Skip to Highlights
Highlights

INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 16. ALTHOUGH THIS ENTIRE MATTER WAS FULLY CONSIDERED IN OUR DECISION IT MIGHT BE POINTED OUT IN MORE DETAIL THAT THE RECORD INCLUDES A MEMORANDUM OF A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION ON JUNE 19. MCKNIGHT THE QUESTION "WOULD YOU BE IN A POSITION TO STATE THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE? " AND MR. MCKNIGHT IS QUOTED AS STATING TO MR. EVANS "ALL WE CAN TELL YOU IS TO GO AHEAD AND COMPLY WITH YOUR CONTRACT. THEN MAKE ANY REQUEST FOR REBATE YOU FEEL YOU HAVE COMING.'. MCKNIGHT ADDED DURING THE SAME CONVERSATION THAT "YOU WERE SOLD WHAT WAS ON THE BID. IN WHICH HE SAYS THAT "TO ALLEGE THAT "A MISTAKE WAS OBVIOUS" CANNOT BE CONCURRED IN.'.

View Decision

B-131641, AUG. 13, 1957

TO EVANS COOPERAGE COMPANY, INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 16, 1957, RELATIVE TO YOUR CLAIM UNDER CONTRACT NO. DA (S/-41-117-AIV-2250, DATED MAY 9, 1956, FOR THE PURCHASE OF STEEL DRUMS FROM THE SALVAGE BRANCH, RED RIVER ARSENAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, TEXARKANA, TEXAS. YOU REQUEST RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF JUNE 12, 1957, WHICH HELD THAT THERE EXISTED NO LEGAL BASIS FOR RELIEVING YOU OF YOUR OBLIGATION UNDER YOUR ACCEPTED BID AND AFFIRMED THE ACTION TAKEN IN OUR LETTER TO YOU DATED FEBRUARY 19, 1957, IN DEMANDING PAYMENT OF $788.92, DUE THE UNITED STATES AS A RESULT OF YOUR REFUSAL TO ACCEPT DELIVERY OF THE DRUMS.

YOUR LETTER DOES NOT PRESENT ANY NEW EVIDENCE ALTHOUGH IT STRESSES YOUR CONTENTION THAT MR. RAY A. MCKNIGHT, PROPERTY DISPOSAL OFFICER AT THE RED RIVER ARSENAL, STATED TO REPRESENTATIVES OF YOUR COMPANY THAT HE, MR. MCKNIGHT, FELT THAT "AN OBVIOUS ERROR" HAD BEEN MADE IN YOUR BID.

ALTHOUGH THIS ENTIRE MATTER WAS FULLY CONSIDERED IN OUR DECISION IT MIGHT BE POINTED OUT IN MORE DETAIL THAT THE RECORD INCLUDES A MEMORANDUM OF A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION ON JUNE 19, 1956, IN WHICH MR. ROBERT EVANS OF YOUR COMPANY ASKED MR. MCKNIGHT THE QUESTION "WOULD YOU BE IN A POSITION TO STATE THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE? " AND MR. MCKNIGHT REPLIED "I COULDN-T STATE THAT.' THE RECORD ALSO INCLUDED A MEMORANDUM OF A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION ON MAY 22, 1956, IN WHICH MR. MCKNIGHT IS QUOTED AS STATING TO MR. EVANS "ALL WE CAN TELL YOU IS TO GO AHEAD AND COMPLY WITH YOUR CONTRACT, AND THEN MAKE ANY REQUEST FOR REBATE YOU FEEL YOU HAVE COMING.' MR. MCKNIGHT ADDED DURING THE SAME CONVERSATION THAT "YOU WERE SOLD WHAT WAS ON THE BID, NO MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND THE BID FORM SPECIFIES YOU MUST PROCEED WITH THE CONTRACT PENDING THE OUTCOME OF DISPUTES.' ALSO, THE RECORD CONTAINS A DETAILED STATEMENT BY MR. MCKNIGHT, AS TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THIS TRANSACTION, IN WHICH HE SAYS THAT "TO ALLEGE THAT "A MISTAKE WAS OBVIOUS" CANNOT BE CONCURRED IN.' THAT STATEMENT WAS MADE BY MR. MCKNIGHT AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING YOUR LETTERS OF JUNE 19, AUGUST 1 AND SEPTEMBER 27, 1956. THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND THE RECORD IN OUR OFFICE, INCLUDING THOSE LETTERS AND YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 9, 1957, TO OUR OFFICE, WERE REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED BEFORE REACHING THE CONCLUSION IN OUR DECISION OF JUNE 12, 1957.

NOWHERE IN THE RECORD IS IT INDICATED THAT MR. MCKNIGHT OR ANY OTHER OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT HAS STATED THAT THERE WAS AN "OBVIOUS" ERROR IN YOUR BID AT THE TIME IT WAS CONSIDERED AND ACCEPTED. CONSEQUENTLY, IT MUST BE HELD THAT YOUR BID WAS ACCEPTED IN GOOD FAITH.

INASMUCH AS NO NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WHICH WOULD WARRANT A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION FROM THAT REACHED IN OUR DECISION OF JUNE 12, 1957, THE ACTION TAKEN IN THE DECISION NECESSARILY MUST BE AFFIRMED.

GAO Contacts