B-151366, JUN. 11, 1963

B-151366: Jun 11, 1963

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Julie Matta
(202) 512-4023
MattaJ@gao.gov

 

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

INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER DATED MAY 20. IT WAS INDICATED. WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED HAD ACCURATE INSTRUCTIONS BEEN GIVEN PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS CONCERNING THE ADDRESS TO WHICH THE BIDS WERE TO BE SENT. BY THE CITED INVITATION FOR BIDS BIDDERS WERE ADVISED THAT BIDS WOULD BE RECEIVED UNTIL 2:30 P.M. THE RECORD INDICATES THAT YOUR BID ENVELOPE WAS POSTMARKED 11:00 A.M. WAS RECEIVED BY THE PROCUREMENT AGENCY AT 8:03 ON APRIL 19. SYMINGTON STATED THAT THE BID WAS READY FOR SIGNATURE ON APRIL 16. WOULD HAVE BEEN SIGNED AND MAILED THAT DAY EXCEPT THAT. CHIAPPINELLI NOTICED THAT THE ENVELOPE WAS ADDRESSED TO THE DIRECTOR. AS A RESULT THE FORWARDING OF THE BID WAS DELAYED UNTIL THE NEXT MORNING IN ORDER TO PERMIT VERIFICATION OF THE ADDRESS TO WHICH THE BID SHOULD BE SENT.

B-151366, JUN. 11, 1963

TO CHIAPPINELLI-MARX, INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER DATED MAY 20, 1963, WITH ENCLOSURES, FROM MR. CHARLES H. SYMINGTON, JR., REQUESTING ON YOUR BEHALF RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION DATED MAY 9, 1963, IN WHICH WE DENIED YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANY OTHER BIDDER UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 44002/62, ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST DIVISION, BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, UNDER DATE OF MARCH 11, 1963, COVERING THE CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES AT ANTIGUA ISLAND, WEST INDIES.

IN HIS LETTER OF MAY 20, 1963, MR. SYMINGTON MADE REFERENCE TO THE FACTS AND LEGAL ARGUMENTS CONTAINED IN YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 26, 1963, AND AS THE "FULCRUM" OF THE CASE, HE STATED THAT HE WISHED TO EMPHASIZE ONLY ONE POINT, NAMELY, THE DELAY WHICH OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE MAILING OF THE BID AND WHICH, IT WAS INDICATED, WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED HAD ACCURATE INSTRUCTIONS BEEN GIVEN PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS CONCERNING THE ADDRESS TO WHICH THE BIDS WERE TO BE SENT.

BY THE CITED INVITATION FOR BIDS BIDDERS WERE ADVISED THAT BIDS WOULD BE RECEIVED UNTIL 2:30 P.M. ON APRIL 18, 1963, AT THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST DIVISION, BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS, BUILDING NO. 13, U.S. NAVAL BASE, CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA. THE RECORD INDICATES THAT YOUR BID ENVELOPE WAS POSTMARKED 11:00 A.M. ON APRIL 17, 1963, AT MOUNT KISCO, NEW YORK; POSTMARKED 4:00 P.M. ON APRIL 18 AT CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA; POSTMARKED 7:00 A.M. ON APRIL 19 AT THE NAVAL BASE POST OFFICE; AND WAS RECEIVED BY THE PROCUREMENT AGENCY AT 8:03 ON APRIL 19, 1963.

IN EXPLANATION OF THE LATE DELIVERY OF THE BID, MR. SYMINGTON STATED THAT THE BID WAS READY FOR SIGNATURE ON APRIL 16, 1963, AND WOULD HAVE BEEN SIGNED AND MAILED THAT DAY EXCEPT THAT, PRIOR TO MAILING, MR. CHIAPPINELLI NOTICED THAT THE ENVELOPE WAS ADDRESSED TO THE DIRECTOR, SOUTHWEST DIVISION, BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS, BUILDING NO. 13, U.S. NAVAL BASE, CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, WHEREAS CERTAIN OTHER SECTIONS OF THE BID FORM REFERRED TO THE SOUTHEAST DIVISION. AS A RESULT THE FORWARDING OF THE BID WAS DELAYED UNTIL THE NEXT MORNING IN ORDER TO PERMIT VERIFICATION OF THE ADDRESS TO WHICH THE BID SHOULD BE SENT. UPON CHECKING OF THE INVITATION IT WAS FOUND THAT ONE PARAGRAPH DID DIRECT THAT BIDS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AS THE ENVELOPE WAS WRITTEN, AND NO CHANGE WAS MADE IN THE ADDRESS BEFORE MAILING.

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING FACTS, MR. SYMINGTON STATED THAT A SEVENTEEN-HOUR DELAY IN THE MAILING OF THE BID RESULTED FROM THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN THE BID FORM, AND THAT THIS FACT, TOGETHER WITH THE ERRONEOUS INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE ACTING POSTMASTER AT MOUNT KISCO AS TO THE TIME OF DELIVERY OF THE BID IN SOUTH CAROLINA, JUSTIFIES CONSIDERATION OF THE LOW BID SUBMITTED BY YOU AND WHICH WOULD RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL SAVING TO THE GOVERNMENT.

IT IS, OF COURSE, REGRETTABLE THAT THE INVITATION DID CONTAIN ONE ERRONEOUS REFERENCE TO THE SOUTHWEST DIVISION. HOWEVER, THE EFFECTIVE ADDRESS IN EVERY INSTANCE WAS CORRECTLY GIVEN AS BUILDING NO. 13, U.S. NAVAL BASE, CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND YOUR BID DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN DELAYED IN DELIVERY BY REASON OF BEING ADDRESSED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ERRONEOUS REFERENCE. THE FACTS RELIED ON ESTABLISH, AT MOST, THAT MR. CHIAPPINELLI DID NOT TRUST THE ACCURACY OF HIS OFFICE STAFF, BUT DID NOT CONSIDER THE MATTER SUFFICIENTLY URGENT TO GO TO THIS OFFICE OR HAVE THE INVITATION BROUGHT TO HIM ON THE EVENING OF THE 16TH, BUT WAITED SEVENTEEN HOURS TO CHECK THE ADDRESS.

IN OUR DECISION OF MAY 9, 1963, THERE WAS QUOTED A PORTION OF PARAGRAPH 7 OF THE "CHANGED REGULATIONS CONCERNING LATE BIDS AND MODIFICATIONS," TO WHICH ATTENTION WAS ESPECIALLY DIRECTED IN THE INVITATION, TO THE EFFECT THAT LATE BIDS MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED UNLESS THEY ARE SENT BY REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED MAIL, AND IT IS FURTHER DETERMINED BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE LATE RECEIPT WAS DUE SOLELY TO DELAY IN THE MAILS.

IN OUR PRIOR DECISION IN THIS CASE, WE POINTED OUT THAT THE BID IN QUESTION WAS NOT SENT EITHER BY REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED MAIL--- A PREREQUISITE TO CONSIDERATION IN THE EVENT OF LATE RECEIPT--- AND WE ADVISED YOU THAT THE CITED CONDITIONS CONSTITUTE MANDATORY DIRECTIONS TO THE PROCUREMENT AGENCY AND THUS MAY NOT BE WAIVED IN INDIVIDUAL CASES. HAVE, SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE REFERENCED REGULATION, ADHERED STRICTLY TO ITS PROVISIONS AND HAVE PERMITTED NO EXCEPTION TO ITS OPERATION. THE CASE REFERENCED TO BY YOU, B-150317, NOVEMBER 28, 1962, WAS NOT AN EXCEPTION, SINCE IN THAT INSTANCE THE BID HAD IN FACT BEEN DELIVERED TO THE BID DESK PRIOR TO THE TIME SET FOR BID OPENING. FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH ABOVE WE MUST ADHERE TO OUR DECISION OF MAY 9, 1963.

Jul 19, 2018

Jul 18, 2018

Jul 17, 2018

Jul 16, 2018

Looking for more? Browse all our products here