Connecticut Laminating Company, Inc., B-274949.2, December 13, 1999

B-274949.2 Dec 13, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency determination to permit bidder to correct a mistake in its low bid prior to award was proper where the agency reasonably determined that clear and convincing evidence established the existence of the mistake and the intended bid price. Even though the bidder did not submit workpapers showing how it prepared its bid but only a declaration explaining how the mistake was made and the intended bid. 2. Bid which did not include any reference to a bid acceptance period should be construed to be open for a reasonable period of time and is acceptable where the solicitation. Connecticut Laminating contends that the bid submitted by GBC in response to the solicitation should have been rejected by the agency as nonresponsive and that the agency improperly permitted GBC to make an upward correction to its bid price. View Decision Matter of: Connecticut Laminating Company, Inc. File: B-274949.2 Date: December 13, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Connecticut Laminating Company, Inc. protests the intended award of a contract to General Binding Corporation (GBC) under solicitation No. B296-S, issued by the Government Printing Office (GPO). Connecticut Laminating contends that the bid submitted by GBC in response to the solicitation should have been rejected by the agency as nonresponsive and that the agency improperly permitted GBC to make an upward correction to its bid price. We deny the protest. The solicitation sought bids for the production and supply of identification card components. The solicitation included a "schedule of prices," which contained two line items; one for "cardstock" and another for "laminate sleeve." Solicitation at 17. Prices were requested for each of these line items for "makeready and/or setup" and "running per 1,000 copies." Id. The solicitation informed bidders that in preparing their bids, they were to complete the schedule of prices by inserting prices or NC (no charge) for the four items of work requested. Id. The solicitation stated that the lowest bid would be determined by multiplying the prices offered by the agency's estimate that during each year of the contract it would order 20 cardstock and 20 laminate sleeve "makeready and/or setup," and 5,000 cardstock and 5,000 laminate sleeve production runs. Id. at 15. The solicitation's instructions for bid submission required bidders to fill out the schedule of prices and to submit signed copies of the completed "Schedule of Prices . . . or copies of the GPO Form 910 "Bid' form" to the agency. Id. at 17. The solicitation package did not, however, include a Form 910 for the bidders to complete. The solicitation added that bids could be submitted by facsimile machine, and that bid opening would be at 11 a.m. on August 23, 1999. Id. at 1. The agency received three bids by the time set for bid opening. Agency Report, Tab C, Abstract of Bids. GBC submitted its initial bid, comprised of a cover sheet identifying the solicitation and a signed and completed bid schedule, by facsimile that was received by the agency at 10:53 a.m. on August 23. GBC's bid included entries of "NC" for the makeready or set up work, and prices of $170 and $200 for the cardstock and laminate sleeve production run line items, respectively, for a total bid of $1,850,000. Agency Memorandum of Law, Oct. 28, 1999, at 4; Agency Report, Tab K, GBC Initial Bid. At 10:59 a.m., the agency received a "revised" bid from GBC, which differed from GBC's initial bid in that the prices for each of the production run line items were listed as $17 and $20, for a total bid of $185,000. Agency Memorandum of Law, Oct. 28, 1999, at 4; Agency Report, Tab B, GBC's Revised Bid. GBC's bids did not include a Form 910. Connecticut Laminating's bid, comprised of a completed schedule of prices and Form 910, totaled $1,899,000, and the third bid totaled $2,100,000. Agency Report, Tab C, Abstract of Bids. The agency contacted GBC by telephone on August 25 because it believed that GBC's revised bid was in error. Agency Report, Tab E, Memorandum from Contracting Officer to Chairman, Contract Review Board 1 (Sept. 27, 1999). GBC responded by letter dated August 26, informing the agency that in its "haste" it had "managed . . . to miscount the decimals the second time around on our cost to the 1000 piece offer" and that its initial bid price "is the one that stands." Agency Report, Tab D, Letter from GBC to GPO 1 (Aug. 26, 1999). The letter added by way of explanation that "[s]hortly after faxing the bid, [GBC] did, however, call [GPO] in the Bid Room, telling [GPO] about the erroneous revision." Id. The contracting officer subsequently requested and received a declaration from GBC setting forth in more detail the sequence of events that led to the mistake in preparing the revised bid. Agency Report, Tab E, attach., Affidavit of the Preparer of GBC's Bid.