BNUMBER:  B-274866
DATE:  December 9, 1996
TITLE:  Murray Service Company t/a EMD Mechanical Specialists

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

Matter of:Murray Service Company t/a EMD Mechanical Specialists

File:     B-274866

Date:December 9, 1996

Andrew N. Cook, Esq., Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, for the protester.
Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., Paul Warring, Esq., Frank Miller, Esq., and 
John Lariccia, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., 
Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of 
the decision.

DIGEST

Agency may accept a bid that, while containing discrepancies between 
line item prices and total prices, is low under all reasonable 
interpretations and where the bidder has presented clear and 
convincing evidence of the intended bid price.

DECISION

Murray Service Company t/a EMD Mechanical Specialists protests the 
award of a contract to Superior Management Services (SMS) under 
invitation for bids (IFB)
No. F49642-96-B-0060, issued by the Department of the Air Force for 
alteration and repair of a chilled water system at Bolling Air Force 
Base.  The protester argues that SMS's bid should not have been 
accepted since its price is ambiguous.[1]

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

Twelve bids were received by the September 26, 1996 bid opening date.  
SMS was the apparent low bidder with a total price of $2,477,000; 
Edward Kocharian, Inc. (whose bid was subsequently determined 
nonresponsive) was second low with a price of $2,489,000; and Murray 
was third low with a total bid of $2,687,000.

In reviewing SMS's bid, the contracting officer noted a discrepancy in 
the amounts entered on its bid schedule.  SMS's bid schedule appeared 
as follows:

Item No.Bid Description  Quantity  Unit Unit PriceAmount

0001    Alter            1         JB   LS        $ 277,000

0002    Repair           1         JB   LS        $2,200,000

                         SUBTOTAL (0001-0002)     $2,180,000

0003    Total Bond Cost  1         JB   LS        $  20,000

                         TOTAL (0001-0003)        $2,477,000

The contracting officer noted that the sum of CLINs 0001, 0002, and 
0003 did not equal the total bid entered by SMS on the bid schedule.  
In addition, the sum of CLINs 0001 and 0002 did not equal the subtotal 
entered and the sum of the subtotal and CLIN 0003 did not equal the 
total entered.

The contracting officer contacted SMS immediately and requested that 
it either verify its bid price of $2,477,000 or submit a notice of 
mistake in bid.  SMS responded by verifying its total price of 
$2,477,000.  In a second letter transmitted the same afternoon, SMS 
explained that it had transposed some of the entries on its bid 
schedule.  It stated that the correct entries should have been as 
follows:

          Item No. 0001       $ 277,000
          Item No. 0002       $2,180,000
                    Subtotal  $2,457,000
          Item No. 0003       $  20,000
                    Total     $2,477,000

With the letter, SMS enclosed a copy of its bid estimate worksheet, 
which supported its claim that it had intended to bid the above 
amounts.

SMS submitted a third letter the following day, in which it explained 
how the transposition error had occurred.  An SMS employee had been 
dispatched to the bid opening location prior to the time set for 
opening.  Upon his arrival there, he had contacted SMS's president via 
mobile phone to receive final instructions on SMS's intended pricing.  
SMS's president first instructed the employee to enter a total bid 
price of $2,477,000 on the schedule.  Next, the president instructed 
the employee to enter the sum $277,000 for item No. 0001.  The phone 
then disconnected.  A second call was placed, and the president 
instructed the employee to enter $20,000 for the bid bond item. The 
president then instructed the employee to enter $2,180,000 for "the 
next bid item," to calculate the subtotal, and to get the bid in on 
time.  The employee, in his haste to comply, entered $2,180,000 in the 
subtotal blank, rather than in the blank for CLIN 0002; he then added 
$2,180,000 to the $20,000 that he had entered for CLIN 0003 and 
entered the sum (i.e., $2,200,000) in the remaining blank, opposite 
CLIN 0002.

After reviewing the information submitted by SMS, including its bid 
estimate worksheet and its explanation of how the error had occurred, 
the contracting officer concluded that there was clear and convincing 
evidence of both mistake and the bid intended.  The contracting 
officer also noted that SMS was the low bidder, whether considering 
its total bid as entered on the bid schedule (i.e., $2,477,000); the 
sum of CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003 (i.e., $2,497,000), or the sum of 
the subtotal entry and CLIN 0003 (i.e., $2,200,000).  The contracting 
officer therefore allowed SMS to correct its bid.  On September 30, 
the agency awarded a contract to SMS.

DISCUSSION

The protester argues first that the agency should have rejected SMS's 
bid as nonresponsive because it is ambiguous as to price.

Although a bid must be rejected as nonresponsive if it is ambiguous 
regarding the actual price the government would be obligated to pay 
upon acceptance of the bid, BFI Medical Waste Servs., B-266354, Jan. 
29, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  28; Municipal Leasing Sys., Inc., B-242648.2, May 
21, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  495, we apply this rule only in situations in 
which the bid price is ambiguous in the sense that it is unclear from 
the bid how it should be calculated--for example, where the bidder 
bids on the basis of units other than those identified in the bid 
schedule under an indefinite quantity solicitation.  E.g., BFI Medical 
Waste Servs., supra.  We apply a different rule in situations, such as 
the one here, in which, due to a mistake in one or more of the entries 
on the bid form, there are two (or a finite number more) reasonable 
interpretations of the intended price.  In such cases, a bid which is 
ambiguous as to price need not be rejected if it is low under all 
reasonable interpretations.  NJS Dev. Corp., 67 Comp. Gen. 529 (1988), 
88-2 CPD  para.  62.

Moreover, if the bid discrepancy can properly be eliminated through 
the mistake in bid rules of Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  14.407-3, 
award may be made at the intended price.  Here, the contracting agency 
found, by clear and convincing evidence, consisting of SMS's bid 
estimate worksheet and its plausible explanation of how the error had 
occurred, that it was the entries for CLIN 0002 and the subtotal for 
CLINs 0001 and 0002 that were in error and that the "total amount was 
the intended bid."  Since nothing on this record establishes that the 
contracting officer's finding of clear and convincing evidence was 
unreasonable, we conclude that award to SMS at that total price was 
proper.[2]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The protester also argued in its initial submission that SMS's bid 
was unbalanced.  The agency responded in its report that SMS's bid was 
neither mathematically nor materially unbalanced.  The protester, in 
commenting on the agency report, does not attempt to rebut the agency 
position; we therefore consider it to have abandoned this argument.  
Arjay Elecs. Corp., B-243080, July 1, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  3.

2. Although the protester asserts that in accord with our decision in 
Polycast Technology Corp., B-203871, Nov. 2, 1981, 81-2 CPD  para.  373, in 
which we held that an ambiguous low bid could be accepted where the 
bid was low under either interpretation of the ambiguity and the 
bidder agreed to accept the interpretation that was most favorable to 
the government, award can be made to SMS only at the lowest of the 
three interpretations of its bid price, here, as a result of the 
evidence presented, there is no ambiguous bid.