B-125441, SEP. 20, 1955
Highlights
TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 7. BOTTIMORE FOR ITEM 22 WAS DETERMINED TO BE THE HIGHEST BID RECEIVED. A TAIL WAS LEFT ON A PERIOD MAKING IT LOOK LIKE THE NUMERAL ONE. 761 IS APPROXIMATELY 43 PERCENT HIGHER THAN THAT OF THE NEXT HIGHEST BID RECEIVED ON THE ITEM AND APPROXIMATELY TEN TIMES THE AMOUNT OF THE ALLEGED INTENDED BID OF $370. WAS NOT COMPUTED ON THE BASIS THAT THE BID FOR ITEM 22 WAS $3. 761 FOR ITEM 22 WAS ERRONEOUS AND NOT AS INTENDED. SINCE THE ERROR WAS ALLEGED AND EXPLAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO AWARD.
B-125441, SEP. 20, 1955
TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1955, WITH ENCLOSURES, FROM THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (MATERIAL), REQUESTING A DECISION RELATIVE TO AN ERROR E. BOTTIMORE, HERALD, CALIFORNIA, ALLEGES HE MADE IN HIS BID SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION NO. B-8-56, DATED JULY 11, 1955.
THE INVITATION, ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER, PORT HEENEME, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTED BIDS FOR THE PURCHASE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF VARIOUS ITEMS OF SURPLUS PROPERTY DESCRIBED UNDER ITEMS 1 TO 26, INCLUSIVE. IN RESPONSE, MR. E. BOTTIMORE SUBMITTED A BID DATED AUGUST 2, 1955, ACCOMPANIED BY A BID DEPOSIT OF $1,500, OFFERING TO PURCHASE, AMONG OTHER ITEMS, ITEM 22 COVERING MISCELLANEOUS REPAIR PARTS AT A PRICE FOR THE LOT OF $3,761. THE BID OF MR. BOTTIMORE FOR ITEM 22 WAS DETERMINED TO BE THE HIGHEST BID RECEIVED.
BY LETTER DATED AUGUST 5, 1955, THE CONTRACTOR ADVISED THE DISPOSAL OFFICER THAT AN ERROR HAD BEEN MADE ON ITEM 22 IN THAT IN RECOPYING HIS BID FIGURES FROM NOTES, WHICH HE DID ON THE CUSHION OF HIS TRUCK SEAT, HE DID NOT CLOSE THE "O" MAKING IT LOOK LIKE A SIX, AND A TAIL WAS LEFT ON A PERIOD MAKING IT LOOK LIKE THE NUMERAL ONE, SO THAT THE BID SHOULD BE $370 RATHER THAN $3,761. THE CONTRACTOR INVITED ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT HIS WORK COPY SHOWED A PRICE OF $370, AND ALSO, THAT AN ENVELOPE ON WHICH HE FIGURED HIS BID DEPOSIT SHOWED THE SAME PRICE FOR ITEM 22.
THE ABSTRACT OF BIDS SHOWS THAT THE OTHER BIDS RECEIVED ON ITEM 22 RANGED FROM $2,127 TO $240. THUS, THE BID ON ITEM 22 IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,761 IS APPROXIMATELY 43 PERCENT HIGHER THAN THAT OF THE NEXT HIGHEST BID RECEIVED ON THE ITEM AND APPROXIMATELY TEN TIMES THE AMOUNT OF THE ALLEGED INTENDED BID OF $370. FURTHERMORE, THE AMOUNT OF $1,500 SUBMITTED AS A DEPOSIT, REPRESENTING 20 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL OF THE ITEMS BID ON, WAS NOT COMPUTED ON THE BASIS THAT THE BID FOR ITEM 22 WAS $3,761. THIS WOULD APPEAR TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION THAT THE BID OF $3,761 FOR ITEM 22 WAS ERRONEOUS AND NOT AS INTENDED.
THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE OF RECORD REASONABLY ESTABLISH THAT THE CONTRACTOR MADE A BONA FIDE ERROR IN HIS BID AS ALLEGED. ACCORDINGLY, SINCE THE ERROR WAS ALLEGED AND EXPLAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO AWARD, ITS BID ON ITEM 22 SHOULD BE DISREGARDED.