Allegation That Awardee Omitted Unit Prices From Bid V. B-194472

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

table,div,span,font,p{display:none}Please click here if you are not redirected within a few seconds.

B-194472 1 (1979-08-27)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadhoh0001 and id is 1 raw text is:

W/A S H 1IN G TO0 N , D C . 20 54 8

FILE: B-194472 [DATE: August 27, 19'79
MATTERTROLEROFNRA

MATTER OF: Mountain Engineering and
Construction and Weisz
and Sons, a Joint Venture
DIGEST:

Omission of unit prices in bid was
properly waived as minor informality
where unit prices could be derived
from face of bid by dividing total
price for items by required quantity
of each item, since bidder was com-
mitted to those unit prices by bid
and therefore no other bidder was
prejudiced.

Mountain Engineering and Construction and Weisz and
Sons,' Joint Venture (Mountain),Aho-s protested the award
of a contract t eWooogn oD Inc. (Oregon) , for
the manufacture, testing, delivery, and installation of
selective withdrawal and penstock trashracks at Libby
Additional Units and Reregulating Dam, Kootenai River,
Montana, under invitation for bids (IFB)'No. DACW-67-79-
B-0018, issued by the United States Army Co'rps of
Engineers (Corps), Seattle, Washington District. 24 -

Mountain was the third low bidder, Oregon was the
low bidder, and Steel Management, Inc. (Steel), was the
second low bidder. Mounta'*n contends that Oregon's bid
was nonresponsive because (it did not contain required
unit prices, and that Steel's bid was ambiguous because
it contained a discrepancy between a unit price and the
total bid price. Mountain argues that the bids of Oregon
and Steel should have been rejected for those reasons
and that award should have been made to Mountain.

Section E of the IFB set forth the items to be sup-
plied, the quantities required, and the spaces for prices,
as follows:

&,qk 71-re7iE Om'~,/kzE 6LnlI Prlice- FRc6m AlalJJ