of the foam in 5-gallon pails, and Item No. 2 called for packing in 55-gallon drums. Under each item, bids were solicited on alternate bases-Bid A, f.o.b. origin, covering the total procurement requirement for all destinations, and Bid B, setting forth the requirements for each of several destinations. Item No. 2, with which the protests in question are concerned, was comprised of four subitems. Subitem 2A requested an f.o.b. origin bid on a total quantity of 15,456 drums for shipment in varying quantities to the three destinations indicated in subitems 2B, 2C and 2D, on which separate f.o.b. destination prices were to be bid. Subitem 2B, hereafter called the Columbus item, covered 5,376 drums for shipment to Columbus, Ohio; subitem 2C, hereafter called the Memphis item, covered 5,376 drums for shipment to Memphis, Tennessee; and subitem 2D, hereafter called the Ogden item, covered 4,704 drums for shipment to Ogden, Utah. Further, on page 7 of the IFB, it was stated that a predetermined drum weight of 565 pounds would be used in evaluating f.o.b. origin bids.

On February 17, bids were opened as scheduled. On subitem 2A, two f.o.b. origin bids were received, one from National, quoting a unit price of $52.80, and the other from The Mearl Corporation (Mearl), quoting a unit price of $56.65. On the remaining subitems, three f.o.b. destination bids were received as follows:

The contracting officer noted that Chemical's bid price on the Ogden item was lower than its bid price on the Memphis item notwithstanding Ogden was more distant than Memphis from Chemical's plant at Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, and higher transportation costs would be involved. Accordingly, the contracting officer communicated with Chemical on February 17, indicated the possibility of an error, and requested that the bid be verified as to the Memphis and Ogden items. By letter dated February 18, addressed to the DCSC, Chemical explained that the price shown in its bid for the Memphis item was intended for the Ogden item and vice versa,

and that both prices had been erroneously reversed in its bid. Worksheets furnished by Chemical show on one page a unit price of $74.51 for the Ogden item and a unit price of $63.45 for the Memphis item, while another page lists both the unit and the total prices quoted in the bid. Moreover, the worksheets also show that Chemical's net bids for all three destinations were computed on a base price of $51.48 per drum and included transportation costs, such costs for Ogden being $19.30 per drum and for Memphis $8.80 per drum.

On the basis that the mistake in Chemical's bid was an apparent clerical mistake, within the purview of Armed Services Procurement Regulation (ASPR) 2-406.2, the contracting officer recommends that Chemical's bid be considered as corrected as to both items.

In a telegram dated February 22, supplemented by a letter of the same date, National protested award of the Ogden item to Chemical on the basis that there was an obvious mistake in the bid price which should disqualify the bid from consideration for award, and contended that its f.o.b. origin price would be most advantageous to the Government.

In a letter dated March 4, Chemical protested award of either item to National on two grounds. First, Chemical asserted that the true drum weight is 580 or more pounds, not 565 pounds each as stated in the IFB; therefore, the transportation costs to be added to National's f.o.b. origin bid prices should be higher than the costs based on a 565-pound drum. Second, Chemical stated, special freight rates applied by DCSC in evaluating the Memphis item on an f.o.b. origin basis should not be used since the carrier offering such rates is not reliable. Accordingly, when the correct drum weight is used to evaluate both items and, further, when the regular rates charged by reliable carriers are used in evaluating the Memphis item, National's f.o.b. origin bid on both items is higher than Chemical's f.o.b. destination bid, as corrected.

In supplementary correspondence, Chemical's attorney has cited various recent f.o.b. origin shipments to Memphis on which the carrier in question failed to provide the required transportation with the result that the Government had to pay higher rates than were contemplated when the contracts were awarded. Also, it is contended that National has not been prejudiced by the incorrect drum weight given in the IFB since National's f.o.b. destination price on the Ogden item can be computed by adding to National's f.o.b. origin price transportation charges to Ogden applicable to a 592-pound drum, thus indicating that National used a 592-pound drum weight in computing its bid. Accordingly, Chemical claims, since the mistake in its own bid was clerical and therefore properly for correction under ASPR 2-406.2 and since Chemical is low as to both items based on

its bid as so corrected, award of both items should be made to Chemical.

In a telegram and letter dated March 11, National protests award of the two items to any other bidder. National asserts that Chemical had the option, as did all bidders, to submit an f.o.b. origin bid, in which case the special freight rates available to Memphis would have been used in evaluating Chemical's bid; that such rates should be used, National having used the carrier in question successfully on past shipments; and that Chemical, not having questioned the IFB provisions prior to bid opening, may not now protest such provisions. In subsequent correspondence, National's attorney has protested consideration of Chemical's bid as corrected, contending that while the existence of a mistake in Chemical's bid on the Ogden item is apparent from the bid itself, National does not concede that Chemical made a mistake in its price of $74.51 on the Memphis item, Chemical having quoted, on an f.o.b. destination basis, a unit price of $69.90 for Memphis under IFB No. DSA-7-65-1124, opened November 25, 1964. With respect to the Ogden item, it is contended that Chemical has not proved its intended bid price by substantial evidence, as required by ASPR 2-406.3, and that in view of the prices bid by Chemical for Ogden in similar procurements, ranging from $79.40 in November 1964 to $84 in January 1966, Chemical might well have intended to bid $80.32 [after discount] rather than $60.32 [after discount] on the Ogden item. Accordingly, it is National's position that the Chemical bid, at least on the Ogden item, should be withdrawn, and that award of both the Memphis and Ogden items should be made to National. No question is raised by National concerning the incorrect drum weight stated in the IFB, nor is there any indication in National's bid or in its protest of the weight which National used in computing its bid.

