B-141955, MAR. 29, 1960

B-141955: Mar 29, 1960

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

INC.: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 8. WE HAVE NOW RECEIVED A LETTER DATED MARCH 15. OFFERED FOR SALE CERTAIN QUANTITIES OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED SURPLUS PROPERTY AMONG WHICH WAS ITEM 54 CONSISTING OF "APPROXIMATELY" 61. THE INVITATION CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THE PROPERTY COVERED BY ITEM 54 WAS OFFERED FOR SALE ON A "PER LOT" BASIS. THE NEXT LOWER BID WAS SUBMITTED BY DIESEL COMPONENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2. 441.88 ON A "PER LOT" BASIS AND AWARD WAS MADE TO THAT CONCERN UNDER CONTRACT NO. THERE WOULD APPEAR TO BE FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS CASE THE FACT THAT SINCE YOUR BID WAS ON A . UNIT PRICE" BASIS THE ACCEPTANCE THEREOF COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN ON SUCH BASIS. IT WOULD SEEM TO FOLLOW THAT HAD YOUR BID BEEN ACCEPTED AS MADE THERE MIGHT HAVE ARISEN A QUESTION AS TO AN ADJUSTMENT IN PRICE IN THE EVENT OF A VARIANCE BETWEEN THE "APPROXIMATE" QUANTITY OF 61.

B-141955, MAR. 29, 1960

TO DIESEL INJECTION PRODUCTS, INC.:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 8, 1960, PROTESTING THE ACTION OF THE U.S. NAVAL SUPPLY DEPOT, MECHANICSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA, IN AWARDING A CONTRACT UNDER INVITATION TO BID NO. 31-60 407, COVERING THE SALE OF CERTAIN QUANTITIES OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED SURPLUS PROPERTY. BY OUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 16, 1960, WE ADVISED YOU THAT THE MATTER OF YOUR PROTEST HAD BEEN BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY AND THAT WE WOULD ADVISE YOU OF OUR DECISION AFTER WE HAD CONCLUDED OUR DEVELOPMENT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.

WE HAVE NOW RECEIVED A LETTER DATED MARCH 15, 1960, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, SUBMITTING A REPORT OF THE FACTS AND ENCLOSING COPIES OF THE PERTINENT DOCUMENTS. THE RECORD INDICATES THAT BY THE CITED INVITATION TO BID DATED DECEMBER 30, 1959, THE U.S. NAVAL SUPPLY DEPOT, MECHANICSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA, OFFERED FOR SALE CERTAIN QUANTITIES OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED SURPLUS PROPERTY AMONG WHICH WAS ITEM 54 CONSISTING OF "APPROXIMATELY" 61,000 EXHAUST VALVE SPRINGS. THE INVITATION CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THE PROPERTY COVERED BY ITEM 54 WAS OFFERED FOR SALE ON A "PER LOT" BASIS. YOUR CONCERN SUBMITTED A BID OF $0.042 PER UNIT WITH AN EXTENDED TOTAL OF $2,562. THE NEXT LOWER BID WAS SUBMITTED BY DIESEL COMPONENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,441.88 ON A "PER LOT" BASIS AND AWARD WAS MADE TO THAT CONCERN UNDER CONTRACT NO. N407S-9903, DATED JANUARY 28, 1960. THE RECORD INDICATES THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE AWARD THE CONTRACTOR SOLD THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION TO ANOTHER PURCHASER.

THERE WOULD APPEAR TO BE FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS CASE THE FACT THAT SINCE YOUR BID WAS ON A ,UNIT PRICE" BASIS THE ACCEPTANCE THEREOF COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN ON SUCH BASIS. IT WOULD SEEM TO FOLLOW THAT HAD YOUR BID BEEN ACCEPTED AS MADE THERE MIGHT HAVE ARISEN A QUESTION AS TO AN ADJUSTMENT IN PRICE IN THE EVENT OF A VARIANCE BETWEEN THE "APPROXIMATE" QUANTITY OF 61,000 VALVE SPRINGS AND THE QUANTITY ACTUALLY AVAILABLE FOR DELIVERY. IN ANY EVENT, IN ISSUING THE INVITATION IN THIS CASE IT WAS CLEARLY THE INTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY TO DISPOSE OF ITEM 54 ON A "PER LOT" BASIS AND THUS AVOID ANY QUESTION AS TO A VARIANCE IN THE INDICATED QUANTITY. UPON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS APPEARING IN THIS CASE IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WOULD HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED IN DISREGARDING YOUR BID AS NOT RESPONSIVE TO THE INVITATION, AND IN AWARDING THE CONTRACT TO A BIDDER WHOSE BID COMPLETELY CONFORMED TO THE INVITATION. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE WILL NOT QUESTION THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY IN THIS CASE.