B-143079, AUG. 9, 1960

B-143079, AUG. 9, 1960

TO MR. WILLIAM F. SPANG:

YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 6, 1960, PROTESTS AN AWARD ON JUNE 2, 1960, TO ANOTHER BIDDER UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS IFB 104-657-60, SHIPS PARTS CONTROL CENTER, MECHANICSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA.

THE INVITATION REQUESTED BIDS FOR STEPLADDER QUANTITIES OF 50, 75, AND 100 MEAT TENDERIZING MACHINES. SEPARATE PRICING OF TECHNICAL MANUALS UNDER ITEM 1B WAS REQUESTED AND PARAGRAPH 30.36 SET FORTH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR TECHNICAL MANUALS AS FOLLOWS:

"2 EACH PACKED WITH EACH UNIT OF EQUIPMENT

2 EACH BUREAU OF SHIPS

1 EACH COGNIZANT INSPECTOR OF NAVAL MATERIAL

1 EACH U.S. NAVAL SHIPYARDS AS DENOTED BY ACTIVITY ACCOUNTING

NUMBERS 111, 131, 151, 181, 191, 217, 221, 251, AND 60258

3 EACH COMMANDING OFFICER, SHIPS PARTS CONTROL CENTER,

MECHANICSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA"

IN ADDITION, TECHNICAL MANUALS FOR STOCK WERE REQUIRED UNDER PARAGRAPH 3.6.1 (N) OF MILITARY SPECIFICATION MIL-M-15071C/SHIPS): FOR 41 TO 60 PIECES OF EQUIPMENT, 50 COPIES; FOR 61 TO 100 PIECES OF EQUIPMENT, 65 COPIES.

IN RESPONSE TO THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN THE INVITATION, YOU SUBMITTED A BID FOR ITEM 1B AS OLLOWS:

TABLE

QUANTITY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED AMOUNT 50

$10.35 $517.50 75 9.30

697.50 100 8.50

850.00

PARAGRAPH 1 (C) OF THE "TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE INVITATION FOR BIDS" STATES "IN CASE OF ERROR IN EXTENSION OF PRICE, THE UNIT PRICE WILL GOVERN.'

YOUR PROTEST IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE INTERPRETATION BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER OF YOUR UNIT PRICE BID UNDER ITEM 1B. YOU STATE THAT IT WAS YOUR INTERPRETATION THAT THE UNIT PRICE MEANT THE PRICE FOR A MANUAL, OR MANUALS, NECESSARY FOR ONE MACHINE.

AT THE BID OPENING ON MARCH 31, 1960, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER INTERPRETED THE UNIT PRICE TO MEAN THE PRICE OF ONE MANUAL. WHEN THE CONTRACTING OFFICER NOTED THE INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE FIGURES 50, 75, AND 100 IN THE QUANTITY COLUMN OF YOUR BID AND THE STATED REQUIREMENTS OF 165 MANUALS FOR 50 MACHINES, 230 FOR 75 MACHINES, AND 280 FOR 100 MACHINES, HE MULTIPLIED YOUR UNIT PRICE BY THE CORRECT NUMBER OF MANUALS FOR EACH LOT TO DETERMINE THE EXTENDED AMOUNTS TO BE CONSIDERED.

AS A RESULT OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S ACTION, YOUR TOTAL BID FOR 50 MACHINES AND 165 MANUALS WAS CONSIDERED TO BE $10,987.50, LESS ONE HALF PERCENT FOR PAYMENT WITHIN 10 DAYS, $54.98, OR A TOTAL OF $10,932.52. THIS COMPARED WITH A TOTAL BID OF $10,709.30 SUBMITTED BY THE TOLEDO SCALE CORPORATION. IF YOUR EXPLANATION AND EXTENDED AMOUNTS ARE ACCEPTED, YOUR TOTAL BID FOR THE LOT OF 50 MACHINES WOULD BE $10,102.50.

YOUR LETTER OF MAY 12, 1960, TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ATTEMPTS TO CLARIFY THE AMBIGUITIES IN YOUR BID BY STATING THAT YOUR BID UNDER ITEM 1B INCLUDES ALL THE MANUALS AS STATED IN PARAGRAPH 30.36 AND THOSE REQUIRED FOR STOCK.

IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S INTERPRETATION OF YOUR UNIT PRICE TO MEAN THE PRICE OF ONE MANUAL IS REASONABLE, WE MUST CONSIDER THE TERMS OF THE INVITATION. THE INVITATION CONTAINS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT A UNIT OF MANUALS PER MACHINE SHOULD BE SET UP FOR BIDDING PURPOSES. ON THE CONTRARY, THE MANUALS REQUIRED FOR STOCK WERE DESIGNATED AS 50 COPIES FOR 41 TO 60 MACHINES AND 65 COPIES FOR 61 TO 100 MACHINES, AND THESE FIGURES ARE NOT BROKEN DOWN IN ANY MANNER TO A UNIT OF MANUALS PER MACHINE. MOREOVER, PARAGRAPH 30.36 OF THE INVITATION REQUIRES A FIXED NUMBER OF 15 MANUALS TO BE DISTRIBUTED, REGARDLESS OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MACHINES, IN ADDITION TO TWO MANUALS PACKED WITH EACH MACHINE.

SINCE THE INVITATION DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ARTIFICIAL UNIT OF MANUALS PER MACHINE, AND THERE IS NO EXPLANATION IN YOUR BID OF THIS UNUSUAL METHOD OF COMPUTATION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S INTERPRETATION IS ENTIRELY REASONABLE. ON ITS FACE, YOUR BID DID NOT SHOW THE CORRECT NUMBER OF MANUALS REQUIRED BY THE INVITATION, AND THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S ACTION IN MULTIPLYING YOUR UNIT PRICE BY THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF MANUALS WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATEMENT IN PARAGRAPH 1 (C) OF THE "TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE INVITATION FOR BIDS," THAT THE UNIT PRICE WILL GOVERN IN CASE OF ERROR IN EXTENSION.

THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION OF THE EFFECT OF YOUR LETTER OF MAY 12, 1960, WHICH EXPLAINS THAT YOUR BID INCLUDES ALL THE MANUALS AS STATED IN PARAGRAPH 30.36 AND THOSE REQUIRED FOR STOCK. THIS EXPLANATION, IF ACCEPTED, WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN A MATERIAL CHANGE IN YOUR BID, SINCE IT COULD NOT BE DETERMINED THAT ALL REQUIRED MANUALS WERE INCLUDED IN YOUR BID AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED.

IN A DECISION TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, B-129575, OCTOBER 30, 1956, A CASE SIMILAR TO THIS ONE, INVOLVING A REQUESTED CORRECTION OF AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE UNIT PRICE AND THE EXTENDED PRICE WHERE THE BID WAS LOW ONLY BY VIRTUE OF THE EXTENDED PRICE AND THE INVITATION STATED THAT THE UNIT PRICE WOULD GOVERN OVER THE EXTENDED PRICE, WE SAID:

"* * * WHERE, AS IN THIS CASE, THE REQUESTED CORRECTION WOULD RESULT IN THE CORRECTED BID BECOMING LOWER THAN ONE OR MORE OTHER BIDS WHICH WERE LOWER THAN THE BID ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED BY THE ERRING BIDDER, THE MATTER CAN NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED AS ONE INVOLVING ONLY THE GOVERNMENT AND THE BIDDER, BUT MUST BE RECOGNIZED AS ONE OF DIRECT AND VITAL CONCERN TO THE BIDDERS WHOSE RELATIVE STANDING WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE CORRECTION. HAVING DUE REGARD FOR ALL THE INTERESTS INVOLVED, WE FEEL THAT TO ALLOW RELIEF IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS, WHERE THE ERRING BIDDER'S POSITION IS BROUGHT ABOUT SOLELY BY ITS OWN NEGLIGENCE, NOT ONLY WOULD SERIOUSLY IMPAIR THE INTEGRITY OF THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING SYSTEM UPON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT MUST RELY TO A GREAT EXTENT IN MAKING PURCHASES OF ITS SUPPLIES, BUT ALSO COULD OPEN THE DOOR TO FRAUDULENT PRACTICES BY MAKING IT POSSIBLE FOR A BIDDER DELIBERATELY TO SUBMIT AN ERRONEOUS BID WITH THE SECRET INTENTION OF ALLEGING AND ESTABLISHING AN ERROR AFTER OPENING OF BIDS IF HIS BID WAS NOT LOW AND IT WAS TO HIS ADVANTAGE TO DO SO.'

IN 37 COMP. GEN. 210, WE REITERATED THE NECESSITY OF MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING SYSTEM, AND DENIED CORRECTION OF AN ERROR IN UNIT PRICE WHICH WAS NOT APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE BID WHEN THE CORRECTION WOULD HAVE DISPLACED ANOTHER BID THAT HAD BEEN LOW.

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S INTERPRETATION OF YOUR BID WAS PROPER AND THAT CORRECTION OR EXPLANATION OF YOUR UNIT PRICE BID TO DISPLACE ANOTHER BID MAY NOT BE ALLOWED.