BNUMBER:  B-270661
DATE:  April 8, 1996
TITLE:  Merrick Construction Company, Inc.

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

Matter of:Merrick Construction Company, Inc.

File:     B-270661

Date:April 8, 1996

Michael H. Payne, Esq., Starfield & Payne, for the protester.
S. Leo Arnold, Esq., Ashley, Ashley & Arnold, for Valley Construction 
Company, Inc. an intervenor.
Lester Edelman, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency properly allowed correction of a mistake in bid by the low 
bidder where the existence of the mistake and the intended bid price 
were clear from the bidder's original bid preparation papers and the 
corrected bid remains significantly below the next low bid.

DECISION

Merrick Construction Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to 
Valley Construction Company, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 
DACW38-95-B-0085, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for flood 
control equipment and services at various sites along the Mississippi 
River, asserting that the Corps improperly permitted Valley to correct 
a mistake in its low bid.

We deny the protest.

The IFB, issued on August 9, 1995, required the submission of prices 
for 31 line items and a total price.  Of the seven bids received at 
bid opening on September 21, Valley's was low at $5,652,923; Merrick's 
was second low at $6,872,500.  The government estimate for the 
contract work was $6,234,831.

By letter dated September 25, Valley advised the agency that it had 
reviewed its bid after opening because it was substantially lower than 
the government estimate and the other bids received, and had 
discovered a mistake.  Valley stated that its bid of $669,100 on line 
item No. 22, "Drainage Pumps," reflected the omission of $520,000 and 
requested permission to correct line item No. 22 to the intended 
$1,189,100 amount and to make a corresponding adjustment in its total 
bid price.  

A bidder who seeks upward correction of its bid price prior to award 
must submit clear and convincing evidence that a mistake was made, the 
manner in which the mistake occurred, and the intended price.  Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  14.407-3(a); Red Samm Constr., Inc., 
B-250891; B-250891.2, Feb. 25, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  178.  Workpapers, 
including records of computer generated software 
spreadsheets/worksheets (hard copy printouts, computer disks, tapes or 
other software media), may constitute part of that 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.  Whether 
evidence of the intended bid amount meets the clear and convincing 
evidence is a question of fact, and we will not question an agency's 
decision in this regard unless it lacks a reasonable basis.  Lash 
Corp., 68 Comp. Gen. 232 (1989), 89-1 CPD  para.  120; Tri-State 
Consultants, B-250700, Dec. 22, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  433.

Here, in support of its request, Valley provided the Army with bid 
workpapers, consisting of its computer generated bid spreadsheet, its 
handwritten computation for the pumps and reducers under item No. 22 
and other documentation, including copies of subcontractor quotes.  
With the workpapers, Valley submitted an explanation of how it made 
the mistake and sworn affidavits from those involved in the mistake 
and the preparation of the bid attesting to the authenticity of the 
submissions.  In response to requests from the Army, Valley 
subsequently provided the agency with its complete bid file. 

Valley explained that its error resulted from its combined use of a 
computer spreadsheet and handwritten calculations.  Specifically, 
although the bid schedule required a lump-sum bid price for item No. 
22, Valley, for ease of calculation, divided items for line item No. 
22 into two groups, including in the first group certain required 48 
inch "O" pumps (2 each), speed reducers (2 each) and associated 
installation and, in the second group, a discharge pipe, couplings, 
expansion joints, formed suction intakes and siphon breaker assembly.  
On one handwritten worksheet, with the caption "22-Pumps & Pipes" in 
the upper right-hand corner, Valley listed its breakdown of five 
components and prices for the pumps and reducers as follows:

        Pumps              560,000
        Reducers           125,000
                           685,000
        Tax                  55,000
                           740,000
        Install pipes &
           pumps           225,000
        Elec[trical] for
          pumps & pipes      75,000
                         1,040,000
Beneath the calculation was the circled phrase "Use 520,000 ea."

According to Valley, the notation "520,000 ea." indicated the price 
for one pump and one reducer.  In entering this data into its 
computer, Valley explained that it inadvertently entered the $520,000 
unit price in the incorrect column of its spreadsheet, as a result of 
which the unit price was not multiplied by 2 to calculate the intended 
extended price for the required two pumps.  Its spreadsheet shows at 
line item No. 22 the following information:

Div. Description    QuantityU/SUB  SUB-K  TOTAL ADD       BID

22   Drainage Pumps
     48" O Pumps installed with reducers  2 
                                                       ea.$520,000$520
                                                       000$520,000

     48" O discharge pipe-installed  710 lf[1]  
                                                       $210$149100$149
                                                       100$149,000

     48" O flexible coupling  8 ea.                    

     48" O expansion joints  4 ea.                     

     formed suction intakes  2 ea.                     

     siphon breaker assembly  2 ea.                    
The first subitem reflects the five items on Valley's handwritten 
sheet, as noted above.  According to the protester, the $520,000 
should have been entered in the "U/SUB" column to be multiplied by 2, 
the quantity.  The cost for two pumps would then have been calculated 
and printed in the "SUBK" column, and then carried to the "TOTAL" 
column.  If mark-up[2] were allocated to the cost of an item, the 
mark-up figure was entered in the "ADD" column, added to the figure in 
the "TOTAL" column and the result printed in the "BID" column.  Since 
no mark-up was added to Valley's cost for item No. 22, nothing 
appeared in the "ADD" column and the "BID" column repeated the "TOTAL" 
column.  Thus, the intended unit price of $520,000 was treated as the 
extended price and added to the $149,100 for the remaining subitems of 
item No. 22, resulting in a total for the item of $669,100.  

Although the agency expressed initial reservations about what appeared 
to be inconsistencies in Valley's bid, and was unsure the intended bid 
was apparent from the bid documents,[3] it concluded, upon further 
review of Valley's complete bid file and its written explanation and 
sworn statements, that Valley had clearly and convincingly established 
the existence of a mistake and the bid actually intended.  The Army 
therefore allowed an upward adjustment of $520,000 to line item No. 
22, thereby making Valley's corrected bid total $6,172,923.  This 
corrected amount remains lower than the government estimate and 
approximately 10 percent lower  than Merrick's second-low bid.  

Merrick questions the evidentiary value of Valley's worksheets and of 
the copy of its computer spreadsheet, arguing that Valley does not 
name the software used or explain its operation.  The protester also 
argues that there is nothing in the record to support Valley's 
assertion that the "SUBK" column was the multiple of the "Quantity" 
and "U/SUB" columns and asserts that Valley's handwritten notation 
beneath its calculations for line item No. 22 cannot be interpreted as 
reading "Use 520,000 ea," as Valley asserts.  According to Merrick, 
the alleged letters "ea" are indecipherable, and therefore it is 
impossible to tell whether Valley intended to use the $1,040,000 
listed on the handwritten sheet for the two pumps and reducers or the 
$520,000 as the total for the two pumps and reducers.  

While Valley did not name the software it used or explain its 
operation, such information is not necessarily required to establish 
that the bidder seeking bid correction has provided clear and 
convincing evidence.  See Fishermen's Boat Shop, Inc., B-252560, July 
9, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  11.  Here, the intended computer operation is 
readily ascertainable by examining the entries on the spreadsheet and, 
contrary to Merrick's assertion, these different entries substantiate 
Valley's explanation of its spreadsheet calculations.  Specifically, 
where a quantity is given for a line item and a price is entered in 
the "U/SUB" column, that price is consistently multiplied by the given 
quantity and the resulting sum is printed in the "SUBK" column.  The 
figure in the "SUBK"column is carried to the "TOTAL" column and, as 
Valley explained, carried to the "BID" column unless a figure appears 
in the "ADD" column.  If a figure is entered in the "ADD" column, it 
is added to the figure in the "TOTAL" column and the result is printed 
in the "BID" column.  It is clear, therefore, that the quantity item 
is a multiplier which multiplies the number in the "U/SUB" column.

