B-172961, FEB 7, 1972

B-172961: Feb 7, 1972

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

SINCE THE REASONABLE VALUE OF THE ITEMS UNDER THE CONTRACT WAS COMENSURATE WITH PROTESTANT'S SUBMITTED BID PRICE. THERE IS NO REASON TO EXPECT THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE HAD NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ERROR. THERE IS NO BASIS FOR DISTURBING THE PREVIOUS DECISION. TO AMSCO PARTS MANUFACTURING CO.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF OCTOBER 29 AND NOVEMBER 23. WHEREIN WE 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. WE STATED: "ITEM 44 WAS DESCRIBED IN THE SALES INVITATION AS ONE LOT OF VEHICULAR EQUIPMENT COMPONENTS. WHOSE TOTAL COST WAS STATED TO BE $5. BIDDERS WERE REQUESTED TO QUOTE A LOT PRICE FOR ITEM 44.

B-172961, FEB 7, 1972

CONTRACTS - MISTAKE IN BID - NOTICE DECISION AFFIRMING PRIOR DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR RELIEF BY AMSCO PARTS MANUFACTURING CO. FOR AN ALLEGED MISTAKE IN BID ON A SALES CONTRACT AWARDED BY THE DEFENSE SURPLUS SALES OFFICE, FOREST PARK, GA. SINCE THE REASONABLE VALUE OF THE ITEMS UNDER THE CONTRACT WAS COMENSURATE WITH PROTESTANT'S SUBMITTED BID PRICE, THERE IS NO REASON TO EXPECT THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE HAD NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ERROR. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR DISTURBING THE PREVIOUS DECISION.

TO AMSCO PARTS MANUFACTURING CO.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF OCTOBER 29 AND NOVEMBER 23, 1971, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISIONS DATED JULY 6 AND SEPTEMBER 16, 1971, WHEREIN WE 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, DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY, FOREST PARK, GEORGIA.

IN OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1971, WE STATED:

"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."

IN YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 29, 1971, YOU ALLEGE THAT THE CARBURETORS LISTED IN THE LOT OF PROPERTY COVERED BY ITEM 44 ARE FROM AN OBSOLETE EXPERIMENTAL VEHICLE AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE CARBURETORS WOULD BE OF NO USE TO YOUR FIRM OR ANY OTHER BIDDER. YOU CONTEND THAT IF THE CARBURETORS WERE OF SOME VALUE TO THE OTHER BIDDERS UNDER SALES INVITATION NO. 21-1105 AND THE READVERTISEMENT, THEIR BID PRICES FOR ITEM 44 UNDER BOTH INVITATIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN HIGHER.

IN VIEW OF THIS CONTENTION, WE REQUESTED THE VIEWS OF THE DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY (DSA). DSA HAS ADVISED OUR OFFICE THAT THE RECORDS OF PAST SALES FOR BOTH THE TAILGATES AND CARBURETORS INDICATE THAT THE CARBURETORS HAVE PREVIOUSLY SOLD FOR $1.11767 EACH AND THAT THE TAILGATES HAVE PREVIOUSLY SOLD AT VARIOUS PRICES RANGING FROM $2 TO $6.79 EACH. ITEM 44, AS TO WHICH YOU HAVE ALLEGED ERROR, WAS DESCRIBED IN THE SALES INVITATION AS ONE LOT OF VEHICULAR COMPONENTS, CONSISTING OF 243 TAILGATES AND 128 CARBURETORS. BASED UPON THE HIGHEST UNIT PRICES AT WHICH THE TAILGATES AND CARBURETORS WERE PREVIOUSLY SOLD, THE ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE TAILGATES AND CARBURETORS COVERED BY ITEM 44 WOULD BE $1,793.03, OR $43.33 LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF YOUR BID PRICE FOR ITEM 44. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE SALES CONTRACTING OFFICER SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF POSSIBILITY OF ERROR IN YOUR BID FOR ITEM 44.

ACCORDINGLY, ON THE RECORD BEFORE US, OUR DECISIONS OF JULY 6 AND SEPTEMBER 16, 1971, ARE AFFIRMED.

Nov 25, 2020

Nov 24, 2020

Nov 20, 2020

Nov 19, 2020

Looking for more? Browse all our products here