B-150499, JAN. 16, 1963
Highlights
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 17. THE CONTRACTOR NOTIFIED THE PROCUREMENT OFFICIALS THAT ITS UNIT PRICES ON THE FOREGOING ITEMS WERE IN ERROR IN THAT THE SAID PRICES WERE BASED UPON A SINGLE SHEET INSTEAD OF THE ADVERTISED BUNDLE OF TWO SHEETS. THOSE PAPERS DISCLOSE HOW THE ERRORS WERE MADE AND. WHAT THE PRICES FOR EACH OF THE ITEMS WOULD HAVE BEEN BUT FOR ERRONEOUS COMPUTATIONS. WE AGREE WITH THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT A BONA FIDE MISTAKE WAS MADE AS ALLEGED AND THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SUBJECT CONTRACTOR'S QUOTATIONS AND THOSE OF THE REMAINING BIDDERS WAS SUFFICIENT TO CHARGE THE OFFICER WITH CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ERRORS. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES A VERIFICATION OF THE QUOTATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BEFORE AWARD.
B-150499, JAN. 16, 1963
TO ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 17, 1962, WITH ENCLOSURES, RELATIVE TO THE REQUEST FOR RELIEF OF MARTIN-MEREDITH, INCORPORATED, DUE TO A MISTAKE MADE IN THE PREPARATION OF ITS BID SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. ATC-13186, ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL SUPPLY SERVICE REGIONAL OFFICE AT ATLANTA, GEORGIA.
THE INVITATION SOUGHT BIDS ON VARIOUS QUANTITIES OF WALLBOARD, AMONG OTHER COMMODITIES, TO BE FURNISHED TO THE DESTINATIONS DESIGNATED THEREIN. ITEMS 4 THROUGH 7 OF THE INVITATION FORM PROVIDED FOR QUOTATIONS ON THE BASIS OF BUNDLES CONSISTING OF TWO SHEETS PER BUNDLE. AFTER AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. GS-04S-10335, THE CONTRACTOR NOTIFIED THE PROCUREMENT OFFICIALS THAT ITS UNIT PRICES ON THE FOREGOING ITEMS WERE IN ERROR IN THAT THE SAID PRICES WERE BASED UPON A SINGLE SHEET INSTEAD OF THE ADVERTISED BUNDLE OF TWO SHEETS. IN SUPPORT OF THE ALLEGATION OF ERROR THE CONTRACTOR FURNISHED ITS WORKSHEETS AS WELL AS THE QUOTATIONS IT RECEIVED FROM THE TWO MANUFACTURERS OF THE PRODUCT REPRESENTING THE BIDDERS' SOURCE OF SUPPLY. THOSE PAPERS DISCLOSE HOW THE ERRORS WERE MADE AND, WHAT THE PRICES FOR EACH OF THE ITEMS WOULD HAVE BEEN BUT FOR ERRONEOUS COMPUTATIONS.
WE AGREE WITH THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT A BONA FIDE MISTAKE WAS MADE AS ALLEGED AND THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SUBJECT CONTRACTOR'S QUOTATIONS AND THOSE OF THE REMAINING BIDDERS WAS SUFFICIENT TO CHARGE THE OFFICER WITH CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ERRORS. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES A VERIFICATION OF THE QUOTATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BEFORE AWARD.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, AND SINCE A REFORMATION OF THE CONTRACT, AS RECOMMENDED, WOULD RESULT IN PRICES NO HIGHER ON TWO ITEMS AND LOWER ON THE TWO REMAINING ITEMS THAN THOSE OFFERED BY ANY OTHER BIDDERS, THE UNIT QUOTATIONS THEREON MAY BE CORRECTED TO REFLECT THE INTENDED PRICES OF THE BIDDER. A REFERENCE TO THIS DECISION SHOULD BE MADE ON THE CONTRACT.
THE PAPERS TRANSMITTED WITH YOUR REQUEST, EXCEPT THE FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, DATED NOVEMBER 30, 1962, ARE RETURNED, AS REQUESTED.