Alpha Construction & Engineering, Inc.

B-261493 Oct 05, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Eleven bids were opened on May 10 at 3 p.m. Were as follows: Base Bid: Alpha Palmerco Gov't Estimate Line Item 1 $ 288. This resulted in a bid half of what was intended for that line item. [1] Palmerco's president then manually rounded the number on the spreadsheet for each line item and entered the rounded totals in the firm's bid. A sworn statement from the estimator who developed the cost per latrine to demonstrate that Palmerco was aware that building 640 had six latrines and that its labor and material costs for this building actually were based on a quantity of six latrines. The contracting officer concluded that there was adequate evidence of a mistake in Palmerco's. Including the computer disk from which the "recap" spreadsheet was developed. View Decision Matter of: Alpha Construction & Engineering, Inc. File: B-261493 Date: October 5, 1995 Agency properly allowed correction of mistake in apparent low bid where the record clearly shows the existence of the mistake and the intended bid. Attorneys DECISION We deny the protest. The solicitation's amended bid schedule consisted of six base line items (1 through 6) and two option line items (7 and 8). The line items correspond to buildings 632, 622, 624, 626, 628, 630, 620, and 640, respectively; each building has three latrines except building 640 (line item 8) which has six. The bidding schedule required bidders to enter prices for the basic line items, 1 through 6, a subtotal for the basic bid, and the total bid for line items 1 through 8. The solicitation stated that option prices would be included in the total evaluated price unless it would not be in the government's best interest. Eleven bids were opened on May 10 at 3 p.m., the date and time set for opening. Palmerco submitted the apparent low bid and Alpha submitted the next-low bid. The amounts bid by the two firms, and the government estimate, were as follows: Base Bid: Alpha Palmerco Gov't Estimate Line Item 1 $ 288,000 $ 289,000 $ 350,000 Line Item 2 $ 288,000 $ 289,000 $ 350,000 Line Item 3 $ 288,000 $ 289,000 $ 350,000 Line Item 4 $ 288,000 $ 289,000 $ 350,000 Line Item 5 $ 288,000 $ 289,000 $ 350,000 Line Item 6 $ 288,000 $ 289,000 $ 350,000 Total 1-6 $1,728,000 $1,734,000 $2,100,000 Options: Line Item 7 $ 288,000 $ 268,000 $ 350,000 Line Item 8 $ 719,000 $ 302,000 $ 840,000 Total 1-8 $2,735,000 $2,299,000 $3,290,000 In a May 12, 1995, letter to the agency, Palmerco advised that it had mistakenly omitted costs of $302,000 for a portion of the work under line item 8, and requested that it be permitted to correct its bid upward. In a sworn statement, the president of Palmerco explained that the mistake resulted from Palmerco's use of a computer "recap" spreadsheet. Specifically, he developed a formula in the spreadsheet program which multiplied the unit cost per latrine by the number of latrines in each building, and then added an amount for overhead and profit to each line item in the base bid (line items 1 through 6). He then developed a second spreadsheet formula for line item 8; in this formula, he incorrectly used a multiplier of three times the unit cost per latrine instead of six, the actual number of latrines in that building; this resulted in a bid half of what was intended for that line item. [1] Palmerco's president then manually rounded the number on the spreadsheet for each line item and entered the rounded totals in the firm's bid. Palmerco submitted this computer "recap" spreadsheet, its cost estimate, workpapers, and a sworn statement from the estimator who developed the cost per latrine to demonstrate that Palmerco was aware that building 640 had six latrines and that its labor and material costs for this building actually were based on a quantity of six latrines. The contracting officer concluded that there was adequate evidence of a mistake in Palmerco's, bid, but requested that the firm submit further evidence of the bid intended. In response, on May 17, Palmerco submitted all its original documents, including the computer disk from which the "recap" spreadsheet was developed, the solicitation drawings with the estimator's original annotations, and original supplier and subcontractor quotations. The contracting officer confirmed that the computer files retained a pre-bid date and time of "5/10/95 at 2:27:34PM," which was consistent with the sworn statements, and that the written quotes from Palmerco's suppliers and subcontractors similarly showed pre-bid opening dates and times and were based on the correct total quantity of 27 latrines. The contracting officer determined that Palmerco had provided clear and convincing evidence of the mistake and intended bid and recommended that correction be allowed.