Skip to main content

B-173492, FEB 1, 1972

B-173492 Feb 01, 1972
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE BID SCHEDULE TOTAL AND THE UNIT PRICE SCHEDULE TOTAL DOES NOT CREATE AN AMBIGUOUS BID WHEN THE ELEMENTS MAKING UP THE UNIT PRICES ARE PART OF THE REQUIRED BID PACKAGE. THE PROTEST IS DENIED. BROWN & TACKE: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED DECEMBER 3. IS CONTRARY TO OUR DECISION AT 49 COMP. INITIALLY WE MUST POINT OUT THAT THE SENTENCES QUOTED IN YOUR LETTER ARE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. IT IS OUR POSITION. THAT WHERE THERE ARE INCONSISTENT FIGURES IN A BID. OUR EARLIER DECISION ON THIS MATTER SETS OUT THE REASONS FOR CONCLUDING THAT IT WAS REASONABLE TO ACCEPT THE DETAILED FIGURES IN THE UNIT PRICE SCHEDULE RATHER THAN THE TOTAL IN THE BID SCHEDULE FOR ITEM 0004.

View Decision

B-173492, FEB 1, 1972

BID PROTEST - INCONSISTENCY OF BID PRICE DECISION DENYING THE PROTEST OF JAYHAWK ENTERPRISES, INC., AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO TIDEWATER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., UNDER AN IFB ISSUED BY THE LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT, CHAMBERSBURG, PA. AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE BID SCHEDULE TOTAL AND THE UNIT PRICE SCHEDULE TOTAL DOES NOT CREATE AN AMBIGUOUS BID WHEN THE ELEMENTS MAKING UP THE UNIT PRICES ARE PART OF THE REQUIRED BID PACKAGE. ACCORDINGLY, THE PROTEST IS DENIED.

TO HUDSON, CREYKE, KOEHLER, BROWN & TACKE:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED DECEMBER 3, 1971, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION DATED NOVEMBER 29, 1971, B-173492, DENYING THE PROTEST IN BEHALF OF JAYHAWK ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, AGAINST AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO TIDEWATER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INCORPORATED, UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. DAAG34-71-B-0029, ISSUED BY LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT, CHAMBERSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA.

YOU QUOTE TWO SENTENCES FROM OUR DECISION OF NOVEMBER 29, 1971, AND STATE THAT THE CONCLUSION REACHED, TO THE EFFECT THAT AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE BID SCHEDULE TOTAL AND THE UNIT PRICE SCHEDULE TOTAL DOES NOT CREATE AN AMBIGUOUS BID, IS CONTRARY TO OUR DECISION AT 49 COMP. GEN. 107 (1969).

INITIALLY WE MUST POINT OUT THAT THE SENTENCES QUOTED IN YOUR LETTER ARE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. THE INTERVENING TWO OMITTED PARAGRAPHS CLEARLY BRIDGE THE STATEMENTS. IT IS OUR POSITION, CONSISTENT WITH PRECEDENT, THAT WHERE THERE ARE INCONSISTENT FIGURES IN A BID, ONE REASONABLE AND THE OTHER UNREASONABLE, THE REASONABLE FIGURE MAY BE ACCEPTED AS CORRECT. COMP. GEN. 429 (1956); SEE ALSO B-167303, JULY 18, 1969. OUR EARLIER DECISION ON THIS MATTER SETS OUT THE REASONS FOR CONCLUDING THAT IT WAS REASONABLE TO ACCEPT THE DETAILED FIGURES IN THE UNIT PRICE SCHEDULE RATHER THAN THE TOTAL IN THE BID SCHEDULE FOR ITEM 0004.

IN ADDITION THE FACTS CONSIDERED IN 49 COMP. GEN. 107 DIFFER IN A MATERIAL RESPECT FROM THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT MATTER. HERE THE ELEMENTS OF THE UNIT PRICE ON ITEM 0004, THE ITEM IN CONTROVERSY, ARE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED AS A PART OF THE BID PACKAGE TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE SUM OF THREE STATED COLUMNS OF THE UNIT PRICE SCHEDULE "WILL EQUAL THE UNIT PRICE AND AMOUNT PER YEAR FOR ITEM NUMBER 0004 OF THE INVITATION (BID) SCHEDULE." IN THE CITED CASE (SHOOK) THE ELEMENTS MAKING UP THE UNIT (SUB-ITEM) PRICES WERE NOT A PART OF THE REQUIRED BID PACKAGE, AN ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM THE INSTANT CASE.

YOU ALSO CONTEND THAT BY OUR DECISION WE HAVE ALLOWED TIDEWATER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. TO GAIN AN UNFAIR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, BY OFFERING TIDEWATER THE OPTION OF CHOOSING WHICH PRICE IT WOULD SUPPORT, THE FIGURE STATED FOR ITEM 0004 ON THE BID SCHEDULE OR THE REQUIRED SUM TOTAL OF THE THREE COLUMNS OF THE UNIT PRICE SCHEDULE. NO OPTION WAS AFFORDED TIDEWATER. OUR DECISION MERELY POINTED OUT THAT THE INTENDED BID WAS APPARENT FROM THE BID PACKAGE SUBMITTED AND WITHOUT RESORT TO EXTRANEOUS INFORMATION.

ACCORDINGLY, WE ADHERE TO OUR DECISION OF NOVEMBER 29, 1971, B 173492.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs