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.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobadhxp0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
THE/2UZ7
THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548
FILE: B-196710 DATE: January 24, 1980'
MATTER OF: Dunn Electric Company ])L 63 6 Y'>
DIGEST:
Binding contract did not result from
Government's acceptance of bid where
contracting officer should have been
on notice of possible error in bid
and did not request verification by
bidder.
The Veterans Administration (VA) has orwarded a
request by Dunn Electric Company (Dunn) fo l;eforma-
tion of contract No. V506C-446-79 for the removal and
replacement of two generators and associated equip-
ment at the VA Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan,bLG,63 23
on the basis of an alleged mistake in Dunn's bid dis-
covered by the contractor after award. For the reason
set forth below, we believe that the contract should
be reformed.
Item I involved the removal and replacement of a
75 KW generator with a 180/185 KW one and of a 60 KW
generator with a 75 KW one. Item II required the re-
moval and replacement of the 75 KW generator only.
Award was to be made for item I unless the low bid
exceeded the funds available, in which case award
would be made for item II.
Dunn's bid of $69,888 for item I .and $40,220
for item II was the only bid received, and a contract
was awarded to the firm for item I. Immediately
thereafter, Dunn asserted that it had made a mistake
in its bid. Dunn contended that its bid on item I of
$69,888 was for the removal and replacement of the
75 KW generator only, and that its bid on item II
of $40,220 was for the removal and replacement of the
60 KW generator. Dunn thus alleged that its intended
bid for item I was the total of the two amounts, or
$110,108, and that the correct bid for item II was
$69,888. In support of the claim, Dunn provided its
workpapers; a supplier's quotation upon which Dunn
alleged to have based the bid showing the cost to](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobadhxp0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)