B-130540, FEB. 8, 1957

B-130540: Feb 8, 1957

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 30. (D) 73546-B MAY BE DISREGARDED ON ACCOUNT OF AN ERROR ALLEGED BY THE CORPORATION TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE BID. AFTER THE OPENING OF THE BIDS IT WAS NOTED. ON ITEM 2 WAS PROBABLY ON A UNIT BASIS RATHER THAN A LOT BASIS. THE BIDDER WAS REQUESTED TO CONFIRM ITS BID AND THE BIDDER CONFIRMED YOUR SUSPICION THAT THE PRICE QUOTED WAS ON A UNIT BASIS. ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE OF RECORD THERE APPEARS NO DOUBT THAT AN ERROR WAS MADE IN THE BID AS ALLEGED. SINCE IT WAS BELIEVED THAT THE BID OF LUDLOW VALVE MANUFACTURING COMPANY. ON ITEM 2 WAS ERRONEOUS. SINCE SUCH BELIEF WAS CONFIRMED AND THE ERROR EXPLAINED BY THE CORPORATION PRIOR TO AWARD.

B-130540, FEB. 8, 1957

TO MR. J. C. KIMBALL, CONTRACTING OFFICER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 30, 1957, FILE REFERENCE B- 289A, REQUESTING A DECISION AS TO WHETHER THE BID SUBMITTED BY THE LUDLOW VALVE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., ON ITEM 2 OF INVITATION NO. (D) 73546-B MAY BE DISREGARDED ON ACCOUNT OF AN ERROR ALLEGED BY THE CORPORATION TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE BID.

ITEM 2 OF THE INVITATION REQUESTED BIDS FOR FURNISHING THREE VALVES ON A LOT BASIS. AFTER THE OPENING OF THE BIDS IT WAS NOTED, FROM A COMPARISON WITH THE PRICES QUOTED BY THE OTHER BIDDERS AND THE GOVERNMENT'S ESTIMATE, THAT THE BID OF LUDLOW VALVE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., ON ITEM 2 WAS PROBABLY ON A UNIT BASIS RATHER THAN A LOT BASIS. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE BIDDER WAS REQUESTED TO CONFIRM ITS BID AND THE BIDDER CONFIRMED YOUR SUSPICION THAT THE PRICE QUOTED WAS ON A UNIT BASIS.

ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE OF RECORD THERE APPEARS NO DOUBT THAT AN ERROR WAS MADE IN THE BID AS ALLEGED. ACCORDINGLY, SINCE IT WAS BELIEVED THAT THE BID OF LUDLOW VALVE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., ON ITEM 2 WAS ERRONEOUS, AND SINCE SUCH BELIEF WAS CONFIRMED AND THE ERROR EXPLAINED BY THE CORPORATION PRIOR TO AWARD, THE BID OF THE CORPORATION ON ITEM 2 SHOULD BE DISREGARDED.