About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

B-187026 1 (1976-11-03)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadegb0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 





       ¶  - CIIill *  NOF THE UNITrD       STATES
                                    W  A   MHi NorO N,  0D.,.  2054   E



  *FILE:. B-18-7026 DAJE: November 3, 1976

       MATTER3   OF:4' Stanffer Construction Co., Inc.


       DIGEST:

            ProtestE' which concedes that low bidder clearly and
            convincinglytestablished existence of  istake in bid
            and of bid actually intended, but contends that con-
            tracting officer  abould be estopped from permitting.
            correction because exercise of his discretion in this
            manner conflicted with alleged unwritteh agency policy
            .never to permit coerkection, is denied because elements
            of equitable estoppel have not boen shown to exist.

            Through invitation for bids (IFB) No. 0709-AA-02-0-6-CC, the
      Department of General Services, District of colushla (Distric)
      sought bids for an addition to and modernization of the Charles
      Young  Elementary School. Of the five bids opened on June 18,
      1976, ,the lowest was submitted by Kora & Williai.4 Corporation
      ($2,629o95001. and the second low bid in the amount of $2,822,222
      was submitted by Stauffer Construction Company, Inc.

            Shortly after bid opening, Kora &LWillams  advised the District
      that its bid price was in error and requested correction, OnJune   25t
      1976, Stauffer protested to the'District any award of a contract
        *.*to  the firm of Kora & Williams Cor potation,, based on reforma-
 . tion of their original bid. By letter of July 19, 19*16,   which we
      received on July 22, Stauffer protested to or  Office i, the same
      terms as it had protested to the District.  In -neither instance did
      Stauffer elaborate upon its rationale for proteating..

            On July 22$ 1976, the contracting officer' determined that Korn &
      Williams had submitted clear and convincing evidence of the error,
      the manner In whicu it occurred and the amon~t of the intended bid
      price,  Therefore', he allowed correction of Kora & Williams' bid to
      the requested amount of $2,759,500 at whIch price that firm remained
      low.  Four days later the Distriet's Contract Review Committeo con-
      curred in the contracting officer's action.
'* n

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:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most