B-129892, DEC. 10, 1956

B-129892: Dec 10, 1956

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

PUBLIC PRINTER: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 27. THE BIDS WERE OPENED ON NOVEMBER 9. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE TENAK PRODUCTS COMPANY WAS THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER AT AN AGGREGATE PRICE OF $272.30. WAS STATED AS 35 CENTS PER POUND. FOUR OTHER BIDS WERE RECEIVED WHICH RANGED FROM $690 AND $1. WHEN THE BIDS WERE EXAMINED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HE NOTED THAT THE BID BY THE TENAK PRODUCTS COMPANY WAS PROBABLY IN ERROR BECAUSE THE BID PRICE WAS OUT OF LINE WITH THE OTHER BIDS RECEIVED. THE QUOTATION OF $0.35 PER POUND WAS ALSO OUT OF LINE WITH PRICES PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED BY THE TENAK PRODUCTS COMPANY FOR THIS MATERIAL. IT IS REPORTED THAT ON NOVEMBER 15. A TELEGRAM WAS FORWARDED TO THE TENAK PRODUCTS COMPANY REQUESTING THEM TO VERIFY THEIR BID PRICE FOR THIS MATERIAL.

B-129892, DEC. 10, 1956

TO HONORABLE RAYMOND BLATTENBERGER, PUBLIC PRINTER:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 27, 1956, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING A DECISION AS TO WHETHER A BID SUBMITTED BY THE TENAK PRODUCTS COMPANY, 2615 NORTH PAULINA STREET, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, MAY BE CONSIDERED AS CORRECTED IN AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE MATERIALS CALLED FOR THEREBY.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ON OCTOBER 19, 1956, YOUR AGENCY ADVERTISED FOR PRICES ON 3,000 SHEETS (PLUS OR MINUS 10 PERCENT) OF VL-5008 VINYLITEOR EQUAL, CUT TO SIZE 12 BY 14, SHIPMENT TO BE MADE WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF ORDER. THE INVITATION REQUESTED UNIT PRICES PER SHEET, AND NET AMOUNT BID. THE BIDS WERE OPENED ON NOVEMBER 9, 1956, AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE TENAK PRODUCTS COMPANY WAS THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER AT AN AGGREGATE PRICE OF $272.30. ITS UNIT PRICE, HOWEVER, WAS STATED AS 35 CENTS PER POUND, RATHER THAN ON THE UNIT REQUESTED. FOUR OTHER BIDS WERE RECEIVED WHICH RANGED FROM $690 AND $1,230, UNIT PRICES QUOTED PER SHEET RANGING FROM $0.23 TO $0.41. WHEN THE BIDS WERE EXAMINED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HE NOTED THAT THE BID BY THE TENAK PRODUCTS COMPANY WAS PROBABLY IN ERROR BECAUSE THE BID PRICE WAS OUT OF LINE WITH THE OTHER BIDS RECEIVED, AND THE QUOTATION OF $0.35 PER POUND WAS ALSO OUT OF LINE WITH PRICES PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED BY THE TENAK PRODUCTS COMPANY FOR THIS MATERIAL.

IT IS REPORTED THAT ON NOVEMBER 15, 1956, A TELEGRAM WAS FORWARDED TO THE TENAK PRODUCTS COMPANY REQUESTING THEM TO VERIFY THEIR BID PRICE FOR THIS MATERIAL. THE COMPANY REPLIED BY TELEGRAM ON THE SAME DAY ADVISING THAT THE PRICE FOR THE VINYLITE SHOULD BE 75 CENTS PER POUND, OR A TOTAL OF $583.50. UNDER DATE OF NOVEMBER 16, 1956, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REQUESTED THE COMPANY TO FURNISH A FURTHER EXPLANATION CONCERNING THE ALLEGED ERROR IN BID AND ALSO TO FURNISH A CATALOG CONTAINING THE STANDARD PRICES FOR THIS MATERIAL. IN A LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 20, 1956, THE COMPANY STATED THAT THE MISTAKE IN BID WAS THE RESULT OF A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR AND THAT THE PRICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN 75 CENTS PER POUND. WITH THE LETTER THERE WAS SUBMITTED A PRICE LIST DATED SEPTEMBER 15, 1955, SHOWING THE ESTABLISHED PRICE OF TENAMOLD NO. 2 AS 75 CENTS PER POUND.

THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT HE BELIEVES THE BID SUBMITTED BY THE TENAK PRODUCTS COMPANY AT 35 CENTS PER POUND WAS ERRONEOUS BECAUSE IN MAY 1956, YOUR AGENCY PLACED AN ORDER WITH THIS FIRM FOR THE SAME TYPE OF MATERIAL AND PAID 75 CENTS PER POUND THEREFOR. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER STATED FURTHER THAT IN VIEW OF THE PREVIOUS PURCHASE FROM THE TENAK PRODUCTS COMPANY OF THIS MATERIAL AT 75 CENTS PER POUND, HE BELIEVES IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PERMIT THIS COMPANY TO INCREASE ITS BID PRICE FROM 35 CENTS TO 75 CENTS PER POUND AND AWARD THE CONTRACT TO THIS FIRM.

THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE TENAK PRODUCTS COMPANY, WHEN CONSIDERED ALONG WITH THE FACT OF THE PREVIOUS PURCHASE OF THE SAME TYPE OF MATERIAL FROM THIS FIRM AT 75 CENTS PER POUND, APPEARS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PRICE QUOTED OF 35 CENTS PER POUND WAS ERRONEOUS. HOWEVER, SINCE THE BIDDER UNDERTOOK TO QUOTE ON A UNIT OTHER THAN THAT REQUESTED, BUT STATED A FIGURE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE QUOTED BY OTHER BIDDERS FOR THE DESIRED UNIT, WE ARE NOT SATISFIED THAT THE SOURCE OF THE ERROR IS SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED TO PERMIT OF THE CORRECTION REQUESTED. WE THEREFORE BELIEVE THAT THE BID SHOULD BE REJECTED AS NON-RESPONSIVE.

THE PAPERS TRANSMITTED WITH YOUR LETTER, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LETTER OF NOVEMBER 20, 1956, ARE RETURNED HEREWITH.