The company’s President prepared three bid worksheets to determine the bid amount for this project. The error occurred on the worksheet formulas by not successfully transferring the correct amount to the bid sheet. This error lowered his bid by $16,530 due to this error. His bid was the lowest of 8 bids. The Department of the Navy noticed the disparity in his bid between McClure for $145,000 and the Government $282,869.
McClure received a bid verification letter standardly due to possible suspicion but this same standard letter is sent to all low bidders and it does not clearly express that the CO suspects’ suspicion of the bid submitted. It only stated “[a]s evidenced by the enclosed Abstracts of Offers, you are the apparent low bidder. Please review you bid worksheets for possible errors or omissions.” The CO exposed the other bidders and the Government estimate for the project. McClure did review his company’s bid and confirmed its accuracy in a letter to the CO. Once the project was completed this company realized that a there was a substantial loss on the contract and discovered the error. …show more content…
The contractor showed sufficient proof that the elements 1-3 and 5 were satisfied. Only questionable element was 4. The adequacy of the Government’s request for bid verification is an issue.
The CO didn’t have access to McClure’s bid worksheet, which contained the error.
Why didn’t the government request for bid verification state a specific suspicion of a possible error with his low bid? Why did McClure contract formation to correct its unilateral bad mistake denied?
Example cases:
Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc, v. Dalton, 119.F3d 972, 975 (Fed.Cir.1997)
Erickson Air Crane Co, v. United States, 731 F.2d 810, 814 (Fed.Cir.1984)
Solar Foam Insulation, ASBCA No. 46, 921, 94-2 BCA
McClure received a bid verification letter standardly due to possible suspicion but this same standard letter is sent to all low bidders and it does not clearly express that the CO suspects’ suspicion of the bid submitted. It only stated “[a]s evidenced by the enclosed Abstracts of Offers, you are the apparent low bidder. Please review you bid worksheets for possible errors or omissions.” The CO exposed the other bidders and the Government estimate for the project. McClure did review his company’s bid and confirmed its accuracy in a letter to the CO. Once the project was completed this company realized that a there was a substantial loss on the contract and discovered the error. …show more content…
The contractor showed sufficient proof that the elements 1-3 and 5 were satisfied. Only questionable element was 4. The adequacy of the Government’s request for bid verification is an issue.
The CO didn’t have access to McClure’s bid worksheet, which contained the error.
Why didn’t the government request for bid verification state a specific suspicion of a possible error with his low bid? Why did McClure contract formation to correct its unilateral bad mistake denied?
Example cases:
Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc, v. Dalton, 119.F3d 972, 975 (Fed.Cir.1997)
Erickson Air Crane Co, v. United States, 731 F.2d 810, 814 (Fed.Cir.1984)
Solar Foam Insulation, ASBCA No. 46, 921, 94-2 BCA