B-172761, JUN 21, 1971, 50 COMP GEN 852

B-172761: Jun 21, 1971

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

BIDS - OMISSIONS - PRICES IN BID THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT A PRICE FOR ONE OF FOUR MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AT WHICH DELIVERY IS TO BE MADE OF COVERALLS SOLICITED UNDER AN INVITATION THAT REQUESTED INDIVIDUAL PRICES ON THE QUANTITIES SPECIFIED FOR EACH INSTALLATION IS NOT A CLERICAL OVERSIGHT THAT MAY BE WAIVED AS A MINOR IRREGULARITY PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 2-405 OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION. AS AN AWARD OF THE WHOLE CONTRACT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT. IT MAY BE MADE TO THE RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER OFFERING THE LOW AGGREGATE BID WHOSE UNIT NET PRICE FOR THE ENTIRE PROCUREMENT IS REASONABLE ALTHOUGH SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THAT OF THE NONRESPONSIVE BIDDER. 1971: REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER DATED APRIL 26.

B-172761, JUN 21, 1971, 50 COMP GEN 852

BIDS - OMISSIONS - PRICES IN BID THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT A PRICE FOR ONE OF FOUR MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AT WHICH DELIVERY IS TO BE MADE OF COVERALLS SOLICITED UNDER AN INVITATION THAT REQUESTED INDIVIDUAL PRICES ON THE QUANTITIES SPECIFIED FOR EACH INSTALLATION IS NOT A CLERICAL OVERSIGHT THAT MAY BE WAIVED AS A MINOR IRREGULARITY PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 2-405 OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION, AND THE OMITTED PRICE MAY NOT BE INSERTED ON THE BASIS THE SINGLE PRICE QUOTED FOR THE OTHER THREE INSTALLATIONS APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE QUANTITY SOLCITED BECAUSE THE BIDDER HAD CHECKED THE BLOCK CAPTIONED "100% OF ALL QUANTITIES TO BE AWARDED OR NONE" IN THE BID FORM, NOR MAY THE NONRESPONSIVE BID BE CONSIDERED FOR PARTIAL AWARD. AS AN AWARD OF THE WHOLE CONTRACT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, IT MAY BE MADE TO THE RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER OFFERING THE LOW AGGREGATE BID WHOSE UNIT NET PRICE FOR THE ENTIRE PROCUREMENT IS REASONABLE ALTHOUGH SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THAT OF THE NONRESPONSIVE BIDDER.

TO THE DIRECTOR, DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY, JUNE 21, 1971:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER DATED APRIL 26, 1971, YOUR REFERENCE DSAH G, WITH ENCLOSURES, FROM THE ASSISTANT COUNSEL, REQUESTING A DECISION WHETHER UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. DSA100-71-B-0987, THE BID OF THE KINGS POINT MFG. CO., INC., MAY BE CORRECTED TO SHOW A BID PRICE FOR AN UNPRICED DESTINATION ITEM WHEN SUCH CORRECTION WILL RESULT IN DISPLACEMENT OF THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER. RECEIPT IS ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED OF SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS DATED JUNE 1 AND 4, 1971, FROM THE ASSISTANT COUNSEL.

THE INVITATION, ISSUED ON MARCH 11, 1971, BY THE DEFENSE PERSONNEL SUPPORT CENTER (DPSC), PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, SOLICITED BIDS FOR THE MANUFACTURE AND DELIVERY F.O.B. DESTINATION OF 46,700 PAIRS OF COVERALLS, FLYING, MAN'S, CWU-27/P, SAGE GREEN, HIGH TEMPERATURE, RESISTANT, POLYAMIDE. THE DESTINATION POINTS WERE MECHANICSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA; ATLANTA, GEORGIA; MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE; AND OGDEN, UTAH. WHILE THE INVITATION COVERED A TOTAL QUANTITY OF 46,700 PAIRS OF COVERALLS, INDIVIDUAL PRICES WERE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED ON THE BASIS OF SPECIFIED QUANTITIES DESIGNATED FOR EACH OF THE FOUR MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AS SET FORTH ON DPSC FORMS 369-1 AND 369-2, THE INVITATION BIDDING SHEETS. THE INVITATION DID NOT REQUIRE BIDDERS TO BID ON ALL DESTINATIONS.

AT THE BOTTOM OF DPSC FORM 369-2 THERE APPEARS THE STATEMENT:

THE OFFEROR AGREES THAT THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM QUANTITIES SPECIFIED ABOVE AS ACCEPTABLE FOR AWARD ARE THE ONLY QUANTITY LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROCUREMENT, EXCEPT AS STATED BELOW:

FOLLOWING THAT STATEMENT, KINGS POINT CHECKED BLOCK NO. 2 CAPTIONED "100% OF ALL QUANTITIES TO BE AWARDED OR NONE." BELOW SUCH BLOCK THE FURTHER STATEMENT APPEARS:

FAILURE TO INDICATE SEPARATE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM QUANTITIES WILL BE DEEMED AN OFFER TO ACCEPT AN AWARD FOR THE TOTAL OF THE QUANTITIES BID UPON FOR EACH ITEM OF SUPPLY OR DESTINATION OR ANY PART THEREOF.

SIX BIDS WERE RECEIVED AND OPENED ON MARCH 31, 1971. MASON & HUGHES, INC., SUBMITTED THE APPARENT OVERALL LOW UNIT PRICE BID OF $35.94, LESS PROMPT DISCOUNT OF 1.95 PERCENT FOR THE ENTIRE QUANTITY OF 46,700 COVERALLS, ALL OR NONE. KINGS POINT MFG. CO., INC., BID ON ALL DESTINATIONS EXCEPT MECHANICSBURG. OPPOSITE EACH DESTINATION BID UPON, IT INSERTED A UNIT PRICE OF $36.45. KINGS POINT HAS REQUESTED THAT ITS ORIGINAL BID BE CORRECTED TO SHOW FOR THE MECHANICSBURG DESTINATION A UNIT PRICE OF $36.45, THE SAME PRICE QUOTED BY IT FOR EACH OF THE OTHER THREE DESTINATIONS. IF KINGS POINT IS TO BE PERMITTED TO CORRECT ITS BID BY INSERTING THE PRICE OF $36.45 FOR THE MECHANICSBURG DESTINATION, THEN IT WOULD BECOME THE LOW BIDDER AS FOLLOWS:$36.45 FOR THE ENTIRE QUANTITY, WHICH PRICE WAS TIMELY REDUCED IN TELEGRAM DATED MARCH 31, 1971, BY $0.81, OR TO $35.64 PER UNIT, LESS PROMPT PAYMENT DISCOUNT OF 2 PERCENT. THE CONTRACTING OFFICE HAS RECOMMENDED THAT KINGS POINT SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO CORRECT ITS BID AND THAT THE "ALL OR NONE" BID OF MASON & HUGHES, INC., BE ACCEPTED AS THE LOWEST OVERALL BID ON ALL FOUR DESTINATIONS.

IN ITS LETTER OF APRIL 12, 1971, TO DPSC, KINGS POINT STATES THAT "THE FAILURE TO TYPE IN THE $36.45 PRICE PROXIMATE TO THE MECHANICSBURG LINE IS A CLERICAL OVERSIGHT CONSTITUTING A MINOR IRREGULARITY." THE CORPORATION HAS REQUESTED THAT THE PRICE OF $36.45 BE INSERTED IN ITS ORIGINAL BID OPPOSITE THE MECHANICSBURG DESTINATION AND THAT ITS BID, AS CORRECTED, AND AS MODIFIED BY ITS TELEGRAM OF MARCH 31, 1971, BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD.

KINGS POINT CONTENDS THAT BY CHECKING THE SECOND BLOCK ON DPSC FORM 369- 2, CAPTIONED "100% OF ALL QUANTITIES TO BE AWARDED OR NONE," IT COULD ONLY RECEIVE AN AWARD ON THE ENTIRE ADVERTISED 46,700 UNITS AND FOR A LESSER QUANTITY ONLY IF THE GOVERNMENT UNILATERALLY REDUCED THE QUANTITY "TO BE AWARDED." THE CORPORATION MAINTAINS THAT SINCE ITS ONLY QUOTED PRICE OF $36.45 MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE "ALL OR NONE" LIMITATION IT PLACED THEREON, THE GOVERNMENT MUST EVALUATE ITS BID AS OBVIOUSLY HAVING OFFERED THE ENTIRE BID QUANTITY AT A SINGLE PRICE.

WE CANNOT ACCEPT KINGS POINT'S INTERPRETATION. IF IT WAS KINGS POINT'S INTENTION AT THE TIME OF BIDDING TO ALSO BID ON THE MECHANICSBURG DESTINATION, IT SHOULD HAVE INSERTED A BID PRICE OPPOSITE THAT DESTINATION.

