BNUMBER:  B-270073
DATE:  February 6, 1996
TITLE:  Maple Construction Co., Inc.

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

Matter of:Maple Construction Co., Inc.

File:     B-270073

Date:     February 6, 1996

Goutam Dalal, Maple Construction Co., Inc., for the protester.
Cynthia S. Guill, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency properly allowed the correction of a mistake in the awardee's 
low bid where the awardee presented clear and convincing evidence of 
the existence of the mistake and of the intended bid price, within a 
narrow range of uncertainty, and the bid remained low.

DECISION

Maple Construction Co., Inc. protests the award of a contract to Dunn 
Electric Co., Inc., under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 
N62477-94-B-0213, issued by the Department of the Navy, for security 
lighting.  Maple contends that the Navy improperly permitted Dunn to 
correct a mistake in its apparent low bid.

We deny the protest.

The Navy issued the IFB on August 3, 1995, to obtain a contractor to 
improve the security lighting system at Henderson Hall, Arlington, 
Virginia.  At bid opening on September 6, 1995, the Navy received 
eight bids, including Dunn's apparent low bid of $150,150 and Maple's 
next low bid of $197,000.  The government estimate for the project was 
$207,000.

On September 14, Dunn informed the Navy that its bid contained a 
mistake.  Dunn explained that the error occurred in a line item 
subtotal where instead of subtracting the amount of $788 from 
$3,521.89 for a total of $2,733.89, it subtracted 788 percent from 
$3,521.89 for a total of -$24,230.60.  Dunn stated that the correct 
total of its bid should have been $184,841 (including standard 
mark-ups).  Dunn furnished certified computer-generated worksheets in 
support of the mistake, claiming that the 788 percent was an input 
error made to the computer program.  Dunn asked that it be allowed to 
correct its bid.   

Based upon Dunn's explanation of how the mistake occurred and the 
certified worksheet, the Navy determined that Dunn had provided clear 
and convincing evidence of the mistake and its intended bid.  The Navy 
calculated Dunn's intended bid to be $184,060.52, which reflected a 
reduction of $798.07 from Dunn's claimed corrected bid amount.  The 
Navy found that Dunn in its originally submitted mistaken bid had 
reduced the bid by $798.07 by rounding the bid down; the Navy, while 
finding no specific formula for arriving at Dunn's adjustments, 
similarly reduced Dunn's corrected bid by this amount, stating that 
this amount fell within a narrow range of uncertainty.  On September 
27, the Navy made award to Dunn at a corrected price of $184,061.  
This protest from Maple followed.

An agency may allow upward correction of a low bid before award where 
there is clear and convincing evidence establishing both the existence 
of the mistake and the intended bid.  Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR)  sec.  14.406-3.  Whether the evidence meets this standard is a 
question of fact, and our Office will not question an agency's 
decision based on this evidence unless it lacks a reasonable basis.  
Severino Trucking Co., Inc., B-259080.2, Mar. 23, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  
160.  Workpapers, including records of computer-generated software 
spread sheets (hard copy printouts, disks, or other software media), 
may constitute clear and convincing evidence if they are in good order 
and indicate the intended bid price, and there is no contravening 
evidence.  C Constr. Co., Inc., B-253198.2, Sept. 30, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  
198.  The exact amount of the intended bid need not be established, 
provided that there is clear and convincing evidence that the amount 
of the intended bid would fall within a narrow range of uncertainty 
and would remain low after correction.  CRK-JVC/Shockley Joint 
Venture, B-265937,  Jan. 17, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.      .

Our review confirms that the Navy reasonably permitted Dunn to correct 
its bid.  The computer-generated worksheets that Dunn certified to be 
accurate and original are in good order.  The worksheets support 
Dunn's explanation that $788, rather than 788 percent, was intended to 
be deducted from the subtotal $3,521.89, being deducted from this 
figure.  The worksheets show both dollar and percentage adjustments 
for line item pricing, but no other adjustments are of the magnitude 
of the 788 percent adjustment.  Rather, the percentage adjustments 
that Dunn made to the other line items fall within a range of 10 and 
15 percent; the 788 percent adjustment is markedly outside of this 
pattern.  It is not reasonable to assume that Dunn intended to reduce 
this line item by more than the subtotal itself.  On the contrary, it 
is reasonable to find that the 788 figure was merely wrongly entered 
into the computer as a percentage rather than as a dollar subtraction.  
Furthermore, although it is true the Navy adjusted Dunn's proposed 
corrected price downward to reflect the $798.07 discount, Dunn's price 
remained low under any scenario.  As noted above, where, as here, 
there is clear and convincing evidence that the intended bid falls 
within a narrow range of uncertainty and would remain low under any 
interpretation, correction is proper.  See Standard Register Co., 
B-260426, June 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  120.  Since the evidence of the 
mistake is clearly reflected in the worksheets, and the intended bid 
is ascertainable, we find that the Navy properly allowed Dunn to 
correct the bid.

Maple also objects to the correction on the ground that the agency's 
actions improperly converted this procurement from sealed bidding to a 
negotiated procurement.  Permitting a bidder to correct a properly 
substantiated mistake, however, is authorized by FAR  sec.  14.406, and 
does not constitute a change in the procurement's nature. 

Maple also challenges the responsiveness of Dunn's bid, complaining 
that Dunn's bid was signed by two different individuals, and that the 
bid was ambiguous with respect to whether Dunn had performed any 
services for a lobbying entity.  We dismiss these protest allegations, 
which were first raised in the protester's comments on the agency's 
report, as untimely under our Bid Protest Regulations, since they were 
filed more than 14 calendar days after Maple should have known the 
basis for them.  Section 21.2(a)(2), 60 Fed. Reg. 40,737, 40,740 (Aug. 
10, 1995)(to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2)).  Where, as here, 
bids are opened publicly, protesters are required to make a diligent 
effort to review the bids shortly after bid opening and may not wait 
to review the awardee's bid in the agency's report.  Thomas May 
Constr. Co., B-255683, Mar. 23, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  210.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States