PCL Constructors Canada, Inc.

B-274697 Dec 24, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The protester contends that the agency improperly allowed Axor to correct a mistake in its bid before awarding the contract to it and that Axor's bid should have been rejected. No individual line item prices were required. The contract was to be awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid was the lowest-priced for the basic work only. Seven bids were received and opened on August 27. 000 [1] was the apparent low bid. 000 was the apparent second-low bid. The independent government estimate was $65. Because Axor's bid was significantly lower than the next-low bid and the government estimate. Contracting officials met with Axor's representatives who explained what the mistake was and how it occurred. View Decision Matter of: PCL Constructors Canada, Inc. File: B-274697 Date: December 24, 1996 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION PCL Constructors Canada, Inc. (PCL) protests award of a firm, fixed-price contract to Axor Engineering Construction Group, Inc. (Axor) by the Department of State pursuant to invitation for bids (IFB) No. S-FBOAD-96-B-0001, for construction of the new United States Embassy Chancery building in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. The protester contends that the agency improperly allowed Axor to correct a mistake in its bid before awarding the contract to it and that Axor's bid should have been rejected. We deny the protest. Issued on June 21, 1996, the IFB requested bids for the basic work (i.e., construction of a four-story chancery office building) and for an alternate item (i.e., construction of pedestrian steps adjacent to the chancery office building). The IFB required bidders to submit a price for the basic project as well as a price for the alternate item; no individual line item prices were required. The contract was to be awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid was the lowest-priced for the basic work only. Seven bids were received and opened on August 27. Axor's bid of $50,700,000 [1] was the apparent low bid; PCL's bid of $57,367,000 was the apparent second-low bid; the independent government estimate was $65,765,835. Because Axor's bid was significantly lower than the next-low bid and the government estimate, the contracting officer asked Axor to verify its bid price. Axor responded that it had made a mistake in its bid. Contracting officials met with Axor's representatives who explained what the mistake was and how it occurred. Basically, Axor stated that it made a mistake when it attempted to substitute one subcontractor's quote for another's. Contracting officials also examined Axor's bid worksheets (i.e., computer-generated spreadsheets), subcontractor quotations used by Axor in calculating its bid, a statement describing its employees' bid- related activities and the manner in which the bid error occurred, and a supporting affidavit from Axor's president explaining various notations on the bid worksheets, and obtained a legal opinion from a State Department attorney. Ultimately, agency officials determined that Axor had, in fact, made a mistake and allowed the firm to correct its bid upward to $54,450,000 before awarding the contract to the firm on September 12. Shortly thereafter, PCL filed this protest. PCL protests that the agency unreasonably permitted Axor to correct the alleged mistake because there was no clear evidence that a mistake was made or what price Axor actually intended to bid if, in fact, a mistake was made. PCL asserts that it is difficult to determine the precise nature of any mistake that may have occurred because neither the original bid price nor the corrected price can be traced to any numbers contained in Axor's bid worksheets. The protester also contends that Axor may not have intended to substitute one subcontractor's quote for the other's, as Axor alleges it intended, because the quotes are not for identical work. [2] An agency may allow upward correction of a low bid before award where there is clear and convincing evidence establishing both the existence of the mistake and the intended bid. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 14.407-3; Vrooman Constructors, Inc., B-218610, Oct. 2, 1985, 85-2 CPD Para. 369. Whether the evidence meets this standard is a question of fact, and our Office will not question an agency's decision based on this evidence unless it lacks a reasonable basis. Maple Constr. Co., Inc., B-270073, Feb. 6, 1996, 96-1 CPD Para. 43. Workpapers, including computer-generated spreadsheets, may constitute clear and convincing evidence if they are in good order and indicate the intended bid price, and there is no contravening evidence. Id. An agency may also consider statements from the bidder explaining the entries on the workpapers, how the mistake occurred, and the actual intended price. See, e.g., Pipeline Constr., Inc., 73 Comp.Gen. 228 (1994), 94-2 CPD Para. 21.