B-157914, FEB. 23, 1966

B-157914, FEB. 23, 1966

TO TOWN AND COUNTRY PEST CONTROL, INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM OF JANUARY 31, 1966, IN WHICH YOU MAKE CERTAIN COMMENTS IN REGARD TO OUR DECISION OF JANUARY 28, 1966, B-157914, TO YOU, WHEREIN WE HELD THAT THE BID SUBMITTED BY YOUR FIRM IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 29-605-66-7 COULD NOT BE CORRECTED DOWNWARD AFTER BID OPENING, BUT PRIOR TO AWARD, ON THE BASIS OF AN ALLEGATION OF CLERICAL ERROR WHICH WOULD HAVE RENDERED YOUR BID THE LOWEST AGGREGATE BID RECEIVED ON THE WORK COVERED BY PHASE II, BIDDING SCHEDULE NO. 2.

YOU ALLEGE THAT THE TABULATION OF BIDS SHOWN ON PAGE 2 OF OUR DECISION REFLECTS AN APPARENT ERROR ON THE FACE OF YOUR BID. YOU STATE THAT THE TABULATION SHOWS THAT THERE IS A $1,000 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRICE QUOTED BY YOU FOR THE LUMP SUM ITEM OF YOUR INDIVIDUAL BID FOR PHASE II WORK AND THE PRICE QUOTED BY YOU FOR THE IDENTICAL WORK IN YOUR PHASES I AND II COMBINATION BID. YOU CONTEND THAT THIS ERROR IS EXPLAINABLE WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AND THAT CORRECTION OF THE EXTENDED TOTAL PRICE FOR ITEM 1A (6) OF PHASE II SETS THE PRECEDENT FOR MAKING THE CORRECTION REQUESTED BY YOUR FIRM.

WHILE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF $1,000 BETWEEN THE PRICE QUOTED BY YOU FOR THE LUMP SUM ITEM OF PHASE II IN YOUR INDIVIDUAL BID FOR THAT PHASE OF THE WORK AND THE LUMP SUM PRICE QUOTED BY YOU FOR THAT PHASE OF THE WORK IN YOUR COMBINATION BID FOR PHASES I AND II, SUCH DIFFERENCE IN PRICE IS NOT SUFFICIENT BY ITSELF TO ESTABLISH THAT AN ERROR WAS MADE IN THE PRICE FOR THE LUMP SUM ITEM OF PHASE II OF YOUR INDIVIDUAL BID. THIS IS TRUE BECAUSE BIDDERS HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO REDUCE THEIR PRICES IN A COMBINATION BID SO THAT THEY MAY OBTAIN AN AWARD ON ALL PARTS OF THE WORK. IN FACT BIDDERS WERE ADVISED IN THE INVITATION THAT THE COMBINATION BID ON PHASE I AND PHASE II WORK NEED NOT NECESSARILY BE THE SAME AS THE TOTAL OF INDIVIDUAL BIDS ON PHASE I AND PHASE II. IN REGARD TO THE CORRECTION OF ITEM 1A (6) OF PHASE II, YOU WERE ADVISED IN OUR DECISION THAT SINCE THE DOLLAR AMOUNT INVOLVED WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DISPLACE BIDDER NO. 9, THE LOWEST BIDDER ON PHASE II, NO FURTHER CONSIDERATION ASTO THE CORRECTION OF THAT ITEM WAS DEEMED NECESSARY. IN THAT CONNECTION, IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT THAT THE ERRORS MADE ON ITEM 1A (6) AND THE LUMP SUM ITEM OF PHASE II ARE DISTINGUISHABLE IN THAT THE ERROR AS TO ITEM 1A (6) IS ASCERTAINABLE FROM THE FACE OF THE BID ITSELF WHEREAS REPORT TO YOUR WORKSHEETS OR OTHER EXTRANEOUS EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE ERROR MADE IN THE PRICE OF THE LUMP SUM ITEM OF PHASE II.

IN YOUR TELEGRAM YOU REFER TO THAT PORTION OF THE BID TABULATION COVERING THE BID OF THE JACK B. HENDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO. AND YOU STATE THAT THE FIGURES GIVEN UNDER PHASE II AND COMBINATION PHASE II DO NOT TOTAL $145,016 AS SHOWN IN SUCH TABULATION. YOU ALLEGE THAT THE REFERRED-TO FIGURES TOTAL $112,841.44. THE FIGURES YOU QUESTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PHASE II

SPECIFIC ITEMS $ 902.44

LUMP SUM ITEMS 111,939.00

TOTAL - PHASE II 145,016.00

WHILE IT IS TRUE, AS YOU ALLEGE, THAT THE ABOVE FIGURES OF $902.44 AND $111,939 TOTAL $112,841.44, INSTEAD OF $145,016, AS SHOWN ON THE BID TABULATION, YOU MAY BE ADVISED THAT THE FIGURES SHOWN ON THE BID TABULATION ARE THOSE TAKEN FROM THE BID OF THE JACK B. HENDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO. HOWEVER, AN EXAMINATION OF THE BID OF HENDERSON INDICATES THE REASON FOR SUCH A DISCREPANCY IN FIGURES. EXAMINATION OF THE BID OF HENDERSON DISCLOSES THAT THE FIGURE OF $902.44 IS ACTUALLY THE TOTAL OF THE INDIVIDUAL UNIT PRICES FOR ALL OF THE SPECIFIC ITEMS RATHER THAN THE AGGREGATE TOTAL OF THE EXTENDED TOTAL PRICES FOR THESE ITEMS. ALSO ANY REDUCTION IN HENDERSON'S PRICE FOR PHASE II RESULTED SOLELY FROM THE CORRECTION OF MISTAKES MADE BY THE COMPANY IN THE EXTENSION OF UNIT PRICES FOR THE SPECIFIC ITEMS.

WE HAVE REVIEWED THE FILES PERTAINING TO THIS CASE AND WE FIND NO LEGAL BASIS FOR REVERSING OUR PRIOR DECISION IN THE MATTER. IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE INTEGRITY OF THE COMPETITIVE BID SYSTEM IMPOSED BY STATUTE REQUIRES THE PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS OF OTHER INTERESTED BIDDERS TO THE END THAT ALL BIDDERS HAVE AN EQUAL, IMPARTIAL RIGHT TO AWARD BASED UPON THE ADVERTISING SPECIFICATIONS AND THEIR RESPONSES THERETO. AS POINTED OUT IN THE PREVIOUS DECISION, TO PERMIT A DOWNWARD CORRECTION OF YOUR BID WOULD RESULT IN THE DISPLACEMENT OF ONE OF THE BIDDERS TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE GOVERNMENT IN PRESERVING AND MAINTAINING THE COMPETITIVE BID SYSTEM.

OUR CONCLUSION AS TO THE IMPROPRIETY OF PERMITTING SUCH DOWNWARD CORRECTIONS HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT AFTER LONG AND SERIOUS CONSIDERATION IN A NUMBER OF CASES, AND WE FEEL THAT IT IS SOUND, EVEN THOUGH ITS APPLICATION IN SOME CASES MAY APPEAR HARSH.

WE, THEREFORE, MUST ADHERE TO OUR PRIOR DECISION IN THE MATTER DENYING CORRECTION OF YOUR BID UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE INVOLVED.