About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

B-200907.2 1 (1981-05-13)

handle is hein.gao/gaobabkas0001 and id is 1 raw text is: B-200907.2 MAY 13 1981, , The Honorable William X. Brodhead Member, United States House of Representatives 24261 Grand River Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48219 Dear Mr. Brodhead: By letter of April 1, 1981, you requested reconsideration of our decision B-200907, in the matter of G.J.K. Metals, Inc. The General Services Administration had accepted the company's offer and awarded it a contract for purchase from the Government of 500 carats of industrial diamonds at a total price of $30,655. The company sought to void the contract on the ground that it had made an error in submitting its bid at the price accepted. We ruled in the decision you ask us to reconsider that there is no proper basis for relieving the company of its obligations under the contract as made. Under Federal contract law and regulation bidders for Govern- ment contracts clearly have the right to withdraw their bids where an error has been made in any bid submitted. Indeed, where error is reasonably to be suspected, the Government is under obligation to provide bidders with an opportunity to verify the correctness of their bids before acceptance of the suspect offer. Mere alle- gation of error, in the absence of a patent reason for suspecting the accuracy of a bid, provides no sufficient basis for allowing the bid to be withdrawn. To maintain integrity in the bidding system demands more; evidence to support the allegation is essential. It would be difficult to preserve the rationale of the system and the confidence of bidders in it if after bid opening any bidder dissatisfied with the results could avoid his obligaton simply by alleging an error in his bid. In the case under reconsideration we concluded that the high bid submitted by G.J*(. Metals, Inc., for industrial diamonds was within a reasonable range to be expected. In essence, we concluded that the amount of the company's bid did not put the contracting officer on such notice of possible error as to place him under a duty to seek verification of the bid. When the company itself alleged error, it was afforded an opportunity to provide evidence to substantiate the allegation. It was only after the company failed to come forth with substantiating evidence that the contract was awarded.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most