B-215243, JUN 8, 1984
Highlights
DIGEST: WHETHER VEHICLES DELIVERED TO THE GOVERNMENT CONFORM TO CONTRACT DESCRIPTION IS A MATTER OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. WHICH IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROCURING AGENCY. BRANDT (BRANDT) PROTESTS THAT CERTAIN FORD AUTOMOBILES THAT WERE DELIVERED TO THE GOVERNMENT UNDER CONTRACT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE CONTRACT DESCRIPTION AND THE GOVERNMENT THEREFORE WAS OVERCHARGED. THESE VEHICLES WERE SOLD AS SURPLUS PROPERTY AND PURCHASED BY BRANDT. BRANDT CONTENDS THAT HE DID NOT PAY FOR AND TAKE DELIVERY OF THE VEHICLES BECAUSE THEY WERE OVERPRICED BASED ON AN ERRONEOUS DESCRIPTION. BRANDT'S CONTRACT WAS DEFAULTED AND HE SEEKS HELP IN MITIGATING DAMAGES. THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR SUPPLIES AN ITEM CONFORMING TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT IS A MATTER OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION.
B-215243, JUN 8, 1984
DIGEST: WHETHER VEHICLES DELIVERED TO THE GOVERNMENT CONFORM TO CONTRACT DESCRIPTION IS A MATTER OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION, WHICH IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROCURING AGENCY.
DONALD V. BRANDT:
DONALD V. BRANDT (BRANDT) PROTESTS THAT CERTAIN FORD AUTOMOBILES THAT WERE DELIVERED TO THE GOVERNMENT UNDER CONTRACT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE CONTRACT DESCRIPTION AND THE GOVERNMENT THEREFORE WAS OVERCHARGED. SOMETIME SUBSEQUENT TO THE GOVERNMENT'S PURCHASE, THESE VEHICLES WERE SOLD AS SURPLUS PROPERTY AND PURCHASED BY BRANDT. BRANDT CONTENDS THAT HE DID NOT PAY FOR AND TAKE DELIVERY OF THE VEHICLES BECAUSE THEY WERE OVERPRICED BASED ON AN ERRONEOUS DESCRIPTION. BRANDT'S CONTRACT WAS DEFAULTED AND HE SEEKS HELP IN MITIGATING DAMAGES.
WE DISMISS THE PROTEST.
ONCE A CONTRACT HAS BEEN AWARDED, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR SUPPLIES AN ITEM CONFORMING TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT IS A MATTER OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. THIS OFFICE'S BID PROTEST FUNCTION DOES NOT INCLUDE REVIEW OF THIS MATTER, WHICH IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROCURING AGENCY. SEE DIFFCO, INC., B-212392, AUGUST 1, 1983, 83-2 CPD 149.