The contracting officer adheres to his view that the mistake in Chemical's bid is of a clerical nature which may be corrected under ASPR 2-406.2, and, therefore, Chemical's bid should be corrected to read $63.45 per drum for the Memphis item and $74.51 per drum for the Ogden item. In this connection, there is cited 16 Comp. Gen. 999, involving one unit of an item for delivery to one destination only, in which a mistake due to transportation of the origin and destination prices bid on the item was held to be an obvious error which might be corrected by the contracting officer without submission of the matter to our Office.

Concerning the quotation by Chemical of higher prices for Ogden shipments on prior procurements than on the instant procurement, the contracting officer points to the fact that the much smaller

quantities in the prior procurements (i.e., 30 drums, 50 drums, and 2,640 drums) might account for the higher prices, the transportation rates for smaller shipments being higher than the rates applicable to carload shipments.

Regarding the weight of the drums, it is reported that records of prior shipments of the same item indicate that the weight of a filled drum, which may range between 585 and 600 pounds, is dependent on the specific gravity of the foam and the construction of the drum, the average weight for a filled drum being 592 pounds. The 565pound weight indicated in the IFB is stated to be the result of a clerical error. Further, it is reported that because of the allowable variations in the weight of the foam and of the drum, guaranteed shipping weights will be required in future similar procurements. With specific reference to National's bid, it is reported that on the Memphis requirement, even by using the maximum filled drum weight of 600 pounds, National remains low on its f.o.b. origin bid based on the use of the special transportation rates offered by the carrier whose service Chemical claims is unreliable. It is further reported that on the Ogden requirement, on which National is low on an f.o.b. origin basis using the 565-pound drum weight stated in the IFB, the use of even a minimum drum weight of 580 pounds to evaluate National's f.o.b. origin bid results in the displacement of National by Chemical since Chemical's bid for the Ogden item, both as corrected and uncorrected, is lower.

With respect to the carrier whose special rates to Memphis were used in evaluating the National f.o.b origin bid on the Memphis requirement, the contracting officer states that such rates were used pursuant to ASPR 1-1313.1, which requires the use of the best available transportation rates in effect prior to the expected date of the initial shipment or published on the date of bid opening. Further, the Directorate of Freight Traffic, Headquarters, Military Traffic Management and Terminal Service (MTMTS) in a memorandum dated May 13, 1966, makes the following pertinent statements:

3. Malone Freight Lines is a common carrier possessing a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission. To the extent authorized in the carrier's certificate, it must be presumed to be fit, willing and able to perform the services in accordance with the requirements, rules and regulations of the Commission. Malone ranks extremely high as to the number of shipments handled for the DoD and although there is a record of some poor service or refusal of shipments, these are insignificant. It might be pointed out also that considerable economy accrues to the shipper due to Malone's generally depressed rates.

4. Therefore, in full recognition of some of the deficiencies associated with Malone's service, the published rates of the carrier should be considered in bid evaluations as well as the routing of DoD traffic.

In view of the MTMTS report and on the basis that the use of the correct weight for the drums does not affect the standing of the

bidders on the Memphis item, Headquarters, DSA, recommends that award of the Memphis item be made to National at its f.o.b. origin bid price. As to the Ogden item, however, it is recommended, in view of the fact that the use of the correct drum weight constitutes evaluation on a basis other than stated in the invitation, that the item be canceled and resolicited. Concerning the mistake in Chemical's bid, it is asserted that both the mistake and the intended bid are ascertainable from the bid and that since National will not be displaced on the Memphis item and since Chemical is low on the Ogden item before and after correction, Chemical's worksheets could be used, if necessary, to establish its intended bid.

ASPR 2-406.2, pertaining to apparent clerical mistakes, reads as follows:

Any clerical mistake apparent on the face of a bid may be corrected by the contracting officer prior to award, if the contracting officer has first obtained from the bidder written or telegraphic verification of the bid actually intended. Examples of such apparent mistakes are: obvious error in placing decimal point; obvious discount errors (for example-1 percent 10 days, 2 percent 20 days, 5 percent 30 days); obvious reversal of the price f.o.b. destination and the price f.o.b. factory; obvious error in designation of unit. Correction of the bid will be effected by attaching the verification to the original bid and a copy of the verification to the duplicate bid. Correction will not be made on the face of the bid; however, it shall be reflected in the award document.

ASPR 2-406.3(a), pertaining to mistakes other than clerical, alleged after bid opening but prior to award, reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

(2) However, if the evidence is clear and convincing both as to existence of the mistake and as to the bid actually intended, and if the bid, both as uncorrected and as corrected, is the lowest received, a determination may be made to correct the bid and not permit its withdrawal.

(3) Where the bidder requests permission to correct a mistake in his bid and clear and convincing evidence establishes both the existence of a mistake and the bid actually intended, a determination permitting the bidder to correct the mistake may be made; provided that, in the event such correction would result in displacing one or more lower bids, the determination shall not be made unless the existence of the mistake and the bid actually intended are ascertainable substantially from the invitation and the bid itself. If the evidence is clear and convincing only as to the mistake, but not as to the intended bid, a determination permitting the bidder to withdraw his bid may be made.

To invoke the authority contained in ASPR 2-406.2, the bid mistake sought to be corrected must be obvious on the face of the bid; that is, the contracting officer, without benefit of advice from the bidder, must be able to ascertain the intended bid. In the instant case, the prices of all three bidders were lowest on the Columbus item, their prices ranging from the net low of $56.06 offered by Chemical to the high of $60.96 offered by Mearl. On the remaining two items, however, National and Mearl were lower by approximately $10 on their Memphis item prices than on their Ogden item prices, while Chemical was higher by approximately the same amount