Roy Anderson Corporation, B-292555; B-292555.2, October 10, 2003

Roy Anderson Corporation, B-292555; B-292555.2, October 10, 2003 TITLE: Roy Anderson Corporation, B-292555; B-292555.2, October 10, 2003 BNUMBER: B-292555; B-292555.2 DATE: October 10, 2003 ********************************************************************** Roy Anderson Corporation, B-292555; B-292555.2, October 10, 2003 Decision Matter of: Roy Anderson Corporation File: B-292555; B-292555.2 Date: October 10, 2003 William R. Purdy, Esq., Purdy & Germany, for the protester. Paul H. Sanderford, Esq., Pratt & Sanderford, for Emerson Construction Company, Inc., an intervenor. Joel R. Trautman, Esq., and William M. Brown, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where workpapers contain clear and convincing evidence that the low bidder mistakenly omitted an element of cost from its bid, the contracting agency properly permitted upward correction of the bid; even where the exact amount of the intended bid is not certain, determination to allow correction is reasonable where intended bid falls within a narrow range of uncertainty and would remain low after correction. DECISION Roy Anderson Corporation protests the award of a contract to Emerson Construction Company, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DACA63-03-B-0001, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for construction of barracks at Fort Hood, Texas. Roy Anderson contends that the agency improperly permitted Emerson to correct an alleged mistake in its bid. We deny the protest. The IFB was issued on April 28, 2003, and bid opening was held on June 12. Emerson submitted the apparent low bid of $35,574,639.50. Roy Anderson*s next low bid was $40,570,831. The government estimate for the project was $40,383,671. Emerson was asked to verify its bid, since it was substantially lower than the other bids received and the government estimate. Upon review of its bid and workpapers, Emerson discovered an error in the calculation of its subtotal price on a computerized spreadsheet; that incorrect subtotal price then served as the basis for certain price adjustments including bond and insurance costs, and fee. Emerson reported that it failed to include in its subtotal calculation the last in the series of item prices that were to constitute the subtotal price. Specifically, the subtotal price was to be recorded at cell number D160 of Emerson*s computerized worksheet and was supposed to include cell numbers D16 through D159. Emerson explained that one price (at cell number D159 covering certain electrical work) in the amount of $3,702,025 was mistakenly omitted from its subtotal calculation because, according to Emerson, it mistakenly keyed in cell number D158, rather than cell number D159, as the last item to be added. Emerson stated that, due to the omission of the electrical work item price at cell number D159, and its effect on the mark-up adjustments, its bid was mistakenly understated in the amount of $3,923,700. Emerson claimed that an upward correction of its bid for this amount was warranted and that its intended total bid price was $39,498,340. The agency reviewed Emerson*s workpapers and computerized bid documents and confirmed that, although the claimed amount of $3,702,025 was specifically listed in the firm*s spreadsheet for the electrical work at cell number D159, and should have been included in the spreadsheet*s subtotal price at cell number D160, the computerized spreadsheet*s subtotal formula mistakenly only called for the addition of cell numbers D16 through D158. The price listed at cell number D159, the last cell in the series to be added, therefore was not included in the firm*s spreadsheet calculation of the cell number D160 subtotal price. The agency concluded that Emerson had clearly and convincingly showed the basis of its mistake, and that its intended subtotal calculation and total bid price were to include the cell number D159 price. The agency also confirmed that the firm*s associated mark-up pricing followed the same methodology it had used for its original bid. The agency consequently permitted Emerson to upwardly correct its total bid price to the claimed intended bid amount of $39,498,340. An award was made to the firm at that amount. 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 S: 14.407-3(a). For upward correction of a low bid, workpapers, including records of computer-generated software spreadsheets, may constitute clear and convincing evidence if they are in good order and indicate the intended bid price, and there is no contravening evidence. Alpha Constr. & Eng*g, Inc., B-261493, Oct.