BNUMBER:  B-265659
DATE:  December 18, 1995
TITLE:  Bay Pacific Pipelines, Inc., Ranger Pipelines, Inc., and
F.W. Spencer & Son, a Joint Venture

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Bay Pacific Pipelines, Inc., Ranger Pipelines, Inc., and       
          F.W. Spencer & Son, a Joint Venture

File:     B-265659

Date:   December 18, 1995

Robert J. Sciaroni, Esq., and Andrew N. Cook, Esq., Bell, Boyd & 
Lloyd, for the protester.
Douglas L. Patin, Esq., and Robert J. Symon, Esq., Spriggs & 
Hollingsworth, for Klipper Construction Associates, Inc., an 
interested party.
Lucie J. McDonald, Esq., Cynthia S. Guill, Esq., and Christopher 
Bellomy, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Scott H. Riback, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest against agency decision to permit awardee to correct obvious 
error in unit price is denied where, although the solicitation 
provided that unit prices would govern over extended prices in the 
event of a discrepancy, comparison of awardee's unit price and 
extended price to other prices received and the government estimate 
showed the nature of awardee's mistake--the inadvertent addition of a 
zero to its unit price--as well as the bid intended; an obviously 
erroneous unit price can be corrected to correspond to an extended 
price where the corrected unit price is the only reasonable 
interpretation of the bid.

DECISION

Bay Pacific Pipelines, Inc., Ranger Pipelines, Inc., and F.W. Spencer 
& Son, Inc., a Joint Venture, protest the Department of the Navy's 
award of a contract to Klipper Construction Associates, Inc., under 
invitation for bids (IFB) No. N62472-95-B-0417, for utility 
reconfiguration work at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard.  Bay Pacific 
contends that the agency improperly permitted Klipper to correct a 
mistake in its bid.

We deny the protest.

The IFB required firms to provide both unit and extended prices for 
six line items, each of which included numerous subline items.  The 
solicitation provided that "[i]n the event there is a difference 
between a unit price and the extended total, the unit price will be 
held to be the intended bid."

This protest relates only to Klipper's pricing for subline item number 
1f for an estimated quantity of 160 street lights.  Klipper entered a 
unit price of $27,000 per street light and an extended price of 
$432,000 for item 1f, even though multiplying Klipper's unit price by 
160 would result in an extended price of $4,320,000.  After reviewing 
the bids, the lowest of which was submitted by Klipper, the 
contracting officer concluded that Klipper had made an error in its 
unit price for item 1f, and in particular, had inadvertently added an 
extra zero to its intended unit price, which the contracting officer 
determined was $2,700.  The contracting officer based his conclusion 
on a comparison of Klipper's pricing for this item with the other bids 
received--with unit prices ranging from $2,055 to $3,240 and extended 
prices ranging from $328,800 to $518,400--and the government estimate, 
which had been calculated using a unit price of $2,055 and an extended 
price of $328,800.

The contracting officer wrote to Klipper stating that he suspected a 
mathematical error in its pricing for item 1f.  The contracting 
officer requested that Klipper either confirm the unit price or state 
that a mistake had been made; in the event Klipper alleged a mistake, 
he also requested that it provide a detailed explanation of how the 
mistake occurred and any documentation (such as Klipper's original bid 
worksheets) which might evidence the bid actually intended.  In 
response, Klipper explained that an extra zero had been inadvertently 
added to its unit price for item 1f when Klipper's employee at the bid 
opening incorrectly transcribed the unit price received over the 
telephone.  Klipper included a copy of the bid schedule it had used to 
prepare the bid, as well as copies of two subcontractor quotes showing 
unit prices of $3,300 and $1,675 for the work included in item 1f.  
Klipper explained that it had split the difference between these 
quotes and rounded off in arriving at its unit price of $2,700.  Based 
on this confirmation from Klipper and his earlier conclusion that an 
error in the unit price had been made, the contracting officer 
permitted correction of Klipper's bid to reflect a unit price of 
$2,700 for item 1f.

Bay Pacific, noting that the IFB provided that unit price would govern 
over extended price in the event of a discrepancy between the two, 
argues that Klipper's bid should have been calculated using the unit 
price submitted, which would result in an extended price of $4,320,000 
for item 1f.  Further, Bay Pacific contends that permitting Klipper to 
make the correction resulted in displacement of Bay Pacific as the low 
bidder and that, therefore, both the mistake and the intended bid must 
be apparent from the face of Klipper's bid and the IFB.  According to 
the protester, the contracting officer improperly considered Klipper's 
bid worksheet and subcontractor quotes in determining Klipper's 
intended bid.

The protest is without merit.  Notwithstanding the solicitation 
provision providing that unit prices would govern over extended prices 
in the event of a discrepancy, an obviously erroneous unit price can 
be corrected to correspond to an extended price where the corrected 
unit price is the only reasonable interpretation of the bid.  Action 
Serv. Corp., B-254861, Jan. 24, 1994, 94-1 CPD  33.  Further, the 
correction of an obvious mistake is authorized notwithstanding 
displacement of a lower bidder, provided the existence of the mistake 
and the intended bid are apparent from the face of the bid.  Id.  In 
this regard, the mere fact that a firm provides bid worksheets or 
other materials in connection with its claim of a mistake does not 
mean that resort to these materials was necessary for the contracting 
officer to determine the intended bid.  See Blueridge General, Inc., 
71 Comp. Gen. 271 (1992), 92-1 CPD  218; Marine Ways Corp., B-211788, 
Aug. 29, 1983, 83-2 CPD  271.  A contracting officer may properly 
compare a firm's prices to the government estimate and other prices 
received, and employ his or her logic and experience in determining 
that one price makes sense while another does not.  For example, where 
a firm's unit price is significantly higher than the government 
estimate and the other bids received, and its extended price appears 
to be in line with the other bids and the estimate, the contracting 
officer may reasonably conclude that the unit price is incorrect and 
the extended price reflects the bid intended.  Id.

Here, the record shows that Klipper's unit price for item 1f was 
grossly out of line with the other prices received and the government 
estimate; Klipper's unit price was more that 10 times the price used 
for the government estimate and more than 8 times the highest price 
received from any other bidder.  Its extended price, on the other 
hand, was consistent with the other prices received as well as the 
government estimate.  Further, a logical explanation for the 
discrepancy--that Klipper had inadvertently inserted an extra zero in 
its unit price--could be discerned from the face of the bid.  Under 
these circumstances, we find that there was only one reasonable 
interpretation of Klipper's bid:  that its extended price reflected 
its intended bid.  In short, an examination of Klipper's bid and a 
comparison of that bid to the other prices and the government estimate 
showed both the obvious nature of Klipper's mistake and the firm's 
intended bid.  Thus, correction of Klipper's bid was proper.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States