It is also clear from the documents submitted that Valley's 
subcontractor, INT A-C, quoted $685,000 for the pumps and reducers, 
and that Valley used this equipment quote in its calculations.  To 
this, Valley added associated installation costs, including electrical 
costs and tax which, when added to the cost of the equipment, equal 
$1,040,000.  While Merrick suggests that, because Valley's handwritten 
calculations contain five subitems and its computer spreadsheet 
contains only two, it is impossible to view the handwritten sheet as 
supporting the computer spreadsheet, this position is simply 
misplaced.  Valley explained that it had divided the work included in 
line item No. 22 into two groups.  Because it further divided its 
handwritten calculations for one group into five subitems is of no 
consequence as the handwritten calculations are specifically captioned 
as line item No. 22 calculations and clearly constitute the associated 
costs of installing the pumps. 

As to the difficulty in deciphering Valley's handwritten letters "ea" 
the simple answer is that the letters, "ea" are sloppily written but 
reasonably discernible, and the entry is entirely plausible in 
context.  Moreover, as noted above, Valley submitted affidavits in 
which Valley's vice president swore that he performed the written 
calculations and wrote the circled phrase "Use 520,000 ea." on the 
handwritten worksheets.  There is nothing in the record to suggest 
that this statement is inaccurate.  Based on this explanation and the 
worksheet entries, it is clear that the $1,040,000 entry reflects the 
intended entry for two pumps.[4]

Finally, the protest alleges that Valley's unadjusted total bid of 
$5,686,923 is not supported by the documents since neither Valley's 
computer spreadsheet nor its bid schedule totals to this figure.

Valley's total bid before upward adjustment was incorrectly calculated 
and handwritten on its spreadsheet and its schedule as $5,686,923.  
This total was not computer generated on its spreadsheet because 
Valley made a last-minute modification on item No. 26, decreasing this 
item by $175,000.  Valley then incorrectly subtracted the $175,000 
from the computer-generated total of $5,827,923, resulting in Valley's 
incorrect total of $5,686,923.  The mathematical error was corrected 
by the agency as permitted by FAR  sec.  14.407-2.  The correct total for 
the unadjusted bid on both the spreadsheet and the schedule is, as the 
agency states, $5,652,923.  In sum, the agency had a reasonable basis 
to conclude that Valley had provided clear and convincing evidence of 
the existence of a mistake and of its actually intended bid price.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1."Lf" refers to linear feet. 

2. Valley calculated its total mark-up for this project as 
approximately $750,000.  This $750,000 appeared as the last item on 
its computer spreadsheet.  In submitting its bid, Valley randomly 
allocated the $750,000 mark-up to different items on the bid schedule.
 
3. Specifically, the agency originally believed Valley's bid was 
unbalanced and had included mark-up in four items, Nos. 1, 4, 29 and 
30, greater than the cost of the items. The agency also noted that the 
apparently overstated mark-up on these four items "coincidentally" 
equaled the $520,000 upward adjustment sought by Valley.  
Additionally, Valley provided inconsistent subcontractor price 
quotations, one quote from ITT A-C Pumps and one from Patterson Pumps, 
in support of its pricing.  The issue of the unbalanced bid items is 
addressed below.  As to the inconsistent quotes, Valley provided 
written documentation stating that it did not use the Patterson quote 
because it received this quote the day of bid opening and although 
this quote was lower for the pumps, it was unclear if the pump price 
included the reducers.  Also, both quotes included quotes for the 
diesel engines required under the RFP, and ITT A-C's quote for the 
engines was lower.  Because ITT A-C's total quote was lower, Valley 
used that quote in preparing its bid price.  Indeed, the ITT A-C quote 
for pumps and reducers equals $685,000, the exact price listed on 
Valley's handwritten calculations.  The agency verified ITT A-C's 
price quotation.

4. In its initial protest, Merrick suggested that Valley's bid was 
mathematically unbalanced, thereby providing for a prohibited advance 
payment.  In fact, the record does not reflect that Valley's bid even 
contains any enhanced prices; indeed as to item No. 1, the largest of 
four items referenced by the protester, Merrick's price of $650,000 
was more than double Valley's price of $300,000.  To the extent that 
Merrick is asserting that Valley's bid should have been rejected as 
unbalanced, the allegation simply lacks any plausible basis.