DENIED: November 3, 2011 
CBCA 2362 
MERCHANTS AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 
Respondent. 
Gary J. Singer, Chairman of the Board of Merchants Automotive Group, Inc., 
Hooksett, NH, appearing for Appellant. 
Audrey H. Liebross, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
SHERIDAN , Board Judge. 
This dispute involves a purchase order for the lease of two 2011 Chevrolet Suburban 
automobiles issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to Merchants 
Automotive Group, Inc. (Merchants) through a GSA E-Buy. Merchants seeks additional 
annual rent of $15,588, alleging it based its quoted price of $15,588 per year on a per vehicle 
basis and FEMA leased two vehicles. The appellant elected to have this appeal processed 
under 
Board Rule 52, Small Claims Procedure, requiring a decision on the appeal within 120 
calendar days from receipt of the election. Under the small claims procedure “[t]he 
presiding judge may issue a decision, which may be in summary form, orally or in writing. 
. . . A decision shall be final and conclusive and shall not be set aside except in the case of 
fraud. A decision shall have no value as precedent.” 48 CFR 6101.52 (2011). The parties 
also elected to have this appeal processed under Board Rule 19, Submission on the Record 
Without a Hearing, and have each submitted briefs and relevant documents which have been 
admitted into the record.  48 CFR 6101.19. 

 
              
              
              
  
           
              
               
                
                 
             
              
   
           
              
                 
               
            
              
   
           
            
                 
              
            
             
               
               
               
           
    
    
                 
2 CBCA 2362 
Background 
In August 2010, FEMA advertised on GSA E-Buy for the lease of two 2011 Chevrolet 
Suburban 1500 LT 4x4s, or an equal product. The advertisement stated “FEMA has a 
requirement to lease two (2) SUVs for 36 months,” and then set forth the required 
specifications. 
Prior to award, various questions were asked and answered via email between 
Merchants and FEMA personnel. In some of those email messages FEMA referred to the 
vehicles that became the subject of this dispute in the singular, e.g., “Is there a navigational 
system in the vehicle?” In other questions the vehicles were referred to in the plural, e.g., 
“Also advise if you have the trucks in our preferred color of taupe gray metallic.” Most of 
Merchants’ answers were framed in the plural, e.g., “No the Suburbans do not have 
navigation . . . no reverse warning on these vehicles . . . delivery of both vehicles would be 
to DC.” 
Of the nine companies that FEMA invited to submit quotes, three, including 
Merchants’ Automotive Group, did so. Merchants quoted $1299 per month for a per annum 
price of $15,588 issued for the base year, plus the same amount for the two option years. 
Acme, the second low quoter, submitted a price of $1570 for two vehicles. Jefferson Leasing 
(Bancorp) submitted a quote of $784 per month which, through email messages, FEMA 
realized was a per vehicle price. To analyze its ranking, FEMA doubled Jefferson’s quote 
to $1568 per month. 
Merchants’ price constituted the low quote, which FEMA accepted by purchase order 
HSFEHQ-10-F-1118 issued to Merchants on August 19, 2010. The purchase order provided 
for the “[l]ease of 2 each 2011 Chevy Suburban 1500 LT 4x4,” for $15,558. “The total value 
of this order if all options are exercised is $46,764.00 for 36 months.” 
After Merchants delivered the vehicles on September 9, 2010, it billed FEMA for 
$1299 per vehicle per month. Upon receiving the first payment Merchants realized that 
FEMA was paying it $1299 per month for two vehicles. On September 29, 2010, Merchants 
called FEMA to discuss a possible modification to establish $1299 as the per vehicle price. 
According to Merchants, its E-Buy quoted price of $1299 was a per vehicle price. 
When the contracting officer refused to issue a modification, Merchants submitted a 
claim on March 8, 2011, seeking an additional $15,588 annual lease amount for the second 
vehicle.  The contracting officer denied the claim on March 16, 2011, although she offered 
to pay an additional $3227 per year per vehicle for the base and two option years. This 

 
               
    
          
           
             
             
              
           
              
              
                
                  
              
              
                
               
             
              
              
                
 
      
            
             
                
             
           
             
             
                
           
             
               
            
3 CBCA 2362 
would have brought Merchants’ payment up to the amount that would have been paid to the 
next low bidder. 
Merchants timely appealed the contracting officer’s final decision to the Civilian 
Board of Contract Appeals, where it was docketed as CBCA 2362. 
Discussion 
This appeal must be decided in accordance with the mistaken offer rules contained in 
the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). In pertinent part, FAR 14.407-4 provides that a 
mistake in a contractor’s bid not discovered until after award may be corrected if correcting 
the mistake would be favorable to the Government without changing the essential 
requirements of the specifications. If the contract is reformed to increase the price, the 
upward adjustment may not exceed that of the next lowest acceptable bid under the original 
invitation for bids. The contract may be reformed only on the basis of clear and convincing 
evidence that a mistake in bid was made. In addition, it must be clear that the mistake was 
mutual, or if unilaterally made by the contractor, so apparent as to have charged the 
contracting officer with notice of the probability of the mistake. 48 CFR 14.407-4(a)-(b). 
There is no evidence in the record that this was a mutual mistake. Merchants has not 
alleged mutual mistake. Therefore, the appeal must be analyzed as a unilateral mistake. To 
obtain post-award reformation relief from a unilateral mistake, the mistake must be a clear 
cut clerical or arithmetic error, or a misreading of specifications, and not a mistake in 
judgment. United States v. Hamilton Enterprises, Inc. , 711 F.2d 1038, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 1983); 
Aydin Corp. v. United States , 669 F.2d 681 (Ct. Cl. 1982). In addition, the bidder must 
establish that the Government either knew or should have known of the mistake at the time 
the offer was accepted. Bromley Contracting Co. v. United States , 794 F.2d 669 (Fed. Cir. 
1986); Wender Presses, Inc. v. United States , 343 F.2d 961 (Ct. Cl. 1965). 
Appellant has provided no evidence to support relief from the terms of this contract 
based on unilateral mistake. Its quote did not involve a clerical or arithmetic error and there 
is no indication that FEMA should have known of appellant’s mistake. The E-Buy 
advertisement and resultant purchase order clearly stated that FEMA’s requirement was to 
lease two SUVs for thirty-six months. The undisputed record discloses nothing more than 
a unilateral error of judgment, which arose out of appellant’s own unfounded assumption that 
the procurement was being made on a per vehicle basis. In such instances no relief is 
appropriate. See Satyadev Duggirala v. General Services Administration , CBCA 463, 07-1 
BCA ¶ 33,489, at 165,999 (citing McClure Electrical Constructors v. Dalton , 132 F.3d 709 
(Fed. Cir. 1997)). There is no evidence that the contracting officer should have realized that 
Merchants believed that the procurement was being made on a per vehicle basis. 

 
              
                
                
               
 
   
                                                        
  
 
4 CBCA 2362 
Other than inferring it is entitled to the requested $15,558 per year because its quoted 
price was based on one vehicle, Merchants has made no arguments that it is entitled to relief. 
Even if we accepted that Merchants based its quote on a per vehicle basis, we see no 
evidence that Merchants’ mistake falls within the criteria that would allow for the relief it has 
requested. 
Decision 
The appeal is DENIED . 
PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN 
Board Judge