B-126333, DEC. 19, 1955
Highlights
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 8. WAS BASED. ITEMS NOS. 42 AND 43 WERE THE ONLY ITEMS ON WHICH A BID WAS SUBMITTED BY THE CONTRACTOR. WHICH WAS EXPRESSLY SHOWN IN THE INVITATION AS ONE UNIT. ADVISED THAT AN ERROR WAS MADE IN ITS BID ON ITEM NO. 43 IN THAT THE INTENDED LOT BID PRICE OF $168.90 FOR THAT ITEM WAS INADVERTENTLY INSERTED IN THE UNIT PRICE COLUMN AND EXTENDED TO THE "TOTAL PRICE BID" COLUMN ON THE BASIS OF FOUR UNITS WHEREAS THERE WAS BUT ONE UNIT. RELIEF FROM OBLIGATION UNDER THE ALLEGED ERRONEOUS "TOTAL PRICE BID" ON ITEM NO. 43 WAS REQUESTED. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER STATES THAT A LOT PRICE BID OF $109.39 WAS THE ONLY OTHER BID RECEIVED ON ITEM NO. 43.
B-126333, DEC. 19, 1955
TO THE HONORABLE, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 8, 1955, WITH ENCLOSURES, RELATIVE TO AN ALLEGED ERROR IN A BID DATED JUNE 30, 1955, SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION NO. 33-079-S-55-39, BY MYER'S TIRE SUPPLY CO., ON WHICH UNNUMBERED CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF ITEMS NOS. 42 AND 43 OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED SURPLUS PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE ROSSFORD ORDNANCE DEPOT, TOLEDO, OHIO, WAS BASED.
ALTHOUGH THE DEPOT OFFERED 98 ITEMS FOR SALE UNDER THE INVITATION, ITEMS NOS. 42 AND 43 WERE THE ONLY ITEMS ON WHICH A BID WAS SUBMITTED BY THE CONTRACTOR. ITEM NO. 42 COVERED ONE USED ,MATRIX VULCANIZER," WHEREAS ITEM NO. 43 COVERED ONE LOT OF FOUR VULCANIZERS OF THE SAME KIND AS OFFERED UNDER ITEM NO. 42. THE CONTRACTOR BID $56.30 ON ITEM NO. 42, BUT ON ITEM NO. 43, WHICH WAS EXPRESSLY SHOWN IN THE INVITATION AS ONE UNIT, THE UNIT BEING STATED TO BE "LOT," THE CONTRACTOR INSERTED IN THE UNIT PRICE COLUMN THE FIGURE $168.90, AND IN THE "TOTAL PRICE BID" COLUMN THE FIGURE $675.60.
UPON RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE OF AWARD DATED AUGUST 3, 1955, BASED ON A PRICE OF $675.60 FOR ITEM NO. 43, THE CONTRACTOR, BY LETTER DATED AUGUST 4, 1955, ADVISED THAT AN ERROR WAS MADE IN ITS BID ON ITEM NO. 43 IN THAT THE INTENDED LOT BID PRICE OF $168.90 FOR THAT ITEM WAS INADVERTENTLY INSERTED IN THE UNIT PRICE COLUMN AND EXTENDED TO THE "TOTAL PRICE BID" COLUMN ON THE BASIS OF FOUR UNITS WHEREAS THERE WAS BUT ONE UNIT, THE "LOT.' BY REASON THEREOF, RELIEF FROM OBLIGATION UNDER THE ALLEGED ERRONEOUS "TOTAL PRICE BID" ON ITEM NO. 43 WAS REQUESTED.
THE CONTRACTING OFFICER STATES THAT A LOT PRICE BID OF $109.39 WAS THE ONLY OTHER BID RECEIVED ON ITEM NO. 43. THUS, THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE BID OF $109.39 AND THE CONTRACTOR'S BID OF $675.60 IS CONSIDERABLE. FURTHERMORE, PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE GENERAL SALE TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROVIDED: "UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, BIDS MUST BE SUBMITTED ON THE BASIS OF THE UNIT SPECIFIED FOR THE ITEM IN THE INVITATION * * * IN CASE OF ERROR IN THE EXTENSION OF PRICES IN THE BID, THE UNIT PRICES WILL GOVERN.' IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE NOTED THE PROBABILITY OF ERROR IN THE BID AND REQUESTED A VERIFICATION OF THE BID PRICE PRIOR TO THE AWARD. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE BID UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED DID NOT LEGALLY OBLIGATE THE COMPANY AS TO ITEM NO. 43.
ACCORDINGLY, IT APPEARING THAT ITEM NO. 43 IS STILL IN POSSESSION OF THE GOVERNMENT, CANCELLATION OF THE AWARD AS TO THAT ITEM IS AUTHORIZED.
THE PAPERS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 1955, TO THE COMMANDING GENERAL, SECOND ARMY, ARE RETURNED.