Gellner v. Depaerment of the Army

595 F.2d 1125, 26 Cont. Cas. Fed. 83,184
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMarch 21, 1979
DocketNo. 78-1743
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 595 F.2d 1125 (Gellner v. Depaerment of the Army) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gellner v. Depaerment of the Army, 595 F.2d 1125, 26 Cont. Cas. Fed. 83,184 (8th Cir. 1979).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Gellner appeals from the District Court’s 1 dismissal of his complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the government improperly rejected his bid for government property and accepted a bid that was unresponsive to the bid invitation. We affirm on the basis of the district court’s well-reasoned memorandum opinion.

The Department of the Army, Omaha District, Corps of Engineers invited bids on excess government property related to the Safeguard Missile System located in North Dakota. The property was offered for sale to the highest bidder, and the bid form was designed to enable the government to accept bids for the property from various bidders on individual items or from a single bidder on a lump sum basis, whichever amount was greater. The form listed seven items; one through six were separate items of property and item seven was “All of the above salvageable property as described in Items Nos. 1 through 6.”

The successful bidder bid only on item seven. This bid was the highest bid on item seven and also exceeded the sum of the highest bids received for each individual item. This bid was responsive to the Invitation for Bids, which clearly and unambiguously contemplated a lump sum bid by designating it as a separate item, and the government acted properly in accepting it as the highest bid. Appellant’s total bid was $80,400.00 lower than that of the successful bidder, and there is no merit to his contention that he should have been awarded contracts on some of the individual items of property.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gellner v. Department of Army
595 F.2d 1125 (Eighth Circuit, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
595 F.2d 1125, 26 Cont. Cas. Fed. 83,184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gellner-v-depaerment-of-the-army-ca8-1979.