B-148117, JUN. 18, 1962
Highlights
JOSEPH HALPERN: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM OF MAY 11. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HAS REPORTED THAT CONTRACTING PERSONNEL WERE CONSIDERING WHETHER TO MAKE AN AWARD TO YOUR FIRM UNDER THE SUBJECT INVITATION WHEN THERE CAME TO ATTENTION OUR DECISION OF MARCH 13. IT WAS HELD IN THAT DECISION THAT WHEN WAGE RATES ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF LABOR EXPIRE BEFORE AN AWARD IS MADE UNDER THE INVITATION FOR BIDS IN WHICH THEY ARE INCORPORATED AND ARE TO BE REPLACED BY CHANGED WAGE RATES. CONTRACTING PERSONNEL DECIDED THAT NO AWARD SHOULD BE MADE UNDER THE INSTANT INVITATION AND ALL BIDS WERE REJECTED AND NEW BIDS WERE INVITED. SINCE YOUR CASE IS SIMILAR TO THAT CONSIDERED IN B-148284.
B-148117, JUN. 18, 1962
TO MR. JOSEPH HALPERN:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM OF MAY 11, 1962, PROTESTING AGAINST REJECTION OF YOUR LOW BID SUBMITTED UNDER INVITATION CIVENG-30-075 -62-20.
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HAS REPORTED THAT CONTRACTING PERSONNEL WERE CONSIDERING WHETHER TO MAKE AN AWARD TO YOUR FIRM UNDER THE SUBJECT INVITATION WHEN THERE CAME TO ATTENTION OUR DECISION OF MARCH 13, 1962, B- 148284, COPY ENCLOSED FOR YOUR INFORMATION. IT WAS HELD IN THAT DECISION THAT WHEN WAGE RATES ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF LABOR EXPIRE BEFORE AN AWARD IS MADE UNDER THE INVITATION FOR BIDS IN WHICH THEY ARE INCORPORATED AND ARE TO BE REPLACED BY CHANGED WAGE RATES, ALL BIDS SHOULD BE REJECTED AND THE PROCUREMENT READVERTISED. BECAUSE OF PARALLELS BETWEEN THE CITED CASE AND THE IMMEDIATE PROCUREMENT, CONTRACTING PERSONNEL DECIDED THAT NO AWARD SHOULD BE MADE UNDER THE INSTANT INVITATION AND ALL BIDS WERE REJECTED AND NEW BIDS WERE INVITED.
SINCE YOUR CASE IS SIMILAR TO THAT CONSIDERED IN B-148284, THE RELIANCE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE UPON THE LATTER DECISION DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN IMPROPER. THEREFORE, WE WILL NOT INTERPOSE ANY OBJECTION TO THE ACTION TAKEN.