Merrick Construction Company, Inc.

B-270661 Apr 08, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency properly allowed correction of a mistake in bid by the low bidder where the existence of the mistake and the intended bid price were clear from the bidder's original bid preparation papers and the corrected bid remains significantly below the next low bid. Valley's was low at $5. Merrick's was second low at $6. The government estimate for the contract work was $6. Valley advised the agency that it had reviewed its bid after opening because it was substantially lower than the government estimate and the other bids received. A bidder who seeks upward correction of its bid price prior to award must submit clear and convincing evidence that a mistake was made. May constitute part of that clear and convincing evidence if they are in good order and indicate the intended bid price. View Decision Matter of: Merrick Construction Company, Inc. File: B-270661 Date: April 8, 1996 Agency properly allowed correction of a mistake in bid by the low bidder where the existence of the mistake and the intended bid price were clear from the bidder's original bid preparation papers and the corrected bid remains significantly below the next low bid. Attorneys DECISION Merrick Construction Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Valley Construction Company, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DACW38-95-B-0085, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for flood control equipment and services at various sites along the Mississippi River, asserting that the Corps improperly permitted Valley to correct a mistake in its low bid. We deny the protest. The IFB, issued on August 9, 1995, required the submission of prices for 31 line items and a total price. Of the seven bids received at bid opening on September 21, Valley's was low at $5,652,923; Merrick's was second low at $6,872,500. The government estimate for the contract work was $6,234,831. By letter dated September 25, Valley advised the agency that it had reviewed its bid after opening because it was substantially lower than the government estimate and the other bids received, and had discovered a mistake. Valley stated that its bid of $669,100 on line item No. 22, "Drainage Pumps," reflected the omission of $520,000 and requested permission to correct line item No. 22 to the intended $1,189,100 amount and to make a corresponding adjustment in its total bid price. A bidder who seeks upward correction of its bid price prior to award must submit clear and convincing evidence that a mistake was made, the manner in which the mistake occurred, and the intended price. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 14.407-3(a); Red Samm Constr., Inc., B-250891; B-250891.2, Feb. 25, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 178. Workpapers, including records of computer generated software spreadsheets/worksheets (hard copy printouts, computer disks, tapes or other software media), may constitute part of that clear and convincing evidence if they are in good order and indicate the intended bid price, and there is no contravening evidence. C Constr. Co., Inc., B-253198.2, Sept. 30, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 198. Whether evidence of the intended bid amount meets the clear and convincing evidence is a question of fact, and we will not question an agency's decision in this regard unless it lacks a reasonable basis. Lash Corp., 68 Comp.Gen. 232 (1989), 89-1 CPD para. 120; Tri-State Consultants, B-250700, Dec. 22, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 433. Here, in support of its request, Valley provided the Army with bid workpapers, consisting of its computer generated bid spreadsheet, its handwritten computation for the pumps and reducers under item No. 22 and other documentation, including copies of subcontractor quotes. With the workpapers, Valley submitted an explanation of how it made the mistake and sworn affidavits from those involved in the mistake and the preparation of the bid attesting to the authenticity of the submissions. In response to requests from the Army, Valley subsequently provided the agency with its complete bid file. Valley explained that its error resulted from its combined use of a computer spreadsheet and handwritten calculations. Specifically, although the bid schedule required a lump-sum bid price for item No. 22, Valley, for ease of calculation, divided items for line item No. 22 into two groups, including in the first group certain required 48 inch "O" pumps (2 each), speed reducers (2 each) and associated installation and, in the second group, a discharge pipe, couplings, expansion joints, formed suction intakes and siphon breaker assembly.