B-131767, JUL. 29, 1957
Highlights
ESQUIRES: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 19. WHICH WAS RENDERED IN RESPONSE TO A PROTEST OF YOUR CLIENT. WE HELD THAT THE BID OF YOUR CLIENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS BINDING UPON THE CORPORATION BUT. IS PREPARED TO PURCHASE FROM BURBRIDGE AND MCCLENDON THE EQUIPMENT WITH WHICH THEY ARE OPERATING AND TO ASSUME ANY CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION WHICH THEY HAVE FOR STORAGE OF THEIR VEHICLES AND YOU REQUEST THAT THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT BE INSTRUCTED TO CANCEL THE CURRENT CONTRACT AND AWARD A CONTRACT TO YOUR CLIENT. IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER YOUR CLIENT PROPERLY COULD HAVE DENIED THE VALIDITY OF ITS BID BECAUSE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS SIGNED. THERE APPEARS TO BE LITTLE DOUBT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED THAT THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE BID OF BURBRIDGE AND MCCLENDON CONSTITUTED A VALID AND BINDING CONTRACT UNDER WHICH THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF THE PARTIES ARE FIXED.
B-131767, JUL. 29, 1957
TO KRINER AND HARMAN, ESQUIRES:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 19, 1957, REGARDING OUR DECISION OF JUNE 20, 1957, TO THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, WHICH WAS RENDERED IN RESPONSE TO A PROTEST OF YOUR CLIENT, INDIANAPOLIS AND SOUTHEASTERN TRAILWAYS, INC., AGAINST THE REJECTION BY THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF ITS PROPOSAL FOR FURNISHING HIGHWAY POST OFFICE SERVICE AS DESCRIBED IN INVITATION ISSUED ON APRIL 12, 1957. WE HELD THAT THE BID OF YOUR CLIENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS BINDING UPON THE CORPORATION BUT, SINCE A. F. BURBRIDGE AND C. C. MCCLENDON, THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER, HAD COMMENCED OPERATIONS AND HAD MADE A CONSIDERABLE OUTLAY FOR EQUIPMENT AND OPERATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS, WE DID NOT FEEL THAT THE AWARD AS MADE SHOULD BE DISTURBED.
IN YOUR LETTER OF JULY 19, 1957, YOU STATE THAT INDIANAPOLIS AND SOUTHEASTERN TRAILWAYS, INC., IS PREPARED TO PURCHASE FROM BURBRIDGE AND MCCLENDON THE EQUIPMENT WITH WHICH THEY ARE OPERATING AND TO ASSUME ANY CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION WHICH THEY HAVE FOR STORAGE OF THEIR VEHICLES AND YOU REQUEST THAT THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT BE INSTRUCTED TO CANCEL THE CURRENT CONTRACT AND AWARD A CONTRACT TO YOUR CLIENT.
WHILE, AS INDICATED IN OUR DECISION, IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER YOUR CLIENT PROPERLY COULD HAVE DENIED THE VALIDITY OF ITS BID BECAUSE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS SIGNED, THERE APPEARS TO BE LITTLE DOUBT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED THAT THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE BID OF BURBRIDGE AND MCCLENDON CONSTITUTED A VALID AND BINDING CONTRACT UNDER WHICH THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF THE PARTIES ARE FIXED. WE THEREFORE WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN INSTRUCTING THE POSTMASTER GENERAL TO CANCEL THE AGREEMENT.