___________________________________________________ MOTION FOR SUMMARY RELIEF DENIED: February 2, 1994 ___________________________________________________ GSBCA 12445-TD PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Respondent. Joseph R. Lefft of Nexsen Pruet Jacobs & Pollard, Columbia, SC, counsel for Appellant. Donald M. Suica and Lori R. Larson, Office of Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges WILLIAMS, VERGILIO, and DeGRAFF. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. Property Maintenance Corporation (Property Maintenance) claims that it made a mistake when it calculated the amount of its bid for a contract for guard services. According to appellant, its bid did not include an amount for the total number of labor hours that it was required to provide. Property Maintenance filed a motion for summary relief in which it asserts that the Department of Treasury (Treasury) should have known, before award, that Property Maintenance made a mistake because (1) another bidder claimed to have made a mistake; (2) there was a difference between Property Maintenance's bid and Treasury's estimate; (3) there was a difference between Property Maintenance's bid and the incumbent contractor's price; and (4) there was a difference between Property Maintenance's bid and other bids. Property Maintenance asserts that Treasury should have notified Property Maintenance of these four items when Treasury asked Property Maintenance to confirm its bid and, because Treasury did not notify Property Maintenance of these four items, Property Maintenance concludes that it is entitled to relief. Throughout this appeal, Treasury has maintained that Property Maintenance has never established that it made a mistake. Treasury opposes the motion for summary relief and asserts that it had no reason to suppose that Property Maintenance had made a mistake in its bid because (1) the alleged mistake made by another bidder was not the same as the mistake that Property Maintenance claims to have made; (2) Treasury's estimate was higher than any of the fifteen bids that were received and so was not considered by Treasury; (3) Property Maintenance's bid was only slightly different from the incumbent contractor's price; and (4) there was not a wide disparity among bids. Finally, Treasury argues that if Property Maintenance made a mistake, it was a mistake of judgment and not, therefore, a mistake which would entitle Property Maintenance to relief. The outcome of this appeal depends initially upon whether Property Maintenance actually made a mistake in its bid. Property Maintenance might be entitled to relief if it made a mistake in its bid and if, before award, Treasury should have known of the mistake. The outcome of this appeal also depends upon whether, if a mistake was made, it was the type of mistake which would entitle Property Maintenance to relief. If Property Maintenance did not make a mistake in its bid, it is not entitled to recover, no matter what Treasury should have known. Property Maintenance is not entitled to summary relief because there are material facts in dispute and because appellant has not demonstrated that it is entitled to relief as a matter of law. Rule 8(g). There are certainly disputed material facts concerning whether Property Maintenance actually made a mistake which would entitle it to relief, and Property Maintenance has not directed our attention to any evidence to establish that such a mistake, in fact, occurred or to demonstrate that such a mistake was of a type for which relief can be provided. Because the facts concerning the existence of a mistake are material to the outcome of this appeal, because there is a dispute as to whether a mistake occurred, and because it is disputed whether, if a mistake occurred, it would entitle Property Maintenance to relief, Property Maintenance's motion for summary relief is DENIED. ______________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge We concur: ______________________________ _______________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge Board Judge