B-176457, AUG 30, 1972
Highlights
SINCE HIGGINS' BID WAS THE SOLE BID RECEIVED AND WAS IN LINE WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S ESTIMATE. NO BASIS EXISTS TO CONCLUDE THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ERROR IN THE HIGGINS BID. THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR AN ADJUSTMENT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE. JOHNSON: REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE REPORT 134C DATED JULY 3. (HIGGINS) TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE BID WHICH RESULTED IN CONTRACT NO. PRICES WERE SOLICITED ON AN AGGREGATE BASIS FOR ITEM I. HIGGINS' BID WAS THE SOLE BID RECEIVED IN THE AMOUNT OF $79. HIGGINS' PRICE ON ITEM I WAS CONSIDERED REASONABLE IN VIEW OF THE GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE OF $71. AWARD WAS MADE ON JUNE 21. SINCE HIGGINS' BID WAS THE SOLE BID RECEIVED AND IT WAS IN LINE WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S ESTIMATE.
B-176457, AUG 30, 1972
CONTRACT - UNILATERAL MISTAKE - LACK OF NOTICE DENIAL OF REQUEST BY E. F. HIGGINS & CO. FOR CORRECTION OF AN ALLEGED MISTAKE IN THE BID WHICH RESULTED IN A CONTRACT LET BY THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION. SINCE HIGGINS' BID WAS THE SOLE BID RECEIVED AND WAS IN LINE WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S ESTIMATE, NO BASIS EXISTS TO CONCLUDE THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ERROR IN THE HIGGINS BID. B-175524, APRIL 14, 1972. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR AN ADJUSTMENT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE.
TO MR. DONALD E. JOHNSON:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE REPORT 134C DATED JULY 3, 1972, FROM THE DIRECTOR, SUPPLY SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY, REQUESTING A DECISION AS TO THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN REGARDING AN ERROR ALLEGED BY E. F. HIGGINS & CO. (HIGGINS) TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE BID WHICH RESULTED IN CONTRACT NO. V460C-76.
INVITATION FOR BIDS 460-40-71, AS AMENDED, REQUIRED BIDS TO FURNISH AND INSTALL A NURSES CALL SYSTEM IN THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION CENTER, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE. PRICES WERE SOLICITED ON AN AGGREGATE BASIS FOR ITEM I, THE ENTIRE JOB IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND ITEM II, THE SAME JOB EXCEPT FOR THE OMISSION OF ONE WARD.
HIGGINS' BID WAS THE SOLE BID RECEIVED IN THE AMOUNT OF $79,580 FOR ITEM I AND $73,173 FOR ITEM II. HIGGINS' PRICE ON ITEM I WAS CONSIDERED REASONABLE IN VIEW OF THE GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE OF $71,411 FOR THE WORK. AWARD WAS MADE ON JUNE 21, 1971. ON MAY 9, 1972, HIGGINS ALLEGED IT MADE AN ERROR IN ITS BID STEMMING FROM ITS SUPPLIER'S MISCALCULATION OF THE AMOUNT AND TYPE OF EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE WORK. SUBSTANTIATION, HIGGINS SUBMITTED ITS ORIGINAL WORKSHEETS AND RECALCULATIONS BASED UPON THE CORRECT TYPE AND AMOUNT OF EQUIPMENT AND REQUESTED A CONTRACT PRICE INCREASE OF $17,000.
CONTRACT REFORMATION MAY BE GRANTED FOR A UNILATERAL MISTAKE ALLEGED AFTER AWARD IF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAD EITHER ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE MISTAKE. B-173890, NOVEMBER 3, 1971. SINCE HIGGINS' BID WAS THE SOLE BID RECEIVED AND IT WAS IN LINE WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S ESTIMATE, NO BASIS EXISTS TO CONCLUDE THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ERROR IN THE HIGGINS BID. 175524, APRIL 14, 1972. SEE, ALSO, B 165744, DECEMBER 19, 1968, WHEREIN RELIEF WAS DENIED WHEN THE ONLY BIDDER ON A PROCUREMENT CLAIMED AN ERROR BECAUSE OF AN ERRONEOUS QUOTATION BY A SUPPLIER.
ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR AN ADJUSTMENT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE.