B-149502, NOV. 20, 1962

B-149502: Nov 20, 1962

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED AUGUST 24. WHICH COMPLAINT WAS FORWARDED TO THIS OFFICE BY SENATOR MIKE MANSFIELD. IS A COPY OF OUR LETTER OF THIS DATE TO SENATOR MANSFIELD. WHICH IS SELF EXPLANATORY. WAS NOT CONSIDERED RESPONSIVE FOR THE REASON THAT WHILE HE HAD PRINTED HIS NAME IN INK IN THE CORRECT BLOCK. HIS BID WAS NOT SIGNED. ATTENTION IS INVITED TO 36 COMP. AS FOLLOWS: "IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT AN UNSIGNED BID MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD IF ACCOMPANIED BY A LETTER. PROVIDED IT IS INTENDED OR ADOPTED AS AN AUTHENTICATION OF THE DOCUMENT SIGNED. 49 AM.JUR. 680. WAS. THIS WAS SUFFICIENT TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE INVITATION. THE SIGNATURE IS THE SIGN THUS MADE.

B-149502, NOV. 20, 1962

TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED AUGUST 24, 1962, IN RESPONSE TO OUR COMMUNICATION OF JULY 27, REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT CONCERNING A COMPLAINT BY MR. EARL E. CHASE OF WEST GLACIER, MONTANA, AGAINST CERTAIN CONTRACTING METHODS USED BY THE UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE OFFICE IN KALISPELL, MONTANA, WHICH COMPLAINT WAS FORWARDED TO THIS OFFICE BY SENATOR MIKE MANSFIELD, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES SENATE.

ENCLOSED HEREWITH, FOR YOUR INFORMATION, IS A COPY OF OUR LETTER OF THIS DATE TO SENATOR MANSFIELD, REPORTING ON THE MATTER, WHICH IS SELF EXPLANATORY.

WE SHOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT, HOWEVER, THAT IN YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 24 YOU ADVISED THAT THE BID SUBMITTED BY ROBERT E. LUKE, WHITEFISH, MONTANA, WAS NOT CONSIDERED RESPONSIVE FOR THE REASON THAT WHILE HE HAD PRINTED HIS NAME IN INK IN THE CORRECT BLOCK, HIS BID WAS NOT SIGNED.

OUR REVIEW OF THE BID IN QUESTION INDICATES THAT MR. LUKE DID IN FACT INSERT HIS NAME, MANUALLY PRINTED IN INK, IN BOTH THE BLOCK FOR SIGNATURE OF THE PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE BID AND IN THE BLOCK INDICATING THE SIGNER'S NAME AND TITLE. IN THIS CONNECTION, ATTENTION IS INVITED TO 36 COMP. GEN. 523, 525, WHEREIN WE RULED, IN PERTINENT PART, AS FOLLOWS:

"IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT AN UNSIGNED BID MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD IF ACCOMPANIED BY A LETTER, BOND OR OTHER DOCUMENT SIGNED BY THE BIDDER CLEARLY EVINCING HIS INTENT TO SUBMIT THE BID. 17 COMP. GEN. 497. SIGNATURE MAY BE MADE BY A MARK, OR BY A STAMP, OR TYPEWRITTEN OR PRINTED MECHANICALLY, PROVIDED IT IS INTENDED OR ADOPTED AS AN AUTHENTICATION OF THE DOCUMENT SIGNED. 49 AM.JUR. 680; NOTE 37 LRA (NS) 352. * * *"

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT MR. LUKE INTENDED TO BE, AND WAS, BOUND BY MANUALLY PRINTING HIS NAME ON THE BID. THIS WAS SUFFICIENT TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE INVITATION. SEE CUMMINGS ET AL V. LANDES, 117 N.W. 22, 140 IOWA 80, WHERE THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA STATED AS FOLLOWS:

"* * * TO SIGN, IN THE PRIMARY SENSE OF THAT EXPRESSION, MEANS TO MAKE A MARK, AND THE SIGNATURE IS THE SIGN THUS MADE. BY LONG USAGE, HOWEVER, INFLUENCED, NO DOUBT, BY THE SPREAD OF LEARNING, SIGNATURE HAS COME ORDINARILY TO BE UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN THE NAME OF A PERSON ATTACHED TO SOMETHING BY HIMSELF, AND THEREFORE TO BE NEARLY SYNONYMOUS WITH "AUTOGRAPH.' THIS SIGNIFICATION IS DERIVATIVE, HOWEVER, AND NOT INHERENT IN THE WORD ITSELF.'

HIS BID WAS, THEREFORE, RESPONSIVE AND COULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED.

WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE AWARD ULTIMATELY WAS MADE TO MR. LUKE PERSUANT TO SUBSEQUENT NEGOTIATION, AND THE MATTER IS BEING CALLED TO YOUR ATTENTION MERELY FOR CONSIDERATION IN FUTURE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES.