BNUMBER:  B-271112
DATE:  May 21, 1996
TITLE:  Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc.

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

Matter of:Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc.

File:     B-271112

Date:May 21, 1996

Alan H. Goldstein, Esq., Dutton Overman Goldstein Pinkus, for the 
protester.
Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the 
agency.
Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency properly allowed low bidder to correct mistake in its bid prior 
to award where the agency reasonably concluded that clear and 
convincing evidence established the mistake and the intended bid 
price, and the corrected bid remains low.

DECISION

Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc. (HHN) protests the award of a contract to 
Trafalgar House Construction, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 
9515-AE, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for 
improvements to the Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, 
Indiana.  The protester contends that the VA, after bid opening but 
before award, improperly permitted an upward correction to Trafalgar's 
bid.

We deny the protest.

The IFB sought bids for general construction, including several 
alternate items, and contemplated the award of one contract on the 
basis of the lowest aggregate bid.  The agency received the following 
five bids by bid opening on September 28, 1995:

                     Trafalgar     $23,387,000

                     HHN            24,370,000

                     R.L. Turner    24,725,000

                     Centex         25,193,000

                     F.A. Wilhelm    29,240,000

On September 29, Trafalgar informed the contracting officer that its 
bid contained a mistake.  In subsequent correspondence to the agency, 
Trafalgar explained that a subcontractor's quote for drywall services, 
for $1,715,050, was inadvertently transferred from its hand-written 
"subcontract bid recording sheet" to Trafalgar's computerized bidding 
system as "$1,071,505."  A "0" thus had been mistakenly entered in the 
hundred-thousandth column instead of a "7," resulting in a bid mistake 
of $643,545 ($1,715,050 minus $1,071,505).  Trafalgar requested that 
it be allowed an upward correction to its bid to include the omitted 
amount, for a total corrected bid of $24,030,545.

Based on its review of the documents Trafalgar submitted in support of 
its mistake claim, including its "subcontractor bid recording sheet" 
and other workpapers, the VA concluded that Trafalgar had submitted 
clear and convincing evidence of the mistake and of its intended bid, 
and permitted the firm an upward correction to its bid.  On December 
22, the VA awarded the contract to Trafalgar at the corrected bid 
price, $24,030,545.  This protest to our Office followed an 
agency-level protest, which the VA denied.

PROTESTER'S CONTENTIONS

The protester maintains that Trafalgar's "subcontract bid recording 
sheet" shows the drywall subcontractor's quote Trafalgar intended to 
use in preparing its bid as $1,700,000.  HHN points out that even when 
including other work Trafalgar added to that base price the column on 
the worksheet corresponding to that drywall subcontractor does not add 
up to $1,715,050, the alleged intended bid.  HHN maintains that in 
light of that inconsistency in the worksheet, the agency's conclusion 
that Trafalgar had submitted clear and convincing evidence of its 
intended bid was unreasonable.

HHN also contends that when Trafalgar was selecting a drywall 
subcontractor's quote to include in its final bid sheet, it should 
have noticed the wide disparity (of more than $700,000) between the 
amount it entered on its bid sheet and the other subcontractor's quote 
for the same work.  Because Trafalgar failed to do so, HHN argues, it 
was negligent in preparing its bid and should be required to accept 
the award at the uncorrected bid price or withdraw its bid.  
Alternatively, the protester contends that selection of the lower 
amount must have been deliberate, and therefore did not constitute a 
mistake subject to correction.

ANALYSIS

Mistakes in a bid generally do not render the bid unacceptable if the 
errors are correctable under the mistake in bid procedures set out in 
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  14.407.  P. K. Painting Co., 
B-247357, May 5, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  424.  Correction is proper if clear 
and convincing evidence establishes both the existence of the mistake 
and the bid actually intended, and the corrected bid does not displace 
other bids.  FAR  sec.  14.407-3(a).  We treat the question of whether the 
evidence of the mistake and the bid intended meets the clear and 
convincing standard as a question of fact, and we will not question an 
agency's decision in this regard unless it lacks a reasonable basis.  
Gunco, Inc., B-238910, July 17, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  46.  Workpapers may 
constitute clear and convincing evidence if they show the existence of 
a mistake and the intended bid, are in good order, and are not 
contradicted by other evidence.  Interstate Constr., Inc., B-248355, 
Aug. 6, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  86.  Here, the record shows that Trafalgar 
presented clear and convincing evidence establishing both the mistake 
and the intended bid.  Further, the corrected bid does not displace 
any other bid.  Accordingly, we find that correction is proper.

