Construction Technology Group, Inc., B-283857, January 18, 2000

B-283857 Jan 18, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The requirements in the bid schedule were delineated in numerous detailed specifications and plans/details as shown in the contract. Award was to be made based on the low price for the base bid and all options. Bids were opened September 8. Kokolakis's bid was low at $4. While Construction Technology's was second low at $4. On a line designated "site work package" on its spreadsheet were omitted from the column totals calculated on the spreadsheet for the base and option items. Kokolakis submitted an affidavit in which it explained how the mistake was made and attached the following computer-generated documents: (1) the original bid spreadsheet. Reflecting the upward correction that Kokolakis was requesting. View Decision Matter of: Construction Technology Group, Inc. File: B-283857 Date: January 18, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Construction Technology Group, Inc. protests the agency's decision to permit an upward correction of the low bid of J. Kokolakis Contracting, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DACAS01-99-B-0042, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for dining facility construction at MacDill Air Force Base (AFB) in Florida. We deny the protest. The IFB contained a bid schedule that required bidders to submit prices on eight items, including five base items and three option items. IFB at BS-1. The requirements in the bid schedule were delineated in numerous detailed specifications and plans/details as shown in the contract. Award was to be made based on the low price for the base bid and all options. IFB at BS-2. The Corps received eight bids, including Construction Technology's and Kokolakis's. Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, South Atlantic Acting Division Counsel's Statement (SAADCS), at 1. Bids were opened September 8, 1999; Kokolakis's bid was low at $4,242,500, while Construction Technology's was second low at $4,693,000. Id. By letter of September 20, Kokolakis notified the agency that it had discovered a mistake in its bid resulting from the formula contained in the computer-generated spreadsheet used to develop its bid. AR, Tab D, Letter from Kokolakis to Mobile District Contracting Division 1 (Sept. 20, 1999). Specifically, Kokolakis stated that three prices--one each for the base bid and two option items--on a line designated "site work package" on its spreadsheet were omitted from the column totals calculated on the spreadsheet for the base and option items. Id. Kokolakis requested that it be allowed to correct its bid in the amount of $330,500. In support of its request, Kokolakis submitted an affidavit in which it explained how the mistake was made and attached the following computer-generated documents: (1) the original bid spreadsheet; (2) the revised bid spreadsheet, reflecting the upward correction that Kokolakis was requesting; (3) the formulas used in calculating its bid in its original bid spreadsheet; (4) the application of the formulas used in calculating the bid in its revised bid spreadsheet; and (5) Kokolakis's cost estimates for the labor and materials included under the "site work package" line item on the spreadsheet. AR, Tab D, Affidavit of Awardee, at 1-2, and Exhs. 1-5, Spreadsheets of Awardee. The contracting officer reviewed this documentation and concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the firm's claim of a mistake in the amount of $330,500. Upward correction thus was permitted in that amount. AR, Tab 6, SAADCS, at 7. Award then was made to Kokolakis for the base bid only on September 30, in the amount of $4,257,000. AR, Tab 2, Contracting Officer's Statement, at 2. Construction Technology challenges the correction, maintaining that the evidence furnished by Kokolakis is not sufficient to support the correction. Protester's Comments at 1, 4. A bidder seeking upward correction of its bid price prior to award must submit clear and convincing evidence of the claimed mistake and the intended price. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 14.407-3(a). Workpapers, including records of computer-generated software spreadsheets/worksheets (hard copy printouts, computer disks, tapes or other software media), may constitute part of that clear and convincing evidence if they are in good order and indicate the intended bid price, and there is no contravening evidence. H.A. Sack Co., Inc., B-278359, Jan. 20, 1998, 98-1 CPD Para. 27 at 2. Whether the evidence meets this standard is a question of fact, and we will not question an agency's decision in this regard unless it lacks a reasonable basis. Id. at 3. The Corps reasonably determined that the evidence clearly established both the existence of the alleged mistake and the amount of the intended bid, and that correction therefore was warranted. First, as for the mistake, Kokolakis's original spreadsheet shows that the prices for the "site work package" line item were not included in the column totals.