Bay Pacific Pipelines, Inc., Ranger Pipelines, Inc., and

B-265659 Dec 18, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest against agency decision to permit awardee to correct obvious error in unit price is denied where. An obviously erroneous unit price can be corrected to correspond to an extended price where the corrected unit price is the only reasonable interpretation of the bid. The solicitation provided that "[i]n the event there is a difference between a unit price and the extended total. The unit price will be held to be the intended bid.". The lowest of which was submitted by Klipper. Which the contracting officer determined was $2. Argues that Klipper's bid should have been calculated using the unit price submitted. The protest is without merit. An obviously erroneous unit price can be corrected to correspond to an extended price where the corrected unit price is the only reasonable interpretation of the bid. View Decision Matter of: Bay Pacific Pipelines, Inc., Ranger Pipelines, Inc., and F.W. Spencer & Son, a Joint Venture File: B-265659 Date: December 18, 1995 Protest against agency decision to permit awardee to correct obvious error in unit price is denied where, although the solicitation provided that unit prices would govern over extended prices in the event of a discrepancy, comparison of awardee's unit price and extended price to other prices received and the government estimate showed the nature of awardee's mistake--the inadvertent addition of a zero to its unit price--as well as the bid intended; an obviously erroneous unit price can be corrected to correspond to an extended price where the corrected unit price is the only reasonable interpretation of the bid. Attorneys DECISION Bay Pacific Pipelines, Inc., Ranger Pipelines, Inc., and F.W. Spencer & Son, Inc., a Joint Venture, protest the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to Klipper Construction Associates, Inc., under invitation for bids (IFB) No. N62472-95-B-0417, for utility reconfiguration work at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. Bay Pacific contends that the agency improperly permitted Klipper to correct a mistake in its bid. We deny the protest. The IFB required firms to provide both unit and extended prices for six line items, each of which included numerous subline items. The solicitation provided that "[i]n the event there is a difference between a unit price and the extended total, the unit price will be held to be the intended bid." This protest relates only to Klipper's pricing for subline item number 1f for an estimated quantity of 160 street lights. Klipper entered a unit price of $27,000 per street light and an extended price of $432,000 for item 1f, even though multiplying Klipper's unit price by 160 would result in an extended price of $4,320,000. After reviewing the bids, the lowest of which was submitted by Klipper, the contracting officer concluded that Klipper had made an error in its unit price for item 1f, and in particular, had inadvertently added an extra zero to its intended unit price, which the contracting officer determined was $2,700. The contracting officer based his conclusion on a comparison of Klipper's pricing for this item with the other bids received--with unit prices ranging from $2,055 to $3,240 and extended prices ranging from $328,800 to $518,400--and the government estimate, which had been calculated using a unit price of $2,055 and an extended price of $328,800. The contracting officer wrote to Klipper stating that he suspected a mathematical error in its pricing for item 1f. The contracting officer requested that Klipper either confirm the unit price or state that a mistake had been made; in the event Klipper alleged a mistake, he also requested that it provide a detailed explanation of how the mistake occurred and any documentation (such as Klipper's original bid worksheets) which might evidence the bid actually intended. In response, Klipper explained that an extra zero had been inadvertently added to its unit price for item 1f when Klipper's employee at the bid opening incorrectly transcribed the unit price received over the telephone. Klipper included a copy of the bid schedule it had used to prepare the bid, as well as copies of two subcontractor quotes showing unit prices of $3,300 and $1,675 for the work included in item 1f. Klipper explained that it had split the difference between these quotes and rounded off in arriving at its unit price of $2,700. Based on this confirmation from Klipper and his earlier conclusion that an error in the unit price had been made, the contracting officer permitted correction of Klipper's bid to reflect a unit price of $2,700 for item 1f. Bay Pacific, noting that the IFB provided that unit price would govern over extended price in the event of a discrepancy between the two, argues that Klipper's bid should have been calculated using the unit price submitted, which would result in an extended price of $4,320,000 for item 1f.