Gulf-Atlantic Constructors, Inc., B-289032, January 4, 2002

B-289032 Jan 04, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest challenging agency's decision to allow awardee to upwardly correct its low bid is denied where it was not unreasonable for the agency to conclude that the awardee had presented clear and convincing evidence of the claimed mistake and the intended bid. Bidders were required to submit unit prices for each of nine contract line item numbers (CLIN) (the base bid) and a subtotal base bid amount. Gulf-Atlantic's bid was second low. The CO noted that there was an apparent calculation error in Advance's base bid subtotal: when added correctly. The Army noted that Advance's total bid was more than 20 percent below the government's estimate. Explaining as follows: The wrong numbers were read from a printed spreadsheet when Bid Item Nos. 10. View Decision Gulf-Atlantic Constructors, Inc., B-289032, January 4, 2002 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Gulf-Atlantic Constructors, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Advance Construction Services, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DACA01-01-B-0003, issued by the U.S. Army Engineer District, Mobile, Alabama, to upgrade road access at Hurlburt Field Air Force Base, in Florida. Gulf-Atlantic argues that the Army improperly permitted Advance to make an upward correction of its apparent low bid. We deny the protest. The Army issued the IFB on May 14, 2001, contemplating the award of a fixed-price contract for the required services. Bidders were required to submit unit prices for each of nine contract line item numbers (CLIN) (the base bid) and a subtotal base bid amount; unit and subtotal prices for each of three option items; and a grand total price. Agency Report (AR) exh. 4.G, IFB Schedule. Four firms, including the protester and the awardee, submitted bids by the time set on August 14, 2001. Total bid prices ranged from $5,163,920 to $8,695,227; Advance submitted the apparent low bid, and Gulf-Atlantic's bid was second low. The following table shows the prices Advance and Gulf-Atlantic submitted and the independent government estimate (IGE): CLIN Advance Gulf-Atlantic IGE 1 $2,445,000 $2,591,645 $2,523,032 2 28,000 21,200 26,312 3 45,000 39,660 49,207 4 45,000 52,720 48,534 5 825,000 1,025,550 1,184,414 6 65,000 8,600 6,266 7 400,000 240,885 143,257 8 145,000 62,000 263,990 9 15,000 15,490 11,047 Subtotal $4,113,000 $4,057,750 $4,256,059 Option 1 10 $375,000 $1,528,890 $1,112,441 11 36,000 28,800 33,213 Subtotal $411,000 $1,557,690 $1,145,654 Option 2 12 533,920 $1,743,405 $1,586,209 13 18,000 10,735 13,019 Subtotal $551,920 $1,754,140 $1,599,228 Option 3 14 175,000 281,765 213,453 15 13,000 6,365 48,534 Subtotal $188,000 $288,130 $ 261,987 Options $1,150,920 $3,599,960 $3,006,869 Subtotal Grand $5,163,920 $7,657,710 $7,262,928 Total AR exh. E, Bid Abstract; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District Webpage at http://www.sam.usace.army.mil. The contracting officer (CO) suspected a mistake in Advance's bid. In particular, the CO noted that there was an apparent calculation error in Advance's base bid subtotal: when added correctly, CLINs 1-9 totaled $4,013,000, rather than $4,113,000, as Advance had entered as its base bid subtotal. Pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 14.407, the Army requested that Advance verify all line items and its total bid amount. AR exh. F, Letter To Advance from Mobile District Chief, Arch.-Eng'g (A-E) & Constr. Branch, Aug. 16, 2001. In that letter, the Army noted that Advance's total bid was more than 20 percent below the government's estimate, and significantly lower than Gulf-Atlantic's second-low bid ($7,657,710) and the third-low bid ($7,948,000). In response to the Army's verification request, Advance claimed that it had made a mistake in its bid, explaining as follows: The wrong numbers were read from a printed spreadsheet when Bid Item Nos. 10, 12, and 14 were written on the face of the bidding schedule included with our bid. A spreadsheet workpaper was used which only included the pricing for the subcontractors and suppliers for those items. Those workpapers were mistakenly used rather than the workpapers that contained the total price for those line items and which were included in the spreadsheet. AR exh. D, Advance Letter to Chief, A-E Constr. Branch, Aug. 17, 2001, at 1. In support of its request for correction, Advance submitted affidavits from Advance's Project Manager (PM), who was responsible for estimating Advance's bid, and from Advance's Office Manager (OM). Advance also provided copies of eight separate Microsoft/Excel spreadsheets containing the calculations and the subtotal price for the base bid (spreadsheet No. 1); the calculations and subtotal prices for CLINs 10, 12, and 14 for the three option items (spreadsheet Nos.