Dynalectric Company

B-265762.2 Feb 15, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where a low bidder alleging a mistake after bid opening does not clearly show that its intended bid would have remained low in all circumstances because of uncertainties in estimating the omitted cost. The contractor was required to perform "core borings" in two locations to allow conduits to cross beneath the airfield taxiways. [1] The IFB did not specify the length of core boring required. Bidders were to determine the length themselves from scaled drawings. The three lowest bids received at bid opening and the government's estimate were the following: Helix Electric $2. Dynalectric contended that the subcontractor's estimated lengths of 290 l.f. and 125 l.f. were "outer range estimate[s]" for two different sizes of borings and do not reflect the actual boring length required. View Decision Matter of: Dynalectric Company File: B-265762.2 Date: February 15, 1996 Where a low bidder alleging a mistake after bid opening does not clearly show that its intended bid would have remained low in all circumstances because of uncertainties in estimating the omitted cost, the agency properly rejected the bid without permitting the bidder to waive the mistake. Attorneys DECISION Dynalectric Company protests the award of a contract to Steiny & Company under invitation for bids (IFB) No. N68711-93-B-1444 issued by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command for airfield communication and electrical system infrastructure upgrades at the Marine Corps Air Station, Camp Pendleton, California. We deny the protest. The IFB sought lump-sum prices for the construction of concrete ductbanks, including manholes, handholes, and conduits to support the communication and electrical system at the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Air Station. Detailed specifications and drawings described the required construction work. Among other things, the contractor was required to perform "core borings" in two locations to allow conduits to cross beneath the airfield taxiways. [1] The IFB did not specify the length of core boring required; rather, bidders were to determine the length themselves from scaled drawings. The three lowest bids received at bid opening and the government's estimate were the following: Helix Electric $2,949,000 Dynalectric $3,444,995 Steiny $3,514,900 Estimate $5,216,385 The Navy permitted Helix to withdraw its bid after bid opening because of a mistake and then asked Dynalectric to verify its bid. Dynalectric initially informed the Navy that it had failed to obtain a subcontractor quotation of approximately $55,000 to $60,000 for the two core borings required under the "Underground Electrical Work" specification and asked permission to withdraw its bid. The Navy requested that, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 14.407-3 (FAC 90-29), Dynalectric identify the nature and cause of the mistake claimed and provide its original bid worksheets. Dynalectric responded that it no longer intended to withdraw its bid or to seek any adjustment to its original bid price, but would perform at the price bid. In this regard, Dynalectric informed the Navy that it had discovered that its bid also had inadvertently charged sales tax twice for the same item and that it could otherwise lower its material costs; these "offsetting savings" allegedly mitigated Dynalectric's omission of any costs for performing the core borings. In response to the agency's renewed request, Dynalectric provided the agency with its bid worksheets, which do not show any entries or calculations for the core borings, and post-bid opening quotes from a proposed subcontractor for the core borings. Dynalectric's subcontractor's quote contains two entries: one for a bore of 290 linear feet (l.f.) at $225 per l.f., and the other for a bore of 125 l.f. at $225 per l.f. The subcontractor later reduced the price to $190 per l.f. for both estimates. Dynalectric informed the agency that, in Dynalectric's view, its proposed subcontractor overestimated the length of the core borings required; specifically, Dynalectric contended that the subcontractor's estimated lengths of 290 l.f. and 125 l.f. were "outer range estimate[s]" for two different sizes of borings and do not reflect the actual boring length required, and that the price will depend on the actual length of core boring performed. To calculate its omitted cost, Dynalectric multiplied its own estimates of the length of the core borings required, which are 200 l.f. and 63 l.f., respectively, for a total of 263 feet, by the $190 per l.f. price, and by a percentage markup and bond premium, for a core boring estimate of $52,792.