ON PAGE 1 OF THE INVITATION, UNDER THE SECTION ENTITLED "OFFER," THE BIDDER "OFFERS AND AGREES *** TO FURNISH ANY OR ALL ITEMS UPON WHICH PRICES ARE OFFERED, AT THE PRICE SET OPPOSITE EACH ITEM." SINCE KINGS POINT FAILED TO SUBMIT A PRICE FOR THE MECHANICSBURG DESTINATION, WE CANNOT SAY THAT IT WOULD BE OBLIGATED TO DELIVER 1,180 PAIRS OF COVERALLS TO THAT DESTINATION AT THE UNIT BID PRICE QUOTED FOR THE THREE OTHER DESTINATIONS. SUCH FAILURE TO QUOTE A PRICE CONSTITUTES A MATERIAL DEVIATION WHICH MAY NOT BE WAIVED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF PARAGRAPH 2-405 OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION. 41 COMP. GEN. 412 (1961); 46 ID. 434 (1966).

FURTHER, SINCE A PRICE WAS NOT INSERTED FOR THE MECHANICSBURG ITEM, THE BID IS NOT RESPONSIVE TO THAT ITEM. IN 38 COMP. GEN. 819, 821 (1959), IT WAS STATED:

IT IS PROBABLE THAT THE MAJORITY OF UNRESPONSIVE BIDS ARE DUE TO OVERSIGHT OR ERROR, SUCH AS THE FAILURE TO QUOTE A PRICE, TO SIGN THE BID, TO FURNISH A BID BOND, TO SUBMIT REQUIRED SAMPLES OR DATA, OR THE SUBMISSION OF THE WRONG SAMPLE, INCOMPLETE DATA, OR STATEMENTS THE ACTUAL MEANING OF WHICH WAS NOT INTENDED, ETC. AN UNRESPONSIVE BID DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFER WHICH MAY PROPERLY BE ACCEPTED, AND TO PERMIT A BIDDER TO MAKE HIS BID RESPONSIVE BY CHANGING, ADDING TO, OR DELETING A MATERIAL PART OF THE BID ON THE BASIS OF AN ERROR ALLEGED AFTER THE OPENING WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT TO PERMITTING A BIDDER TO SUBMIT A NEW BID. IT IS OUR OPINION THAT AN ALLEGATION OF ERROR IS PROPER FOR CONSIDERATION ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE BID IS RESPONSIVE TO THE INVITATION AND IS OTHERWISE PROPER FOR ACCEPTANCE.

SEE, ALSO, 49 COMP. GEN. 749, 752 (1970). IN VIEW THEREOF, THE FAILURE TO QUOTE A PRICE FOR THE MECHANICSBURG ITEM MAY NOT BE CORRECTED AS AN ERROR IN BID.

IN ITS LETTER OF MAY 20, 1971, KINGS POINT STATES THAT IF ITS BID CANNOT BE CORRECTED TO SHOW A BID PRICE FOR 1,180 UNITS COVERED BY THE MECHANICSBURG DESTINATION, OUR OFFICE SHOULD CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO ACCEPTANCE OF ITS BID. KINGS POINT ALLEGES THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT TO AWARD 45,520 UNITS TO IT AND TO CANCEL THE BALANCE OF 1,180 UNITS; THAT A COMPARISON OF ITS AGGREGATE NET TOTAL BID PRICE OF $1,589,886.12 FOR 45,520 UNITS AND MASON & HUGHES' AGGREGATE NET TOTAL BID PRICE OF $1,645,669.24 FOR THE ENTIRE TOTAL QUANTITY OF 46,700 UNITS SHOWS A DIFFERENCE OF $14,200.88; AND THAT ON THE BASIS OF A TOTAL PRICE OF $14,200.88 FOR 1,180 UNITS, THE UNIT PRICE WOULD BE $47.27, WHICH IT STATES IS APPROXIMATELY 35 PERCENT MORE THAN KINGS POINT'S UNIT PRICE OF $35.64 AND MASON & HUGHES' UNIT PRICE OF $35.94. KINGS POINT CONTENDS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS A RIGHT TO MAKE THE TYPE OF AWARD SUGGESTED BY IT PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 10(A) OF THE SOLICITATION INSTRUCTIONS AND CONDITIONS WHICH PROVIDES THAT "THE CONTRACT WILL BE AWARDED TO THAT RESPONSIBLE OFFEROR WHOSE OFFER CONFORMING TO THE SOLICITATION WILL BE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT, PRICE AND OTHER FACTORS CONSIDERED."

