B-157199, JUL. 14, 1965

B-157199: Jul 14, 1965

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 LETTER DATED JULY 7. ALLEGES IT MADE IN ITS BID ON WHICH CONTRACT 39-771 IS BASED. ITEMS 1 THROUGH 18 WERE FOR MOTOROLA EQUIPMENT. WAS THE ONLY BIDDER ON THOSE ITEMS. AFTER AN AWARD WAS MADE AND A PURCHASE ORDER ISSUED TO MOTOROLA. THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE FOR MOTOROLA ALLEGED THAT AN ERROR HAD BEEN MADE ON ITEM 3 COVERING 295 KITS IN THAT THE PRICE FOR THAT ITEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN $22.50 PER KIT INSTEAD OF THE $18 PER KIT WHICH WAS BID. THE COMPANY'S PRINTED PRICE LIST WAS FURNISHED IN SUPPORT OF THE ALLEGATION OF ERROR. ALL PRICES IN CONTRACT 39-771 ARE IN ACCORD WITH THE PRICE LIST EXCEPT THE PRICE FOR ITEM 3 WHICH IS LISTED IN THE PRICE LIST AT $22.50 AS CLAIMED.

B-157199, JUL. 14, 1965

TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER DATED JULY 7, 1965, FROM THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION, REQUESTING A DECISION REGARDING AN ERROR MOTOROLA COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONICS, INC. (MOTOROLA C AND E., INC.), ALLEGES IT MADE IN ITS BID ON WHICH CONTRACT 39-771 IS BASED.

THE INVITATION FOR BIDS SOLICITED PRICES FOR VARIOUS NARROW BAND CONVERSION KITS AND COMPONENTS. ITEMS 1 THROUGH 18 WERE FOR MOTOROLA EQUIPMENT. MOTORLA C AND E, INC., WAS THE ONLY BIDDER ON THOSE ITEMS.

AFTER AN AWARD WAS MADE AND A PURCHASE ORDER ISSUED TO MOTOROLA, THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE FOR MOTOROLA ALLEGED THAT AN ERROR HAD BEEN MADE ON ITEM 3 COVERING 295 KITS IN THAT THE PRICE FOR THAT ITEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN $22.50 PER KIT INSTEAD OF THE $18 PER KIT WHICH WAS BID. THE ERROR AMOUNTS TO A TOTAL OF $1,327.50.

THE COMPANY'S PRINTED PRICE LIST WAS FURNISHED IN SUPPORT OF THE ALLEGATION OF ERROR. ALL PRICES IN CONTRACT 39-771 ARE IN ACCORD WITH THE PRICE LIST EXCEPT THE PRICE FOR ITEM 3 WHICH IS LISTED IN THE PRICE LIST AT $22.50 AS CLAIMED.

THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE FOR THE CLAIMANT HAS STATED THAT HE PREPARED THE BID AND FINDS IT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HOW HE MADE THE MISTAKE EXCEPT THAT THE KITS LISTED IN THE FIRST TWO INVITATION ITEMS WERE IN THE SAME PART NUMBER GROUPING AND WERE PRICED AT $18 EACH.

THERE IS NOTHING ON THE FACE OF THE BID TO INDICATE THAT THE BID FOR ITEM 3 WAS NOT AS INTENDED. CONSEQUENTLY, THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE BID TO PLACE THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ON NOTICE OF THE PROBABILITY OF ERROR IN THE BID. MOREOVER, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ENCLOSURES ACCOMPANYING THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S LETTER WHICH INDICATES THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS AWARE AT THE TIME OF AWARD THAT ANY MISTAKE COULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE BIDDER. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE BID APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN IN GOOD FAITH AND CONSUMMATED A VALID AND BINDING CONTRACT WHICH FIXED THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF THE PARTIES. SEE UNITED STATES V. PURCELL ENVELOPE COMPANY, 249 U.S. 313; AN AMERICAN SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY V. UNITED STATES, 259 U.S. 75. ANY ERROR WHICH WAS MADE IN THE BID WAS UNILATERAL AND THEREFORE DOES NOT ENTITLE THE CLAIMANT TO RELIEF. SEE EDWIN DOUGHERTY AND M. H. OGDEN V. UNITED STATES, 102 CT.CL. 249, 259; AND SALIGMAN ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 56 F.SUPP. 505, 507.

ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS TO GRANT ANY RELIEF IN THIS MATTER.