B-144093, OCT. 12, 1960

B-144093: Oct 12, 1960

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

INVITATION FOR BIDS AVI-04-507-S-60-26 WAS ISSUED JUNE 2. 449 OIL CRANKSHAFT SLINGS (ON WHICH THE ORIGINAL ACQUISITION COST WAS $182.80). ASSUMED THE UNIT PRICES WERE CORRECT AND AMENDED THE TOTAL PRICES TO AGREE. THE UNIT PRICE INTENDED WAS ?005 INSTEAD OF ?05 AND THAT AS TO ITEM 30. THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S WORKSHEETS. IN OUR VIEW THE RULE PROVIDING THAT THE UNIT PRICE WILL GOVERN WHEN THAT PRICE AND THE TOTAL PRICE ARE INCONSISTENT IS FOR APPLICATION. IN THIS CASE THE DIFFERENCES WERE SUBSTANTIAL. THE PRICES AS CORRECTED WERE TOTALLY OUT OF LINE WITH OTHER OFFERS FOR LARGE QUANTITIES AND.

B-144093, OCT. 12, 1960

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY:

BY LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1960, WITH ENCLOSURES, FROM THE OFFICE OF THE QUARTERMASTER GENERAL, THERE HAS BEEN FORWARDED A REQUEST BY JERRY M. LEWIS FOR RESCISSION OF ITEMS 26 AND 30, CONTRACT NO. 04-507 01-/S/-388-60 BECAUSE OF MISTAKE IN BID.

INVITATION FOR BIDS AVI-04-507-S-60-26 WAS ISSUED JUNE 2, 1960, BY THE SIERRA ORDNANCE DEPOT FOR THE SALE OF SURPLUS MATERIALS. ITEM 26 OFFERED FOR SALE 23,060 BEARINGS; JERRY M. LEWIS SUBMITTED A UNIT PRICE OF ?05 AND A TOTAL PRICE OF $115.30. ON ITEM 30, COVERING 3,449 OIL CRANKSHAFT SLINGS (ON WHICH THE ORIGINAL ACQUISITION COST WAS $182.80), LEWIS' BID QUOTED A UNIT PRICE OF ?06 AND A TOTAL PRICE OF $18.00. ALTHOUGH HE NOTED THE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE UNIT AND TOTAL PRICES ON THE TWO ITEMS, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DID NOT REQUEST VERIFICATION BUT, PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE GENERAL SALE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, ASSUMED THE UNIT PRICES WERE CORRECT AND AMENDED THE TOTAL PRICES TO AGREE. ON JUNE 27, 1960, HE AWARDED TO LEWIS 22,540 UNITS OF ITEM 26 AT A TOTAL PRICE OF $1,127.00, AND THE ENTIRE QUANTITY OF ITEM 30, 3,449 UNITES, AT $206.94. THE CONTRACTOR PAID FOR THE PROPERTY IN FULL BUT DID NOT REMOVE THE UNITS AWARDED UNDER THE TWO ITEMS IN QUESTION. INSTEAD, HE REQUESTED TO BE RELIEVED OF THE AWARD FOR THESE ITEMS BECAUSE OF A MISTAKE IN BID. ALLEGED THAT AS TO ITEM 26, THE UNIT PRICE INTENDED WAS ?005 INSTEAD OF ?05 AND THAT AS TO ITEM 30, HE HAD INTENDED THE BID TO APPLY TO ITEM 31. THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S WORKSHEETS.

IN OUR VIEW THE RULE PROVIDING THAT THE UNIT PRICE WILL GOVERN WHEN THAT PRICE AND THE TOTAL PRICE ARE INCONSISTENT IS FOR APPLICATION, WITHOUT REQUESTING VERIFICATION, ONLY WHERE THE CORRECTION RESULTS IN A RELATIVELY MINOR CHANGE IN THE EXTENDED PRICE OR WHERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE THAT THE UNIT PRICE ACTUALLY REPRESENTS THE INTENDED PRICE. 37 COMP. GEN. 829. IN THIS CASE THE DIFFERENCES WERE SUBSTANTIAL; AND THE PRICES AS CORRECTED WERE TOTALLY OUT OF LINE WITH OTHER OFFERS FOR LARGE QUANTITIES AND, IN THE CASE OF ITEM 30, EXCEEDED THE GOVERNMENT'S ACQUISITION COST. ACCORDINGLY, THE AWARD TO LEWIS ON THE ITEMS IN QUESTION MAY BE CANCELLED, AND THE PURCHASE MONEY THEREFOR MAY BE RETURNED. B-141668, JANUARY 25, 1960.