BNUMBER:  B-265762.2
DATE:  February 15, 1996
TITLE:  Dynalectric Company

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

Matter of:Dynalectric Company

File:     B-265762.2

Date:     February 15, 1996

Joseph D. West, Esq., Arnold & Porter, for the protester.
Sean Brew, Esq., Corona & Balistreri, for Steiny & Company, an 
interested party.
Leonard G. Crowley, Esq., and Christopher M. Bellomy, Esq., Department 
of the Navy, for the agency.
Adam Vodraska, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where a low bidder alleging a mistake after bid opening does not 
clearly show that its intended bid would have remained low in all 
circumstances because of uncertainties in estimating the omitted cost, 
the agency properly rejected the bid without permitting the bidder to 
waive the mistake.

DECISION

Dynalectric Company protests the award of a contract to Steiny & 
Company under invitation for bids (IFB) No. N68711-93-B-1444 issued by 
the Naval Facilities Engineering Command for airfield communication 
and electrical system infrastructure upgrades at the Marine Corps Air 
Station, Camp Pendleton, California.

We deny the protest.

The IFB sought lump-sum prices for the construction of concrete 
ductbanks, including manholes, handholes, and conduits to support the 
communication and electrical system at the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps 
Air Station.  Detailed specifications and drawings described the 
required construction work.  Among other things, the contractor was 
required to perform "core borings" in two locations to allow conduits 
to cross beneath the airfield taxiways.[1]  The IFB did not specify 
the length of core boring required; rather, bidders were to determine 
the length themselves from scaled drawings.

The three lowest bids received at bid opening and the government's 
estimate were the following:

Helix Electric                  $2,949,000

Dynalectric                     $3,444,995

Steiny                          $3,514,900

Estimate                        $5,216,385
The Navy permitted Helix to withdraw its bid after bid opening because 
of a mistake and then asked Dynalectric to verify its bid.  
Dynalectric initially informed the Navy that it had failed to obtain a 
subcontractor quotation of approximately $55,000 to $60,000 for the 
two core borings required under the "Underground Electrical Work" 
specification and asked permission to withdraw its bid.  The Navy 
requested that, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR)  sec.  14.407-3 (FAC 90-29), Dynalectric identify the nature and 
cause of the mistake claimed and provide its original bid worksheets.  
Dynalectric responded that it no longer intended to withdraw its bid 
or to seek any adjustment to its original bid price, but would perform 
at the price bid.  In this regard, Dynalectric informed the Navy that 
it had discovered that its bid also had inadvertently charged sales 
tax twice for the same item and that it could otherwise lower its 
material costs; these "offsetting savings" allegedly mitigated 
Dynalectric's omission of any costs for performing the core borings.  

In response to the agency's renewed request, Dynalectric provided the 
agency with its bid worksheets, which do not show any entries or 
calculations for the core borings, and post-bid opening quotes from a 
proposed subcontractor for the core borings.  Dynalectric's 
subcontractor's quote contains two entries:  one for a bore of 290 
linear feet (l.f.) at $225 per l.f., and the other for a bore of 125 
l.f. at $225 per l.f.  The subcontractor later reduced the price to 
$190 per l.f. for both estimates.  Dynalectric informed the agency 
that, in Dynalectric's view, its proposed subcontractor overestimated 
the length of the core borings required; specifically, Dynalectric 
contended that the subcontractor's estimated lengths of 290 l.f. and 
125 l.f. were "outer range estimate[s]" for two different sizes of 
borings and do not reflect the actual boring length required, and that 
the price will depend on the actual length of core boring performed.  
To calculate its omitted cost, Dynalectric multiplied its own 
estimates of the length of the core borings required, which are 200 
l.f. and 63 l.f., respectively, for a total of 263 feet, by the $190 
per l.f. price, and by a percentage markup and bond premium, for a 
core boring estimate of $52,792.  When this claimed cost is added to 
Dynalectric's bid, the protester's bid remains low.  

After analyzing Dynalectric's mistake in bid claim, the Navy rejected 
Dynalectric's bid, declining to allow Dynalectric to waive the mistake 
and perform at its bid price, because Dynalectric "failed to provide 
sufficient evidence that in all circumstances, [Dynalectric's] 
intended bid would be significantly below the next lowest bidder."  
The Navy disputes Dynalectric's estimate of the core boring required, 
stating that the Navy estimated that 395 l.f. of boring would be 
required, which is consistent with Dynalectric's subcontractor's 
estimate of 415 l.f.  Applying the $190 per l.f. quote, the use of 
either the Navy's or the subcontractor's core boring length estimate 
to calculate the omitted costs results in Dynalectric's bid exceeding 
Steiny's next low bid.

Dynalectric protests the rejection of its bid, arguing that the Navy 
should have accepted its reasonable estimate of the omitted cost and 
allowed it to waive its mistake.

Where a bidder alleges that it made a mistake and then seeks to 
abandon or waive the claim, award may not be made to that bidder, who 
might have been low by virtue of a mistake in its bid, unless it is 
clear that the bid would have been low regardless of any mistake.  
Prince Constr. Co., 63 Comp. Gen. 200 (1984), 84-1 CPD  para.  159; William 
G. Tadlock Constr., B-251996, May 13, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  382.  The 
intended bid need not be established with the certainty required by 
the rules applicable to the correction of bids and may be ascertained 
by reference to reasonable estimations of omitted costs.  
Bruce-Andersen Co., Inc., 61 Comp. Gen. 30 (1981), 81-2 CPD  para.  310; 
Oregon Iron Works, Inc., B-247845, May 27, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  474.
 
