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

B-193911 1 (1979-05-02)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadhee0001 and id is 1 raw text is: a C~~F~THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL_ I DECISION . OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON, D C. 20548 FILE: B-193911 DATE: May 2, 1979 M TE R OF:au H m o ay:> :: : S~ Contractor who alleged mistake in bid after award may not have contract reformed where mistake was unilateral, there was no actual notice, and awardee's lump-sum bid was less than 20 percent lower than next low bid, which by itself is insufficient to warrant placing contracting officer on notice of possibility of error.- This decision concerns a mistake in bid by Paul Holm Company, Inc. (Holm) alleged after award by the Science and Education Administration, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) of contract No. 50-9AHZ-8-1404 for the construction of shower facilities. VD In response to invitation for bids (IFB) No. 114-W-ARS-78, issued by USDA, three bids were received. These bids, each consisting of a single price for the installation, included Holm's bid of $26,867, Grashius Builders' bid of $33,367, and Griffith Construction Co., Inc.'s bid of $33,707. The Government estimate for the work was $27,032. Bid-opening took place September 8, 1978, and award was made to Holm on September 11, 1978. On September 22, Holm advised the contracting officer by telephone that its bid had failed to take into account a subcontractor's plumbing costs of $6,115. Holm requested reformation of its contract to include this amount. The contracting officer recommended increasing the contract price $6,115 for a total of $32,982. The contracting officer believed that the Government cost estimate contained calculation errors and should have been $31,422. She indicated further that, based on worksheets submitted by Holm, a bona fide mistake had been made, and she felt that she should have been on constructive notice of a possible mistake because of the 20 percent differential between Holm's bid and those of the other bidders. The contracting officer's recommendation was sent to USDA's Office of the General Counsel for a determination, as provided in the procedures outlined in the Federal Procurement Regulations (FPR) § 1-2.406-4(a) (1978), and in the Department of Agriculture Procure- ment Regulations at 41 C.F.R. § 4-2.406-1(b) (1978). USDA's Office of the General Counsel determined, pursuant to its authority under 7 C.F.R. § 2.31(e), that there were insufficient grounds to charge IJ14 t 7

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