Circle, Inc., B-279896, July 29, 1998

B-279896 Jul 29, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that agency improperly denied firm's request for upward correction of mistaken bid is denied where agency reasonably found that discrepancies in the worksheets. The contracting officer notified Circle that the firm's bid was "lower than the Government Estimate (without profit) of $5. 169.68 and [was] considerably lower than that of the other bids received.". The letter requested that Circle "review [its] bid and specifications to ensure you understand what is required. The cost of a crane was included in only one work shift rather than two. The agency concluded there was insufficient proof of the alleged intended bid to justify correction. It is not clear that Circle ever intended to bid this item as anything other than a no cost bid. View Decision Matter of: Circle, Inc. File: B-279896 Date: July 29, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Circle, Inc. protests the denial of its request for upward correction of its low bid under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DACW29-98-B-0021, issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers for construction of a railroad bridge and associated work involved in flood control in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. We deny the protest. Circle submitted the low bid of $5,793,966. Agency Report (Rpt.) Exhibit (Exh.) 3. Souter Construction Company submitted the second low bid of $6,846,330. Id. By letter dated January 26, 1998, the contracting officer notified Circle that the firm's bid was "lower than the Government Estimate (without profit) of $5,927,169.68 and [was] considerably lower than that of the other bids received." Rpt. Exh. 12. The letter requested that Circle "review [its] bid and specifications to ensure you understand what is required," with "[p]articular attention . . . called to [line] item [No.] 0019," for removal of a railroad detour. Circle bid "-0-" for that item. Id. Circle responded by notarized letter of January 28 from its president that the firm had made mistakes in a number of bid items, and requested an upward correction in the amount of $677,997.60 (from $5,793,966 to $6,471,963.60). Rpt. Exh. 5. The firm claimed that labor and material costs had been omitted in line item No. 0019 and that a formula error in the markup of subcontractor bids occurred in line item Nos. 0009-0013, 0017-0018, and 0025-0027 with the use of [deleted] percent instead of [deleted] percent. Id. Additionally, the firm claimed that in line item No. 0003, the cost of a crane was included in only one work shift rather than two, as intended, and that standby time for the crane had been inadvertently omitted. Circle enclosed with its letter 35 bid preparation worksheets, one for each line item; spreadsheets for the original bid and alleged intended bid; and several subcontractor quotes. Id. The firm did not submit any sworn affidavits from employees who prepared the worksheets or bid form. After reviewing Circle's submission, the agency concluded that, although the firm provided reasonable evidence to show that a mistake had been made in line item No. 0003, /1/ the submitted worksheets and notarized letter did not clearly and convincingly show mistakes or the intended prices on the other line items, based on discrepancies and inconsistencies among the bid preparation documents. /2/ Rpt. Exh. 5 at 7. Consequently, the agency concluded there was insufficient proof of the alleged intended bid to justify correction. Id. By letter dated April 14, the agency informed Circle that the firm would not be permitted to correct its bid, but would be allowed to withdraw it. Rpt. Exh. 4. The agency submitted to Circle a detailed written analysis of the basis for denying correction on each line item and listed the most notable factors militating against correction as follows: [1.] The worksheet for Bid Item 19 contains some costs for labor and materials, but it is not clear that Circle ever intended to bid this item as anything other than a no cost bid. The worksheet does not reflect all the subcontractor credits which may be realized, and it is not clear why a $93,000 credit was used, rather than one or more of the credits proposed in the subcontractor quotes. [2.] [The] [w]orksheet . . . for Bid Item No. 3, contains markings added after bid opening, which detract from its credibility. The worksheet clearly called for one 10-hour shift . . . and did not call for standby time. [3.] No original calculations were furnished showing how markups were applied to the bid items where markup errors are alleged, and there is no pre-bid evidence showing the intended markup for "subcontractor" items. Our own calculations of markups generally do not support either the alleged mistakes or the intended bid. Many of the so-called "subcontractor" bid items appear to be contractor performed items. [4.] In general, the bid documents are not easy to follow or understand.