B-158823, APR. 13, 1966

B-158823: Apr 13, 1966

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 THE AIR FORCE: REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER DATED MARCH 2. THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED JANUARY 4. THE TOTAL PRICE WAS $5. WHICH IS THE PROPER EXTENSION OF A UNIT PRICE OF ?0236. THE 20 PERCENT DEPOSIT SUBMITTED WAS $1. RIEGEL'S WORKSHEETS HAVE ALSO VERIFIED HIS INTENDED BID OF ?0236. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT THE ERROR WAS SO APPARENT THAT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF IT AND SHOULD HAVE VERIFIED THE BID WITH MR. UNIT PRICES WILL GOVERN. WHICH IS 10 TIMES GREATER THAN THE EXTENDED PRICE BID. SINCE THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THAT E.

B-158823, APR. 13, 1966

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER DATED MARCH 2, 1966, FROM THE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE CENTER, DENVER, COLORADO, FORWARDING THE PAPERS INVOLVED IN THE REQUEST OF E. L. RIEGEL TO CORRECT THE UNIT PRICE IN CONTRACT AF 16/602/S-81, FOR THE SALE OF BONES AND MEAT TRIMMINGS FROM BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA. THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED JANUARY 4, 1966, PURSUANT TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 16-202-S-66-2, AND, AFTER AWARD, THE BASE COMMISSARY ADVISED THE CONTRACTING OFFICER OF AN APPARENT ERROR IN THE UNIT PRICE OF THE BID OF MR. RIEGEL, WHO SUBMITTED THE ONLY BID. THE BID CONTAINED THE UNIT PRICE OF ?236 PER POUND; HOWEVER, THE TOTAL PRICE WAS $5,664, WHICH IS THE PROPER EXTENSION OF A UNIT PRICE OF ?0236. FURTHER, THE 20 PERCENT DEPOSIT SUBMITTED WAS $1,132.80, BASED UPON $5,664. ADDITIONALLY, SIMILAR CONTRACTS OF THE TWO PREVIOUS YEARS SHOW THAT RIEGEL BID ?0141 AND ?0213 PER POUND FOR THIS COMMODITY. MR. RIEGEL'S WORKSHEETS HAVE ALSO VERIFIED HIS INTENDED BID OF ?0236. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT THE ERROR WAS SO APPARENT THAT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF IT AND SHOULD HAVE VERIFIED THE BID WITH MR. RIEGEL.

THE SALES INVITATION CONTAINS THE STANDARD PROVISION THAT IN CASE OF ERROR IN THE EXTENSION OF PRICES, UNIT PRICES WILL GOVERN. THIS OFFICE HAS HELD, HOWEVER, THAT THIS PROVISION SHOULD BE APPLIED WITHOUT VERIFICATION, ONLY WHERE CORRECTION RESULTS IN ONLY A MINOR CHANGE IN THE EXTENDED PRICE, OR WHERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE THAT THE UNIT PRICE ACTUALLY REPRESENTS THE INTENDED PRICE. 37 COMP. GEN. 829. SEE ALSO 36 COM. GEN. 429; 17 ID. 339; 15 ID. 746. IN THIS CASE, THE EXTENDED PRICE USING ?236 WOULD BE $56,640, WHICH IS 10 TIMES GREATER THAN THE EXTENDED PRICE BID. ALSO, THE FACTS INDICATE, QUITE CLEARLY, THAT THE UNIT PRICE BID DID NOT REPRESENT THE INTENDED PRICE.

SINCE THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THAT E. L. RIEGEL INTENDED TO BID ?0236, THE CONTRACT IN QUESTION SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO REFLECT THAT PRICE.