Si-Nor, Inc., B-288990, December 17, 2001

B-288990 Dec 17, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency reasonably denied firm's request for upward correction of bid where the protester's claim of mistake was based on workpapers that the agency reasonably found not to be in good order and that did not establish the intended bid. Three bids were received in response to the IFB by the July 18. The government estimate was $883. Was incorrectly read and typed as $12.50. Which was correct. 300 extension price was then included in the bid. The Vice President also stated that certain service charges were not included for two other line items. This type of error also occurred with respect to line item 0001AL where $35 was not added to the unit price of $350. Si-Nor asserted that the unit and extension prices were not correct for these two items. View Decision Si-Nor, Inc., B-288990, December 17, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Si-Nor, Inc. protests the denial of its request for upward correction of its low bid under invitation for bids (IFB) No. N62477-00-B-1052, issued by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command for refuse collection, recycling and disposal services at the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia. We deny the protest. Three bids were received in response to the IFB by the July 18, 2001, bid opening date. Si-Nor submitted the low bid of $726,522; Delmar Systems, Inc. submitted the next low bid of $969,673.58. The government estimate was $883,466.70. Agency Report (AR) encl. 2, Abstract of Offers. As relevant here, Si-Nor bid the work as follows: Line Item No. Annual Unit Price Total Price . Quantity 0001AA 62,140 $2.25 $139,815 0001AB 1,144 $12.50 $14,300 0001AC 5,200 $3.75 $19,500 0001AE 28,134 $12.50 $351,675 0001AJ 158 $350 $54,600 0001AL 130 $350 $45,500 AR encl. 3, Si-Nor's Bid. On September 3, the agency requested Si-Nor to confirm its bid. On September 4, Si-Nor's Vice President submitted a letter to the agency requesting a bid correction because he discovered "that my clerical staff made some errors." AR encl. 4, Si-Nor Request for Correction. Specifically, the Vice President stated that for line item 0001AB, his intended unit price of $17.50, was incorrectly read and typed as $12.50. According to the Vice President, the clerical staff crossed out on the worksheet his original extension in the amount of $20,020, which was correct, based on a unit price of $17.50, and entered $14,300. As shown above, the $14,300 extension price was then included in the bid. The Vice President further stated that the clerical staff made the same mistake on line item 0001AE and read and typed his $17.50 as $12.50 and changed the extension price to $351,675 in place of his intended extension price of $492,345. Id. The Vice President also stated that certain service charges were not included for two other line items. Specifically, for line item 0001AJ he wrote on his worksheet $350 with +40 in small print next to the unit price intending the clerical staff to add these two figures together prior to computing the extended amount. This type of error also occurred with respect to line item 0001AL where $35 was not added to the unit price of $350. As a result, Si-Nor asserted that the unit and extension prices were not correct for these two items. Based on these four errors, the protester requested a total upward correction from $726,522 to $883,702. The protester enclosed with its letter his original worksheets; a "Contract Cost Proposal" and revised bid schedule showing the alleged intended bid; and several subcontractor quotes. None of these documents were dated. The firm did not submit any sworn affidavits from the Vice President or the "clerical staff" employees who allegedly participated in the preparation of the worksheets or bid. The first of Si-Nor's two relevant worksheets is reproduced on the next page: [Image] After reviewing Si-Nor's submission, the agency concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish the amount of Si-Nor's intended bid. By letter dated September 22, the agency informed Si-Nor that the firm would not be permitted to correct its bid. The agency informed Si-Nor that it could be considered for award based on the prices originally submitted or that it could withdraw its bid. On September 25, Si-Nor filed this protest with our Office. 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, so long as the correction would not result in displacing one or more lower bids. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 14.407-3(a); Holmes Mech., Inc., B-281417, Jan. 13, 1999, 99-1 CPD Para. 6 at 2.