B-146410, AUGUST 1, 1961, 41 COMP. GEN. 61

B-146410, AUGUST 1, 1961, 41 COMP. GEN. 61

CONTRACTS - OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE - SIGNATURES A LOW BID WHICH IS SUBMITTED IN THE NAME OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS ONE OF THE PRINCIPALS IN A CORPORATION FROM WHICH A BID WAS SOLICITED BUT WHO SIGNS AS CO-OWNER OF A CORPORATION UNDER HIS NAME ONLY MUST BE REGARDED AS A BID FROM THE CORPORATION AS NAMED IN THE BID; HOWEVER, IF THERE IS NO CORPORATION IN THE INDIVIDUAL BIDDER'S NAME, AN AWARD TO ANY OTHER ENTITY WOULD NOT BE PROPER.

TO OSBORNE KOERNER, FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION, AUGUST 1, 1961:

IN YOUR CAPACITY AS CONTRACTING OFFICER, YOU REQUESTED A DECISION IN LETTER OF JULY 12, 1961, AS TO THE ACTION THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN ON THE LOW BID SUBMITTED UNDER INVITATION NO. 5718.

YOU STATED THAT A BID WAS SOLICITED FROM MURPHY AND ROCHESTER, INC., AMONG OTHERS, AND INDICATED THAT NONE WAS RECEIVED FROM THAT FIRM, BUT THAT THE BLANKS AT THE BOTTOM OF ONE OF THE BIDS WERE FILLED IN AS FOLLOWS:

BY (S) LOUIS ROCHESTER

TEXAS BIDDER:LOUIS ROCHESTER TITLE CO-OWNER

----------------------------- ---------------------- ADDRESS: 908 WEST WALL, MIDLAND, TEXAS CORPORATION

(INDICATE WHETHER

CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP OR

INDIVIDUAL)

FURTHER, YOU STATED THAT SOME CONFUSION AS TO THE IDENTITY OF THE BIDDER IS GENERATED SINCE THE BID WAS EXECUTED BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS DESIGNATED AS THE " BIDDER" AND HIS TITLE INDICATES THAT HE MAY BE A PARTNER AND HE IS OTHERWISE REPRESENTED AS A CORPORATION.

ALTHOUGH THE BID IS SIGNED BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS REPRESENTED AS THE BIDDER, WE BELIEVE THAT THE SIGNATORY WAS OBVIOUSLY BIDDING FOR A CORPORATION. THE BID SO STATES. ALSO, AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FORM, THERE IS A NOTE AS FOLLOWS: " IF BIDDER IS A CORPORATION, INDICATE STATE OF INCORPORATION UNDER SIGNATURE; IF A PARTNERSHIP, GIVE FULL NAMES OF ALL PARTNERS; IF AN INDIVIDUAL ENTERPRISE, SO STATE," AND APPARENTLY, IN RESPONSE TO THOSE INSTRUCTIONS," TEXAS" WAS TYPED BELOW THE SIGNATURE SHOWING FURTHER THAT THE SIGNATORY WAS BIDDING FOR A CORPORATION, ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE IS NO STATEMENT OF THE NAMES OF ANY PARTNERS OR THAT AN INDIVIDUAL ENTERPRISE IS INVOLVED, AS WAS OTHERWISE REQUIRED IF THE BIDDER WAS OTHER THAN A CORPORATION. WHILE THE TERM " CO-OWNER" USUALLY DESIGNATES A PARTNERSHIP, IT SEEMS LIKELY THAT SUCH TERM WAS USED IN THE INSTANT BID TO INDICATE THAT THE SIGNATORY OWNED THE CORPORATION JOINTLY WITH ANOTHER.

THE INFERENCE THAT FOLLOWS FROM THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED IN THE BID IS THAT LOUIS ROCHESTER WAS BIDDING ON BEHALF OF A CORPORATION NAMED LOUIS ROCHESTER. HOWEVER, SINCE LOUIS ROCHESTER IS ONE OF THE PRINCIPALS INVOLVED IN THE FIRM OF MURPHY AND ROCHESTER, INC., THERE IS SOME REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE SIGNATORY MAY HAVE BEEN BIDDING ON ITS BEHALF. SHOULD IT DEVELOP THAT THERE IS A CORPORATION NAMED LOUIS ROCHESTER THEN, OF COURSE, IT WOULD BE PROPER TO MAKE THE AWARD TO THAT ENTITY. HOWEVER, IF THERE IS NO SUCH CORPORATION, THEN THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE IS TO DISREGARD THE BID, SINCE AN AWARD TO ANYONE OTHER THAN A CORPORATION NAMED LOUIS ROCHESTER WOULD BE AN AWARD TO AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ENTITY THAN THAT WHICH SUBMITTED THE BID. SEE 33 COMP. GEN. 549, 550.