BNUMBER:  B-265851; B-265851.2
DATE:  December 29, 1995
TITLE:  Eastco Building Services, Inc.

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

Matter of:Eastco Building Services, Inc.

File:     B-265851; B-265851.2

Date:     December 29, 1995

Robert M. Cambridge, Esq., for the protester.
Cynthia S. Guill, Esq., Diane D. Hayden, Esq., and Patrick J. Coll, 
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's refusal to permit upward correction of firm's 
bid is denied where bidder's worksheets show that a mistake was made 
but do not establish the firm's intended bid for the allegedly omitted 
cost element.

DECISION

Eastco Building Services, Inc. protests the Department of the Navy's 
refusal to allow the firm to correct a mistake in its bid submitted in 
response to invitation for bids (IFB) No. N00187-94-B-8127, for the 
repair and maintenance of air conditioning equipment at various 
locations around Norfolk, Virginia.  Eastco challenges the  Navy's 
determination that the firm failed to establish its intended bid.

We deny the protest.

The IFB contained a total of 47 line items.  For line item Nos. 0001 
and 0002, which are the subject of Eastco's protest, bidders were 
required to submit prices for the performance of service calls that 
would require no more than 16 hours of labor and $250 in material 
costs; bidders were to submit lump-sum unit and extended prices for an 
estimated quantity of 200 service calls performed during regular 
business hours (item 0001) and separate lump-sum unit and extended 
prices for an estimated quantity of emergency service calls performed 
after regular business hours (item 0002).  All but one of the 
remaining line items called for the performance of periodic tasks, 
such as monthly inspections or winter overhauls of particular 
equipment; bidders were required to submit lump-sum unit and extended 
prices for each of these other line items which included the cost of 
materials associated with performance of the required task.  The 
remaining line item, No. 0024, was divided into 15 subline items which 
called for bidders to submit loaded hourly rates for various 
categories of  labor;  material costs associated with these services 
were not to be included in these rates, but instead were included as 
part of an IFB estimate of $700,000 for material costs under item 
0024.

In response to the contracting officer's request that it review its 
bid for possible mistakes, Eastco advised the agency that it had made 
a mistake in its calculations for line item Nos. 0001 and 0002.  
Eastco claimed that it did not include in its prices for these items 
the cost of materials required for the service calls, and based its 
bid instead on only the labor costs associated with the service calls.  
Eastco requested that it be permitted to adjust its bid upward to 
reflect an additional $250 per service call--that is, the maximum 
material cost for which the contractor would be responsible--for a 
total upward correction of $100,000 ($250 multiplied by the IFB's 
estimated 400 regular and emergency service calls).  In support of its 
request for correction, Eastco submitted an "original worksheet" for 
the two items--two undated, handwritten sheets, along with two undated 
typewritten versions of the same calculations (Eastco included an 
original and typewritten worksheet for each of the line items in 
dispute).  None of these worksheets, however, included the material 
costs of $250 per service call.  Instead, they presented what Eastco 
claimed were the calculations of its loaded hourly rates for 
performing the service calls, including direct labor costs, travel, 
uniforms, equipment, payroll benefits, subcontractor costs, general 
and administrative (G&A) costs and profit.  

The agency concluded that Eastco's worksheets, while showing that the 
firm had made a mistake, did not clearly show its intended bid.  The 
agency therefore made several requests for additional information.  In 
response to the Navy's first request, Eastco again submitted two 
undated, handwritten worksheets and two typewritten worksheets, 
claiming that these were the same exhibits that had been previously 
submitted.  An examination of this set of handwritten worksheets, 
however, shows that although they contain the same calculations as 
those appearing on the originally submitted handwritten worksheets, 
they are not copies of the same documents.  This set of worksheets 
also did not include any provision for material costs.  In responding 
to the Navy's second request for additional information, Eastco 
provided copies of computer-generated worksheets for all line items 
except Nos. 0001 and 0002.  Finally, in response to yet another 
request for information, Eastco provided the Navy with 
computer-generated worksheets for line item Nos. 0001 and 0002, which 
Eastco stated were "inadvertently precluded" from its earlier 
submission of computer-generated worksheets for the other line items.  
This last set of worksheets included material costs, showing the 
addition of $250 to Eastco's cost for the service calls.

On the basis of this information, the Navy denied Eastco's request for 
correction.  The agency found that, while it was apparent that Eastco 
had made a mistake, the firm's intended bid could not reasonably be 
ascertained because the firm had submitted a number of different 
worksheets containing various inconsistencies.  For example, the 
agency has explained that one factor leading it to question Eastco's 
documentation was the fact that the worksheets indicated an 
inconsistent approach to calculating material costs.  For all items 
other than Nos. 0001 and 0002, Eastco entered its material costs in 
the "Supplies and Materials" field on its computer-generated 
worksheets, and these material costs were subject to application of 
Eastco's G&A and profit markups.  In contrast, Eastco's claimed 
material costs for item Nos. 0001 and 0002--which were not even shown 
on its handwritten or typed worksheets--were not entered in the 
"Supplies and Materials" field of its computer-generated worksheets, 
but instead were entered as an additional "Allowable Supplies Cost" at 
the bottom of the worksheets and were not subject to the application 
of Eastco's G&A and profit markups.  Further, Eastco used one rate for 
payroll taxes, calculated as a percentage of direct labor costs, for 
all line items except Nos. 0001 and 0002, and a different rate for 
items Nos. 0001 and 0002.  Finally, Eastco did not furnish sworn 
affidavits attesting to the authenticity of the worksheets, or 
otherwise explaining the differences between the numerous versions of 
its worksheets for line item Nos. 0001 and 0002.

