B-135933, JUN. 26, 1958

B-135933: Jun 26, 1958

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

TO WESTERN SALVAGE COMPANY: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 21. THE SALES LETTER PROVIDES AT THE CENTER TOP OF THE FIRST PAGE THAT THE BID OPENING DATE IS APRIL 2. WHICH WAS MAILED IN TIME TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE DEADLINE STIPULATED IN PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 4 BUT SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIME PROVIDED AT THE TOP CENTER OF PAGE 1. WAS RETURNED UNOPENED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT MAILED ON TIME. WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY THAT THE DISCREPANCY AROSE AS THE RESULT OF ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR AND THAT THE EARLIER TIME WAS ACTUALLY INTENDED FOR BID OPENING. IT IS STATED THAT THE NATURE OF THE ERROR WAS EXPLAINED TO HIM AND THAT. BECAUSE THE BID ACCEPTED FOR A PARTICULAR ITEM IN WHICH YOUR FIRM WAS INTERESTED WAS CONSIDERABLY HIGHER THAN THE AMOUNT OF YOUR BID ON THE ITEM.

B-135933, JUN. 26, 1958

TO WESTERN SALVAGE COMPANY:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 21, 1958, WITH ENCLOSURES, POINTING OUT A DISCREPANCY IN THE BID OPENING DATE APPEARING IN VARIOUS PORTIONS OF SALES LETTER NO. SL-9-58-244, ISSUED MARCH 13, 1958, BY THE U.S. NAVAL SUPPLY DEPOT, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN SURPLUS MATERIALS.

THE SALES LETTER PROVIDES AT THE CENTER TOP OF THE FIRST PAGE THAT THE BID OPENING DATE IS APRIL 2, 1958, PARAGRAPH 3, HOWEVER, STATES, IN EFFECT, THAT BUYERS SHOULD INSPECT THE MATERIAL PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THEIR BIDS AND THAT SUCH INSPECTION CAN BE MADE UP TO 10:00 A.M., ON APRIL 3, 1958. IN ADDITION, PARAGRAPH 4 STATES "ALL BIDS TO BE CONSIDERED MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 10:00 A.M., ON 3 APRIL 1958.' YOUR BID, WHICH WAS MAILED IN TIME TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE DEADLINE STIPULATED IN PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 4 BUT SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIME PROVIDED AT THE TOP CENTER OF PAGE 1, WAS RETURNED UNOPENED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT MAILED ON TIME.

WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY THAT THE DISCREPANCY AROSE AS THE RESULT OF ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR AND THAT THE EARLIER TIME WAS ACTUALLY INTENDED FOR BID OPENING. THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT FURTHER STATES THAT, ON THE AFTERNOON OF APRIL 4, 1958, MR. PERLMUTTER OF YOUR FIRM VISITED THE DEPOT TO REQUEST AN ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION OF THE REASON FOR THE REJECTION OF YOUR BID. IT IS STATED THAT THE NATURE OF THE ERROR WAS EXPLAINED TO HIM AND THAT, BECAUSE THE BID ACCEPTED FOR A PARTICULAR ITEM IN WHICH YOUR FIRM WAS INTERESTED WAS CONSIDERABLY HIGHER THAN THE AMOUNT OF YOUR BID ON THE ITEM, MR. PERLMUTTER INDICATED THAT HE DID NOT WISH TO PURSUE THE MATTER FURTHER. WE ARE ALSO INFORMED THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR IS REGRETTED AND ACTION IS BEING TAKEN TO PRECLUDE THE OCCURRENCE OF SIMILAR ERRORS IN THE FUTURE.

IN YOUR LETTER, YOU ASK WHAT INTERPRETATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO INVITATIONS WHEN INCONSISTENCIES OF THIS TYPE APPEAR. WE WOULD SUGGEST THAT SUCH INCONSISTENCIES SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, PREFERABLY PRIOR TO THE TIME FOR BID OPENING. WHERE THE DISCREPANCY IS NOT NOTED WITHIN TIME TO PERMIT CORRECTIVE ACTION BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND CONSIDERATION OF A BID WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE FOR ACCEPTANCE IS DENIED BECAUSE OF DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS OF THE INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS, THE MATTER SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AND OF OUR OFFICE.