In support of its mistake claim, Trafalgar provided the agency with 
its "subcontract bid recording sheet" showing the prices quoted by 
various drywall subcontractors; copies of fax transmissions of the 
intended drywall subcontractor's quote; copies of Trafalgar's 
computerized bid worksheets and bid summary sheet; and accompanying 
affidavits from Trafalgar's vice president of estimating and another 
Trafalgar employee who was involved in preparing Trafalgar's bid, 
explaining how the mistake occurred and how Trafalgar arrived at the 
drywall subcontractor's price it intended to use in preparing its bid, 
$1,715,050.

Trafalgar's "subcontract bid recording sheet" shows that the 
subcontractor's price at issue was recorded on that sheet as 
$1,700,000.  To that base price, Trafalgar added prices for other work 
items.  The worksheet clearly shows the hand-written "grand total" for 
that drywall subcontractor as "$1,715,050."  The record also contains 
a copy of Trafalgar's computerized "bid history" printout showing all 
items of work with all corresponding subcontractor quotations.  That 
printout clearly shows that the "grand total" for the drywall item at 
issue was incorrectly entered on Trafalgar's bid history sheet as 
"$1,071,505."  Consequently, that mistaken amount was incorporated 
into Trafalgar's final bid, resulting in Trafalgar's bid price being 
understated by $643,545.

It is clear based on our review of the record that the mistake 
occurred when Trafalgar transcribed the "grand total" from the 
"subcontractor bid recording sheet" onto its computerized bidding 
system.  The protester has presented no argument, and we find no basis 
in the record, to question the authenticity of Trafalgar's worksheets 
or its explanation for the transcription error.  Accordingly, we 
conclude that the VA reasonably found that Trafalgar's workpapers and 
supporting affidavits established clear and convincing evidence of the 
mistake and of the intended bid, and properly allowed the correction.  
See J. Schouten Constr., Inc., B-256710, June 6, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  353.

HHN points out that the worksheet shows that the prices for the 
additional work items under the drywall subcontractor's column add up 
to $17,600, making the grand total in that column $1,717,600, rather 
than $1,715,050, for a difference of $2,550.  Trafalgar explained that 
in calculating the grand total price for the drywall subcontractor, it 
used the lower prices for the additional work items quoted by another 
vendor whose quotes also appear on the worksheet.  We have reviewed 
the worksheet in light of Trafalgar's statement and find the firm's 
explanation reasonable and consistent with the figures shown on the 
worksheet.  In any case, correction may be allowed, even where the 
intended bid price cannot be determined exactly, provided 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.  See J.C.K. Contracting Co., Inc., B-224538, Jan. 9, 
1987, 87-1 CPD  para.  43.  In those circumstances, correction is limited to 
increasing the contract price only to the bottom end of the range of 
uncertainty.  Price/CIRI Constr., B-230603, May 25, 1988, 88-1 CPD  para.  
500.  To the extent that there is some uncertainty regarding 
Trafalgar's intended bid, by HHN's own calculations the range of that 
uncertainty is only $2,550, and Trafalgar's bid would remain low by 
more than $336,000 regardless of which vendor's prices Trafalgar 
intended to use to price the additional work items.

The protester also contends that Trafalgar acted negligently when it 
entered the mistaken amount for drywall work on its final bid sheet in 
light of the disparity between that amount and the other 
subcontractor's quote on the "bid history" worksheet.  To the extent 
that the protester argues that any such negligence precludes 
correction of the bid, this argument is without merit.  The question 
for our review is whether the VA reasonably concluded that Trafalgar 
had submitted clear and convincing evidence of the mistake and of the 
intended bid, see, e.g., R.L. Lee Constr., B-255214, Feb. 7, 1994, 
94-1 CPD  para.  83, not whether Trafalgar was negligent in preparing its 
bid.  Thus, even if the error was caused by Trafalgar's negligence, as 
HHN contends, the VA may properly consider Trafalgar's request for bid 
correction.  See Specialty Sys. Inc., B-204577, Feb. 9, 1982, 82-1 CPD  para.  
114.  Pointing again to the disparity in the two amounts for the 
drywall work listed on the "bid history" worksheet, the protester 
argues that the selection of the lower amount must have been 
deliberate, and therefore was not a mistake subject to correction.  
There is no support in the record for this position; rather, as 
explained above, the documentary evidence submitted by Trafalgar 
supports the agency's conclusion that a mistake was made and that the 
lower amount was not the amount intended to be included in the final 
bid calculation.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States