The criteria for calculating direct construction costs for the examination of the price for bidding in cases where some of the specifications of goods for each process distributed by the bidding institution to bidders are erroneously stated;

In bidding based on the total unit price method, the quantity on the statement indicating the quantity of goods for each process, which was distributed to the bidder prior to the bidding is an expected future adjustment expected, and the bidding agency is one of the price calculation conditions that the bidding agency provides to all bidders to refer to the decision-making of the bid amount. Such conditions should be presented to all bidders. The bidder must also apply the above conditions to the bidding agency in light of the fact that the bidding agency determines the bid amount under the trust of the bidder to calculate the direct law construction cost in accordance with the price calculation conditions presented by the bidding agency. Therefore, even if there is an error in the quantity stated in the above statement, unless the error is corrected in accordance with legitimate procedures, the bidding agency shall calculate the direct construction cost, which serves as the basis for the examination of the bid price, depending on the amount recorded in the above statement.

Article 76 of the Budget and Accounts Act, Article 79 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 86 of the same Enforcement Decree

Monomen Construction Company

Korea

The petitioner's application is dismissed.

On May 22, 1990, the respondent shall temporarily determine that the applicant is in the status of successful bidder in the bidding conducted on June 12, 1990, with respect to the construction of the Do Chapter 1 Section on the north north of the new harbor.

On August 14, 1990, the respondent shall seek a judgment that the contract number No. 943 with respect to the above construction work shall be KRW 44,74,80,000, the contract amount shall not be KRW 9,390,229,00.

1. Facts;

(A) On June 12, 1990, the applicant bid the lowest price of KRW 43,535,541,000, among 24 bidders who participated in competitive bidding for the conclusion of the contract for construction of the new harbor products and the new harbor products and the primary sections for construction of the Section 1 Section, which was conducted by the Administrator of the Public Procurement Service under the respondent.

(B) The bid price of the applicant is less than 85/100 of the estimated construction price determined by the bidding executor, and the bid price is less than 53,121,720,000 won, which is less than 43,696,313,934 won in direct construction cost determined by the bidding executor, and as a result, the bid executor received a non-qualified decision and concluded the contract for the above construction work with the applicant on August 14, 198, by recognizing that the highest bidder among the bidders other than the applicant is not the successful bidder, and the bid executor did not recognize the applicant as the successful bidder and concluded the contract for the above construction work as the successful bidder.

(C) A statement of “a statement indicating the quantity of goods for each process” distributed to bidders prior to the tender implementation (hereinafter simply a statement of specifications) includes a total of 15,815 tons of steel goods required for steel processing and assembling (hereinafter referred to as “a total of 15,815 tons of steel goods”) but this is an error caused by clerical error in the original quantity 15.815 tons of the steel goods scheduled in the specification and design (hereinafter referred to as “the original steel quantity”).

(D) The bid price was calculated and submitted in the form of multiplying the quantity as stated in the statement that all applicants, including the applicant, by the unit price, since the bid price was based on the total unit price method, and the bidding agency also calculated the estimated construction price and the direct construction cost based on the quantity stated in the statement including the error quantity.

(E) Although the bid price of the applicant falls short of the direct construction cost determined by the tendering agency in accordance with the above method, it is more than the direct construction cost to be calculated when based on the original steel volume.

(2) No dispute shall be raised between the parties.

2. Issues;

The issue is whether the direct construction cost calculation is based on the amount of error stated in the statement or whether it is based on the original quantity regardless of the entry of the statement.

3. Determination

(A) First of all, the volume of total unit price tendering is an expected future adjustment expected, and thus the error in the quantity of a statement is not a serious illegal ground for making a full invalidation of the measures to which the tender is required, unless there are other special circumstances.

(B) Next, the quantity stated in the statement falls under the price calculation conditions presented by the tendering agency to refer the bidder to the decision of the bid amount, and such conditions should be presented to all the bidders in the nature of the competitive bidding.

Therefore, even if there is an error in the quantity stated in the statement, so long as the error is not formally corrected to all the bidders according to legitimate procedures (in this case, there is no vindication that such corrective measures have been taken), the quantity of steel bars that can be considered as "the same conditions presented" can not be the quantity stated in the statement in this case.

(C) In addition, the same principle of "the same conditions" should be applied to the tendering agency under the principle of fair trust protection. This is because, under the trust that the tendering agency should calculate the direct construction cost under the same conditions as the price calculation conditions presented by the tendering agency to the bidder, the bidder determines the bid amount under the conditions of the tendering agency, and if the tendering agency calculates the direct construction cost under the different conditions, such examination is contrary to the principle of trust protection.

(D) Therefore, the tendering agency should calculate the direct construction cost according to the same conditions as the bidder presented. In this case, the direct construction cost should be calculated according to the erroneous steel volume in the specifications.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, unlike the above determination, the application of this case by the prior applicant is dismissed as it is without merit on the premise that the direct construction cost should be calculated according to the original steel volume.

Judges Cho Sung-sung(Presiding Judge)