARD, THE CONTRACTOR FURNISHED CERTAIN DATA IN SUPPORT OF ITS ALLEGATION OF ERROR, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT, PRIOR TO AWARD, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTORS USED BY BY THE CONTRACTOR IN COMPUTING ITS BID PRICE, OR ANY REASON TO SUPPOSE THAT AN ERROR HAD BEEN MADE.

NO ERROR, AS SUCH, APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE CONTRACTOR, ITS BID HAVING BEEN IN THE AMOUNT INTENDED AT THE TIME OF ITS SUBMISSION. THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACTOR FAILED TO OBTAIN A CORRECT QUOTATION FROM ITS SUBCONTRACTOR IS AN ERROR OR OMISSION WHICH WAS IN NO WAY INDUCED OR CONTRIBUTED TO BY THE GOVERNMENT; AND THE CONTRACTOR MUST ASSUME THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY SUCH ERROR IN THE BID, OR LOOK TO ITS SUBCONTRACTOR FOR RELIEF. SUCH ERROR AS WAS MADE IN THE BID WAS UNILATERAL--- NOT MUTUAL--- AND, THEREFORE, DOES NOT ENTITLE THE CONTRACTOR TO RELIEF. SEE SLAIGMAN, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 56 F.SUPP. 505, 507. ALSO, SEE OGDEN AND DOUGHERTY V. UNITED STATES, 102 C.CLS. 249, 259.

ACCORDINGLY, ON THE BASIS OF THE PRESENT RECORD, THERE APPEARS TO BE NO LEGAL BASIS FOR GRANTING THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE M. SHAPIRO COMPANY.

A DUPLICATE SET OF THE PAPERS IN THIS CASE IS BEING RETAINED. THE OTHER PAPERS ARE RETURNED.