B-129295, OCT. 5, 1956

B-129295, OCT. 5, 1956

TO SECRETARY, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1956, TRANSMITTING TWO BIDS, EACH DATED SEPTEMBER 11, 1956, SUBMITTED BY EDWARD B. FRIEL,INC., WASHINGTON, D.C., AND GEORGE A. SHUPP, CHEVERLY, MARYLAND, RESPECTIVELY, IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION NO. 57-SI-491, AND REQUESTING TO BE ADVISED AS TO WHETHER MR. SHUPP MAY BE AWARDED THE CONTRACT UPON THE BASIS OF HIS CORRECTED BID PRICE.

IT APPEARS THAT BY INVITATION NO. 57-SI-491, ISSUED AUGUST 24, 1956, THE SUPPLY DIVISION OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION SOLICITED PROPOSALS, SCHEDULED FOR OPENING AT 11:00 A.M., SEPTEMBER 11, 1956, ON THE WORK OF "PAVING WITH CONCRETE THE APPROACHES TO THE TWO OUTSIDE VEHICLE ENTRANCE DOORS AND THE PERSONNEL ENTRANCE DOOR, BUILDING 10, SUITLAND STORAGE FACILITY," IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN ACCOMPANYING DRAWING AND SPECIFICATION. TWO BIDS, DATED SEPTEMBER 11, 1956, WERE RECEIVED IN RESPONSE THERETO ONE FOR $5,100 HAVING BEEN SUBMITTED BY EDWARD B. FRIEL, INC., WASHINGTON, AND THE OTHER FOR $3,100 BY MR. GEORGE A. SHUPP OF CHEVERLY.

AT APPROXIMATELY 12:15 P.M. ON THE DATE OF OPENING, SEPTEMBER 11, MR. SHUPP ADVISED THE CONTRACTING OFFICER BY TELEPHONE THAT HE HAD DISCOVERED A SERIOUS ERROR IN THE COMPUTATION OF HIS BID, IN VIEW OF WHICH HE WAS SENDING OVER A REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY TO PRESENT HIS WORKSHEETS, SHOWING THE NATURE OF THE ERROR.

WHILE THE BIDDER'S ORIGINAL WORKSHEETS ARE NOT MADE A PART OF THE INSTANT RECORD, THEY WERE MADE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, WHO EXPLAINS THE NATURE OF THE WORK OF THIS PROJECT AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ALLEGED ERROR WAS MADE, AS FOLLOWS:

"IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE BASIS OF THE CLAIMED ERROR, IT IS NECESSARY TO REVIEW THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH BIDS WERE REQUESTED. THIS WAS TO EXTEND THE EXISTING PARTIAL CONCRETE APPROACH TO BUILDING 10 AT THE SUITLAND STORAGE AREA, A BUILDING 180 WIDE AND PRESENTLY PROVIDED WITH A CONCRETE APPROACH 30 FEET WIDE TO THE CENTER VEHICULAR DOOR.

"THERE IS ENCLOSED A COPY OF THE DRAWING WHICH WAS A PART OF THE BID INVITATION AND WHICH WAS OMITTED FROM THE FILE FORWARDED FOR CONSIDERATION. AS SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING, THE NEW PAVING IS TO JOIN THE PRESENT PAVING AND EXTEND FOR A DISTANCE OF 64 FEET FROM EACH SIDE OF IT, LAID IN SECTIONS MEASURING 15 BY 16 FEET.

"THE WORK SHEET WHICH WAS PRESENTED FOR MY INSPECTION SHOWED THAT COMPUTATION OF THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF CONCRETE HAD BEEN BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FACTORS:

CHART

A. NUMBER OF SECTIONS--- 16

B. SIZE OF SECTIONS--- 16 BY 15 FEET

C. NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET (A TIMES B/--- 1920

D. NUMBER OF CUBIC FEET--- 1286.5

E. NUMBER OF CUBIC YARDS--- 47.67

"TO THE LAST FIGURE THERE HAD BEEN ADDED 2.67 CUBIC YARDS TO PROVIDE THE APPROACH TO THE PERSONNEL DOOR, MAKING A TOTAL OF 50.33 CUBIC YARDS OF CONCRETE REQUIRED.

"INSPECTION OF THE ABOVE FIGURES INDICATES THAT THE SQUARE FEET OF THE SECTIONS (B ABOVE) HAD BEEN MULTIPLIED BY 8 INSTEAD OF 16, RESULTING IN A TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 1920 INSTEAD OF THE CORRECT FIGURE OF 3840. THE ONLY EXPLANATION THE ESTIMATOR COULD OFFER FOR THIS ERROR WAS THAT HE HAD INADVERTENTLY SUBSTITUTED THE NUMBER OF SECTIONS ON EACH SIDE OF THE PRESENT PAVING FOR THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SECTIONS TO BE PROVIDED.'

DURING THE COURSE OF THE INTERVIEW HELD ON SEPTEMBER 11, 1956, MR. SHUPP WAS INSTRUCTED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TO PRESENT HIS CLAIM FOR RELIEF IN WRITING, SHOWING HOW THE ERROR OCCURRED AND THE AMOUNT OF HIS INTENDED BID, WHICH WAS ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH THE BIDDER'S LETTER OF THAT DATE, WHICH INDICATES THAT IN COMPUTING THE QUANTITY OF CONCRETE REQUIRED FOR THE SLAB, HE FIGURED ONLY 50 1/3 YARDS, INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED QUANTITY OF 98 YARDS, OR 47 2/3 YARDS SHORT. THE COST, INCLUDING A REASONABLE OVERHEAD AND PROFIT, ON THE ADDITIONAL WORK, WAS ESTIMATED BY MR. SHUPP AT $990.86, WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF MR. SHUPP'S BID TO $4,090.86, IN LIEU OF $3,100, AS QUOTED.

THE FACTS OF RECORD CLEARLY INDICATE THAT A BONA FIDE ERROR WAS MADE. HOWEVER, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FALLS FAR SHORT OF ESTABLISHING THE AMOUNT OF THE INTENDED BID WITH THE CERTAINTY AND CONCLUSIVENESS WHICH WE HAVE, IN FAIRNESS TO OTHER BIDDERS, CONSISTENTLY REQUIRED. SEE 28 COMP. GEN. 403.

YOU ARE ACCORDINGLY ADVISED THAT THE BID OF MR. SHUPP MAY NOT BE CORRECTED, BUT SHOULD BE DISREGARDED IN MAKING THE AWARD.