B-136311, JUN. 9, 1958

B-136311: Jun 9, 1958

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

REGION 2: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 27. THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED WAS DIVIDED INTO 16 ITEMS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUBMITTING BIDS AND MAKING PAYMENT FOR THE WORK. 585.99 AND THE GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF THE WORK WAS $71. YOU STATE THAT WHEN THE BIDS WERE EXAMINED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE UNIT PRICE OF $0.0022 PER SQUARE FOOT QUOTED BY MR. " WAS POSSIBLY IN ERROR BECAUSE IT WAS CONSIDERABLY LOWER THAN THE NEXT LOWEST BID IN THE AMOUNT OF $0.01 PER SQUARE FOOT RECEIVED ON THAT ITEM AND THE GOVERNMENT'S ESTIMATE OF $0.02 PER SQUARE FOOT. DAVIS WAS REQUESTED TO VERIFY HIS BID ON THAT ITEM. DAVIS WAS QUOTED A PRICE OF $3. THE ABSTRACT OF BIDS SHOWS THAT THE FIVE OTHER BIDDERS ON ITEM 3 QUOTED UNIT PRICES RANGING FROM $0.01 TO $0.03 PER SQUARE FOOT AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S ESTIMATED UNIT PRICE FOR THAT ITEM WAS $0.02 PER SQUARE FOOT.

B-136311, JUN. 9, 1958

TO MR. B. P. BELLPORT, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, REGION 2:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 27, 1958, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING A DECISION AS TO THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN CONCERNING AN ERROR WHICH MR. DAVID L. DAVIS, WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA, ALLEGES HE MADE IN HIS BID OPENED ON MAY 6, 1958.

BY SPECIFICATIONS NO. 200C-383, AS AMENDED, THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTED BIDS FOR FURNISHING LABOR AND MATERIALS AND PERFORMING ALL WORK REQUIRED FOR THE LANDSCAPING OF TRINITY DAM GOVERNMENT CAMP, TRINITY RIVER DIVISION, CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED WAS DIVIDED INTO 16 ITEMS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUBMITTING BIDS AND MAKING PAYMENT FOR THE WORK. IN RESPONSE MR. DAVID L. DAVIS SUBMITTED A BID DATED MAY 6, 1958, OFFERING TO PERFORM THE WORK FOR VARIOUS UNIT PRICES SET FORTH OPPOSITE EACH ITEM, WHICH PRODUCED A TOTAL BID OF $21,036. THE FIVE OTHER BIDS ON THE PROJECT RANGED FROM $33,988 TO $83,585.99 AND THE GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF THE WORK WAS $71,004.

YOU STATE THAT WHEN THE BIDS WERE EXAMINED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE UNIT PRICE OF $0.0022 PER SQUARE FOOT QUOTED BY MR. DAVIS FOR ITEM 3,"PREPARATION OF PLOT AREAS," WAS POSSIBLY IN ERROR BECAUSE IT WAS CONSIDERABLY LOWER THAN THE NEXT LOWEST BID IN THE AMOUNT OF $0.01 PER SQUARE FOOT RECEIVED ON THAT ITEM AND THE GOVERNMENT'S ESTIMATE OF $0.02 PER SQUARE FOOT, AND THAT, THEREFORE, MR. DAVIS WAS REQUESTED TO VERIFY HIS BID ON THAT ITEM.

BY NOTARIZED LETTER DATED MAY. 19, 1958, IN WHICH HE REQUESTED THAT HE BE PERMITTED TO CORRECT OR WITHDRAW HIS BID, MR. DAVIS ADVISED THAT HE HAD MADE AN ERROR IN QUOTING ON ITEM 3 OF HIS BID IN THAT HE HAD FAILED TO INCLUDE IN HIS BID PRICE THE COST OF THE ROUGH PART OF FINISH GRADING WORK ON WHICH, HE STATED, HE HAD RECEIVED A QUOTATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,800 ($0.004 PER SQUARE FOOT); AND HE REQUESTED THAT HIS BID PRICE FOR ITEM 3 BE INCREASED BY $0.004 FROM $0.0022 TO $0.0062 PER SQUARE FOOT TO COVER THE OMITTED GRADING WORK. IN SUPPORT OF HIS ALLEGATION OF ERROR, MR. DAVIS SUBMITTED A COPY OF A QUOTATION DATED MAY 2, 1958, RECEIVED FROM JOHN H. MCCOSKER, NC., BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, IN WHICH MR. DAVIS WAS QUOTED A PRICE OF $3,800 FOR ROUGH GRADING AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 950,000 SQUARE FEET.

THE ABSTRACT OF BIDS SHOWS THAT THE FIVE OTHER BIDDERS ON ITEM 3 QUOTED UNIT PRICES RANGING FROM $0.01 TO $0.03 PER SQUARE FOOT AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S ESTIMATED UNIT PRICE FOR THAT ITEM WAS $0.02 PER SQUARE FOOT. THUS, THE BID OF MR. DAVIS OF $0.0022 PER SQUARE FOOT FOR ITEM 3 IS COMPLETELY OUT OF LINE WITH THE OTHER BIDS THEREON AND WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S ESTIMATE.

ON THE RECORD, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT MR. DAVIS MADE AN ERROR IN HIS BID, AS ALLEGED. THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER, ARE NOT SUCH AS WOULD WARRANT A DEPARTURE FROM THE GENERAL RULE THAT BIDS MAY NOT BE CHANGED AFTER THE BIDS HAVE BEEN OPENED. SEE 17 COMP. GEN. 575.

ACCORDINGLY, SINCE IT WAS BELIEVED THAT THE BID OF MR. DAVIS WAS ERRONEOUS, AND SINCE SUCH BELIEF WAS CONFIRMED AND THE ERROR WAS EXPLAINED BY HIM PRIOR TO AWARD, THE BID OF MR. DAVIS MAY BE DISREGARDED IN MAKING THE AWARD.