48 C.F.R. § 14.407-2

14.407-2 Apparent clerical mistakes.

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any clerical mistake, apparent on its face in the bid, may be corrected by the contracting officer before award. The contracting officer first shall obtain from the bidder a verification of the bid intended. Examples of apparent mistakes are—

(1) Obvious misplacement of a decimal point;

(2) Obviously incorrect discounts (for example, 1 percent 10 days, 2 percent 20 days, 5 percent 30 days);

(3) Obvious reversal of the price f.o.b. destination and price f.o.b. origin; and

(4) Obvious mistake in designation of unit.

(b) Correction of the bid shall be effected by attaching the verification to the original bid and a copy of the verification to the duplicate bid. Correction shall not be made on the face of the bid; however, it shall be reflected in the award document.

(c) Correction of bids submitted by electronic data interchange shall be effected by including in the electronic solicitation file the original bid, the verification request, and the bid verification.

[48 FR 42171, Sept. 19, 1983. Redesignated and amended at 60 FR 34738, July 3, 1995]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2000–2002 · leading case: James Giesler and Luke Coniglio (Doing Business as Central Park Company) v. United States, Defendant-Cross

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

James Giesler and Luke Coniglio (Doing Business as Central Park Company) v. United States, Defendant-Cross (2000) cafc “§ 14.407-3 . As set forth in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”), however, the government’s duty to examine contractors’ submissions for mistakes only pertains to errors contained in contractors’ bids.”

Will H. Hall & Son, Inc. v. United States (2002) uscfc “The six options are as follows: (1) accepting CEI’s bid of $376,275 for section 07420 and Rieckhoff's base bid of $351,030 for sections 07410 and 07415 for a total bid of $727,305 for the three sections; (2) accepting CASS’s base bid of $474,000 for section 07420 and Rieckhoff's…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.