B-157554, FEB. 1, 1966
Highlights
TO THE PAINT SPECIALIST COMPANY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TWO LETTERS DATED JANUARY 12. BEFORE WE CAN CONSIDER THE MERITS OF YOUR CLAIM IT WILL BE NECESSARY THAT YOU FURNISH US WITH DETAILED FACTUAL INFORMATION RELATING THERETO TOGETHER WITH SUCH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AS YOU MAY DESIRE TO SUBMIT TO ENABLE US TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF A LEGAL BASIS FOR PAYMENT. AS YOU NO DOUBT ARE AWARE. 800 SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THE CITED INVITATION WAS REJECTED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER BECAUSE HE DETERMINED THAT YOUR COMPANY'S PAST PERFORMANCE ON OTHER CONTRACTS AT LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE HAD BEEN UNSATISFACTORY. MAY NOT BE ALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT STATUTES WHICH REQUIRE PURCHASES TO BE MADE AFTER ADVERTISING FOR BIDS WERE ENACTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE UNITED STATES AND NOT FOR THE BIDDERS.
B-157554, FEB. 1, 1966
TO THE PAINT SPECIALIST COMPANY:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TWO LETTERS DATED JANUARY 12, 1966, IN WHICH YOU MAKE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES AND EXPENSES ALLEGEDLY INCURRED DUE TO WRONGFUL ACTIONS BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AND LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE UNDER CONTRACT NO. AF-44 (600) 4210, AND FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM DENIAL OF A CONTRACT UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 44-600-65-79, APRIL 6, 1965.
IN RESPECT TO YOUR CLAIM FOR DAMAGES AND EXPENSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $596.23, ALLEGEDLY INCURRED BY YOU DUE TO "UNFOUNDED AND FALSE ACCUSATIONS" UNDER CONTRACT NO. AF-44 (600) 4210, BEFORE WE CAN CONSIDER THE MERITS OF YOUR CLAIM IT WILL BE NECESSARY THAT YOU FURNISH US WITH DETAILED FACTUAL INFORMATION RELATING THERETO TOGETHER WITH SUCH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AS YOU MAY DESIRE TO SUBMIT TO ENABLE US TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF A LEGAL BASIS FOR PAYMENT.
IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR ADDITIONAL CLAIM OF $5,160 UNDER IFB 44-600 65- 79, AS YOU NO DOUBT ARE AWARE, OUR OFFICE AT CONGRESSIONAL REQUEST CONDUCTED A REVIEW OF THE METHODS EMPLOYED AT LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, VIRGINIA, IN AWARDING PAINTING CONTRACTS. THIS REVIEW DISCLOSED THAT YOUR LOW BID OF $10,800 SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THE CITED INVITATION WAS REJECTED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER BECAUSE HE DETERMINED THAT YOUR COMPANY'S PAST PERFORMANCE ON OTHER CONTRACTS AT LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE HAD BEEN UNSATISFACTORY. IRRESPECTIVE OF THE MERITS OF THIS DETERMINATION, YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY YOU IN PREPARING SUCH BID, LOSS OF PROFITS, ETC., MAY NOT BE ALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT STATUTES WHICH REQUIRE PURCHASES TO BE MADE AFTER ADVERTISING FOR BIDS WERE ENACTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE UNITED STATES AND NOT FOR THE BIDDERS, AND THE COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT BIDDERS HAVE NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN THE EVENT THEIR BIDS HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED. SEE PERKINS V. LUKENS STEEL COMPANY, 310 U.S. 113; COLORADO PAVING COMPANY V. MURPHY, 78 F. 28; AND HEYER PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 135 CT.CL. 63. COMPARE STATE EX REL., HRON BROS. INC., V. CITY OF PORT WASHINGTON, 62 N.W.2D 1; AND ROYAL SUNDRIES CORPORATION V. UNITED STATES, 112 F.SUPP. 244. ..END :