B-144418, NOV. 23, 1960
Highlights
TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 10. REQUESTING A DECISION AS TO THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN CONCERNING AN ERROR ALLEGED BY THE TURLOCK SALES COMPANY TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN ITS BID ON WHICH CONTRACT NO. N63068S-47305 IS BASED. THE ONLY OTHER BID ON ITEM 55 WAS IN THE AMOUNT OF $0.0075 PER POUND. THE BID OF THE COMPANY WAS ACCEPTED AS TO ITEM 55 ON SEPTEMBER 27. THE COMPANY STATED THAT THE EXTENDED TOTAL FOR ITEM 55 ESTABLISHES THAT IT WAS ITS INTENT TO MAKE SUCH PRICE APPLICABLE TO ITEM 49. THE INVITATION SHOWS THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF ITEM 55 IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE PAGE FROM THE DESCRIPTION OF ITEM 49. - 327.35" WAS MADE IN THE SPACE UNDER THE DESCRIPTION OF ITEM 55 AND OPPOSITE THE DESCRIPTION OF ITEM 49.
B-144418, NOV. 23, 1960
TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 10, 1960, WITH ENCLOSURES, FROM THE ASSISTANT CHIEF FOR PURCHASING, BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS, REQUESTING A DECISION AS TO THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN CONCERNING AN ERROR ALLEGED BY THE TURLOCK SALES COMPANY TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN ITS BID ON WHICH CONTRACT NO. N63068S-47305 IS BASED.
BY INVITATION NO. B-32-61-63068, THE U.S. NAVY CONSOLIDATED SURPLUS SALES OFFICE, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTED BIDS FOR THE PURCHASE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF, AMONG OTHER ITEMS, ITEM 55 COVERING 22,392 POUNDS OF SCRAP STEEL, CONSISTING OF MACHINE GUN MAGAZINES. IN RESPONSE THE TURLOCK SALES COMPANY SUBMITTED A BID OFFERING TO PURCHASE, AMONG OTHER ARTICLES, THE SCRAP STEEL COVERED BY ITEM 55 AT A PRICE OF $0.027 PER POUND FOR WHICH IT EXTENDED THE PRICE AS $327.35. THE ONLY OTHER BID ON ITEM 55 WAS IN THE AMOUNT OF $0.0075 PER POUND. THE BID OF THE COMPANY WAS ACCEPTED AS TO ITEM 55 ON SEPTEMBER 27, 1960.
BY LETTER DATED OCTOBER 4, 1960, THE TURLOCK SALES COMPANY ADVISED THAT AN ERROR HAD BEEN MADE IN ITS BID IN THAT IT HAD INTENDED TO BID ON ITEM 49 INSTEAD OF ITEM 55. THE COMPANY STATED THAT THE EXTENDED TOTAL FOR ITEM 55 ESTABLISHES THAT IT WAS ITS INTENT TO MAKE SUCH PRICE APPLICABLE TO ITEM 49, SINCE SUCH TOTAL PRICE DIVIDED BY THE UNIT PRICE SPECIFIED FOR ITEM 55 EQUALS THE QUANTITY SPECIFIED FOR ITEM 49. THE COMPANY SUBMITTED ITS WORKSHEET, A COPY OF THE SALES INVITATION. THE INVITATION SHOWS THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF ITEM 55 IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE PAGE FROM THE DESCRIPTION OF ITEM 49. A NOTATION ".027--- 327.35" WAS MADE IN THE SPACE UNDER THE DESCRIPTION OF ITEM 55 AND OPPOSITE THE DESCRIPTION OF ITEM 49. ALSO, IT SHOWS THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF ALL ITEMS BID UPON, EXCEPT THAT OF ITEM 55, WAS CIRCLED IN INK AND THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF ITEM 49 WAS ALSO CIRCLED IN INK, ALTHOUGH NO BID WAS SUBMITTED FOR ITEM 49. THE COMPANY REQUESTED THAT THE CONTRACT BE CANCELED.
ERROR IS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE BID OF THE COMPANY AS TO ITEM 55 SINCE THE UNIT PRICE OF $0.027, WHEN MULTIPLIED BY THE QUANTITY OF 22,392, DOES NOT EQUAL THE AMOUNT OF $327.35 INSERTED IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT COLUMN. IF THE UNIT PRICE SPECIFIED FOR ITEM 55 IS MULTIPLIED BY THE QUANTITY FOR ITEM 49, THE ITEM ON WHICH THE COMPANY ALLEGES IT INTENDED BIDDING, THE TOTAL WOULD BE THE SAME AS SHOWN IN THE BID FOR ITEM 55. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COMPANY SHOULD HAVE BEEN REQUESTED TO VERIFY ITS BID BEFORE ITS ACCEPTANCE.
WHILE THE INVITATION TO BID PROVIDED THAT IN CASE OF ERROR IN EXTENSION, UNIT PRICES WOULD GOVERN, AND WHILE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THERE IS NO DUTY UPON THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE EXTENSIONS OF UNIT PRICES CONTAINED IN BIDS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF SUCH EXTENSIONS, THAT PRINCIPLE CLEARLY IS NOT FOR APPLICATION WHERE, AS HERE, AN ERROR IN EITHER THE UNIT PRICE OR TOTAL PRICE IS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE BID AND THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS ON NOTICE OF SUCH ERROR PRIOR TO AND AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE AWARD. SEE 15 COMP. GEN. 746; AND 37 ID. 829.
ACCORDINGLY, CONTRACT NO. N63068S-47305 MAY BE CANCELED WITHOUT LIABILITY TO THE TURLOCK SALES COMPANY.