BNUMBER:  B-270101.2
DATE:  February 12, 1996
TITLE:  William G. Tadlock Construction

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

Matter of:William G. Tadlock Construction

File:     B-270101.2

Date:     February 12, 1996

David B. Kuhlman, Esq., Ramseyer & Kuhlman, for the protester.
Frank K. Kotarski, Esq., and Cynthia S. Guill, Esq., Department of the 
Navy, for the agency.
C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

Agency properly allowed upward correction of mistake in apparent low 
bid where the record contains clear and convincing evidence that a 
mistake was made and the intended bid price can be ascertained within 
a narrow range of uncertainty and remains low in any event.

DECISION

William G. Tadlock Construction protests the award of a contract to 
Falcon General Engineering, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 
N68711-92-B-4802, issued by the Department of the Navy for upgrading 
the water systems at the agency's El Centro, California air facility.  
Tadlock contends that the Navy improperly permitted Falcon to correct 
a mistake in its apparent low bid.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation contemplated award of a firm, fixed-price contract to 
upgrade the facility's potable water system (Part A) and wastewater 
system (Part B).  The solicitation also included four additive items, 
for which funding was available at the time of bid opening, and which 
the agency therefore considered in determining the low bidder.

The agency received six bids in response to the IFB.  Including all 
four additive items, there were five bids ranging in price from 
Tadlock's bid of $2,942,503, to $3,097,473.  The sixth bid, from 
Falcon, was significantly lower at a price of $2,480,368.  This 
disparity between Falcon's price and the other bids received prompted 
the agency to ask Falcon to verify its bid.

Falcon's response indicated that in preparing its bid for part A of 
the base bid--upgrading the drinking water system--it had erroneously 
transcribed its estimated material cost of $359,150 as $35,915.  
Falcon therefore requested correction of its bid for Part A from 
$1,045,301 to $1,410,994, and correction of its total base bid to 
$2,579,166--$2,846,011 total.[1]  In support of its request, Falcon 
provided the Navy with the original quote from its material supplier 
and its two spreadsheets (a preliminary, or "activity," spreadsheet 
and a final, or "master," spreadsheet).

The agency's review disclosed additional small discrepancies, mostly 
in the extension of prices on the quote sheet from the material 
supplier ($392,620 versus the total of $391,601 appearing on the quote 
sheet).[2]  In addition, the subcontracting price of $102,292 from 
Falcon's activity spreadsheet was recorded as $102,920 on Falcon's 
master spreadsheet.  Falcon acknowledged the errors as the product of 
haste in preparing its bid but declined correction beyond the amount 
originally requested.  Falcon's president also provided a 
certification that the worksheets provided to the Navy were the 
originals used to compile the bid.  The agency granted Falcon's 
request for correction on September 27, and this protest followed.

An agency may allow upward correction of a low bid before award if 
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.  Pointing to the errors detected by the agency in 
price extensions on the quote sheet and entries on the activity and 
master spreadsheets, the protester argues that Falcon has not 
established its intended bid by clear and convincing evidence.

Whether the evidence meets the clear and convincing 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.  
States Roofing & Metal Co., Inc., B-237900, Apr. 3, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  
353.  For upward correction of a low bid, worksheets may constitute 
clear and convincing evidence if they are in good order and indicate 
the intended bid price, and there is no contravening evidence.  
Applied Constr. Technology, Inc., B-258426, Jan. 17, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  
22.  Based on our review of the record, we find no basis to question 
the Navy's decision to allow the correction.

We have reviewed Falcon's spreadsheets.  They appear to be in good 
order and support Falcon's explanation that it made an error in 
transcribing its material costs from its activity spreadsheet to its 
master spreadsheet.  Although there are some other minor 
discrepancies, as noted by the Navy, they are trivial in 
amount--amounting to approximately $2,000.  To the extent that there 
is any uncertainty in the amount of the bid based on these 
discrepancies, it is within a narrow range compared to the difference 
of nearly $100,000 between Falcon's corrected bid for the base and 
additive items and Tadlock's second low bid.

Where there is clear and convincing evidence that a mistake was made, 
correction of a low bid requires only that the intended bid price can 
be ascertained within a narrow range of uncertainty and that the bid 
remains low in any event.  Precon Constr. Co., B-255294; B-255294.2, 
Apr. 6, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  239.  As noted above, even if the bid were 
increased to correct the additional discrepancies noted by the agency, 
Falcon would remain the low bidder by more than $98,000, or 3 percent 
of its total price.  See George C. Martin, Inc., B-187638, Jan. 19, 
1977, 77-1 CPD  para.  39.

In sum, the record contains nothing to show that the agency's 
determination here was unreasonable.  On the contrary, Falcon's 
president has certified the correctness of the documentation 
submitted; this documentation shows clearly how Falcon calculated its 
price and how the mistake occurred.  The intended bid can be readily 
calculated, within a narrow range of uncertainty, from the 
spreadsheets Falcon submitted to the Navy.  Accordingly, based on our 
review of the record, we find that it was reasonable for the agency to 
conclude that Falcon submitted clear and convincing evidence of the 
mistake and of its intended bid.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1.$359,150 - $35,915 = $323,235.  Mark-ups for overhead plus profit 
(12 percent), and bond (1 percent) support an additional increase of 
$42,408, for a total increase of $365,643, from $1,045,301 to 
$1,410,944.

2. This figure represents the total quoted for material costs for work 
under both Parts A and B of the IFB.  In calculating its bid, Falcon 
divided this total into $348,000 for Part A costs and $43,000 for Part 
B costs.  Falcon arrived at the $348,000 figure by rounding up the 
total for the Part A work on the supplier's quotation ($345,610).  
Preliminary calculations consistent with this explanation are 
reflected in handwritten notations added at the bottom of the 
supplier's quote.