B-148156, MAR. 22, 1962

B-148156, MAR. 22, 1962

TO THE STANDARD SCIENTIFIC SUPPLY CORP.:

YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 25, 1962, REQUESTS REVIEW OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION SETTLEMENT, DATED OCTOBER 27, 1961, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT ALLEGED TO BE DUE UNDER AN UNNUMBERED CONTRACT OF MAY 16, 1960.

THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, FN-4F-18203-N-11-24-59, CONTAINED A CLAUSE WHICH STATED THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA) INTENTION TO MAKE AWARD TO THE BIDDER QUOTING THE LOWEST AGGREGATE PRICE FOR EACH GROUP OF ITEMS, GROUPS 10 THROUGH 27. WHEN OFFERS WERE OPENED ON NOVEMBER 24, 1959, YOUR COMPANY WAS FOUND TO BE THE LOW OFFEROR FOR GROUP 13. HOWEVER, DUE TO INSUFFICIENT FUNDS NO AWARDS WERE MADE UNTIL MAY 16, 1960, AND THEN AFTER CERTAIN ITEMS IN THE VARIOUS GROUPS HAD BEEN CANCELED. AMONG OTHERS, ITEMS 73 AND 74 IN GROUP 13 WERE CANCELED. AFTER SUCH CANCELLATION, EVALUATION OF THE OFFERS REVEALED THAT YOUR COMPANY WAS STILL LOW ON GROUP 13. THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY REPORTS THAT BECAUSE OF THE DELAY CAUSED BY THE LACK OF FUNDS, AND BECAUSE OF THE CANCELLATION OF ITEMS 73 AND 74, IT CALLED YOUR COMPANY ON APRIL 29, 1960, AND VERIFIED PRICES PREVIOUSLY QUOTED ON ALL ITEMS OF GROUP 13, EXCEPT ITEMS 73 AND 74. YOU STATE THAT PRICES WERE NOT VERIFIED BUT MERELY EXTENDED.

ON MAY 16, 1960, YOUR COMPANY WAS AWARDED GROUP 13, EXCEPT ITEMS 73 AND 74, IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,065.85.

ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1960, YOU ADVISED GSA THAT YOUR PRICE OF $475 PER UNIT ON ITEM 113 UNDER AGGREGATE GROUP 13 INADVERTENTLY FAILED TO INCLUDE THE PRICE OF CERTAIN ELECTRODES AND TUBES ALSO SPECIFIED UNDER THAT ITEM. YOU ASK THAT YOU BE ALLOWED TO INCREASE YOUR CONTRACT PRICE IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,424.

YOU CONTEND THAT A REVIEW OF THE OFFERS RECEIVED WILL SHOW THAT ALL WERE MUCH HIGHER THAN THE ONE WHICH YOU SUBMITTED, INDICATING THAT YOU HAD MADE AN ERROR WHICH THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE NOTICED. THIS CONTENTION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD. NINE COMPLETE OFFERS FOR GROUP 13 WERE RECEIVED IN THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS: $5,065.85; $5,217.50; $5,403.88; $5,631; $5,886.52; $5,910; $6,050.42; $6,384.33; AND $6,707.15. IT CAN BE EASILY SEEN THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH DISPARITY BETWEEN YOUR PRICE AND THE OTHER PRICES OFFERED THAT SHOULD HAVE PUT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ON NOTICE OF A PROBABLE ERROR.

THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ASKED FOR VERIFICATION OF PRICES AND, IF NOT, WHETHER A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PRICES WOULD UNDER THE FACTS BE EQUIVALENT TO REQUEST FOR VERIFICATION, NEED NOT BE DECIDED, SINCE, AS INDICATED ABOVE, THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WHICH SHOULD HAVE CAUSED HIM TO SUSPECT AN ERROR IN YOUR OFFER. NOR WAS THERE ANY ACTUAL NOTICE OF A MISTAKE IN BID BEFORE AWARD WAS MADE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF MISTAKE IN YOUR OFFER BEFORE AWARD WAS MADE, THE ACCEPTANCE OF YOUR OFFER FORMED A LEGAL AND BINDING CONTRACT.

OUR OFFICE CAN FIND NO LEGAL BASIS UPON WHICH YOU WOULD BE ENTITLED TO RELIEF. ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF OCTOBER 27, 1961, IS SUSTAINED.