B-149470, SEP. 24, 1962

B-149470, SEP. 24, 1962

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY:

THIS REFERS TO A PROTEST FROM INTERFERENCE TESTING AND RESEARCH LABORATORY, INC., BOSTON 14, MASSACHUSETTS, AGAINST THE AWARD MADE UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 251-439-62, ISSUED BY THE PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD, BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, WHICH MATTER IS THE SUBJECT OF A REPORT DATED AUGUST 20, 1962 (REFERENCE R1.2), FROM YOUR DEPARTMENT TO THIS OFFICE.

THE SUBJECT INVITATION WAS ISSUED ON MAY 10, 1962, CALLING FOR BIDS ON TWO ITEMS OF TESTING UNITS. ITEM NO. 1 COVERED A QUANTITY OF THREE BASIC MEASURING UNITS, BA-105, WITH ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT, AND ITEM NO. 2 COVERED ONE OF THE SAME UNITS WITH ADDITIONAL ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT. THE ITEM DESCRIPTIONS, AND SPACE FOR BID PRICE INSERTION WERE SET FORTH ON PAGE NO. 1 OF THE INVITATION SCHEDULE. BOTH ITEMS WERE DESCRIBED AS PART OF "LOT I," AND AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE THE FOLLOWING NOTATION APPEARED:

"TOTAL BID PRICE LOT I (ITEMS 1-2) ------------------

UNIT PRICES MUST ALSO BE FURNISHED"

BID OPENING WAS HELD ON MAY 31, 1962, AND THREE BIDS WERE RECEIVED. TWO OF THE BIDS INDICATED LOT BID PRICES OF $20,897 AND $25,987.50. EVALUATING THE THIRD BID, FROM INTERFERENCE TESTING AND RESEARCH LABORATORY, INC., IT WAS NOTED THAT THE BIDDER INSERTED THE FIGURE OF $20,000 AT THE INDICATED PLACE ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BID SCHEDULE PAGE; HOWEVER, IN ADDING UP THE UNIT PRICES INSERTED BY THE BIDDER FOR THE BASIC UNITS AND THE ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT, THE TOTAL CAME TO $24,095. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE LOT I BID SHOULD BE EVALUATED AT $24,095.

AN AWARD WAS MADE IN JUNE 1962 TO THE BIDDER OFFERING $20,897. IN THAT BID (SUBMITTED BY EMPIRE DEVICES COMPANY) THE TOTAL OF THE UNIT PRICE AGREED WITH THE LOT BID PRICE. THE CONTRACT SPECIFIES DELIVERY OF THE ARTICLES WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE CONTRACT.

INTERFERENCE TESTING AND RESEARCH LABORATORY CONTENDS THAT THE MAKEUP OF THE BID FORM INDICATED THAT THE BIDDER COULD SUBMIT A LESSER OR DISCOUNTED BID PRICE FOR AN AWARD OF THE ENTIRE LOT, AND THAT THE UNIT PRICES WOULD PREVAIL ONLY IF LESS THAN THE ENTIRE LOT WAS AWARDED.

THE CONTRACTING OFFICER STATES THAT HIS INTENT AND PURPOSE IN PROVIDING A SPACE FOR THE TOTAL BID PRICE WAS FOR CONVENIENCE IN ENTERING THE TOTAL OF THE EXTENDED AMOUNTS OF ITEMS NOS. 1 AND 2, AND SINCE THE PROTESTING BIDDER DID NOT SPECIFICALLY STATE IN ITS BID THAT IT WAS OFFERING A DISCOUNTED TOTAL LOT PRICE, AND SINCE THE "TERMS AND CONDITIONS" OF THE INVITATION (CLAUSE 1 (C) ( PROVIDE THAT UNIT PRICE WILL GOVERN IN CASE OF ERROR IN EXTENSION OF PRICE, THE LOT BID WAS EVALUATED BY HIM AS THE TOTAL OF THE UNIT PRICES.

WE AGREE WITH THE PROTESTING BIDDER THAT ITS LOT BID SHOULD HAVE BEEN EVALUATED AT $20,000. THE INVITATION PROVIDED FOR THE INSERTION OF A LOT BID PRICE, AND THERE WAS NO INDICATION ON THE BID FORM THAT THE LOT BID WAS TO REPRESENT THE TOTAL OF THE UNIT PRICES. WE FIND THAT THE INVITATION PROVIDED (EVEN IF INADVERTENTLY) FOR THE INSERTION OF A LOT BID INDEPENDENT OF THE UNIT PRICES. ACCORDINGLY, THE INVITATION PROVISION CONCERNING ERROR IN EXTENSION OF PRICE, CITED ABOVE, IS NOT PERTINENT SINCE THE BIDDER DID NOT SUBMIT ITS LOT PRICE AS AN EXTENSION OF ITS UNIT PRICES. THE BIDDER OFFERED A TOTAL LOT PRICE DISTINCT FROM ITS UNIT PRICES, AND WE THINK THAT THE BID SHOULD HAVE BEEN EVALUATED AT THE FIGURE INDICATED BY THE BIDDER, NAMELY, $20,000.

WE ARE ADVISED THAT DELIVERY UNDER THE CONTRACT HAS BEEN COMPLETED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES NO FURTHER ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN THE MATTER BY OUR OFFICE.