B-150904, JUL. 11, 1963
Highlights
INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 7. OUR OFFICE REVIEWED THE MATTERS SUBMITTED BY YOUR ATTORNEY IN SUPPORT OF THE VIEW THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CORRECT YOUR BID AND. WHICH YOU FEEL SHOULD HAVE ESTABLISHED WHAT YOU HAD INTENDED TO BID BUT WHICH YOU INFER THAT WE FAILED TO CONSIDER IN OUR LETTER OF MAY 24. WAS A PART OF THE RECORD CONSIDERED BY OUR OFFICE IN ARRIVING AT OUR CONCLUSION. WHILE A NUMBER OF THE DIFFERENCES INVOLVED WERE MINOR IN AMOUNT. SINCE THE QUOTATION OF COLUMBIA PRODUCTS COMPANY TO YOU ON THREE ITEMS INCLUDING A QUOTATION OF $43.85 ON THE ANTENNA BASE WAS CONDITIONED ON BEING ALLOWED TO SUPPLY ALL THREE ITEMS. THERE WAS DOUBT AS TO WHAT ITEMS OF OVERHEAD YOU CONSIDERED IN YOUR G AND A AND LABOR FIGURES.
B-150904, JUL. 11, 1963
TO ARKAY INTERNATIONAL, INC.:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 7, 1963, WHEREIN YOU REVIEW SOME OF THE QUESTIONS CONSIDERED BY THE GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITED STATES ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND, IN MAKING HIS DETERMINATION TO PERMIT WITHDRAWAL BUT NOT CORRECTION OF YOUR BID SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. AMC-36-039-63-246-A1, ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES ARMY ELECTRONICS MATERIEL AGENCY.
OUR OFFICE REVIEWED THE MATTERS SUBMITTED BY YOUR ATTORNEY IN SUPPORT OF THE VIEW THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CORRECT YOUR BID AND,AS CORRECTED, BE CONSIDERED IN MAKING AWARD. IN OUR LETTER OF MAY 24, 1963, WE SET FORTH THE REASONS AS TO WHY WE FOUND NO BASIS FOR DISAGREEING WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION TO REFUSE CORRECTION OF YOUR BID. YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 7 YOU POINT OUT CERTAIN STATEMENTS MADE BY YOUR ATTORNEYS, MAYER AND RIGBY, IN THEIR LETTER OF APRIL 29, 1963, AND WHICH YOU FEEL SHOULD HAVE ESTABLISHED WHAT YOU HAD INTENDED TO BID BUT WHICH YOU INFER THAT WE FAILED TO CONSIDER IN OUR LETTER OF MAY 24, 1963.
THE LETTER OF APRIL 29, REFERRED TO BY YOU, WAS A PART OF THE RECORD CONSIDERED BY OUR OFFICE IN ARRIVING AT OUR CONCLUSION. WHILE A NUMBER OF THE DIFFERENCES INVOLVED WERE MINOR IN AMOUNT, THERE EXISTED DOUBT AS TO WHETHER YOU COULD USE THE ALLEGED COST OF THE ANTENNA BASE ($37) WHICH YOU OMITTED IN COMPUTING YOUR BID, SINCE THE QUOTATION OF COLUMBIA PRODUCTS COMPANY TO YOU ON THREE ITEMS INCLUDING A QUOTATION OF $43.85 ON THE ANTENNA BASE WAS CONDITIONED ON BEING ALLOWED TO SUPPLY ALL THREE ITEMS. ALSO, AS INDICATED BY YOU, THERE WAS DOUBT AS TO WHAT ITEMS OF OVERHEAD YOU CONSIDERED IN YOUR G AND A AND LABOR FIGURES. PARAGRAPH 2-406.3 OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION PROVIDES, AS POINTED OUT IN OUR LETTER OF MAY 24, THAT IN ORDER TO PERMIT CORRECTION OF A BID THERE NOT ONLY MUST BE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT A MISTAKE WAS MADE BUT ALSO CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF WHAT WAS ACTUALLY INTENDED. WE DID NOT FEEL THAT THE DETERMINATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE THAT YOU FAILED TO PRESENT CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF YOUR INTENDED BID WAS ERRONEOUS.
IN ANY EVENT, WE RECEIVED A TELEGRAM ON JUNE 26, 1963, FROM THE CONTRACTING OFFICE, IN WHICH IT IS STATED THAT ALL BIDS UNDER THE INSTANT INVITATION WERE BEING REJECTED.
WE DO NOT FEEL THAT THERE HAS BEEN PRESENTED ANYTHING WHICH WARRANTS ANY CHANGE IN THE CONCLUSION HERETOFORE REACHED IN THIS MATTER.