B-142369, APR. 7, 1960

B-142369, APR. 7, 1960

TO SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER DATED MARCH 22, 1960, FROM THE CHIEF, PROCUREMENT POLICY DIVISION DIRECTORATE, PROCUREMENT AND PRODUCTION OFFICE, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR MATERIAL, HEADQUARTERS, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE (AFMPP-PR-3), REQUESTING A DECISION AS TO WHETHER AN AWARD MADE TO YUKON EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERY FOR ITEM NO. 58 OF SALES INVITATION NO. 04-603-A-60-4, ISSUED BY MAYWOOD AIR FORCE DEPOT, MAYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, MAY BE CANCELLED BECAUSE OF THE MISTAKE IN BID ALLEGED.

THE ITEM WAS DESCRIBED IN THE INVITATION AND THE CONTRACTOR SUBMITTED A BID THEREON AS FOLLOWS:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * (TABLE OMITTED) * * * * * * * * * * * *

THE ABOVE ITEM WAS ONE OF A NUMBER OF ITEMS ON WHICH THE CONTRACTOR SUBMITTED BIDS UNDER THE INVITATION, BUT IT WAS DETERMINED TO BE A SUCCESSFUL BIDDER ONLY WITH RESPECT TO ITEMS NUMBERED 2 AND 58, WHICH WERE AWARDED TO IT BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1959, AT THE TOTAL PRICES OF $849.68 AND $438.03, RESPECTIVELY. IN NOTIFYING THE CONTRACTOR OF THE AWARD, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REQUESTED PAYMENT OF THE SUM OF $337.71, REPRESENTING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN $1,287.71 AND THE AMOUNT WHICH THE CONTRACTOR HAD PUT UP AS A BID DEPOSIT, AND HE ADVISED THAT THE MATERIALS WERE REQUIRED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S PREMISES BY SEPTEMBER 21, 1959.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE CONTRACTOR PAID THE REFERRED-TO SUM OF $337.71 ON SEPTEMBER 17, 1959, AND TOOK POSSESSION OF THE ARTICLES COMPRISING ITEM 2, BUT THAT HE REFUSED TO TAKE POSSESSION OF THE ARTICLES COMPRISING ITEM 58. IN A LETTER DATED OCTOBER 12, 1959, TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WITH REFERENCE TO THE MATTER, THE CONTRACTOR'S ATTORNEYS STATED:

"IT IS THE POSITION OF MR. SLISKOVICH, AND, I THINK, SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, THAT THE BID AS ACTUALLY TRANSMITTED TO YOU WAS IN ERROR SINCE MR. SLISKOVICH WAS ACTUALLY BIDDING ON ITEM NO. 59, INSTEAD OF ITEM NO. 58, ON PAGE NO. 22 OF THE INVITATION TO BID AND ACCEPTANCE. THIS IS PARTICULARLY NOTED WHEN IT IS NOTICED THAT ITEM NO. 58 CALLS FOR A QUANTITY OF "ONE" LOT, AND THE BID SUBMITTED BY MR. SLISKOVICH SHOWS A BID PRICE PER UNIT OF $3.11, WHICH EXTENDS TO A TOTAL PRICE BID OF $438.03. APPLYING THAT CATEGORY TO THE 173 EACH ITEMS, IN ITEM NO. 59, THE EXTENSION OF $3.11 TIMES 173 WOULD EQUAL $438.03.

"WE FEEL, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT THE BID HAVING BEEN MADE IN ERROR AND THE ERROR BEING OBVIOUS UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THERE WAS ACTUALLY NO BID TO ITEM 58 AND THAT MR. SLISKOVICH SHOULD BE COMPLETELY RELEASED FROM THAT ITEM.'

WHILE THE 173 UNITS COMPRISING ITEM 59 MULTIPLIED BY $3.11 AMOUNTS TO $538.03, THE RELATIONSHIP OF THAT UNIT PRICE AND TOTAL AMOUNT TO THE QUANTITY OF UNITS COMPRISING ITEM 59 TENDS TO SUPPORT THE CONTRACTOR'S CONTENTION THAT IT INTENDED TO SUBMIT A BID ON ITEM 59, RATHER THAN ITEM 58. IN ANY EVENT, SINCE THE UNIT AND TOTAL PRICE INSERTED FOR ITEM 58 WERE INCONSISTENT WITH THE REQUEST FOR BIDS ON A LOT BASIS AND WITH THE APPROXIMATE QUANTITY OF 1123 CIRCUIT BREAKERS COMPRISING THE ITEM, THE POSSIBILITY OF ERROR IN THE BID SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. ALSO, THERE WAS THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE ONLY OTHER BIDS RECEIVED FOR ITEM 58 WERE IN THE TOTAL AMOUNTS OF $1.11 AND $27.

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE WILL INTERPOSE NO OBJECTION IF THE PURCHASE PRICE PAID FOR THE ITEM INVOLVED IS REFUNDED TO THE CONTRACTOR, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CHIEF, PROCUREMENT POLICY DIVISION DIRECTORATE.

THE "CLAIM REPORT" TRANSMITTED WITH THE LETTER FROM THE CHIEF, PROCUREMENT POLICY DIVISION DIRECTORATE, IS RETURNED.