Eastco contends that the Navy erred in denying its request for bid 
correction.  The protester principally argues that the agency 
improperly compared its calculations for line item Nos. 0001 and 0002 
with its calculations for other line items that required the 
performance of specific tasks and required inclusion of material 
costs.   Eastco asserts that such a comparison was improper because 
line item Nos. 0001 and 0002 did not require the calculation of a 
lump-sum price for performing service calls, but instead required the 
calculation of loaded hourly labor rates.  Eastco further supports its 
position by noting that, for line item Nos. 0001 and 0002, the IFB 
provides that the cost of materials for service calls will be 
calculated at the time of performance based on actual quotes for the 
materials where there is a dispute between the agency and the 
contractor regarding such costs.  Eastco contends that, because of 
these differences, it would have been more appropriate for the agency 
to compare its worksheets for line item Nos. 0001 and 0002 to its 
worksheets for line item No. 0024, which required calculation of 
loaded hourly rates for various categories of labor but did not 
include the cost of materials.

Eastco's interpretation of the IFB is unreasonable.  While Eastco 
seeks to distinguish item Nos. 0001 and 0002 from the IFB's other task 
specific line items on grounds that line item Nos. 0001 and 0002 did 
not require material costs to be included in the price of a service 
call, this is inconsistent with the terms of the IFB.  The 
solicitation clearly called for bidders to calculate a lump-sum price 
for service calls, which in turn were defined as "requiring not more 
than 16 estimated total labor hours and $250 in direct material 
costs."  This is identical to the other task specific line items 
requiring the submission of lump-sum unit prices.  For example, line 
item No. 0003 calls for performing preventive maintenance inspections 
on a particular type of equipment, and states that such preventive 
maintenance inspections shall include necessary repairs, "provided 
that such repairs can be made within 8 estimated direct labor hours or 
less and the total direct material cost does not exceed $100. . . ."  
In addition, the solicitation's schedule "B" expresses the unit for 
line item Nos. 0001 and 0002 as "ea" or each, while in those instances 
where a loaded hourly rate is called for the unit expressed is "hr" or 
hour.  (For the other task specific line items such as line item No. 
0003, the unit is also expressed as  "ea" or each.)  The mere fact 
that the IFB included a method for resolving disputes about material 
costs in those instances where the agency and the contractor did not 
agree does not alter the plain meaning of the solicitation, which 
unequivocally called for calculation of lump-sum pricing for line item 
Nos. 0001 and 0002, including the cost for materials.  We therefore 
find nothing objectionable in the agency's comparison of Eastco's 
pricing for line item Nos. 0001 and 0002 with its pricing for the 
other task specific line items.  

As for the agency's refusal to permit Eastco to correct its bid, the 
authority to correct mistakes is vested in the procuring agency, and 
because the weight to be given evidence in support of an asserted 
mistake is a question of fact, we will not disturb an agency's 
determination unless there was no reasonable basis for its decision.  
Three O Constr., S.E., B-255749, Mar. 28, 1994, 94-1 CPD  216;   
Southwind Constr.Corp., B-228013, Oct. 8, 1987, 87-2 CPD  346.  
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  14.406 requires a high standard 
of proof--clear and convincing evidence of the mistake and of the bid 
actually intended--before correction is authorized.  Where a firm 
presents conflicting evidence or explanations of its method of bid 
preparation or its intended bid, this high standard of proof has not 
been met, and correction should not be permitted.  Three O Constr., 
.S.E., supra.  Here, the Navy based its denial of  Eastco's requested 
correction on the quality of the evidence presented, and in particular 
on the number of different and inconsistent worksheets. 

We think the agency reasonably disallowed Eastco's request for 
correction because it had not established its intended bid price by 
the required clear and convincing evidence.  As noted, Eastco 
submitted three different sets of worksheets for line item Nos. 0001 
and 0002--including two different handwritten "original" 
worksheets--only one of which (the computer-generated worksheets) 
included an entry for material costs.  Moreover, although these 
computer-generated worksheets included an allowance for material 
costs, this allowance was entered in a different field on the 
worksheets (as  "Allowable Supplies Cost" rather than as "Supplies and 
Materials") and was calculated without inclusion of the G&A and profit 
markups applied to the material costs for the other line items.  In 
addition, there is no basis in the record to infer that Eastco ever 
intended to include the maximum amount of $250 for material costs in 
its price for service calls.  In this connection, we note that the 
firm's prices for other line items did not always include the maximum 
allowable amount for material costs.  Under numerous other line items, 
the IFB allowed a maximum of $100 in material costs.  On some of these 
line items, Eastco did include $100 in material costs.  In other 
instances, however, Eastco included the lesser amounts of $57 and $80 
for material costs.  In view of this inconsistent pricing, there is no 
basis to conclude that Eastco intended to include the maximum of $250 
in material costs for each service call.  A firm's intended price for 
an  allegedly omitted item must be ascertainable from its bid and 
accompanying worksheets, and correction will not be permitted where 
this is not possible.  Apache Enters., Inc., B-255943; B-255943.2, 
Apr. 20, 1994, 94-1 CPD  270.[1]

In view of the foregoing, we have no basis to object to the agency's 
actions.  Eastco has offered what can only be described as conflicting 
evidence to show its intended bid for this cost, and this evidence 
simply does not meet the stringent standard of proof articulated in 
the FAR.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States.

1. We also note that Eastco's interpretation of the IFB as not 
requiring the inclusion of material costs for line item Nos. 0001 and 
0002 suggests that the firm never intended to include material costs 
in its calculations for those line items when it prepared its bid.