Skip to main content

B-144952, MAR. 30, 1961

B-144952 Mar 30, 1961
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

TO LINK BELT COMPANY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 23. THE FACTS IN THE CASE WERE SET OUT IN OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 20. WILL NOT BE RESTATED HERE. - TO THE EFFECT THAT CORRECTION OF AN ERROR IN BID SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED IN CASES WHERE SUCH ACTION WOULD RESULT IN A HIGHER BID BECOMING THE LOWEST BID UNLESS THE AMOUNT OF THE INTENDED BID IS ASCERTAINABLE ON THE FACT OF THE INVITATION AND BID. YOU STATE THAT FACTUALLY THIS CASE IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE CASE INVOLVED IN THE LATTER DECISION. THERE WE MADE THE STATEMENT THAT THE MISTAKE AND THE INTENDED BID WERE OBVIOUS FROM THE BID ITSELF. IN ADDITION TO THE FIGURE OF 60 CENTS PER SQUARE FOOT USED BY THE BIDDER IN COMPUTING THE BID IN QUESTION THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FACTOR ON THE FACE OF THE BID WAS THE FACT THAT BIDDERS WERE REQUESTED TO SUBMIT BIDS ON FIVE BASES.

View Decision

B-144952, MAR. 30, 1961

TO LINK BELT COMPANY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 23, 1961, AND THE LETTER OF MARCH 3, 1961, FROM YOUR ATTORNEYS, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 20, 1961, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, IN WHICH WE HELD THAT YOUR BID SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. DA-ENG -11-184-61-B-114 ISSUED BY THE U.S. ARMY ENGINEER PROCUREMENT OFFICE, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, SHOULD NOT BE CORRECTED.

THE FACTS IN THE CASE WERE SET OUT IN OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 20, 1961, AND WILL NOT BE RESTATED HERE.

YOU DO NOT DISAGREE WITH THE RULE STATED IN 37 COMP. GEN. 210 AND THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH 2-406.3 (A) (3) OF ASPR--- REFERRED TO IN OUR DECISION--- TO THE EFFECT THAT CORRECTION OF AN ERROR IN BID SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED IN CASES WHERE SUCH ACTION WOULD RESULT IN A HIGHER BID BECOMING THE LOWEST BID UNLESS THE AMOUNT OF THE INTENDED BID IS ASCERTAINABLE ON THE FACT OF THE INVITATION AND BID. YOU POINT OUT THAT IN 37 COMP. GEN. 210 WE CITED AS AN EXAMPLE OF A CASE WHERE CORRECTION MAY BE PERMITTED OUR DECISION IN B-128175, JUNE 19, 1956. YOU STATE THAT FACTUALLY THIS CASE IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE CASE INVOLVED IN THE LATTER DECISION. THERE WE MADE THE STATEMENT THAT THE MISTAKE AND THE INTENDED BID WERE OBVIOUS FROM THE BID ITSELF. THE INVITATION IN THAT CASE REQUESTED BIDS FOR INSTALLING FLOOR TILE. IN ADDITION TO THE FIGURE OF 60 CENTS PER SQUARE FOOT USED BY THE BIDDER IN COMPUTING THE BID IN QUESTION THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FACTOR ON THE FACE OF THE BID WAS THE FACT THAT BIDDERS WERE REQUESTED TO SUBMIT BIDS ON FIVE BASES. THE FLOOR SPACE TO BE TILED WAS DIVIDED INTO NINE AREAS. THE BASIC BID WAS TO COVER FIVE OF THESE AREAS LETTERED AS D, E, F, H AND I; ALTERNATE 2 COVERED THE AREAS UNDER THE BASIC BID PLUS AREA G; ALTERNATE 3 COVERED AREAS A, B, C, D, E, F, H AND I; AND ALTERNATE 4 COVERED THE NINE AREAS FROM A TO I, INCLUSIVE. AS STATED IN THE DECISION, BY ADDING ALTERNATE 2 TO ALTERNATE 3 AND SUBTRACTING THE BASIC BID, THE REMAINDER REPRESENTED AREAS A TO I INCLUSIVE, AND THIS WORK WAS COVERED BY ALTERNATE 4. THUS, BY ADDING THE AMOUNTS BID FOR ALTERNATE 2 AND 3, NAMELY, $3,855.50 AND $4,658.30, WHICH EQUALED $8,513.80, AND THEN SUBTRACTING THE AMOUNT OF THE BASIC BID, $3,569.80, THE NET RESULT WAS $4,944 WHICH WAS ONLY $5 IN EXCESS OF THE PRICE THE BIDDER STATED THAT HE INTENDED TO BID ON ALTERNATE 4.

IN THE INSTANT CASE THE WEIGHT UNDER ITEM NO. 1B (OVERSEAS SHIPMENT) WAS SHOWN AS 855,155 POUNDS PER UNIT WITH TEN UNITS REQUIRED UNDER THIS CLASSIFICATION, AND UNDER THE SAME ITEM (NO. 1B) FOUR UNITS WERE TO BE PACKED FOR IMMEDIATE USE AND THE WEIGHT WAS SHOWN AS 853,455 POUNDS PER UNIT. IT WAS OBVIOUS TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, OF COURSE, THAT THESE GUARANTEED SHIPPING WEIGHTS WERE NOT CORRECT SINCE THE UNIT SHIPPING WEIGHTS SUBMITTED BY THE OTHER BIDDERS RANGED FROM 31,000 POUNDS TO 65,830 POUNDS. HOWEVER, IT WAS ALSO APPARENT THAT THE CORRECT UNIT WEIGHT OF THE OVERSEAS SHIPMENT (10 UNITS IN NUMBER) COULD NOT BE OBTAINED BY DIVIDING THE WEIGHT SHOWN IN YOUR BID BY TEN AND THE CORRECT UNIT WEIGHT OF THE SHIPMENT FOR IMMEDIATE USE (FOUR IN NUMBER) COULD NOT BE OBTAINED BY DIVIDING THE WEIGHT SHOWN BY FOUR.

IN THE LETTER OF MARCH 3, 1961, FROM YOUR ATTORNEYS, IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE UNIT WEIGHT OF THE FOUR WASHING AND SCREENING UNITS DESIGNED FOR IMMEDIATE USE CAN BE ASCERTAINED BY USING FOUR ARITHMETICAL STEPS, STARTING WITH YOUR BID ON THE DIFFERENT TYPE MACHINES, COVERED BY ITEM NO. 1A (SCREENING UNITS), AS SHOWN ON PAGES 12 AND 13 OF THEIR LETTER. THE APPROXIMATE WEIGHT THUS DETERMINED WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO ONLY FOUR WASHING AND SCREENING UNITS DESIGNED FOR IMMEDIATE USE. FURTHER, 10 OUT OF THE 14 UNITS INVOLVED WERE TO BE PACKED FOR OVERSEAS SHIPMENT AND, WHILE IT MAY BE THAT, BY RESORTING TO ITEM NO. 1A, THE BASIC UNIT WEIGHTS FOR ITEM NO. 1B COULD POSSIBLY BE DETERMINED, THERE STILL WOULD BE NO REASONABLE BASIS FOR ASSUMING THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF 1,700 POUNDS BETWEEN THE WEIGHTS (855,155 AND 853,455 POUNDS) SHOWN ON THE BIDDING SCHEDULE WAS THE DIFFERENCE IN WEIGHT PER UNIT FOR OVERSEAS SHIPMENT, CONSIDERING THAT THESE WEIGHTS ARE SHOWN BY YOU TO HAVE BEEN THE TOTAL POUNDAGE FOR 15 UNITS.

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND AFTER THOROUGH RECONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER WE CANNOT AGREE THAT THE TEST LAID DOWN BY THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS AND REGULATIONS HAS BEEN MET. ON THE BASIS OF THE EXPLANATIONS NOW PRESENTED BY YOU WE REALIZE THAT BY MAKING CERTAIN INVOLVED COMPUTATIONS AND QUESTIONABLE ASSUMPTIONS WE CAN APPROXIMATE THE SHIPPING WEIGHTS OF THE EQUIPMENT IN QUESTION. WE CANNOT PROPERLY CONCLUDE, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH WEIGHTS CAN BE INDEPENDENTLY ESTABLISHED WITH ANY ASSURANCE OF ACCURACY FROM INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE INVITATION AND THE BID ITSELF. WE MUST THEREFORE ADHERE TO THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN OUR ORIGINAL DECISION OF FEBRUARY 20, 1961.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs