BNUMBER:  B-281417 
DATE:  January 13, 1999
TITLE: Holmes Mechanical, Inc., B-281417, January 13, 1999
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Holmes Mechanical, Inc. 

File:     B-281417

Date:January 13, 1999

Timothy A. Sullivan, Esq., Starfield & Payne, for the protester.
Jeffrey M. Denson, Esq., Lis Young, Esq., and George N. Brezna, Esq., 
Department of the Navy, for the agency.
John L. Formica, Esq., and Jerold D. Cohen, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency acted reasonably in permitting the upward correction of the low 
bid where the worksheets submitted by the low bidder, which included 
computer spreadsheets, contained clear and convincing evidence of the 
mistake and the bid intended.

DECISION

Holmes Mechanical, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Nordic 
Construction, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 
N44255-96-B-1007, issued by the Department of the Navy for the 
replacement of fresh water piping at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in 
Bremerton, Washington.  Holmes contends that Nordic was improperly 
permitted to correct a mistake in its apparent low bid.

We deny the protest.

The IFB required a bidder to submit a lump-sum price for the work 
required, and to separately indicate the cost included in the price 
for bid, performance and payment bonds.  The IFB added that the 
estimated cost range for the project was $250,000 to $500,000.  IFB, 
Standard Form 1442, at 1-2. 

The agency received seven bids by the September 1, 1998 bid opening 
date.  Nordic's bid of $211,040 was low, and Holmes's bid of $314,580 
was next low.  The other bids ranged in price from $320,673 to 
$698,300.  The government estimate was $264,424.  

By letter dated September 2, the contracting officer requested that 
Nordic verify its bid because of the disparity between Nordic's bid 
and the government estimate and the other bids.  Agency Report, Tab 6, 
Agency Oct. 14 Memorandum at 1.  Nordic responded by explaining that 
it had mistakenly omitted the $71,852.55 in equipment costs associated 
with its bid, plus Nordic's standard mark-ups.  Agency Report, 
Tab 5, Letter from Nordic to the agency at 1 (Sept. 9, 1998).  Nordic 
explained that it used a computer spreadsheet program, which included 
separate columns for subcontractor, materials, labor, and equipment 
costs, to prepare the bid.  According to Nordic, when the program 
calculated the total of the four columns, it failed to include the 
total costs set forth under the equipment column.  In support of this 
explanation, Nordic submitted a printed copy of the spreadsheet with 
the error and as corrected, as well as a copy of the spreadsheet on 
computer diskette.[1]  Nordic also submitted other bid worksheets, 
including, for example, the price quote it received for materials.  
Nordic added that there was a second mistake in its bid, pointing out 
that it had erroneously entered as the lump-sum bid price its bid 
amount without the costs for its bonds, thus understating the lump-sum 
price by $3,102 in bond costs.

After reviewing Nordic's worksheets, the agency concluded that there 
was clear and convincing evidence with regard to both of the mistakes 
claimed by Nordic, and therefore the correction of its bid was 
warranted.  The agency made award to Nordic at its corrected bid price 
of $302,362.

Holmes protests that the agency did not have adequate evidence to 
permit the correction of Nordic's bid.  Holmes points out that, 
according to the worksheets, Nordic based its bid price on supplying 
equipment for the project for a different number of weeks than it 
allotted for its on-site supervision of the project; as calculated by 
the protester, this "inconsistency" would add an additional "$680.00 
plus markups to the bid" if corrected.  Comments at 3.  Holmes 
concludes that there consequently is "a serious question regarding the 
nature of the mistake and the intended bid."  Id.  Holmes also 
contends that the computer spreadsheets submitted by Nordic should not 
have been considered by the agency because "it is possible with 
computer programs and spreadsheets to adjust the formula and data 
after bid opening."  Id. 

