B-135990, MAY 8, 1958

B-135990: May 8, 1958

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 24. ON ACCOUNT OF AN ERROR ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE BID. HIS BID ON SCHEDULE 1 (DAVIS DAM) WAS THE LOW BID. UPON BEING ADVISED THAT HE WAS THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER ON SCHEDULE 1. ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE OF RECORD THERE IS NO REASONABLE GROUND FOR DOUBT THAT MR. THAT IS A MATTER FOR YOUR DETERMINATION. ALSO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF ONLY APPROXIMATELY $300 BETWEEN THE AMOUNTS QUOTED FOR SCHEDULES 1 AND 2. WHEREAS THERE IS A DIFFERENCE ON THOSE TWO SCHEDULES OF WELL OVER $2. IT IS NOT BELIEVED THAT MR. MR BRIDGES' BID MAY ALSO BE DISREGARDED IF HE SHOULD ALLEGE THAT HIS BID ON SCHEDULE 1 IS ERRONEOUS.

B-135990, MAY 8, 1958

TO MR. O. K. MANGUM, UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 24, 1958, REQUESTING A DECISION AS TO WHETHER PHILLIP B. WAREHAM MAY BE PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW HIS BID SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO SPECIFICATION NO. 304G-108, ON ACCOUNT OF AN ERROR ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE BID.

THE INVITATION REQUESTED BIDS TO BE OPENED ON MARCH 11, 1958, FOR PAINTING GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS AT DAVIS DAM GOVERNMENT CAMP, PARKER DAM GOVERNMENT CAMP, AND COOLIDGE, MESA, AND TUCSON SUBSTATIONS UNDER SCHEDULES NOS. 1 THROUGH 5. THE INVITATION PROVIDED THAT THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL MATERIALS NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE WORK, EXCEPT THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD FURNISH THE PAINT REQUIRED AT THE PARKER DAM CAMP (SCHEDULE 2).

IN RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION PHILLIP B. WAREHAM SUBMITTED A BID DATED MARCH 8, 1958, ON ALL FIVE SCHEDULES. HIS BID ON SCHEDULE 1 (DAVIS DAM) WAS THE LOW BID. UPON BEING ADVISED THAT HE WAS THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER ON SCHEDULE 1, AND BEING REQUESTED TO FURNISH A FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND EXPERIENCE RECORD, MR. WAREHAM ADVISED THAT AN ERROR HAD BEEN MADE IN HIS BID. THEREAFTER THE BIDDER FURNISHED HIS WORKSHEETS AND EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD CONFUSED PARKER DAM (SCHEDULE 2) WITH DAVIS DAM (SCHEDULE 1) IN REGARD TO MATERIALS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THAT THE BID ON SCHEDULE 1 (DAVIS DAM) DID NOT INCLUDE THE COST OF MATERIALS.

ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE OF RECORD THERE IS NO REASONABLE GROUND FOR DOUBT THAT MR. WAREHAM MADE AN ERROR IN HIS BID AS ALLEGED. ACCORDINGLY, MR. WAREHAM'S BID ON SCHEDULE 1 SHOULD BE DISREGARDED AS RECOMMENDED BY YOU.

AS TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE WORK COVERED BY SCHEDULE 1 SHOULD BE READVERTISED, THAT IS A MATTER FOR YOUR DETERMINATION. HOWEVER, THERE WOULD APPEAR TO BE A SERIOUS QUESTION AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SECOND LOW BID ON SCHEDULE 1 IN VIEW OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THAT BID AND THE THIRD LOW BID AND THE GOVERNMENT'S ESTIMATE, AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF ONLY APPROXIMATELY $300 BETWEEN THE AMOUNTS QUOTED FOR SCHEDULES 1 AND 2, WHEREAS THERE IS A DIFFERENCE ON THOSE TWO SCHEDULES OF WELL OVER $2,000 IN THE BIDS OF ALL BUT ONE OF THE OTHER BIDDERS AND IN THE GOVERNMENT'S ESTIMATE. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS NOT BELIEVED THAT MR. BRIDGES' BID ON SCHEDULE 1 SHOULD BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT REQUESTING VERIFICATION. IN VIEW OF THE TIME LIMIT FOR ACCEPTANCE, MR BRIDGES' BID MAY ALSO BE DISREGARDED IF HE SHOULD ALLEGE THAT HIS BID ON SCHEDULE 1 IS ERRONEOUS.