Here, the record does not establish that Dynalectric's bid would have 
remained low if it had included its alleged omitted cost for core 
borings in its bid.  This is so because the reasonableness of the 
estimate of the length of the core borings on which Dynalectric's 
claim is based has not been established.  Since Dynalectric simply 
forgot to include these costs in its bid, it has no contemporaneous 
documentation showing its pre-bid opening calculation of the length of 
the core boring required.  The record shows that Dynalectric 
calculated its post opening 263 l.f. estimate of the length of the two 
core borings by estimating the width of the taxiways.  The Navy 
challenges this estimate, stating that it does not take into account 
the additional boring that is necessary under the paved apron on 
either side of the taxiway or to properly place the boring pits--a 
challenge that Dynalectric has not shown is unfounded.  Further, 
according to Dynalectric's own core boring subcontractor, each of the 
four bidders to which it provided quotations had different estimates 
on the length of boring needed for this project.  Indeed, the 
subcontractor's quotation to Dynalectric itself casts doubt on the 
reasonableness of Dynalectric's claimed omitted cost; as noted above, 
Dynalectric's subcontractor estimated the length of the required core 
borings to be 415 l.f., which is close to the Navy's estimate of 395 
l.f.  

Since the cost of the omitted item is not reflected on Dynalectric's 
bid worksheets and depends on Dynalectric's post-bid opening judgment 
as to the length of core boring required, which has not been 
established as reasonable, there is no way of knowing with any degree 
of certainty that Dynalectric's bid would have been low had the 
protester priced this item in the first place.  See Atlantic Servs., 
Inc., B-245763, Jan. 30, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  125; LABCO Constr., Inc., 
B-219437, Aug. 28, 1985, 85-2 CPD  para.  240.  In this regard, multiplying 
the Navy's estimate of 315 l.f. by $190 per l.f. results in an omitted 
cost of $75,050, an amount which even without applicable mark-up and 
bond premium, results in Dynalectric's bid exceeding Steiny's bid.  
Given the uncertainties in estimating the omitted core boring cost and 
the small price difference between the bids ($69,905, or approximately 
2 percent), Dynalectric has not clearly shown that its intended bid 
would remain low under all circumstances.  See, e.g., National Heat & 
Power Corp., B-212923, Jan. 27, 1984, 84-1 CPD  para.  125.

Dynalectric argues that even if the omitted core boring estimate 
causes the protester's intended bid price to exceed Steiny's, 
Dynalectric's bid would still be low, considering that its bid 
worksheets evidenced that $39,469 in state sales tax had mistakenly 
been double-counted in calculating its bid price, which should be 
offset from the omitted bore coring costs to calculate its intended 
bid price.[2]  A bidder may not be permitted to waive a claim of error 
or waive part of its claim of error (selective correction) to remain 
the low bidder.  Bruce-Andersen Co., Inc., supra.  To allow 
Dynalectric to offset the increase in its intended bid to account for 
the omitted cost of core borings with the asserted "savings" from its 
double-counted sales tax--a mistake claim that Dynalectric had no 
obligation to assert had it otherwise been the successful low 
bidder--is tantamount to permitting Dynalectric the option, after bid 
opening, of determining whether its bid would be low.  See 42 Comp. 
Gen. 723 (1963); 37 Comp. Gen. 851 (1958).  Dynalectric is essentially 
seeking recognition of the legitimacy, or the putative correction, of 
its intended bid price to account for its asserted offsetting mistake 
of the double-counted sales tax because this claim, if recognized, 
would allow Dynalectric's intended bid price, including the omitted 
core boring costs, to displace Steiny's bid price.  Dynalectric's 
recalculation of its bid in this manner cannot be allowed as it is 
inconsistent with the integrity of the competitive bidding system and 
prejudicial to Steiny.  See id.; United Digital Networks, Inc., 
B-222422, July 17, 1986, 86-2 CPD  para.  79; Roebbelen Eng'g, Inc., supra, 
aff'd, B-219929.2, Mar. 31, 1986, 86-1 CPD  para.  301; Da-Green Elecs., 
Ltd., B-212159, Nov. 15, 1983, 83-2 CPD  para.  563; see also FAR  sec.  
14.406-7(a) (providing that a bid correction that would displace a 
lower bidder may only be allowed where clear and convincing evidence 
of the existence of the mistake and the bid actually intended is 
substantially ascertainable from the IFB and the bid itself--here, 
only 
Dynalectric's bid worksheets substantiate this mistake claim); JJS 
Servs., Inc., B-256302, June 6, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  348.  

In sum, we find the Navy reasonably refused to allow Dynalectric to 
waive its mistake and properly rejected Dynalectric's bid.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Core boring here involves horizontal underground auguring from a 
boring pit located near the taxiway.  

2. Another possible offset of its bid price mentioned by Dynalectric 
is $10,700, representing savings attainable by switching to a 
lower-priced supplier for high voltage sectionalizing switches; that 
supplier which submitted its quotation after bid opening.  
Consideration of this offset to determine Dynalectric's intended bid 
is unacceptable, however, since it would result in a bid based in part 
on a quote from a subcontractor other than the one upon which the 
original bid was based.  See C Constr. Co., Inc., B-242717, June 6, 
1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  540; Roebbelen Eng'g, Inc., B-219929, Dec. 20, 1985, 
85-2 CPD  para.  691.