Stanley Contracting, Inc., B-282085, May 27, 1999

B-282085 May 27, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Intended bid was not sufficiently clear. LHK was the apparent low bidder at $1. It was estimated each crew could complete 1/3 of a mile per day. 1760 Feet (550 meters). It has been noticed that the crew costs were not multiplied by three to reflect the contractor's intent in bidding. Our unit cost should have been multiplied by 3 to reflect the actual cost per unit. . . . Attached to this letter was an undated handwritten document which purported to calculate the discrepancy. As well as any additional information that was available. LHK represented to the agency as follows: aA closer look indicates the error was not as dramatic as we thought. What was thought to be an error in all road obliteration items . . . was in fact a dropped feet-to-meter conversion in items 21104A through 21104E. View Decision Matter of: Stanley Contracting, Inc. File: B-282085 Date: May 27, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Stanley Contracting, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Lloyd H. Kessler, Inc. (LHK) under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DTFH70-98-B-00015, issued by the Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHA), for the repair of several sites damaged by high runoff and flooding and the obliteration of approximately 100 miles of roadway in Mt. Hood National Forest. Stanley asserts that the agency improperly permitted LHK to adjust its bid upward as a result of an alleged mistake. We sustain the protest. The agency received 10 bids by the November 17, 1998 deadline, and LHK was the apparent low bidder at $1,966,780.25. The contracting officer, by letter dated November 23, requested that LHK review its bid for possible mistakes, directing its attention to contract line item (CLIN) Nos. 21104A through 21104N, the roadway obliteration portion of the contract. By letter dated November 30, LHK asserted that it had made a mistake in calculating its bid for roadway obliteration, stating: The Contractor planned on working three separate crews, and it was estimated each crew could complete 1/3 of a mile per day. 1760 Feet (550 meters). Based on this the work would be completed in 100 working days. The Contractor calculated his costs on a "per crew" basis for three crews per 100 days. In our bid review, however, it has been noticed that the crew costs were not multiplied by three to reflect the contractor's intent in bidding. Our unit cost should have been multiplied by 3 to reflect the actual cost per unit. . . . We would like to withdraw our bid under these circumstances . . . . Attached to this letter was an undated handwritten document which purported to calculate the discrepancy, showing a difference of $956,924; adding this amount to LHK's bid would mean that Stanley's bid for $2,744,984 would displace it as the apparent low bid. /1/ In response to LHK's November 30 letter, the contracting officer, by letter dated December 1, stated that he needed to review LHK's original bid worksheets, as well as any additional information that was available, to determine the existence of the mistake alleged, and therefore the propriety of allowing LHK to withdraw its bid. By letter dated December 8, LHK represented to the agency as follows: aA closer look indicates the error was not as dramatic as we thought. What was thought to be an error in all road obliteration items . . . was in fact a dropped feet-to-meter conversion in items 21104A through 21104E. These items are associated with the demolition of paved roads. LHK's December 8 letter essentially stated that the firm had failed to convert a linear foot price to a linear meter price (that is, the firm used a unit price of cost-per-foot where it should have used cost-per-meter), thereby understating these costs by a factor of approximately three. Attached to this letter were several undated computer spreadsheets which LHK described as its "original" and "revised" bid sheets, allegedly showing the firm's calculations in initially preparing its bid and also showing its bid as corrected. By this letter, LHK requested that its bid be revised upward by $190,932.75 to $2,157,713. In response to this second letter, the contracting officer wrote to LHK yet again, on December 28, stating that he had further concerns with the firm's bid based on an examination of the tendered worksheets. First, the contracting officer noted that LHK's "cost per days" calculations were based on an 8-hour day, whereas its "feet per hour" calculations were based on a 9-hour day. Second, the heading in the bid worksheets for road demolition read "Road demolition costs for 3 excavators w. operators & support," whereas the "cost per days" column of the worksheets reflected calculations for one excavator, one operator and half a laborer.