B-141892, FEB. 11, 1960
Highlights
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 2. " OF ITS BID SHOULD HAVE SHOWN THE AMOUNT OF $10.35 FOR EACH ITEM. THAT THIS IS THE SAME CHARGE SHOWN BY THEM UNDER ITEMS 7. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT HE BELIEVES HE SHOULD HAVE NOTICED THAT THESE PRICES HAD BEEN OMITTED FROM THE BID AT THE TIME OF EVALUATION AND WHEN AWARDS WERE MADE. HE WOULD HAVE ADVISED REMINGTON RAND OF THE OMISSION. THAT HE WOULD HAVE AUTHORIZED A CORRECTION BEFORE AWARD. APPARENTLY THE CONTRACTOR MISTAKENLY ENTERED "NB" WHICH IS TO BE INDICATED BY A BIDDER WHEN HE CANNOT FURNISH THE ITEM. IT IS REPORTED THAT. WHEN PRICES ARE BID FOR TABULATING CARDS. WE CONCLUDE ALSO THAT THIS OMISSION OF AN INTEGRAL ITEM OF COST FROM THE FACE OF THE BID SHOULD HAVE BEEN SO APPARENT TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT ACCEPTANCE OF THE BID WITHOUT VERIFICATION WAS IMPROPER.
B-141892, FEB. 11, 1960
TO HONORABLE RAYMOND BLATTENBERGER, PUBLIC PRINTER, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 2, 1960, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING OUR DECISION WHETHER, ON THE BASIS OF AN ALLEGED ERROR IN BID, REMINGTON RAND DIVISION OF SPERRY RAND CORPORATION MAY BE ALLOWED AN INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT PRICE OF TABULATING CARDS TO BE FURNISHED UNDER CONTRACT NO. GP-27561A.
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
THE INVITATION PROVIDED A BLANK SPACE FOR A SETUP CHARGE ON THE INVOLVED ITEMS, BUT APPARENTLY THE CONTRACTOR MISTAKENLY ENTERED "NB" WHICH IS TO BE INDICATED BY A BIDDER WHEN HE CANNOT FURNISH THE ITEM. IT IS REPORTED THAT, AS A GENERAL RULE, WHEN PRICES ARE BID FOR TABULATING CARDS, ALL OF THE ITEMS UNDER 5 (A) THROUGH 5 (1), 7, 8 AND 9 INCLUDE A SETUP CHARGE.
FROM THE FACTS PRESENTED IN YOUR LETTER AND IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED IN SUBMITTING BIDS FOR TABULATING CARDS, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE CONTRACTOR DID, IN FACT, MAKE AN ERROR AS ALLEGED. WE CONCLUDE ALSO THAT THIS OMISSION OF AN INTEGRAL ITEM OF COST FROM THE FACE OF THE BID SHOULD HAVE BEEN SO APPARENT TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT ACCEPTANCE OF THE BID WITHOUT VERIFICATION WAS IMPROPER.
ACCORDINGLY, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT THE CONTRACT MAY BE AMENDED TO REFLECT THE SETUP CHARGES ON ITEMS 5 (A) THROUGH 5 (1) AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED BY THE CONTRACTOR, PROVIDED SUCH PRICE ADJUSTMENT DOES NOT EXCEED THE PRICE OF THE NEXT LOW BID SUBMITTED UNDER THE INVITATION FOR ITEMS 5 (A) THROUGH 5 (1). A REFERENCE TO THIS DECISION SHOULD BE MADE ON THE PROPOSED SUPPLEMENT TO THE CONTRACT.