Skip to main content

B-127331, AUG. 21, 1956

B-127331 Aug 21, 1956
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

TO DECATUR FARMS: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 12. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE OPENING OF THE BIDS WHICH RESULTED IN THE CONTRACT IN QUESTION AND THE FULL CONSIDERATION GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT PURCHASING AGENT IN THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRICE QUOTED BY YOU FOR THE BUTTER (ITEM NO. 136 OF THE INVITATION) ARE SET FORTH IN DETAIL IN THE DECISION AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. A REEXAMINATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF THE DECISION DEALING WITH THE VERIFICATION OF YOUR QUOTED PRICE AND THE CONVERSATION HAD WITH YOUR REPRESENTATIVE IN THE MATTER ARE BASED SPECIFICALLY ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS FURNISHED OUR OFFICE.

View Decision

B-127331, AUG. 21, 1956

TO DECATUR FARMS:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 12, 1956, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF MAY 31, 1956, WHICH SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR $602.64 ALLEGED TO BE DUE AS A RESULT OF AN ERROR MADE IN THE SUBMISSION OF YOUR BID ON BUTTER FURNISHED UNDER PURCHASE ORDER NO. 194, DATED JULY 22, 1954.

THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE OPENING OF THE BIDS WHICH RESULTED IN THE CONTRACT IN QUESTION AND THE FULL CONSIDERATION GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT PURCHASING AGENT IN THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRICE QUOTED BY YOU FOR THE BUTTER (ITEM NO. 136 OF THE INVITATION) ARE SET FORTH IN DETAIL IN THE DECISION AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE.

A REEXAMINATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF THE DECISION DEALING WITH THE VERIFICATION OF YOUR QUOTED PRICE AND THE CONVERSATION HAD WITH YOUR REPRESENTATIVE IN THE MATTER ARE BASED SPECIFICALLY ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS FURNISHED OUR OFFICE. NOTWITHSTANDING, IN YOUR CURRENT LETTER YOU ASSUME THE POSITION THAT THE ACCEPTANCE OF YOUR BID WAS NOT MADE IN GOOD FAITH PRESUMABLY BECAUSE OF THE DECIDED VARIANCE BETWEEN YOUR QUOTED PRICE AND THE PRICES OFFERED BY THE NEXT HIGHER BIDDERS. IN ADDITION YOU AGAIN DISPUTE THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME OF VERIFICATION YOU WERE APPRISED OF THE PRICE ACTUALLY QUOTED BY YOU OR THAT YOUR PRICE WAS LESS THAN $0.30 PER POUND. FURTHER, YOU DENY THAT DURING THE CONVERSATION INVOLVING VERIFICATION YOU REQUESTED AND RECEIVED THE PRICES QUOTED BY THE OTHER TWO BIDDERS ON THE ITEM IN QUESTION. FINALLY, YOU SUGGEST THAT A REASONABLE SETTLEMENT OF YOUR CLAIM MAY BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR QUOTED PRICE AND THE AVERAGE OF THE PRICES QUOTED BY THE OTHER TWO BIDDERS, THUS PERMITTING YOU AN ALLOWANCE OF AT LEAST $130.32.

IN CASES SUCH AS HERE, WHERE THERE IS A DISPUTE BETWEEN A CLAIMANT AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AS TO FACTS, IT LONG HAS BEEN THE RULE OF THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS TO ACCEPT AS CORRECT THE STATEMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR SHOWING TO THE CONTRARY. SEE RIPLEY V. UNITED STATES, 223 U.S. 695. FURTHERMORE, THE FACT THAT THE ACCEPTANCE OF YOUR BID WAS NOT MADE UNTIL AFTER YOU WERE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY YOUR BID PRECLUDES ANY ASSUMPTION THAT THE PURCHASING AGENT EXERCISED BAD FAITH OR ATTEMPTED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOU. SEE 10 COMP. GEN. 388; 14 ID. 942; AND 27 ID. 17. THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PREPARATION OF YOUR BID WAS SOLELY UPON YOU. SEE FRAZIER-DAVIS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY V. UNITED STATES, 100 C.CLS. 120, 163. INSOFAR AS THE RECORD DISCLOSES IN YOUR CASE, THE ACCEPTANCE OF YOUR BID WAS IN GOOD FAITH--- NO ERROR WAS ALLEGED UNTIL AFTER AWARD. THUS, THE ACCEPTANCE OF YOUR BID UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONSUMMATED A VALID AND BINDING CONTRACT WHICH FIXED THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF THE PARTIES. SEE UNITED STATES V. PURCELL ENVELOPE COMPANY, 249 U.S. 313; AND AMERICAN SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY, 259 U.S. 75.

ACCORDINGLY, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF ANY PORTION OF YOUR CLAIM AND, THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF MAY 31, 1956, IS AFFIRMED.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs