B-134718, JAN. 15, 1958
Highlights
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS: REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER DATED DECEMBER 23. C-20165 IS BASED. PRECISION RESISTOR COMPANY WAS AWARDED ORDER NO. THE BIDS MADE ON GROUP III BY THE SEVEN OTHER BIDDERS WERE $1. WAS $2. THE CONTRACTOR ALLEGES THAT ITS CORRECT LOT PRICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN $1. THE CONTRACTOR'S BID WAS IN LINE WITH THE OTHER BIDS RECEIVED AND THERE WAS NOTHING ON THE FACE OF IT TO INDICATE THAT THE BID PRICE WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE AS QUOTED. ALSO FOUR OUT OF THE OTHER SEVEN BIDS ARE LESS THAN THE GOVERNMENT'S ESTIMATED PRICE. THERE WAS NOTHING TO PLACE THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ON NOTICE OF THE PROBABILITY OF ERROR IN BID. THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PREPARATION OF A BID IS ENTIRELY THAT OF THE BIDDER.
B-134718, JAN. 15, 1958
TO HONORABLE JAMES H. DOOLITTLE, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER DATED DECEMBER 23, 1957, WITH ENCLOSURES, FROM THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WHO REQUESTS A DECISION REGARDING AN ERROR PRECISION RESISTOR COMPANY, HILLSIDE, NEW JERSEY, ALLEGES IT MADE IN ITS BID ON WHICH ORDER NO. C-20165 IS BASED.
INVITATION NO. C-6565 REQUESTED BIDDERS TO QUOTE A LOT PRICE ONLY FOR EACH OF THREE LISTED GROUPS OF RESISTORS. PRECISION RESISTOR COMPANY WAS AWARDED ORDER NO. C-20165 TO FURNISH GROUP III RESISTORS AT ITS LOT PRICE BID OF $1,152.89. THE BIDS MADE ON GROUP III BY THE SEVEN OTHER BIDDERS WERE $1,438.18, $1,695.78, $1,729.90, $1,956.67, $2,190.26, $2,517.20 AND $2,929.26. THE GOVERNMENT'S COST ESTIMATE, BASED ON THE LAST PROCUREMENT MADE FOR SUCH RESISTORS, WAS $2,008.
AFTER AWARD, THE CONTRACTOR SUBMITTED A BREAKDOWN OF ITS LOT PRICE FOR GROUP III RESISTORS AND STATED THAT IT HAD MADE AN ERROR IN BID BY OMITTING ITEMS NOS. 22 THROUGH 35 FROM ITS LOT PRICE BID AND BY COMPUTING ITS TOTAL PRICE ON ITEM 41 ON THE BASIS OF 60 INSTEAD OF 50 UNITS. THE CONTRACTOR ALLEGES THAT ITS CORRECT LOT PRICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN $1,740.20.
THE CONTRACTOR'S BID WAS IN LINE WITH THE OTHER BIDS RECEIVED AND THERE WAS NOTHING ON THE FACE OF IT TO INDICATE THAT THE BID PRICE WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE AS QUOTED. NOT ONLY THE LOW BID, BUT ALSO FOUR OUT OF THE OTHER SEVEN BIDS ARE LESS THAN THE GOVERNMENT'S ESTIMATED PRICE. CONSEQUENTLY, THERE WAS NOTHING TO PLACE THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ON NOTICE OF THE PROBABILITY OF ERROR IN BID.
THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PREPARATION OF A BID IS ENTIRELY THAT OF THE BIDDER. SEE FRAZIER-DAVIS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY V. UNITED STATES, 100 C.CLS. 120, 163. THE MISTAKE WAS DUE TO THE CONTRACTOR'S NEGLIGENCE, CARELESSNESS OR OVERSIGHT; IT WAS NOT INDUCED BY THE GOVERNMENT; AND THERE WAS NOTHING TO MAKE THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SUSPECT THAT THE QUOTATION WAS NOT AS INTENDED. SEE GRYMES V. SANDERS, ET AL., 93 U.S. 55, 61. THEREFORE, THE GOOD FAITH ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER CONSUMMATED A VALID AND BINDING CONTRACT WHICH FIXED THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES 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. THE CONTRACTOR IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY REDRESS FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS UNILATERAL MISTAKE. SEE OGDEN AND DOUGHERTY V. UNITED STATES, 102 C.CLS. 249, 259; AND SALIGMAN, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 56 F.SUPP. 505, 507.
ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR AUTHORIZING ANY INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT PRICE.
THE ENCLOSURES RECEIVED WITH THE LETTER OF DECEMBER 23 ARE RETURNED HEREWITH.