B-127848, JUN. 13, 1956
Highlights
BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS ANNEX: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 18. THERE IS ENCLOSED A COPY OF OUR LETTER OF TODAY TO THE PROTESTING BIDDER. ALL BIDS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO IFB 56-73 WERE REJECTED BECAUSE THE ARMED SERVICES BELIEVED IT DESIRABLE TO PROCURE A DIFFERENT GRADE OF OIL. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS WERE READVERTISED UNDER IFB 56 73/B) BUT FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF SEVERAL PROTESTS AGAINST THIS ACTION THE ARMED SERVICES DECIDED TO PROCURE THE OIL ORIGINALLY DESCRIBED IN IFB 56-73. THE BIDS WHICH HAD BEEN RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE SECOND INVITATION WERE CANCELED. THE PROCUREMENT WAS REINSTATED AND AWARD WAS SUBSEQUENTLY MADE TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER UNDER IFB 56-73.
B-127848, JUN. 13, 1956
TO COLONEL A. C. GILLIAM, DIRECTOR, ARMED SERVICES PETROLEUM PURCHASING AGENCY, BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS ANNEX:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 18, 1956, YOUR FILE 11 3816, FURNISHING THE REPORT REQUESTED IN OUR LETTER OF MAY 15, 1956, RELATIVE TO THE PROTEST OF THE CENTRAL FUEL COMPANY, WASHINGTON, D.C., AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT FOR ITEMS 1354 AND 1355 TO A HIGHER BIDDER PURSUANT TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 56-73.
THERE IS ENCLOSED A COPY OF OUR LETTER OF TODAY TO THE PROTESTING BIDDER.
ALL BIDS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO IFB 56-73 WERE REJECTED BECAUSE THE ARMED SERVICES BELIEVED IT DESIRABLE TO PROCURE A DIFFERENT GRADE OF OIL. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS WERE READVERTISED UNDER IFB 56 73/B) BUT FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF SEVERAL PROTESTS AGAINST THIS ACTION THE ARMED SERVICES DECIDED TO PROCURE THE OIL ORIGINALLY DESCRIBED IN IFB 56-73. CONSEQUENTLY, THE BIDS WHICH HAD BEEN RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE SECOND INVITATION WERE CANCELED, THE PROCUREMENT WAS REINSTATED AND AWARD WAS SUBSEQUENTLY MADE TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER UNDER IFB 56-73.
WHILE WE WILL INTERPOSE NO OBJECTION TO THE ACTION TAKEN IN THIS CASE, THERE IS ENCLOSED A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF NOVEMBER 1, 1955, B 124619, 35 COMP. GEN. 255, WHEREIN WE CONCLUDED THAT GENERALLY THE REJECTION OF ALL BIDS OR OFFERS AMOUNTS TO A COMPLETE ABOLITION OF SUCH BIDS AND, INSOFAR AS ANY LEGAL BINDING EFFECT IS CONCERNED, PLACES THE PARTIES IN THE SAME POSITION AS IF NO OFFERS HAD EVER BEEN MADE. ON THIS BASIS THE SUBSEQUENT ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH A REJECTED BID WOULD AMOUNT TO A DIRECT NEGOTIATION WITH THE BIDDER AND WOULD RESULT IN A FORECLOSURE OF CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS FROM EITHER THE REJECTED OR OTHER INTERESTED BIDDERS.
IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE GENERAL RULE ENUNCIATED IN THE ENCLOSED DECISION OF NOVEMBER 1, 1955, SHOULD BE ADHERED TO IN THE FUTURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING AN INDEFENSIBLE POSITION AGAINST PROTESTS OF OTHER PARTICIPATING BIDDERS.