B-171669(3), MAR 24, 1971, 50 COMP GEN 655

B-171669(3): Mar 24, 1971

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

TO THE EFFECT THE LAW OF MISTAKEN BIDS INCLUDES MISTAKES WHICH ARE INEXPLICABLE. SINCE THE BIDDER WAS ENTITLED TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE IMPACT OF THE UNION AGREEMENT UPON PERFORMANCE COSTS. THE BID MAY NOT BE CORRECTED AS THE AGREED UNION RATES WERE NOT A FACTOR IN BID PREPARATION. THE BASIS FOR THE REQUEST IS THAT SPRINGFIELD MADE A MISTAKE IN COMPUTING ITS PROBABLE LABOR COSTS FOR PERFORMANCE OF THE JANITORIAL SERVICES COVERED BY THE PROPOSED REQUIREMENT CONTRACT OVER A PERIOD EXTENDING FROM DATE OF AWARD THROUGH JANUARY 31. AFTER BIDS WERE OPENED ON OCTOBER 19. THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUIREMENTS. SPRINGFIELD WAS AMONG THE SOURCES TO WHICH THE PROCURING ACTIVITY TRANSMITTED COPIES OF IFB B-0068 AND RELATED AMENDMENTS.

B-171669(3), MAR 24, 1971, 50 COMP GEN 655

CONTRACTS - LABOR STIPULATIONS - "SUCCESSOR EMPLOYER" DOCTRINE A BID SUBMITTED UNDER AN INVITATION THAT INCORPORATED THE SERVICE CONTRACT ACT CLAUSE PRESCRIBED BY PARAGRAPH 2-1004 OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION, WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE PERTINENT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WAGE DETERMINATION, AND INCLUDED INFORMATION RELATING TO "SUCCESSOR EMPLOYERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OBLIGATIONS" - INFORMATION THE BIDDER OVERLOOKED IN PREPARING THE BID - MAY BE WITHDRAWN UNDER THE MISTAKE IN BID PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED IN RUGGIERO V UNITED STATES, 420 F. 2D 709, TO THE EFFECT THE LAW OF MISTAKEN BIDS INCLUDES MISTAKES WHICH ARE INEXPLICABLE, AND THE RULE DOES NOT TURN ON ANY FAULT OR AMBIGUITY IN THE SPECIFICATIONS NOR NEED THE CONTRACTOR BE FREE FROM BLAME. THEREFORE, SINCE THE BIDDER WAS ENTITLED TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE IMPACT OF THE UNION AGREEMENT UPON PERFORMANCE COSTS, AND THE BID MAY NOT BE CORRECTED AS THE AGREED UNION RATES WERE NOT A FACTOR IN BID PREPARATION, THE BID MAY BE WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION.

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, MARCH 24, 1971:

WE REFER TO LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 4, 1971 (AMCGC-B), FROM THE ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, HEADQUARTERS ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND (AMC), FORWARDING FOR CONSIDERATION BY OUR OFFICE A REQUEST BY SPRINGFIELD BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC. (SPRINGFIELD), FOR CORRECTION OR WITHDRAWAL OF ITS LOW BID UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) DAAD05-71-B-0116, ISSUED DECEMBER 11, 1970, BY ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, ABERDEEN, MARYLAND. THE BASIS FOR THE REQUEST IS THAT SPRINGFIELD MADE A MISTAKE IN COMPUTING ITS PROBABLE LABOR COSTS FOR PERFORMANCE OF THE JANITORIAL SERVICES COVERED BY THE PROPOSED REQUIREMENT CONTRACT OVER A PERIOD EXTENDING FROM DATE OF AWARD THROUGH JANUARY 31, 1972.

THE PROCURING ACTIVITY FIRST ADVERTISED FOR THE REQUIRED SERVICES UNDER IFB DAAD05-71-B-0068, DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 1970, WHICH CONTEMPLATED A CONTRACT COVERING THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 1, 1970, THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 1971. AFTER BIDS WERE OPENED ON OCTOBER 19, 1970, HOWEVER, THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUIREMENTS, WHICH LED TO THE DISCARDING OF THE BIDS AND READVERTISEMENT OF THE PROCUREMENT UNDER IFB B- 0116. SPRINGFIELD WAS AMONG THE SOURCES TO WHICH THE PROCURING ACTIVITY TRANSMITTED COPIES OF IFB B-0068 AND RELATED AMENDMENTS, BUT SPRINGFIELD DID NOT SUBMIT A BID UNDER THAT SOLICITATION.

BOTH IFB'S INFORMED BIDDERS THAT THE SERVICE CONTRACT ACT OF 1965, 41 U.S.C. 351 NOTE, WOULD APPLY TO THE CONTRACT AND INCORPORATED THE SERVICE CONTRACT ACT CLAUSE PRESCRIBED BY ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (ASPR) 12-1004, WHICH REQUIRES PAYMENT BY THE CONTRACTOR OF NO LESS THAN THE WAGE RATES AND FRINGE BENEFITS SET FORTH IN THE APPLICABLE WAGE DETERMINATION ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND ATTACHED TO THE IFB. AS OF JANUARY 6, 1971, THE APPLICABLE MINIMUM WAGE RATE FOR JANITORS WAS DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TO BE $2.08 PER HOUR, AN INCREASE OF 12 CENTS PER HOUR OVER THE RATE IN EFFECT FROM JANUARY 12, 1970, THROUGH JANUARY 5, 1971.

IN ADDITION, BOTH OF THE IFB'S INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING PERTINENT LANGUAGE:

SUCCESSOR EMPLOYERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OBLIGATIONS

A. A RECENT DECISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (NLRB) ESTABLISHES THE RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OF A SUCCESSOR EMPLOYER TO RECOGNIZE AND BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE UNION DESIGNATED BY THE EMPLOYEES, AND TO ABIDE BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH WAS NEGOTIATED BY THE UNION AND THE PREDECESSOR EMPLOYER, EVEN THOUGH THE SUCCESSOR EMPLOYER MAY NOT HAVE BEEN A PARTY TO THAT AGREEMENT OR MAY NOT HAVE AGREED TO BE BOUND BY IT. THE REQUIREMENT THAT A SUCCESSOR EMPLOYER ABIDE BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME HE BECOMES A SUCCESSOR EMPLOYER IS NEW.

B. THE CASES WHICH LED TO THE NLRB DECISION DEVELOPED THE FOLLOWING TEST TO ESTABLISH THE SUCCESSOR'S OBLIGATIONS TO ABIDE BY THE EXISTING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT:

(1) THAT THERE BE A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT;

(2) THAT THE SUCCESSOR HIRES A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF HIS PREDECESSOR'S EMPLOYEES; AND

(3) THAT THE SUCCESSOR PERFORM ESSENTIALLY THE SAME WORK AS WAS PERFORMED BY THE PREDECESSOR.

C. THE NLRB DECISION MAY HAVE PERTINENCE TO MANY ARMY PROCUREMENTS; SPECIFICALLY, ONGOING SERVICE CONTRACTS SUCH AS AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTION CONTRACTS, FOREIGN LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION CONTRACTS AND INSTALLATION MAINTENANCE AND JANITORIAL SERVICE CONTRACTS, WHERE GENERALLY THE SUCCESSOR CONTRACTOR HIRES SUBSTANTIALLY, OR INTO, THE WORK FORCE OF HIS PREDECESSOR AND CONTINUES PERFORMING THE SAME SERVICE.

NOTICE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OBLIGATION

ALL BIDDERS ARE HEREBY PUT ON NOTICE THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HAS RULED THAT SUCCESSOR CONTRACTORS MAY BE BOUND, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEES' UNION AND A PREDECESSOR CONTRACTOR. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO BIDDERS THAT THERE IS AN AGREEMENT IN EXISTENCE WHICH MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE RULING. COPIES OF THIS AGREEMENT ARE ON HAND IN THE PROCUREMENT DIVISION, BLDG. 314, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, AND IF REQUIRED, WILL BE FURNISHED UPON REQUEST.

THE CONTRACTING OFFICER MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE NLRB RULING OR AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE EXISTING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EACH BIDDER TO OBTAIN ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION PRIOR TO PREPARATION OF BIDS.

THE WAGE RATE FOR JANITORS IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE INCUMBENT CONTRACTOR, KAHOE SUPPLY COMPANY (KAHOE), AND ITS EMPLOYEE UNIONS WAS $1.96 PER HOUR EFFECTIVE JULY 31, 1970, THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 1970. FOR PERIODS SUBSEQUENT TO OCTOBER 31, 1970, THE AGREEMENT HAD TWO SEPARATE SETS OF WAGE RATES, ONE TO APPLY IN THE EVENT THE GOVERNMENT EXERCISED ITS OPTION TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT WITH KAHOE BEYOND OCTOBER 31, 1970, AND THE OTHER TO APPLY TO ANY CONTRACTOR WHO RECEIVED A CONTRACT AFTER OCTOBER 31, 1970, PURSUANT TO COMPETITIVE BIDDING. FOR KAHOE, UNDER AN EXTENSION OF ITS EXISTING CONTRACT, THE $1.96 WAGE RATE WOULD APPLY THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 1971, AND EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1, 1971, THE WAGES FOR JANITORS WOULD BE PAYABLE AT THREE RATES, I.E., $2.10 FOR AN ENTRY STEP, $2.17 FOR A FIRST LONGEVITY STEP, AND $2.25 FOR A SECOND LONGEVITY STEP. FOR A COMPETITIVELY AWARDED CONTRACT, THE $2.10 RATE AND RELATED LONGEVITY STEP RATES WERE TO BE EFFECTIVE FROM NOVEMBER 1, 1970, THROUGH THE PAY PERIOD INCLUDING DECEMBER 31, 1970. EFFECTIVE THE FIRST PAY PERIOD AFTER JANUARY 1, 1971, THE RATES WOULD BE INCREASED TO $2.35 FOR THE ENTRY STEP, $2.42 FOR THE FIRST LONGEVITY STEP, AND $2.50 FOR THE SECOND LONGEVITY STEP, AND EFFECTIVE THE FIRST PAY PERIOD AFTER JANUARY 1, 1972, THE RATES WOULD BE FURTHER INCREASED TO $2.55 FOR THE ENTRY STEP, $2.62 FOR THE FIRST LONGEVITY STEP, AND $2.70 FOR THE SECOND LONGEVITY STEP. ALL WAGE RATES IN THE AGREEMENT ARE SUBJECT TO THE MINIMUM WAGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT ACT AND TO ADDITION OF 6 CENTS PER HOUR IN LIEU OF HEALTH AND WELFARE PAYMENTS.

ON JANUARY 13, 1971, THE TEN BIDS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO IFB B-0116 WERE OPENED. SPRINGFIELD'S ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF $626,901.72 WAS LOWEST, ROYAL SERVICES, INC. (ROYAL), WITH A BID OF $671,268.48, WAS SECOND LOW BIDDER, AND ROYAL HAS INDICATED THAT ITS PRICE WAS BASED ON THE WAGE RATES PROVIDED IN KAHOE'S UNION BARGAINING AGREEMENT. THE EIGHT REMAINING BIDS RANGED FROM $673,204.56 TO $857,086.92.

IN LIGHT OF THE SIZEABLE PRICE VARIANCE BETWEEN SPRINGFIELD'S BID AND THE OTHER BIDS, THE PROCURING ACTIVITY REQUESTED SPRINGFIELD TO VERIFY ITS BID. IN A LETTER DATED JANUARY 14, 1971, SPRINGFIELD ADVISED THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT SPRINGFIELD HAD OBVIOUSLY MADE A MISTAKE IN THE PREPARATION OF ITS BID. IN THIS CONNECTION, SPRINGFIELD STATED THAT WHILE IT WAS AWARE OF THE INFORMATION INCLUDED IN PARAGRAPH 3, PAGE 19, RELATING TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DECISIONS ON THE MATTER OF SUCCESSOR EMPLOYER OBLIGATIONS, SPRINGFIELD FAILED TO TURN THE PAGE BACK SUFFICIENTLY IN READING THE IFB TO NOTE THE SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPH ADVISING OF THE EXISTENCE OF A UNION BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN KAHOE AND ITS EMPLOYEE UNIONS. ACCORDINGLY, SPRINGFIELD STATED, IT DID NOT CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY THAT SUCH AN AGREEMENT MIGHT BE IN EFFECT AND MIGHT BE BINDING ON SPRINGFIELD AND PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE ITS LABOR COSTS ON THE BASIS OF THE WAGE RATE STATED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WAGE DETERMINATION.

THE LETTER ALSO INDICATED THAT SPRINGFIELD FIRST BECAME AWARE OF KAHOE'S UNION AGREEMENT IN A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OF THE SAME DATE WITH THE PROCURING ACTIVITY. (AMC ADVISES THAT SPRINGFIELD DID NOT REQUEST A COPY OF THE KAHOE UNION AGREEMENT FROM THE PROCURING TO READ THE INFORMATION IN THE IFB.

WORKSHEETS FURNISHED BY SPRINGFIELD AS EVIDENCE OF ITS MISTAKE SHOW THAT SPRINGFIELD ESTIMATED THAT 93 JANITORS WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE CONTRACT WORK, AND THE RELATED LABOR COST WAS COMPUTED AT AN HOURLY RATE OF $2.20 MULTIPLIED BY 175, THE NUMBER OF WORK HOURS ESTIMATED FOR EACH JANITOR PER MONTH. SPRINGFIELD EXPLAINED THAT THE $2.20 RATE IS BASED ON THE $2.08 HOURLY WAGE RATE SPECIFIED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WAGE DETERMINATION PLUS 6 CENTS PER HOUR FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFITS AND AN ADDITIONAL 6 CENTS PER HOUR TO COVER JOB CLASSIFICATION DIFFERENTIALS.

IN LIGHT OF ITS MISTAKE, SPRINGFIELD REQUESTS A CORRECTION IN ITS BID TO INCREASE THE PRICE TO A YEARLY TOTAL OF $693,783.48 LESS 2-1/2 PERCENT PROMPT PAYMENT DISCOUNT TO ALLOW FOR INCREASED LABOR COSTS UNDER KAHOE'S UNION AGREEMENT. SPRINGFIELD'S RECOMPUTATION OF ITS LABOR COST SHOWS AN HOURLY RATE OF $2.48 FOR JANITORS, WHICH INCLUDES $2.42 MINIMUM RATE PLUS 6 CENTS FOR DIFFERENTIALS, AND AN INCREASE OF 12.7 PERCENT IN PREVIOUSLY ESTIMATED COSTS FOR AN ADDITIONAL SUPERVISOR AND FOR VACATIONS. IN THE EVENT CORRECTION IS DENIED BY THE GOVERNMENT, SPRINGFIELD REQUESTS THAT IT BE PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW ITS BID WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

HEADQUARTERS, AMC, TAKES THE POSITION THAT SPRINGFIELD HAS MADE A MISTAKE IN JUDGMENT AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE AWARDED THE CONTRACT AT ITS ORIGINAL BID PRICE. FURTHER, AMC URGES THAT NO INFORMATION HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY SPRINGFIELD THAT A DIFFERENT BID PRICE WAS INTENDED AT THE TIME THE BID WAS SUBMITTED, AND WHILE IT APPEARS THAT A MISTAKE WAS MADE, IT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE FAILURE OF SPRINGFIELD TO READ THE INFORMATION IN THE IFB.

AMC FURTHER STATES THAT THERE IS GRAVE QUESTION WHETHER THE RATES IN KAHOE'S COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WOULD BE BINDING ON A SUCCESSOR CONTRACTOR SINCE IT APPEARS THAT THE UNION AGREEMENT WAS NOT EXECUTED IN GOOD FAITH. THIS STATEMENT, AMC HAS EXPLAINED, RELATES TO THE APPARENT INTENT BY KAHOE TO DETER THE GOVERNMENT FROM SECURING COMPETITION FOR A CONTRACT FOR PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICES IN QUESTION AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE BASIC PERIOD OF KAHOE'S EXISTING CONTRACT.

IN ADDITION, AMC CITES POTTER V EMERALD MAINTENANCE, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, CIVIL ACTION NO. 70-L- 38, INVOLVING CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS ARE PRESENT IN THIS CASE, IN WHICH THE COURT DECLINED TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN TANTAMOUNT TO ENFORCEMENT AGAINST A FOLLOW-ON SERVICE CONTRACTOR AT AN AIR FORCE INSTALLATION OF THE PREDECESSOR CONTRACTOR'S UNION BARGAINING AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR HIGHER WAGES AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE BASIC CONTRACT PERIOD.

WHERE A BIDDER DISCOVERS THAT HE HAS MADE A MISTAKE IN HIS BID AND FURNISHES EVIDENCE OF SUCH MISTAKE TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, EVEN AFTER BID OPENING, BUT BEFORE AWARD, HE IS NOT BOUND BY HIS BID. FURTHER, THE LAW OF MISTAKEN BIDS IS MADE FOR THOSE MISTAKES, AMONG OTHERS, WHICH ARE PERFECTLY INEXPLICABLE. THIS RULE DOES NOT TURN ON ANY FAULT OR AMBIGUITY IN THE GOVERNMENT SPECIFICATIONS, AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CONTRACTOR NEED NOT BE FREE FROM BLAME. RUGGIERO V UNITED STATES, 190 CT. CL. 327, 420 F. 2D 709, AT PAGES 713 AND 716 (1970). WHAT IS INVOLVED (IN A CASE IN WHICH A MISTAKE IN BID IS CLAIMED OR APPARENT BEFORE ACCEPTANCE BY THE GOVERNMENT) IS THE OVERREACHING OF A CONTRACTOR BY A CONTRACTING OFFICER WHEN THE LATTER HAS THE KNOWLEDGE, ACTUAL OR IMPUTED AS SOMETHING HE OUGHT TO KNOW, THAT THE BID IS BASED ON OR EMBODIES A DISASTROUS MISTAKE AND ACCEPTS THE BID IN FACE OF THAT KNOWLEDGE. CHERNICK V UNITED STATES, 372 F. 2D 492, 178 CT. CL. 498 (1967).

WE ARE MINDFUL THAT THE MISTAKE WHICH IS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH IS USUALLY ENCOUNTERED IN MISTAKE IN BID CASES, IN THAT THE OVERSIGHT ON THE PART OF THE BIDDER INVOLVES NOT A SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENT WHICH MUST BE MET BY THE CONTRACTOR BUT A POSSIBLE OBLIGATION, UNDER AN AGREEMENT TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT A PARTY, IMPOSITION OF WHICH IS DEPENDENT UPON WHETHER THE UNIONS ARE SUCCESSFUL IN HAVING THE KAHOE AGREEMENT ENFORCED BY PROPER AUTHORITY. NEVERTHELESS, ALL BIDDERS WERE ENTITLED TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE IMPACT OF THE UNION AGREEMENT UPON THEIR PERFORMANCE COSTS, AND IT IS EVIDENT THAT SPRINGFIELD, ADMITTEDLY THROUGH ITS OWN NEGLIGENCE, UNINTENTIONALLY FAILED TO CONSIDER THE AGREEMENT IN COMPUTING ITS BID. MORE IMPORTANT, SPRINGFIELD HAS SHOWN THAT IT WOULD HAVE QUOTED A PRICE SUBSTANTIALLY IN EXCESS OF THE SECOND LOW BID HAD SPRINGFIELD BEEN AWARE OF THE UNION AGREEMENT WAGE RATES.

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED BY THE COURT IN THE RUGGIERO CASE PRECLUDE ACCEPTANCE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF SPRINGFIELD'S BID AT THE PRICE SUBMITTED, NOTWITHSTANDING SPRINGFIELD WAS NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO READ ALL PARTS OF THE IFB AS CAUTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 2 OF STANDARD FORM 33A, SOLICITATION INSTRUCTIONS AND CONDITIONS, BEFORE PREPARING ITS BID. THE FACTOR REMAINING FOR DETERMINATION, THEREFORE, IS WHAT RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED TO SPRINGFIELD, I.E., CORRECTION OF THE BID OR WITHDRAWAL.

THE EXCEPTION TO THE MAKING OF A CHANGE IN BID AFTER OPENING WHICH PERMITS CORRECTION OF A BID UPON ESTABLISHMENT THAT THE BIDDER ACTUALLY INTENDED TO BID AN AMOUNT OTHER THAN THAT REFLECTED IN THE BID DOES NOT EXTEND TO PERMITTING RECALCULATION OF A BID TO INCLUDE FACTORS WHICH THE BIDDER DID NOT HAVE IN MIND WHEN THE BID WAS PREPARED AND SUBMITTED. COMP. GEN. 575, 577 (1938). SINCE SPRINGFIELD HAS STATED THAT CONSIDERATION OF THE KAHOE UNION AGREEMENT WAGE RATES WAS NOT A FACTOR IN THE PREPARATION OF ITS BID, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE PRICE STATED IN THE BID WAS THE INTENDED PRICE AND THAT THE PRICE OF $693,783.48 TO WHICH SPRINGFIELD NOW SEEKS TO HAVE ITS LOW BID CORRECTED IS THE RECALCULATED PRICE BASED ON INFORMATION OBTAINED AFTER BID OPENING. THERE IS NO QUESTION, HOWEVER, THAT A MISTAKE WAS MADE, AND THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT, IN GOOD FAITH, ACCEPT THE BID AS SUBMITTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE BID MAY BE WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION FOR AWARD. 41 COMP. GEN. 289 (1961).

THE FILE WHICH WAS FORWARDED BY AMC IS RETURNED.

IN ADDITION, WE ENCLOSE COPIES OF OUR DECISIONS OF TODAY TO THE ATTORNEYS FOR ROYAL SERVICES, INC., THE SECOND LOW BIDDER, AND TO KAHOE, THE INCUMBENT CONTRACTOR, DENYING THEIR RESPECTIVE PROTESTS AGAINST ANY AWARD UNDER IFB B-0116 ON THE BASIS THAT THE SOLICITATION IS FATALLY DEFECTIVE. THESE PROTESTS WERE THE SUBJECT OF REPORTS FORWARDED BY LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 3, 1971, FROM THE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, HEADQUARTERS AMC. THE TWO FILES WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE LETTER ARE ALSO ENCLOSED.