B-149397, JUL. 23, 1962

B-149397: Jul 23, 1962

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 6. IT IS STATED THAT ALTHOUGH CERTAIN ERRORS WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN YOUR BID. YOU WERE ADVISED THAT CERTAIN FOOTINGS WERE TO EXTEND UNDER EXISTING FILLED AREA. YOU ALLEGE THAT THE PLANS DO NOT SO REQUIRE AND THAT YOU HAVE ASKED SEVERAL UNBIASED ENGINEERS. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT THE SECOND LOW BIDDER AGREES WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE PLANS AND BID ACCORDINGLY. IT IS STATED THAT IF THE WORK IS REQUIRED TO BE ACCOMPLISHED IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED BY THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF CONSTRUCTION IT WILL COST APPROXIMATELY $3. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE REQUESTING ANY CORRECTION OR RELIEF BY REASON OF THE ERRORS REFERRED TO IN YOUR ESTIMATES ON ITEMS 3 AND 15.

B-149397, JUL. 23, 1962

TO HOLTON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 6, 1962, REQUESTING TO BE RELIEVED FROM THE OBLIGATION TO PERFORM CONTRACT NO. NBY 45728 CHANGE ORDER BE ISSUED UNDER THE CONTRACT.

IT IS STATED THAT ALTHOUGH CERTAIN ERRORS WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN YOUR BID, APPARENTLY AFTER ACCEPTANCE, YOU EXECUTED THE FORMAL CONTRACT ON JUNE 29, 1962. THEREAFTER, IN DISCUSSING THE WORK WITH THE OFFICER-IN- CHARGE OF CONSTRUCTION, YOU WERE ADVISED THAT CERTAIN FOOTINGS WERE TO EXTEND UNDER EXISTING FILLED AREA. YOU ALLEGE THAT THE PLANS DO NOT SO REQUIRE AND THAT YOU HAVE ASKED SEVERAL UNBIASED ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS, DESIGNERS, INSPECTORS AND CONTRACTORS FOR THEIR OPINION, AND NONE AGREE WITH THIS INTERPRETATION. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT THE SECOND LOW BIDDER AGREES WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE PLANS AND BID ACCORDINGLY. IT IS STATED THAT IF THE WORK IS REQUIRED TO BE ACCOMPLISHED IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED BY THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF CONSTRUCTION IT WILL COST APPROXIMATELY $3,500 MORE THAN YOU ESTIMATED. YOU REQUEST, THEREFORE, THAT YOU BE RELIEVED FROM YOUR OBLIGATION UNDER THE CONTRACT, OR THAT A CHANGE ORDER BE ISSUED FOR THE COST OF THE ALLEGED EXTRA WORK.

FROM THE FACTS SET FORTH IN YOUR LETTER WE SEE NO BASIS FOR ACTION BY THIS OFFICE AT THIS TIME. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE REQUESTING ANY CORRECTION OR RELIEF BY REASON OF THE ERRORS REFERRED TO IN YOUR ESTIMATES ON ITEMS 3 AND 15, WHICH WOULD APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN WAIVED BY YOUR EXECUTION OF THE FORMAL CONTRACT WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE ERRORS. AS TO THE REPORTED DISAGREEMENT ON THE EXTENT OF THE FOOTINGS FOR MAGAZINES 1-XT -3 AND 1-XT-15 REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT, YOUR CLAIM APPEARS TO BE PREMATURE, BOTH BECAUSE OUR OFFICE CANNOT CONSIDER A CLAIM FOR EXTRA COMPENSATION UNTIL THE WORK FOR WHICH IT IS CLAIMED HAS BEEN PERFORMED, AND BECAUSE THERE APPARENTLY HAS BEEN NO FINAL RESOLUTION THEREOF BY THE NAVY AUTHORITIES. ISSUANCE OF A CHANGE ORDER IS A MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, AND IT IS SUGGESTED THAT YOU PURSUE THE MATTER WITH HIM TO THE END OF OBTAINING A WRITTEN DECISION FROM WHICH RELIEF MAY BE SOUGHT. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CONTROVERSY MAY INVOLVE QUESTIONS OF FACT, YOUR ATTENTION IS DIRECTED TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE DISPUTES CLAUSE OF YOUR CONTRACT.