BNUMBER:  B-279859             
DATE:  July 27, 1998
TITLE: Cromartie and Breakfield, B-279859, July 27, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Cromartie and Breakfield

File:B-279859            
        
Date:July 27, 1998

Charles Cromartie for the protester. 
George Brezna, Esq., Lis Young, Esq., and Kimberly L. Foltz, Esq., 
Department of the Navy, for the agency. 
Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably rejected low quote due to suspected mistake where 
quote was significantly lower than the government estimate and the 
other quotes received and, notwithstanding agency's request, the 
protester failed to submit documentation or explanation which 
adequately supported its quote.

DECISION

Cromartie and Breakfield protests the rejection of its low quote under 
request for quotations (RFQ) No. N68925-98-Q-A171, issued by the 
Department of the Navy, for woodland debris removal at the United 
States Naval Observatory, Washington, D.C.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation, issued as a small business set-aside under 
simplified acquisition procedures, requested a lump-sum price to 
provide all necessary labor, material, equipment and supervision for 
ground maintenance services described as the removal of all dead wood, 
limbs, branches, trees, and vegetation throughout a 98,970 square foot 
area.  The RFQ specified the removal of dead wood overhanging or 
hanging onto trees or vegetation and all vines to an elevation of 8 
feet.  RFQ, Woodland Debris Removal Specification  para.  2.   

The Navy received five quotations on March 31, 1998, of which 
Cromartie's was low at $7,673, with the other quotes ranging from 
$23,500 to $45,000.  The government estimate for the work was 
$23,973.50.  By letter dated April 1, the contracting officer informed 
Cromartie that its quote appeared to be unreasonably low and out of 
line with the government estimate and asked Cromartie to review its 
worksheets for possible errors or omissions.  Cromartie was also 
requested to submit a price breakdown and to provide three references 
for tree removal work, documentation showing that it was qualified to 
perform this type of work, and a project plan showing how it intended 
to complete the work.  

By letter dated April 3, Cromartie declined to provide a price 
breakdown stating that the scope of work was not specific; there were 
no "quantitative measurements verbally or graphic illustrations" and 
therefore it was impossible to give a price breakdown.  Cromartie 
provided a list of references and, as its project plan, stated that 
"[w]e will be using chain saws, ladders, harness belts, complete 
clothing, ropes and roll aways to cut down, clean up and remove 
debris."    

By letter dated April 8, the Navy rejected Cromartie's quote as 
unreasonable as to price.  A purchase order was issued to the second 
low quoter, The Davey Tree Expert Company, for $23,500.  The protester 
essentially argues that the rejection of its quote as unreasonably low 
actually constituted a nonresponsibility determination that should 
have been referred to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for 
consideration under its certificate of competency (COC) procedures.

In its report submitted in response to the protest, the agency 
explains that it rejected Cromartie's quote on the basis of Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  14.407-3(g)(5), which allows the 
rejection of a bid that is obviously erroneous, such that acceptance 
of the bid would be unfair to the bidder or other bona fide bidders.  
The agency maintains that due to the extreme disparity between 
Cromartie's price and the prices of other quoters and the government 
estimate, together with Cromartie's refusal to provide an adequate 
price breakdown, acceptance of Cromartie's quote would be unfair even 
though Cromartie had not claimed to have made any mistake. 

Where, as here, simplified acquisition procedures are used, 
contracting agencies may properly use innovative approaches so as to 
award contracts in the manner that is most suitable, efficient and 
economical in the circumstances of each acquisition.  FAR  sec.  13.003(h); 
Bosco Contracting, Inc., B-270366, Mar. 4, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  140 at 2.  
Our Office reviews allegations of improper agency actions in 
conducting simplified acquisitions to ensure that the procurements are 
conducted consistent with the concern for fair and equitable 
competition that is inherent in any federal procurement.  Huntington 
Valley Indus., B-272321, Sept. 27, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  126 at 2.  

While the provisions of FAR part 14 are not directly applicable to a 
procurement under simplified acquisition procedures, FAR part 13 
affords contracting officers discretion to use those provisions.  
Specifically, FAR  sec.  13.106-2(b)(1) provides:

     The procedures prescribed in Parts 14 and 15 are not mandatory.  
     At the contracting officer's discretion, one or more, but not 
     necessarily all, of the evaluation procedures in Part 14 and 15 
     may be used.

Here, the agency used the procedure under FAR  sec.  14.407-3(g)(1), which 
calls for a contracting officer to immediately request a bidder whose 
bid contains a suspected mistake to verify the bid, and requires that 
the "[a]ction taken to verify bids must be sufficient to reasonably 
assure the contracting officer that the bid as confirmed is without 
error, or to elicit the allegation of a mistake by the bidder."  FAR  sec.  
14.407-3(g)(5) then provides:

     Where the bidder fails or refuses to furnish evidence in support 
     of a suspected or alleged mistake, the contracting officer shall 
     consider the bid as submitted unless (i) the amount of the bid is 
     so far out of line with the amounts of other bids received, or 
     with the amount estimated by the agency or determined by the 
     contracting officer to be reasonable, or (ii) there are other 
     indications of error so clear, as to reasonably justify the 
     conclusion that acceptance of the bid would be unfair to the 
     bidder or to other bona fide bidders.

A contracting officer's decision to reject an apparently mistaken bid 
under the authority of the above-quoted FAR provision is subject to 
question only where it is unreasonable.  Pamfilis Painting, Inc., 
B-237968, Apr. 3, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  355 at 3. Whether a bidder admits 
that it has made a mistake is not dispositive as to whether a bid may 
be rejected as mistaken.  TLC Fin. Group, B-237384, Jan. 26, 1990, 
90-1 CPD  para.  116 at 3.  Where it is clear that a mistake has been made, 
the bid cannot be accepted, even if the bidder verifies the bid, 
denies the existence of a mistake, or seeks to waive an admitted 
mistake, unless it is clear that the bid as submitted and intended 
would remain low.  Trataros Constr., Inc., B-254600, Jan. 4, 1994, 
94-1 CPD  para.  1 at 3; Atlantic Servs., Inc., B-245763, Jan. 30, 1992, 
92-1 CPD  para.  125 at 3.

Here, the contracting officer appropriately exercised his discretion 
in applying the procedures outlined under FAR  sec.  14.407-3(g)(5), and 
reasonably determined to  reject Cromartie's quote as mistaken. 

As noted above, the agency believed Cromartie had made a mistake 
because its price was significantly out of line with the government 
estimate and with the other quotes (300 percent).  Even though the 
protester was apprised of the agency's concerns, Cromartie did not 
furnish evidence to show that there was no mistake or to indicate how 
it had calculated its quote, despite the agency's request for a price 
breakdown.  Even now, when the importance of such information should 
be plain to Cromartie, the protester has not furnished our Office any 
evidence to demonstrate that its quote was not mistaken.  Further, in 
its response to the agency's inquiry, the limited project plan that 
Cromartie provided did not indicate that Cromartie had calculated the 
cost of removing vegetation, vine and brush, a requirement that was 
valued at approximately 50 percent of the government's estimate and 
was more than Cromartie's quote for performing the entire requirement.  
Under these circumstances, the contracting officer reasonably rejected 
Cromartie's quote.

The rejection of a low bid as obviously erroneous is not a matter of 
bidder responsibility as contended by Cromartie.  Rejection of a bid 
because it is too low or below cost concerns bidder responsibility 
only where there is no evidence of a mistake.  Omni Elevator Co., 
B-241678, Feb. 25, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  207 at 4-5; Zimmerman Plumbing and 
Heating Co., B-211879, June 24, 1983, 83-2 CPD  para.  16 at 2. However, 
where, as here, a quote is obviously erroneous, FAR  sec.  14.407-3(g)(5) 
authorizes the agency to reject it without any consideration as to 
whether the quoter is responsible.  Accordingly, Cromartie's quote was 
properly rejected as mistaken without any requirement that the matter 
be referred to the SBA for COC consideration.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States