B-172961, SEP 16, 1971

B-172961: Sep 16, 1971

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Ralph O. White
(202) 512-8278
WhiteRO@gao.gov

Kenneth E. Patton
(202) 512-8205
PattonK@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

1971 DENIED THE REQUEST FOR RELIEF BECAUSE THE RECORD DID NOT SHOW THAT ANY ALLEGATION OF MISTAKE WAS MADE UNTIL AFTER AWARD OF THE CONTRACT. TO AMSCO PARTS MANUFACTURING COMPANY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF AUGUST 5 AND 10. WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF SALES CONTRACT NO. 21-1105- 367. DENIED THE REQUEST FOR RELIEF BECAUSE THE RECORD DID NOT SHOW THAT ANY ALLEGATION OF MISTAKE WAS MADE UNTIL AFTER AWARD OF THE ABOVE-CITED CONTRACT AND BECAUSE ACCEPTANCE OF THE BID BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WITHOUT NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED MISTAKE RESULTED IN A VALID AND BINDING CONTRACT. 1971: "ALTHOUGH THE BID OF AMSCO WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THE NEXT HIGHEST BID RECEIVED ON ITEM 44. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE DIFFERENCE WAS SO GREAT AS TO HAVE PLACED THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ON NOTICE OF THE PROBABILITY OF ERROR IN THE BID OF THE COMPANY.

B-172961, SEP 16, 1971

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - MISTAKE IN BID DENIAL OF REQUEST BY AMSCO PARTS MANUFACTURING COMPANY FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A PREVIOUS REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM AN ALLEGED MISTAKE IN BID ON A CONTRACT AWARDED BY THE DEFENSE SURPLUS SALES OFFICE, FOREST PARK, GA. THE DECISION OF JULY 6, 1971 DENIED THE REQUEST FOR RELIEF BECAUSE THE RECORD DID NOT SHOW THAT ANY ALLEGATION OF MISTAKE WAS MADE UNTIL AFTER AWARD OF THE CONTRACT, AND BECAUSE ACCEPTANCE OF THE BID BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WITHOUT NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED MISTAKE RESULTED IN A VALID AND BINDING CONTRACT. UPON A REVIEW OF THE RECORD, AS SUPPLEMENTED BY AMSCO'S LETTERS OF AUGUST 5 AND 10, 1971, THE COMP. GEN. MUST CONCLUDE THAT NO LEGAL BASIS EXISTS FOR GRANTING THE RELIEF REQUESTED.

TO AMSCO PARTS MANUFACTURING COMPANY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF AUGUST 5 AND 10, 1971, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION DATED JULY 6, 1971, TO THE DIRECTOR, DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY, WHICH DENIED YOUR REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM AN ALLEGED MISTAKE IN BID, WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF SALES CONTRACT NO. 21-1105- 367, AWARDED BY THE DEFENSE SURPLUS SALES OFFICE, FOREST PARK, GEORGIA.

THE DECISION OF JULY 6, 1971, DENIED THE REQUEST FOR RELIEF BECAUSE THE RECORD DID NOT SHOW THAT ANY ALLEGATION OF MISTAKE WAS MADE UNTIL AFTER AWARD OF THE ABOVE-CITED CONTRACT AND BECAUSE ACCEPTANCE OF THE BID BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WITHOUT NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED MISTAKE RESULTED IN A VALID AND BINDING CONTRACT.

YOU REFER TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT MADE ON PAGES 1 AND 2 OF THE DECISION OF JULY 6, 1971:

"ALTHOUGH THE BID OF AMSCO WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THE NEXT HIGHEST BID RECEIVED ON ITEM 44, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE DIFFERENCE WAS SO GREAT AS TO HAVE PLACED THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ON NOTICE OF THE PROBABILITY OF ERROR IN THE BID OF THE COMPANY, AS BIDDERS MAY BE EXPECTED TO PLACE A WIDE RANGE OF VALUES ON SURPLUS PROPERTY BASED ON INDIVIDUAL NEEDS OR OPPORTUNITIES FOR USE OR RESALE."

YOU ALLEGE THAT IN PREVIOUS SALES BY THE GOVERNMENT, THE SALES PRICES FOR TAILGATES SIMILAR TO THOSE COVERED BY ITEM 44 RANGED FROM $3.00 TO $6.00; THAT THESE PRICES SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS EVIDENCE OF THE TRUE VALUE OF THIS ITEM TO VARIOUS BIDDERS, AND THAT THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FOR THIS ITEM IN PREVIOUS SALES WILL CONFIRM THAT YOUR INTENDED BID PRICE OF $836.36 FOR THE LOT OF ITEMS COVERED BY ITEM 44 WAS IN THE SAME PRICE RANGE. ALSO, YOU POINT OUT THAT THE PROPERTY COVERED BY ITEM 44 WAS READVERTISED UNDER SALES INVITATION NO. 21-2004; THAT THE THREE HIGHEST BIDS ON THE PROPERTY WERE IN THE AMOUNTS OF $736.11, $386.94 AND $225.00; AND THAT THE SALES OFFICE WITHDREW THE PROPERTY FROM THE SALE PENDING RESOLUTION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER THE SUBJECT CONTRACT. YOU REQUEST THAT THE CONTRACT PRICE FOR ITEM 44 BE CHANGED FROM $1,836.36 TO $836.36, YOUR INTENDED BID PRICE FOR THAT ITEM.

ITEM 44 WAS DESCRIBED IN THE SALES INVITATION AS ONE LOT OF VEHICULAR EQUIPMENT COMPONENTS, CONSISTING OF 243 TAILGATES AND 128 CARBURETORS, UNUSED, IN GOOD CONDITION, WHOSE TOTAL COST WAS STATED TO BE $5,992. BIDDERS WERE REQUESTED TO QUOTE A LOT PRICE FOR ITEM 44. WHILE YOU STATE IN YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 15, 1971, THAT OF THE ITEMS IN THE LOT, THE TAILGATES ARE THE ONLY THINGS OF VALUE TO YOUR FIRM, IT MUST BE RECOGNIZED THAT THE CARBURETORS WOULD BE OF VALUE TO SOME OF THE BIDDERS. WHERE THERE ARE TWO OR MORE TYPES OF ITEMS IN A LOT OF SURPLUS PROPERTY, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A CONTRACTING OFFICER CAN BE CHARGED WITH NOTICE OF THE VALUE PLACED UPON A CERTAIN ITEM BY A PARTICULAR BIDDER. IN REGARD TO THE PRICES QUOTED BY THE THREE HIGHEST BIDDERS UPON THE READVERTISEMENT OF ITEM 44, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT SUCH PRICES ARE CONTROLLING SINCE THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN EACH SALE ARE TO BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.

UPON REVIEW OF THE FACTS OF RECORD AS SUPPLEMENTED BY YOUR LETTERS OF AUGUST 5 AND 10, 1971, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT NO LEGAL BASIS EXISTS FOR GRANTING THE RELIEF REQUESTED. THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT A MEETING TO DISCUSS THIS CASE AS YOU REQUESTED WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR YOU. HOWEVER, IF YOU STILL WISH TO DISCUSS THE MATTER, YOU MAY CONTACT THE ATTORNEY ASSIGNED TO THE CASE ON 386-5419.

Nov 25, 2020

Nov 24, 2020

Nov 20, 2020

Nov 19, 2020

Looking for more? Browse all our products here