B-179878, NOV 15, 1973
Highlights
INC.: THIS IS IN REPLY TO YOUR LETTER DATED OCTOBER 13. BIDS WERE OPENED ON AUGUST 7. A CONTRACT AWARD FOR ITEM 178 WAS MADE ON AUGUST 14. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THEREAFTER YOU HAD OCCASION TO EXAMINE THE CONTENTS OF ITEM 178 AND YOU NOW CONTEND THAT THE INVITATION DESCRIPTION WAS EITHER FALSE OR MEANINGLESS BECAUSE IT DID NOT CONVEY THE MATERIAL'S POTENTIAL USABILITY AFTER DEMILITARIZATION. THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS DEPRIVED OF A HIGHER SALE PRICE WHICH IT WOULD HAVE RECEIVED HAD SUCH POTENTIAL USE BEEN SET FORTH. THE ACTION YOU SUGGEST WOULD BE JUSTIFIED AT THIS POINT IN TIME ONLY IF THE SUBJECT CONTRACT WERE SO CLEARLY ILLEGAL AS TO RENDER IT A NULLITY. WE ARE CLOSING OUR FILE IN THE MATTER WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION.
B-179878, NOV 15, 1973
DENIAL OF PROTEST AGAINST THE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR LOT 178 UNDER SALES INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 41-4006 ISSUED BY THE DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION-OGDEN, COVERING LIGHT AND HEAVY UNPREPARED STEEL SCRAP.
TO PETROF TRADING CO. INC.:
THIS IS IN REPLY TO YOUR LETTER DATED OCTOBER 13, 1973, WITH ENCLOSURES, PROTESTING THE CONTRACT AWARD OF LOT 178, UNDER SALES INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NO. 41-4006, ISSUED BY THE DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION-OGDEN, COVERING LIGHT AND HEAVY UNPREPARED STEEL SCRAP.
BIDS WERE OPENED ON AUGUST 7, 1973, AND A CONTRACT AWARD FOR ITEM 178 WAS MADE ON AUGUST 14, 1973. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THEREAFTER YOU HAD OCCASION TO EXAMINE THE CONTENTS OF ITEM 178 AND YOU NOW CONTEND THAT THE INVITATION DESCRIPTION WAS EITHER FALSE OR MEANINGLESS BECAUSE IT DID NOT CONVEY THE MATERIAL'S POTENTIAL USABILITY AFTER DEMILITARIZATION. YOU BELIEVE, THEREFORE, THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS DEPRIVED OF A HIGHER SALE PRICE WHICH IT WOULD HAVE RECEIVED HAD SUCH POTENTIAL USE BEEN SET FORTH. ACCORDINGLY, YOU REQUEST THAT THE GOVERNMENT REFUSE TO RELINQUISH POSSESSION OF THE MATERIAL AND THAT THE LOT BE REOFFERED FOR SALE.
EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE ITEM DESCRIPTION DOES NOT FULLY CONVEY THE POTENTIAL USABILITY OF ITS CONTENTS, IT APPEARS THAT A VALID CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF SCRAP METAL HAS BEEN EXECUTED. IN OUR OPINION, THE ACTION YOU SUGGEST WOULD BE JUSTIFIED AT THIS POINT IN TIME ONLY IF THE SUBJECT CONTRACT WERE SO CLEARLY ILLEGAL AS TO RENDER IT A NULLITY. JOHN REINER & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 325 F.2D 438, 440 (CT. CL. 1963), CERT. DENIED, 377 U.S. 931 (1964). WE DO NOT FIND THAT YOUR CORRESPONDENCE PROVIDES SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF SUCH ILLEGALITY.
ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE CLOSING OUR FILE IN THE MATTER WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION.