Reliable Mechanical, Inc., B-282874.2, September 13, 1999

B-282874.2 Sep 13, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contract award for construction and repair services, contending that EPA improperly permitted the awardee to correct a mistake in its bid. GAO held that EPA reasonably permitted the awardee to correct its bid, since there was clear and convincing evidence establishing the existence of both a mistake and the bid intended. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Matter of: Reliable Mechanical, Inc. File: B-282874.2 Date: September 13, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Reliable Mechanical, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Cooper Construction, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. PR-CI-99-13375, issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for construction work. Reliable contends that EPA improperly permitted Cooper to correct a mistake in its bid. We deny the protest. The IFB covered interior Phase II renovations at selected laboratories, toilet rooms, stairways, and related mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection systems and for new main electrical panel boards and asbestos abatement at the EPA National Exposure Research Laboratory, Athens, Georgia. Agency Report, Tab D-1, Part 1. The IFB schedule delineated the work under, and requested separate fixed prices for, five line items entitled Base Bid Phase II, Add Option 1, Add Option 2, Add Option 3, and Add Option 4. RFP Sec. B, at B.1. The base bid item called for renovation and construction at Lab Nos. 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, and 258, including, but not limited to related mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection; Add Option 1 required new construction and renovations at Lab Nos. 259, 260, and 261; Add Option 2 called for new construction and renovations at Lab Nos. 250 and 251; Add Option 3 was for stair renovations; and Add Option 4 was for restroom renovations. Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. Four bids were received by bid opening. Cooper submitted the apparent low bid at $2,313,000, which was comprised of a base bid of $1,247,000 and option prices of $391,000, $217,000, $62,000, and $396,000, respectively. Reliable was next low with a bid of $2,718,000, which was comprised of a base bid of $1,995,000, and option prices of $297,000, $183,000, $61,000, and $182,000. The remaining bids were $2,789,400 and $2,802,615. Id. Because Cooper's base bid was significantly lower than the other bids and its Add Option 4 bid was significantly higher than the other bids, EPA requested Cooper to verify its bid. Cooper responded by acknowledging a mistake in bid, requesting an upward adjustment of $217,000, and furnishing EPA supporting documentation of the claimed mistake, which included copies of its original handwritten bid worksheets and an affidavit from the preparer explaining the nature of the mistake. Agency Report, Tab I. Cooper explained that it developed separate worksheets to correspond with each of the line items, which it stored in five separate folders, labeled consistent with the line items. In the folder created for Add Option 4 (entitled ALT.4 - Bathroom), Cooper mistakenly included page 4 of the worksheet for the base bid, which showed a total $396,000 for the base bid electrical work with supporting calculations, along with the worksheet for Add Option 4, which showed a total $217,000 with supporting calculations. Because page 4 of the base bid worksheets was placed over the intended worksheet for Add Option 4 in the folder, Cooper mistakenly bid $396,000 for Add Option 4, instead of including this amount in its base bid, and failed to bid $217,000 for Add Option 4. After reviewing Cooper's request, including the documentation in support, the EPA approved Cooper's request for correction, and made award at the revised amount to that firm. This protest followed. An agency may permit correction of a bid where clear and convincing evidence establishes both the existence of a mistake and the bid actually intended. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 14.407-3(a); Holmes Mechanical, Inc., B-281417, Jan. 13, 1999, 99-1 CPD Para. 6 at 2. Work papers, including handwritten worksheets, may constitute clear and convincing evidence if they are in good order and indicate the intended bid price, and there is no contravening evidence. Whether the evidence meets the clear and convincing standard is a question of fact and we will not question an agency's decision based on this evidence unless it lacks a reasonable basis. Holmes Mechanical, Inc., supra, at 2-3. In challenging the claimed mistake, Reliable does not directly attack the worksheets, which our review indicates are in good order and support the bid correction, or Cooper's explanation as to how the mistake occurred.