B-179886, NOV 13, 1973
Highlights
WHERE EXTENDED PRICE AND UNIT PRICE ARE INCONSISTENT AND THE EXTENDED PRICE WAS LESS THAN THE CORRECT PRODUCT OF THE UNIT PRICE AND THE QUANTITY BID - AN ERROR OBVIOUS ON FACE OF BID - IT MAY BE CONCLUDED THAT CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS ON NOTICE OF POSSIBLE ERROR. SINCE BID VERIFICATION WAS NOT REQUESTED PRIOR TO AWARD. FOR AN ERROR MADE IN THE BID UPON WHICH PURCHASE ORDER 82294 IS BASED. THE SOLICITATION UPON WHICH THE CONTRACT IS BASED INVITED BIDS FOR THE SUPPLYING OF 400. FOUR BIDS WERE OPENED IN TOTAL AMOUNTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT MAIL-WELL'S BID CONTAINED A CLERICAL ERROR. IN STATING AN EXTENDED TOTAL PRICE WHICH WAS LESS THAN THE CORRECT PRODUCT OF THE UNIT PRICE AND THE QUANTITY BID.
B-179886, NOV 13, 1973
WHERE EXTENDED PRICE AND UNIT PRICE ARE INCONSISTENT AND THE EXTENDED PRICE WAS LESS THAN THE CORRECT PRODUCT OF THE UNIT PRICE AND THE QUANTITY BID - AN ERROR OBVIOUS ON FACE OF BID - IT MAY BE CONCLUDED THAT CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS ON NOTICE OF POSSIBLE ERROR. SINCE BID VERIFICATION WAS NOT REQUESTED PRIOR TO AWARD, THE CONTRACT MAY BE RESCINDED.
TO MR. T. F. MCCORMICK:
WE REFER TO LETTER DATED OCTOBER 16, 1973, WITH ENCLOSURES, FROM THE ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL, RECOMMENDING RELIEF FOR MAIL-WELL ENVELOPE COMPANY, PORTLAND, OREGON, FOR AN ERROR MADE IN THE BID UPON WHICH PURCHASE ORDER 82294 IS BASED.
THE SOLICITATION UPON WHICH THE CONTRACT IS BASED INVITED BIDS FOR THE SUPPLYING OF 400,000 (PLUS OR MINUS ONE PERCENT) WINDOW ENVELOPES WITH GUM FLAP FOR AN AIR FORCE REQUIREMENT. ON SEPTEMBER 12, 1973, FOUR BIDS WERE OPENED IN TOTAL AMOUNTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. MAIL-WELL ENVELOPE COMPANY $2,106.00
2. UNION ENVELOPE COMPANY, INC. $2,676.00
3. SERVICE ENVELOPE COMPANY $2,796.00
4. COMMERCIAL ENVELOPE COMPANY $3,960.00
THE FILE REVEALS THAT IN THE CASE OF ALL BIDS RECEIVED, EXCEPT THAT OF MAIL-WELL, THE TOTAL AMOUNTS BID REPRESENTED THE PRODUCT OF THE QUOTED UNIT PRICE PER THOUSAND MULTIPLIED BY THE NUMBER OF THOUSANDS REQUIRED. HOWEVER, AN EXAMINATION OF THE QUOTATION OF MAIL-WELL DISCLOSED THAT A SIMILAR COMPUTATION PRODUCED A TOTAL OF $4,212.00 ($10.53 X 400,000), AS OPPOSED TO ITS EXTENDED PRICE OF $2,106.00.
ON THE RECORD, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT MAIL-WELL'S BID CONTAINED A CLERICAL ERROR, OBVIOUS ON THE FACE OF THE BID, IN STATING AN EXTENDED TOTAL PRICE WHICH WAS LESS THAN THE CORRECT PRODUCT OF THE UNIT PRICE AND THE QUANTITY BID. THEREFORE, IT MAY BE CONCLUDED THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS ON NOTICE OF POSSIBLE ERROR IN THE BID OF MAIL WELL. ACCORDINGLY, AND SINCE BID VERIFICATION WAS NOT REQUESTED PRIOR TO AWARD, THE CONTRACT MAY BE RESCINDED AS RECOMMENDED.