IN REGARD TO KINGS POINT'S CONTENTION THAT BY AWARDING THE ENTIRE TOTAL QUANTITY TO MASON & HUGHES THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE PAYING $47.27 EACH FOR THE 1,180 UNITS COVERED BY THE MECHANICSBURG DESTINATION, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER STATES THAT THE METHOD BY WHICH KINGS POINT ARRIVES AT A DIFFERENCE OF APPROXIMATELY 35 PERCENT IS BY AGGREGATING THE DIFFERENCE IN PRICE OF $14,200.88 OVER 1,180 UNITS RATHER THAN THE TOTAL QUANTITY OF 46,700 UNITS; THAT HAVING APPLIED THE DIFFERENCE IN PRICE TO 1,180 UNITS, KINGS POINT CONCLUDES THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE PURCHASING THESE 1,180 UNITS AT AN EXORBITANT PRICE OF $47.27 PER UNIT; AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT BE PAYING A PRICE OF $47.27 EACH, AS ALLEGED BY KINGS POINT, BUT THAT IT WILL BE PAYING A PRICE OF $35.23917 PER UNIT NET FOR THE ENTIRE PROCUREMENT QUANTITY OF 46,700 UNITS, IF PURCHASED FROM MASON & HUGHES.

THE CONTRACTING OFFICER CONTENDS THE UNILATERAL "BARGAIN HUNTING" BY THE GOVERNMENT, AS SUGGESTED BY KINGS POINT, WOULD SERIOUSLY AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF THE BIDDERS AND WOULD IMPAIR THE INTEGRITY OF THE BIDDING SYSTEM. IS POINTED OUT BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS THE TOTAL QUANTITY OF 46,700 UNITS; THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NET UNIT PRICES QUOTED BY KINGS POINT AND MASON & HUGHES IS ONLY $0.31197; THAT HE CONSIDERS THE UNIT PRICE QUOTED BY MASON & HUGHES TO BE REASONABLE; AND THAT IN DETERMINING REASONABLENESS, ONLY THE UNIT PRICES QUOTED BY KINGS POINT AND MASON & HUGHES SHOULD BE COMPARED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS RECOMMENDATION THAT THE "ALL OR NONE" BID OF MASON & HUGHES BE ACCEPTED, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAS CITED OUR DECISIONS OF JULY 26 AND SEPTEMBER 8, 1961, B 146213, WHERE WE STATED THAT IT IS PROPER TO MAKE AN AWARD ON AN "ALL OR NONE" BID, WHICH BID IS THE ONLY ONE TO PROVIDE FULL COVERAGE ON ALL ITEMS IN THE SOLICITATION, WHERE THE PRICE IS CONSIDERED REASONABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

OUR DECISION, B-146213, CITED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, INVOLVED AN INVITATION IN RESPONSE TO WHICH FOUR "ALL OR NONE" BIDS WERE RECEIVED, BIDDER NO. 1 BIDDING ON ITEM 1, BIDDER NO. 2 (FOREMOST) BIDDING ON ITEMS 1 AND 2, BIDDER NO. 3 BIDDING ON ITEMS 1, 2 AND 3, AND BIDDER NO. 4 (REGIS) BIDDING ON ITEMS 1 THROUGH 4. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IN THAT CASE DETERMINED THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTED CANCELLATION OF THE INVITATION. HOWEVER, OUR OFFICE CONCLUDED THAT COGENT OR COMPELLING REASONS FOR CANCELLATION WERE NOT PRESENT; THAT THE ORIGINAL INVITATION SHOULD BE REINSTATED; AND THAT THE AWARD SHOULD BE MADE TO BIDDER NO. 4 (REGIS). IN OUR DECISION OF JULY 26, 1961, B-146213, WE STATED AS FOLLOWS:

THE BASIS FOR THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S CANCELLATION AND READVERTISEMENT WAS THAT IT COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED CLEARLY THAT AN AWARD TO REGIS WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT IN VIEW OF FOREMOST'S OFFER SOME $6,200 LOWER ON THE FIRST TWO ITEMS. HOWEVER, WHILE FOREMOST OFFERED THOSE TWO ITEMS AT A LOWER COST, THERE WERE NOT UNQUALIFIED BIDS ON ITEMS 3 AND 4 THAT COULD HAVE BEEN COMBINED WITH THE BID OF FOREMOST ON ITEMS 1 AND 2 TO RESULT IN A COMBINATION OF PRICES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN LESS THAN THE OVER-ALL PRICE QUOTED BY REGIS. THE ONLY BIDDER THAT OFFERED TO FURNISH THE GOVERNMENT EVERYTHING IT DESIRED TO OBTAIN IN THE PROCUREMENT WAS REGIS. WHILE A PARTIAL AWARD ON ITEMS 1 AND 2 COULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO FOREMOST AT A LOWER UNIT COST, THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THE INVITATION WAS TO CONSUMMATE AN AWARD OR AWARDS FOR THE ENTIRE PROCUREMENT. SINCE REGIS WAS THE ONLY BIDDER PERMITTING THAT RESULT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ONLY HAD TO SATISFY HIMSELF THAT THE PRICES QUOTED BY REGIS WERE REASONABLE. REGIS HAS STATED THAT THE UNIT PRICES IT QUOTED WERE CONSIDERABLY BELOW THE PRICES PAID ON THE PREVIOUS PROCUREMENT AND WERE IN LINE OR BELOW PRICES BEING PAID BY MILITARY INSTALLATIONS WITHIN THE STATE. APPARENTLY, THIS IS NOT DENIED BY THE PROCURING FACILITY. THEREFORE, SINCE REGIS WAS THE ONLY BIDDER CONFORMING TO ALL OF THE GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS, WE BELIEVE THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAD ONLY TO ASCERTAIN BY A COMPARISON WITH OTHER PROCUREMENTS WHETHER THE PRICES QUOTED BY IT WERE REASONABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

IN ADDITION, IN THE SEPTEMBER 8, 1961, DECISION, WE STATED AS FOLLOWS:

*** HOWEVER, WHEN, AS IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO OTHER COMBINATION OF BIDS FOR ALL THE ITEMS THAT WOULD RESULT IN A LOWER PRICE THAN THE AGGREGATE BIDDER'S PRICE AND THE LATTER IS NOT SHOWN TO BE UNREASONABLE, WE SEE NO REASON WHY AWARD SHOULD NOT BE MADE ON THE OVER ALL BASIS. TO DO OTHERWISE WOULD PREJUDICE THE INTERESTS OF THE BIDDER WHO OFFERED TO FURNISH THE GOVERNMENT ALL OF ITS NEEDS AND WHO IN SO DOING HAD DISCLOSED ITS PRICES TO THE COMPETITION. ***

WE BELIEVE IN THE GENERAL PROPOSITION THAT THE GOVERNMENT ADVERTISES TO SECURE ITS NEEDS AT THE BEST POSSIBLE PRICES AND THAT AWARD OF THE WHOLE CONTRACT, WHEN IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, SHOULD BE MADE TO A RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER OFFERING A LOW AGGREGATE BID, EVEN THOUGH THAT BID MAY BE HIGHER ON CERTAIN ITEMS THAN ANOTHER BID. IT ALSO IS OUR OPINION THAT THE FACT THAT A PARTIAL AWARD MAY BE MADE AT A PRICE LOWER FOR CERTAIN ITEMS THAN THE PRICE FOR THOSE ITEMS IN AN "ALL OR NONE" BID WHICH IS LOW IN THE OVERALL DOES NOT PER SE JUSTIFY A DETERMINATION THAT THE "ALL OR NONE" BID PRICE IS UNREASONABLE, NOR DOES IT OTHERWISE BY ITSELF QUALIFY AS A COGENT OR COMPELLING REASON FOR CANCELLATION AND READVERTISEMENT OF SOME OF THE ITEMS.

THE RECORD INDICATES NONE OF THE BIDDERS SUBMITTED AN UNQUALIFIED BID ON ALL FOUR DESTINATIONS WHICH COULD BE COMBINED WITH THE BID OF KINGS POINT ON THREE OF THE FOUR DESTINATIONS, NAMELY, ATLANTA, MEMPHIS AND OGDEN. CONTRACTING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS DELIVERY OF THE COVERALLS TO ALL FOUR DESTINATIONS. WE AGREE WITH THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN EXORBITANT PRICE WOULD BE PAID FOR THE COVERALLS IF THE "ALL OR NONE" BID OF MASON & HUGHES WERE TO BE ACCEPTED, THE UNIT PRICE QUOTED BY THAT FIRM WOULD BE THE PROPER BASIS TO BE USED. SINCE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF ONLY $0.31197 BETWEEN THE NET UNIT PRICES QUOTED BY MASON & HUGHES AND KINGS POINT, WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE UNIT PRICE QUOTED BY MASON & HUGHES IS UNREASONABLE. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS REPORTED THAT IN THE LAST 2 YEARS, THE AWARD PRICE FOR COVERALLS RANGED FROM A HIGH OF $46.82 TO A LOW OF $41.28 FOR COMPARABLE QUANTITIES, BOTH LOW AND HIGH PRICES BEING PAID TO KINGS POINT. ACCORDINGLY, THE BID OF KINGS POINT MFG. CO., INC., MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD.