B-149005, JUN. 7, 1962

B-149005: Jun 7, 1962

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

HENRY OHRALIK: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR COMMUNICATION OF MAY 17. YOU STATE THAT YOU HAD SUBMITTED THE HIGH BID OF $132 FOR ITEM 3 OF THE INVITATION BUT THAT YOUR BID WAS RULED NONRESPONSIVE DUE TO AN ALLEGED QUALIFICATION "PERTAINING TO THE DELIVERY PERIOD.'. YOU STATE THAT THE AWARD WAS MADE TO ANOTHER PERSON WHOSE BID WAS $97.50 AND THAT SINCE THE FAIR RETAIL VALUE OF THE CLOTHING WAS $298. YOUR LOSS IN THIS MATTER IS $166. IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE SALE HAS BEEN FULLY CONSUMMATED. THE HOLDING WOULD NECESSARILY APPLY TO SALE CONTRACTS SINCE THESE CONTRACTS ARE GENERALLY ENTERED INTO AS A RESULT OF STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.

B-149005, JUN. 7, 1962

MR. HENRY OHRALIK:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR COMMUNICATION OF MAY 17, 1962, PRESENTING A CLAIM FOR $166 REPRESENTING LOSS OF PROFIT OCCASIONED BY THE FAILURE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO AWARD YOU A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF CLOTHING OFFERED FOR SALE UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 33-604-S-62-26.

YOU STATE THAT YOU HAD SUBMITTED THE HIGH BID OF $132 FOR ITEM 3 OF THE INVITATION BUT THAT YOUR BID WAS RULED NONRESPONSIVE DUE TO AN ALLEGED QUALIFICATION "PERTAINING TO THE DELIVERY PERIOD.' ALSO, YOU STATE THAT THE AWARD WAS MADE TO ANOTHER PERSON WHOSE BID WAS $97.50 AND THAT SINCE THE FAIR RETAIL VALUE OF THE CLOTHING WAS $298, YOUR LOSS IN THIS MATTER IS $166. ALTHOUGH YOU DO NOT FURNISH ANY INFORMATION AS TO THE DATE OF THE SALE AND WHETHER THE PURCHASER HAS REMOVED THE PROPERTY, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE SALE HAS BEEN FULLY CONSUMMATED.

IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE COURTS THAT A BIDDER FOR PUBLIC CONTRACTS ACQUIRES NO ACTIONABLE LEGAL RIGHTS--- EXCEPT CONTRACT RIGHTS ARISING FROM ACCEPTANCE OF HIS BID--- UNDER STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBING PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS TO BE OBSERVED IN MAKING AWARDS. PERKINS V. LUKENS STEEL COMPANY, 310 U.S. 113, 125-216; O-BRIEN V. CARNEY, 6 F.SUPP. 761; FRIEND V. LEE, 221 F.2D 96; AND COLORADO PAVING COMPANY V. MURPHY, 78 F. 28. WHILE THE COURT CASES REFERRED TO INVOLVED PURCHASES BY THE GOVERNMENT AND MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES, THE HOLDING WOULD NECESSARILY APPLY TO SALE CONTRACTS SINCE THESE CONTRACTS ARE GENERALLY ENTERED INTO AS A RESULT OF STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. IT MUST BE HELD THEREFORE THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY HAVE BEEN IMPROPERLY DENIED THE ..END :