H.A. Sack Co., Inc., B-278359, January 20, 1998

B-278359 Jan 20, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The first CLIN was listed as the base bid. While the other two were listed as options. Payment bonds for each CLIN were separately priced as subCLINs. The IFB stated that no funds were available at the time the IFB was issued and that no award would be made until appropriated funds were available. When bids were opened on September 18. 000 was low. 942 was next low. Because both bids were significantly lower than the other submitted bids and lower than the government estimate of $3. It had confirmed that all of the elements of cost needed to develop its job estimate were listed on the spreadsheet. Had not been included in the column total that was calculated by the job estimate spreadsheet. View Decision Matter of: H.A. Sack Co., Inc. File: B-278359 Date: January 20, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION H.A. Sack Co., Inc. protests the award of a contract to MMT Enterprises, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DABT11-97-B-0011, issued by the Department of the Army for the replacement of a high temperature hot water distribution system in various buildings in Fort Gordon, Georgia, asserting that the Army improperly permitted MMT to correct a mistake in its low bid. We deny the protest. The IFB, issued on August 18, 1997, included three contract line item numbers (CLIN), one for each of three sets of buildings in which the high temperature hot water distribution system needed to be replaced; the first CLIN was listed as the base bid, while the other two were listed as options. Bid, performance, and payment bonds for each CLIN were separately priced as subCLINs. The Army reserved the right to make an award based on the base CLIN with or without either or both of the other two CLINs. The IFB stated that no funds were available at the time the IFB was issued and that no award would be made until appropriated funds were available. The Army received seven timely bids, including MMT's and Sack's. When bids were opened on September 18, MMT's total aggregate bid of $1,853,000 was low, while Sack's bid of $2,719,942 was next low. Because both bids were significantly lower than the other submitted bids and lower than the government estimate of $3,027,280, on that same day the contract specialist called both bidders and requested that MMT and Sack review their bids and verify their prices. Both bidders verified their prices, MMT on September 19 and Sack on September 18. On September 26, however, MMT notified the contracting officer that it had discovered a mistake in the formula contained in the Lotus 1-2-3 electronic spreadsheets used to develop the job estimate used to prepare MMT's bid. MMT explained that, when it verified its bid previously, it had confirmed that all of the elements of cost needed to develop its job estimate were listed on the spreadsheet; however, a subsequent, more careful review revealed that a number of cost elements, while listed on the spreadsheet, had not been included in the column total that was calculated by the job estimate spreadsheet. MMT now requested that it be allowed to correct its bid. In support of its request, MMT submitted a computer diskette containing a spreadsheet file dated 9/18/97 (the date of bid opening), along with a printout of the spreadsheet and a statement that these were the original documents that had been used in preparing MMT's bid. MMT also provided a new diskette and printout showing a revised spreadsheet file dated 9/25, reflecting the upward correction that MMT was requesting. The contracting officer reviewed MMT's documentation and concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the firm's claim of a mistake and to permit the requested upward correction to $2,239,000. This protest followed. Sack argues that MMT's initial verification of its bid constitutes evidence which contravenes MMT's subsequent claim of a bid mistake. In addition, Sack contends that there is no clear and convincing evidence of the intended bid, because the amount of the corrected bid does not match the amount of the corrected spreadsheets. The spreadsheets establish the job estimate upon which MMT based its bid, but must be converted through additional calculations to arrive at the intended bid amount; Sack argues that, because the end sheets showing these calculations were not in existence at the time of bid opening, they cannot provide clear and convincing evidence of the intended bid. 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 Sec. 14.407-3(a).