B-124800, AUG. 16, 1955

B-124800, AUG. 16, 1955

TO L. N. MCCLELLAN, CONTRACTING OFFICER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 21, 1955, WITH ENCLOSURES, RELATIVE TO AN ERROR ALLEGED BY THE CONTROL CORPORATION OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA, TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN ITS BID OPENED ON MAY 12, 1955.

BY INVITATION NO. DS-4358, BIDS WERE REQUESTED FOR FURNISHING ELECTRICAL COMMUNICATION AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT FOR FARGO AND JAMESTOWN SUBSTATIONS, TRANSMISSION DIVISION, NORTH DAKOTA, MISSOURI, RIVER BASIN PROJECT. THE INVITATION CALLED FOR BIDS UNDER EITHER OR BOTH OF TWO SCHEDULES, BUT PROVIDED THAT NO BID WOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR ONLY A PART OF EITHER SCHEDULE. SCHEDULE NO. 2, WHICH IS HERE INVOLVED, CONSISTED OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND TELEMETERING AND CARRIER CURRENT EQUIPMENT UNDER ITS ITEMS NOS. 5, 6, 7 AND 8. ITEM 6 THEREOF, WHICH IS PARTICULARLY INVOLVED, CALLED FOR ONE CONTROLLED-STATION SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND TELEMETERING SWITCHBOARD FOR THE FARGO SUBSTATION. PARAGRAPH E-3 OF THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF THE INVITATION PROVIDED THAT THE SWITCHBOARD BE A DUPLEX BOARD. PARAGRAPH B-5 OF THE INVITATION REQUIRED EACH BIDDER TO SUBMIT WITH HIS BID SPECIFICATIONS COVERING THE TYPE AND MANUFACTURER OF THE OFFERED EQUIPMENT, AND DRAWINGS AND PHOTOGRAPHS OR CUTS SHOWING SUFFICIENT OUTLINE DIMENSIONS OF THE EQUIPMENT TO PERMIT THE GOVERNMENT TO PROCEED WITH THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF THE INSTALLATION.

IN RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION, CONTROL CORPORATION SUBMITTED A BID ON ITEM 2 OF $19,781, AFTER EVALUATION. THE CONTROL CORPORATION SUBMITTED WITH ITS BID A LETTER DATED APRIL 21, 1955, STATING THAT IT WAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A PART OF THE BID AND THAT THE BIDDER WAS ALSO ENCLOSING ITS SKETCH QA-10 PROVIDING "THE DIMENSIONAL INFORMATION OF THE SUPERVISORY HOUSINGS.' THIS DRAWING DESIGNATED ON ITS FACE TO BE APPLICABLE BOTH TO THE "CONTROLLING STATION JAMESTOWN" (ITEM 5 OF THE SCHEDULE) AND TO THE "CONTROLLED STATION FARGO" (ITEM 6 OF THE SCHEDULE), STATED A DEPTH OF 28 INCHES FOR THE SUPERVISORY CUBICLES AND PICTURED A DOOR ON THE FRONT OF THE CUBICLE.

IT IS REPORTED THAT DRAWINGS NO. QA-10 INDICATED THAT CONTROL CORPORATION INTENDED TO FURNISH UNDER ITEM 6 EQUIPMENT FAILING SUBSTANTIALLY TO FULFILL THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENT OF THE INVITATION FOR A DUPLEX SWITCHBOARD.

BY LETTER DATED JUNE 7, 1955, THE BIDDER ADVISED THAT AN ERROR HAD BEEN MADE IN INDICATING ON ITS SKETCH QA-10 THAT THE DIMENSIONS THEREON WERE APPLICABLE TO THE FARGO SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT (ITEM 6), AND THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ITS BID INCLUDED THE SUPPLYING OF A "TUNNEL TYPE DUPLEX BOARD" AT THE FARGO SUBSTATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS. THE BIDDER REQUESTS THAT THE INFORMATION REFERRING TO THE FARGO STATION BE DELETED FROM THE SKETCH, CHANGING ITS BID ACCORDINGLY WITH NO INCREASE IN THE QUOTED PRICE.

IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR AN EXPLANATION OF THE ALLEGED ERROR AND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF, BY LETTER DATED JUNE 21, 1955, THE BIDDER SUBMITTED PHOTOSTATS OF PURPORTED ORIGINAL WORKSHEETS COVERING THE HOUSING CUBICLE FEATURE OF THE EQUIPMENT REQUIRED BY ITEM 6, AND OF REPORTED SIMILAR EQUIPMENT UNDER A PREVIOUS INVITATION FOR BIDS. THE BIDDER STATED THAT THE ERROR IN SUBMITTING SKETCH QA-10 WAS DUE TO A MATTER OF TERMINOLOGY AND NOT WITH THE INTENT TO DEPART FROM THE SPECIFICATIONS; THAT IN ITS INTERNAL ORGANIZATION THE TERM "CUBICLE" WAS USED TO REFER TO A VARIETY OF ENCLOSURES, INCLUDING REGULAR SWITCHBOARD TYPE CUBICLES ILLUSTRATED IN ITS SKETCH QA-10 AS WELL AS "DUPLEX SWITCHBOARD PANEL" REFERRED TO IN THE SPECIFICATIONS; AND THAT IN ASSEMBLING THE MATERIAL FOR THE BID, THE MAN WHO PREPARED THE BID INADVERTENTLY SELECTED SKETCH QA-10 AS REPRESENTING THE HOUSING FOR BOTH FARGO AND JAMESTOWN SUBSTATIONS, WHEREAS SEPARATE SKETCHES SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED.

IT IS REPORTED THAT ALTHOUGH IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE "TUNNEL TYPE DUPLEX BOARD" OFFERED FOR ITEM 6 IN THE BIDDER'S LETTER OF JUNE 7 WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS, THE BIDDER HAS STILL FAILED TO FURNISH ANY SPECIFICATIONS OR OUTLINE DIMENSIONAL DRAWINGS AND PHOTOGRAPHS AS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH B-5 OF THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF THE INVITATION.

THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE OF RECORD DO NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE BIDDER UNDER ITS BID AS SUBMITTED ACTUALLY INTENDED TO FURNISH UNDER ITEM 6 EQUIPMENT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR AUTHORIZING THE CONTROL CORPORATION TO MODIFY ITS BID AFTER THE BID OPENING.