B-164453, JUL. 16, 1968

B-164453: Jul 16, 1968

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

INC.: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 22. THE INVITATION WAS ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 23. THE WORK TO BE ACCOMPLISHED WAS DESCRIBED UNDER SEVEN ITEMS. BIDDERS WERE REQUIRED TO BID A UNIT PRICE AND AN EXTENDED TOTAL PRICE FOR EACH ITEM. BIDS WERE RECEIVED AND OPENED ON APRIL 10. THE TWO LOWEST BIDS RECEIVED WERE THOSE OF ASPHALT SPECIALTIES. THE BID OF ASPHALT UNDER ITEM 1 WAS AS FOLLOWS: (TOTAL) ESTIMATED UNIT ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT ASPHALT REMOVAL 7. 262.87 IT IS OBVIOUS THAT A MISTAKE WAS MADE BY ASPHALT WITH RESPECT TO THIS ITEM SINCE 7. IN YOUR LETTER YOU STATE THAT ASPHALT IS BEING ALLOWED TO MODIFY ITEM 1 OF ITS BID TO REFLECT A UNIT PRICE OF $0.29 AND WILL BE AWARDED THE CONTRACT.

B-164453, JUL. 16, 1968

TO COOLEY BROS. INC.:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 22, 1968, PROTESTING THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ASPHALT SPECIALTIES, INC. (ASPHALT), UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. F04609-68-B-0026 ISSUED BY THE GEORGE AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA.

THE INVITATION WAS ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 23, 1968, AND REQUESTED BIDS FOR FURNISHING WORK AND MATERIALS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN RUNWAY PAVEMENT ENDS AND OVERRUNS AT THE GEORGE AIR FORCE BASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CERTAIN SPECIFICATIONS. THE WORK TO BE ACCOMPLISHED WAS DESCRIBED UNDER SEVEN ITEMS, WHICH SET FORTH THE ESTIMATED QUANTITY AND UNIT OF WORK FOR EACH ITEM. BIDDERS WERE REQUIRED TO BID A UNIT PRICE AND AN EXTENDED TOTAL PRICE FOR EACH ITEM, WITH THE PROVISION THAT ONE AWARD WOULD BE MADE TO THE BIDDER SUBMITTING THE LOWEST AGGREGATE PRICE FOR ALL ITEMS. BIDS WERE RECEIVED AND OPENED ON APRIL 10, 1968. THE TWO LOWEST BIDS RECEIVED WERE THOSE OF ASPHALT SPECIALTIES, INC., IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF $47,975.87 AND THE BID OF YOUR COMPANY IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $53,458.02. THE BID OF ASPHALT UNDER ITEM 1 WAS AS FOLLOWS:

(TOTAL)

ESTIMATED UNIT ESTIMATED

QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

ASPHALT REMOVAL 7,803 SY $2.90 $2,262.87 IT IS OBVIOUS THAT A MISTAKE WAS MADE BY ASPHALT WITH RESPECT TO THIS ITEM SINCE 7,803 SQUARE YARDS AT $2.90 PER SQUARE YARD AMOUNTS TO $22,628.70 AND NOT TO THE EXTENDED TOTAL OF $2,262.87.

IN YOUR LETTER YOU STATE THAT ASPHALT IS BEING ALLOWED TO MODIFY ITEM 1 OF ITS BID TO REFLECT A UNIT PRICE OF $0.29 AND WILL BE AWARDED THE CONTRACT. YOU ALLEGE THAT THIS IS NOT ONLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE BIDDING SCHEDULE WHICH STATES THAT "IN CASE OF VARIATION BETWEEN THE UNIT PRICE AND THE EXTENSION, THE UNIT PRICE WILL BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE BID" BUT ALSO GIVES ASPHALT TWO CHANCES AT THE CONTRACT. YOU ALSO ALLEGE THAT THE BID BOND FURNISHED BY ASPHALT WAS NOT SIGNED BY A PRINCIPAL OF THE CORPORATION, IT BORE NO CORPORATE SEAL AND INDICATED THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED FOR INVITATION 0062 INSTEAD OF 0026. IN VIEW THEREOF, YOU CONTEND THAT THE BID OF ASPHALT SHOULD BE REJECTED.

OUR OFFICE HAS HELD THAT THE STANDARD PROVISION, WHICH PROVIDES THAT IN CASE OF ERROR IN THE EXTENSION OF PRICES THE UNIT PRICES WILL GOVERN, SHOULD ONLY BE APPLIED, WITHOUT REQUESTING VERIFICATION, WHERE THE CORRECTION RESULTS IN A RELATIVELY MINOR CHANGE IN THE EXTENDED PRICE OR WHERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE THAT THE UNIT PRICE REPRESENTS THE INTENDED PRICE. 37 COMP. GEN. 829. IN THIS CASE, THE EXTENDED PRICE USING $2.90 WOULD BE $22,628.70, WHICH IS 10 TIMES GREATER THAN THE EXTENDED BID PRICE AND IS ALMOST 4 TIMES AS GREAT AS THAT OF THE HIGHEST BID ON THIS ITEM. ADDITIONALLY, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE GOVERNMENT ESTIMATED UNIT PRICE FOR THE ITEM WAS $0.325. FROM THE FOREGOING FACTS, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT ASPHALT MADE A DECIMAL POINT ERROR IN ITS UNIT PRICE FOR ITEM 1 AND THAT IT INTENDED TO INSERT $0.29 WHICH WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH ITS EXTENDED AMOUNT OF $2,262.87 AND ITS TOTAL AMOUNT OF $47,975.87 FOR THE SCHEDULE. ACCORDINGLY, CORRECTION OF THE UNIT PRICE APPEARS PROPER.

REGARDING THE BID BOND IRREGULARITIES IT APPEARS THAT SUCH IRREGULARITIES PROPERLY MAY BE WAIVED AS MINOR INFORMALITIES SINCE THEY DO NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OR ENFORCEABILITY OF THE BOND. ALTHOUGH THE BOND WAS NOT SIGNED BY A PRINCIPAL OF THE CORPORATION IT WAS SUBMITTED WITH A SIGNED BID UNDER A SIGNED COVER LETTER REFERENCING THE BOND. IT WAS IN THE CORRECT PENAL SUM AND SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE PROJECT BEING BID UPON EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG INVITATION NUMBER WAS SHOWN ON THE BOND. WE HAVE HELD 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. 36 COMP. GEN. 523, 525. CONVERSELY, IT IS OUR VIEW THAT AN UNSIGNED BID BOND ACCOMPANIED BY SIGNED BID IDENTIFYING THE BID BOND MAY BE CONSIDERED VALID AND THE FAILURE TO SIGN THE BOND MAY BE WAIVED AS A MINOR INFORMALITY. ALSO, IN OUR OPINION, THE FAILURE TO AFFIX A CORPORATE SEAL ON THE BID BOND WOULD NOT RENDER THE BID NONRESPONSIVE.

ACCORDINGLY, THE BID OF ASPHALT MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD OF A CONTRACT AND YOUR PROTEST IS DENIED.