B-129099, OCT. 31, 1956
Highlights
TO GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 22. RELATING TO AN ERROR ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN YOUR BID FOR FURNISHING A QUANTITY OF RES-80 BUSSMANN 600V FUSES TO THE WARNER ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE. ON WHICH PURCHASE ORDER NO. (09-603/56-7389 WAS BASED. YOU WERE AWARDED PURCHASE ORDER NO. (09-603/56-7389 FOR FURNISHING CERTAIN SUPPLIES. AMONG WHICH WAS ITEM 5 FOR FURNISHING 300 FUSES ON WHICH YOU BID A UNIT PRICE OF $1.25. IT WAS REGARDING THIS ITEM THAT YOU ALLEGED A MISTAKE. IT BEING STATED BY YOU THAT THE QUOTED PRICE OF $1.25 WAS APPLICABLE TO 250V FUSES AND THAT THE PRICE OF THE FUSES COVERED BY ITEM 5 WAS TWICE AS MUCH. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S ABSTRACT OF BIDS RECEIVED UNDER THE INVITATION SHOWS THAT ONLY TWO BIDS WERE RECEIVED ON ITEM 5.
B-129099, OCT. 31, 1956
TO GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 22, 1956, RELATING TO AN ERROR ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN YOUR BID FOR FURNISHING A QUANTITY OF RES-80 BUSSMANN 600V FUSES TO THE WARNER ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, ON WHICH PURCHASE ORDER NO. (09-603/56-7389 WAS BASED. YOU REQUESTED THAT THE PRICES FOR THESE FUSES BE INCREASED FROM $1.25 TO $2.45 EACH.
A REPORT OF THE FACTS IN THIS CASE RECEIVED FROM THE AIR FORCE FINANCE CENTER, DENVER, COLORADO, SHOWS THAT UNDER DATE OF MARCH 30, 1956, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR ORAL QUOTATION DATED MARCH 26, 1956, YOU WERE AWARDED PURCHASE ORDER NO. (09-603/56-7389 FOR FURNISHING CERTAIN SUPPLIES, AMONG WHICH WAS ITEM 5 FOR FURNISHING 300 FUSES ON WHICH YOU BID A UNIT PRICE OF $1.25, OR A TOTAL OF $375. IT WAS REGARDING THIS ITEM THAT YOU ALLEGED A MISTAKE, IT BEING STATED BY YOU THAT THE QUOTED PRICE OF $1.25 WAS APPLICABLE TO 250V FUSES AND THAT THE PRICE OF THE FUSES COVERED BY ITEM 5 WAS TWICE AS MUCH. YOU SUGGESTED THAT A CHECK OF THE PRICES BY OTHER SUPPLIERS FOR THIS ITEM WOULD SHOW THAT YOUR "NEAREST COMPETITOR'S PRICE" WOULD BE TWICE THAT OF YOUR BID.
THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S ABSTRACT OF BIDS RECEIVED UNDER THE INVITATION SHOWS THAT ONLY TWO BIDS WERE RECEIVED ON ITEM 5--- YOUR BID IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.25 EACH AND THE OTHER IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.49 EACH. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REPORTS THAT HE HAD NO REASON TO SUSPECT THAT AN ERROR IN BID HAD BEEN MADE. IT IS REPORTED FURTHER THAT COMPLETE SHIPMENT WAS MADE ON MAY 29, 1956.
INSOFAR AS THE PRESENT RECORD SHOWS, THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE BID IN THIS CASE WAS IN GOOD FAITH, NO ERROR HAVING BEEN ALLEGED UNTIL AFTER AWARD AND DELIVERY OF THE SUPPLIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE BID CONSUMMATED A VALID AND BINDING CONTRACT WHICH FIXED THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES. SEE UNITED STATES V. PURCELL ENVELOPE COMPANY, 249 U.S. 313, AND AMERICAN SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY V. UNITED STATES, 259 U.S. 75.
ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR MODIFICATION OF THE CONTRACT SO AS TO PERMIT PAYMENT OF YOUR CLAIM.