Reynosa Construction, Inc., B-278364, December 15, 1997

B-278364 Dec 15, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Four bids were received by the September 24. 424 was lowest of the four. 000 was second low. The government estimate for the work was $317. Telephoned the agency after bid opening and was told that his company was the apparent low bidder with a bid of $188. Bublitz responded that this was not his company's bid. Bublitz was advised that if an error existed. Such a determination shall not be made unless the existence of the mistake and the bid actually intended are ascertainable substantially from the invitation and the bid itself. Reynosa contends that Elkhorn displaced it as the bidder in line for award when it was permitted to correct its bid since Elkhorn's bid. Was so far out of line with the other bids and the government estimate that the agency could not have accepted it. View Decision Matter of: Reynosa Construction, Inc. File: B-278364 Date: December 15, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Reynosa Construction, Inc. protests the decision of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to allow Elkhorn Construction, L.L.C. to make an upward correction in its low bid under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DACA63-97-B- 0059, for construction of a loading ramp and parking lot extension at the Marine Corps Reserve Center in Amarillo, Texas. We deny the protest. The IFB asked bidders for a single lump-sum price for the construction work. Four bids were received by the September 24, 1997, opening date. Elkhorn's bid of $188,424 was lowest of the four; Reynosa's bid of $383,000 was second low. The government estimate for the work was $317,170. Elkhorn's manager, Jerry Bublitz, telephoned the agency after bid opening and was told that his company was the apparent low bidder with a bid of $188,424. Mr. Bublitz responded that this was not his company's bid, and immediately faxed to the agency copies of Elkhorn's computer worksheets for this solicitation and for a second solicitation issued by the same contracting office, IFB No. DACA63-97-B-0021, for construction work at the Marine Corps Reserve Center in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, for which his company had also submitted a bid on September 24. Mr. Bublitz explained that he had been preparing his company's bids on the two projects simultaneously, and that in hastening to complete the two bid schedules, he had inadvertently entered the bid price from his working papers for IFB No. -0021 on the bid schedule for IFB No. -0059, and the bid price from his working papers for IFB No. -0059 on the bidding schedule for IFB No. - 0021. Mr. Bublitz was advised that if an error existed, Elkhorn should ask either to withdraw its bid or to correct it. Elkhorn subsequently submitted a request that it be permitted to correct its bid amount from $188,424 to $362,670. In an affidavit accompanying the request, Mr. Bublitz explained in greater detail how he had interchanged the two bid schedules. Mr. Bublitz noted that, since both IFBs required the submission of a copy of the bid with the original, he had sent his office manager out to make copies of the bid forms. When the office manager returned the forms to him, he had placed the bid form pertaining to IFB No. -0059 on the bid package pertaining to IFB No. - 0021, and the bid form pertaining to IFB No. -0021 on the bid package pertaining to IFB No. -0059. As a result, he had entered the sum that he intended to bid for IFB No. -0059--i.e., $362,670--on the form pertaining to IFB No. -0021, and the sum that he had intended to bid for IFB No. - 0021--i.e., $188,424--on the form pertaining to IFB No. -0059. The work papers submitted support Mr. Bublitz's claim in that they show an intended bid of $188,427 for the Broken Arrow project [1] and an intended bid of $362,670 for the Amarillo project. The bid abstract pertaining to IFB No. -0021 also supports Mr. Bublitz's claim in that it shows that the agency received a bid of $362,670 from Elkhorn. The agency determined that Elkhorn had submitted clear and convincing evidence that a mistake had been made, the manner in which it occurred, and of the bid actually intended. It therefore permitted Elkhorn to correct the amount of its bid. Reynosa's protest to our Office followed. Reynosa first argues that the agency improperly relied on evidence outside of Elkhorn's bid in deciding to allow correction of the bid. In this regard, the applicable Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision, FAR Sec.