Skip to main content

B-144023, JAN. 25, 1961

B-144023 Jan 25, 1961
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 5. WHICH WAS FORWARDED HERE BY THE U.S. IT WAS HELD THAT. SINCE THERE APPEARED TO HAVE BEEN NOTHING TO PLACE THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ON NOTICE OF THE ERROR PRIOR TO AWARD. ACCEPTANCE OF YOUR BID CONSTITUTED A VALID AND BINDING CONTRACT WITH THE RESULT THAT THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR RELEASING YOU FROM LIABILITY. THE FACTS RELATIVE TO THE TRANSACTION AND THE LAW FOUND APPLICABLE TO THE CASE WERE SET FORTH IN DETAIL IN OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 12. WILL NOT BE REPEATED HERE. WHERE THE ERROR IS ALLEGED AFTER AWARD. THAT AN ERROR HAD BEEN MADE IN YOUR BID AS ALLEGED SUCH FACT WOULD IN NO WAY ALTER THE CONCLUSION HERETOFORE REACHED IN THE MATTER IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS.

View Decision

B-144023, JAN. 25, 1961

TO AMERICAN CORD AND WEBBING CO., INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 5, 1960, WHICH WAS FORWARDED HERE BY THE U.S. NAVAL SUPPLY DEPOT CLEAR FIELD, OGDEN, UTAH, IN WHICH YOU REQUEST RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 12, 1960, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. IN THE DECISION OF OCTOBER 12, 1960, IT WAS HELD THAT, SINCE THERE APPEARED TO HAVE BEEN NOTHING TO PLACE THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ON NOTICE OF THE ERROR PRIOR TO AWARD, ACCEPTANCE OF YOUR BID CONSTITUTED A VALID AND BINDING CONTRACT WITH THE RESULT THAT THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR RELEASING YOU FROM LIABILITY. THE FACTS RELATIVE TO THE TRANSACTION AND THE LAW FOUND APPLICABLE TO THE CASE WERE SET FORTH IN DETAIL IN OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 12, 1960, COPY ENCLOSED, AND WILL NOT BE REPEATED HERE.

IT MIGHT AGAIN BE STATED HOWEVER, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRESSING THE CONTROLLING FACTORS WHICH PREVAIL IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS, WHERE THE ERROR IS ALLEGED AFTER AWARD, THAT EVEN IF THE RECORD SHOWED, WITHOUT DOUBT, THAT AN ERROR HAD BEEN MADE IN YOUR BID AS ALLEGED SUCH FACT WOULD IN NO WAY ALTER THE CONCLUSION HERETOFORE REACHED IN THE MATTER IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS, OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN, ON NOTICE OF THE ERROR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE BID. WHEN A CONTRACTING OFFICER CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH SUCH NOTICE IN THE ACCEPTANCE OF A BID, AND THE FACTS IN THIS CASE DO NOT SHOW THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER CAN BE CHARGED WITH SUCH NOTICE, IT CONSISTENTLY HAS BEEN HELD BY THE COURTS AND THIS OFFICE THAT THE BID WAS ACCEPTED IN GOOD FAITH THEREBY CONSTITUTING A VALID AND BINDING CONTRACT WHICH FIXES THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF THE PARTIES THERETO.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THERE APPEARS NO LEGAL BASIS ON WHICH WE WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING THE RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE DECISION OF OCTOBER 12, 1960, MUST BE AFFIRMED.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs