B-145007, FEB. 27, 1961
Highlights
TO SECRETARY OF THE NAVY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 6. N63068S-47898 IS BASED. HARRIS WAS HIGH BIDDER ON ITEM 61 AT $800.81. AWARD WAS MADE TO HER ON NOVEMBER 30. ALSO SHE SAID THAT IT WAS HER INTENTION TO BID FOR A 40 FOOT MOTOR LAUNCH FOR USE AS A FAMILY BOAT. ON WHICH IS LISTED ITEM 66 . THE BIDDER WAS REQUESTED TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HER CLAIM. THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WAS NOT CONCLUSIVE. THE NEXT HIGHEST BID ON ITEM 61 WAS $713.03. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE DIFFERENCE WAS SO GREAT AS TO HAVE PLACED THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ON NOTICE OF THE PROBABILITY OF ERROR IN MRS. HARRIS WAS IN GOOD FAITH. THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE BID SUBMITTED WAS UPON THE BIDDER.
B-145007, FEB. 27, 1961
TO SECRETARY OF THE NAVY:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 6, 1961, WITH ENCLOSURES, FILE R11.2 FROM THE ASSISTANT CHIEF FOR PURCHASING, BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS, REQUESTING A DECISION AS TO THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN CONCERNING AN ERROR WHICH ALICE N. HARRIS ALLEGES SHE MADE ON ITEM 61 UPON WHICH CONTRACT NO. N63068S-47898 IS BASED.
BY INVITATION B-63-61-63068 THE NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTED BIDS FOR THE PURCHASE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF SMALL BOATS, LANDING CRAFT AND MARINE MATERIALS, INCLUDING ITEM 61, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
"LCM (6), METAL, HULL NUMBER C-76361, LENGTH 56 FEET, BEAM 14 FEET, DRAFT 5 FEET 9 INCHES, (2) GRAY MARINE ENGINES 6-71, SERIES NUMBER D 58178 AND D -76532, TONNAGE 52,000 LBS.; SOME PARTS MISSING.'
THE INVITATION ALSO COVERED ITEM 66, DESCRIBED AS:
"MOTOR LAUNCH, WOOD, HULL NUMBER 21313, LENGTH 40 FEET, BEAM 10 FEET 11 INCHES, DRAFT 5 FEET, TONNAGE 15,124 LBS., ENGINE - BUDA MODEL DB-6835. . . SOME PARTS MISSING.'
ALICE N. HARRIS WAS HIGH BIDDER ON ITEM 61 AT $800.81. AWARD WAS MADE TO HER ON NOVEMBER 30, 1960, FOR THAT ITEM.
MRS. HARRIS, UPON RECEIPT OF NOTIFICATION OF AWARD, STATED BY LETTER DATED DECEMBER 2, 1960, THAT SHE HAD INTENDED TO BID ON ITEM 66 AND THROUGH "SOME MISTAKE" BID ON ITEM 61. ALSO SHE SAID THAT IT WAS HER INTENTION TO BID FOR A 40 FOOT MOTOR LAUNCH FOR USE AS A FAMILY BOAT. FURTHER THE BIDDER STATED THAT SHE DID NOT INSPECT THE LCM BUT DID INSPECT THE MOTOR LAUNCH.
IN SUPPORT OF HER ALLEGATION, THE BIDDER SUBMITTED A WORKSHEET, CONSISTING OF THE BIDDERS SUMMARY SHEET FOR RECORD PURPOSES ATTACHED TO THE INVITATION TO BID, ON WHICH IS LISTED ITEM 66 ,MOTOR LAUNCH," PRICE BID PER UNIT,"800.81," TOTAL PRICE BID,"800.81.' THE BIDDER WAS REQUESTED TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HER CLAIM. HOWEVER, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WAS NOT CONCLUSIVE.
THE NEXT HIGHEST BID ON ITEM 61 WAS $713.03. HENCE, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE DIFFERENCE WAS SO GREAT AS TO HAVE PLACED THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ON NOTICE OF THE PROBABILITY OF ERROR IN MRS. HARRIS'S BID. THE PRESENT RECORD INDICATES THAT THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE BID OF MRS. HARRIS WAS IN GOOD FAITH, NO ERROR HAVING BEEN ALLEGED UNTIL AFTER AWARD. CONSEQUENTLY, IT MUST BE HELD THAT THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE BID CONSUMMATES A VALID AND BINDING CONTRACT. SEE UNITED STATES V. PURCELL ENVELOPE COMPANY, 249 U.S. 313; AMERICAN SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY V. UNITED STATES, 259 U.S. 75.
MOREOVER, THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE BID SUBMITTED WAS UPON THE BIDDER. SEE FRAZIER-DAVIS CONSTRUCTION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 100 CT.CL. 120, 163. ANY ERROR THAT WAS MADE IN THE BID OF MRS. HARRIS WAS UNILATERAL--- NOT MUTUAL AND THEREFORE, DOES NOT ENTITLE HER TO RELIEF. SEE OGDEN AND DOUGHERTY V. UNITED STATES, 102 CT.CL. 249 AND SALIGMAN ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 56 F.SUPP. 505, 507.
ACCORDINGLY, ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS OF RECORD AND THE LAW APPLICABLE THERETO, THERE APPEARS ..END :