Eastco Building Services, Inc.

Eastco Building Services, Inc. BNUMBER: B-265851; B-265851.2 DATE: December 29, 1995 TITLE: Eastco Building Services, Inc. ********************************************************************** Matter of:Eastco Building Services, Inc. File: B-265851; B-265851.2 Date: December 29, 1995 Robert M. Cambridge, Esq., for the protester. Cynthia S. Guill, Esq., Diane D. Hayden, Esq., and Patrick J. Coll, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest against agency's refusal to permit upward correction of firm's bid is denied where bidder's worksheets show that a mistake was made but do not establish the firm's intended bid for the allegedly omitted cost element. DECISION Eastco Building Services, Inc. protests the Department of the Navy's refusal to allow the firm to correct a mistake in its bid submitted in response to invitation for bids (IFB) No. N00187-94-B-8127, for the repair and maintenance of air conditioning equipment at various locations around Norfolk, Virginia. Eastco challenges the Navy's determination that the firm failed to establish its intended bid. We deny the protest. The IFB contained a total of 47 line items. For line item Nos. 0001 and 0002, which are the subject of Eastco's protest, bidders were required to submit prices for the performance of service calls that would require no more than 16 hours of labor and $250 in material costs; bidders were to submit lump-sum unit and extended prices for an estimated quantity of 200 service calls performed during regular business hours (item 0001) and separate lump-sum unit and extended prices for an estimated quantity of emergency service calls performed after regular business hours (item 0002). All but one of the remaining line items called for the performance of periodic tasks, such as monthly inspections or winter overhauls of particular equipment; bidders were required to submit lump-sum unit and extended prices for each of these other line items which included the cost of materials associated with performance of the required task. The remaining line item, No. 0024, was divided into 15 subline items which called for bidders to submit loaded hourly rates for various categories of labor; material costs associated with these services were not to be included in these rates, but instead were included as part of an IFB estimate of $700,000 for material costs under item 0024. In response to the contracting officer's request that it review its bid for possible mistakes, Eastco advised the agency that it had made a mistake in its calculations for line item Nos. 0001 and 0002. Eastco claimed that it did not include in its prices for these items the cost of materials required for the service calls, and based its bid instead on only the labor costs associated with the service calls. Eastco requested that it be permitted to adjust its bid upward to reflect an additional $250 per service call--that is, the maximum material cost for which the contractor would be responsible--for a total upward correction of $100,000 ($250 multiplied by the IFB's estimated 400 regular and emergency service calls). In support of its request for correction, Eastco submitted an "original worksheet" for the two items--two undated, handwritten sheets, along with two undated typewritten versions of the same calculations (Eastco included an original and typewritten worksheet for each of the line items in dispute). None of these worksheets, however, included the material costs of $250 per service call. Instead, they presented what Eastco claimed were the calculations of its loaded hourly rates for performing the service calls, including direct labor costs, travel, uniforms, equipment, payroll benefits, subcontractor costs, general and administrative (G&A) costs and profit. The agency concluded that Eastco's worksheets, while showing that the firm had made a mistake, did not clearly show its intended bid. The agency therefore made several requests for additional information. In response to the Navy's first request, Eastco again submitted two undated, handwritten worksheets and two typewritten worksheets, claiming that these were the same exhibits that had been previously submitted. An examination of this set of handwritten worksheets, however, shows that although they contain the same calculations as those appearing on the originally submitted handwritten worksheets, they are not copies of the same documents. This set of worksheets also did not include any provision for material costs. In responding to the Navy's second request for additional information, Eastco provided copies of computer-generated worksheets for all line items except Nos. 0001 and 0002.