An agency may permit correction of a bid where clear and convincing 
evidence establishes both the existence of a mistake and the bid 
actually intended.  Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  14.407-3(a); 
Hampton Roads Mechanical Contractors, Inc., B-257908, Nov. 23, 1994, 
94-2 CPD  para.  201 at 2.  Work papers, including computer-generated 
spreadsheets, may constitute clear and convincing evidence if they are 
in good order and indicate the intended bid price, and there is no 
contravening evidence.  Gulfstates Indus., Inc., B-277173.2, Oct. 15, 
1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  103 at 2.  Whether the evidence meets the clear and 
convincing standard is a question of fact, and we will not question an 
agency's decision based on this evidence unless it lacks a reasonable 
basis.  Hampton Roads Mechanical Contractors, Inc., supra, at 3.

The protester's argument concerning the inconsistency between the 
number of weeks Nordic allotted for the supply of equipment for the 
project and its on-site supervision of the project is based upon its 
review of Nordic's internal documents; these documents were provided 
to the protester's counsel under a protective order issued by our 
Office in connection with the protest.  We have previously held that, 
in reviewing whether an agency acted properly in permitting the upward 
correction of a bid, it is not appropriate to question the precise 
methodology by which a bidder undertakes to calculate its bid.  
Schoutten Constr. Co., B-215663, Sept. 18, 1984, 84-2 CPD  para.  318 at 3.  
Rather, our concern is whether the worksheets provide a reasonable 
basis for the agency's conclusion that there was clear and convincing 
evidence of the mistake and the intended bid, and here, as discussed 
below, there was such evidence.[2]

The agency explains that, in reviewing the worksheets submitted by 
Nordic, it determined that they were in good order and that the 
documentation "clearly shows how the errors occurred."  Agency Report, 
Tab 6, Agency Oct. 14 Memorandum at 2.  The agency points out that the 
uncorrected computer spreadsheets show the formula used to calculate 
Nordic's bid, including where the listed equipment costs should have 
been included in the bid total.  The agency explains with regard to 
Nordic's mistake concerning the failure to include bond costs in the 
total bid price that based upon the worksheets it was "readily 
apparent that Nordic misunderstood how its bid price was to be 
listed," and adds that the amount of Nordic's intended bid could be 
determined.  Id.  Based upon our review of the record, including 
Nordic's bid and worksheets and the documentation generated by the 
agency while it was considering Nordic's bid, we see no basis on which 
to challenge the agency's decision to permit the upward correction of 
Nordic's bid.  

Moreover, the correction of a bid may be allowed even where the 
intended bid price cannot be determined exactly, provided there is 
clear and convincing evidence that the intended bid would fall within 
a narrow range of uncertainty and would remain low after correction.  
Precon Constr. Co., B-255294, B-255294.2, Apr. 6, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  239 
at 5.  Even accepting the protester's view that Nordic's bid 
worksheets reflect an inconsistency between the number of weeks 
allotted for the supply of equipment and on-site supervision, 
correction of the bid to resolve the issue would add only 
approximately $680, as calculated by the protester, to the total.  
This amount is insignificant given that Nordic's bid, as corrected, 
would still be more than $11,000, or in excess of 3 percent, lower 
than the protester's next low bid.

With regard to the propriety of the agency's consideration of Nordic's 
computer spreadsheets, our Office has previously determined that the 
fact that bid worksheets were generated by a computer does not 
preclude them from constituting valid evidence to support a request 
for bid correction.  See J.L. Malone & Assocs., Inc.; Helix Elec., 
Inc., B-261353, B-261353.2, Sept. 18, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  136 at 4 n.3.  
The key consideration, as explained above, is whether or not the 
submissions are clear and convincing of the mistake and intended bid; 
the manipulation of the mistake in bid rules may occur just as easily 
when a bidder has prepared its worksheets without the use of a 
computer.  Id. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. According to Nordic, the spreadsheet copy was printed in response 
to the agency's query regarding Nordic's bid price.  Nordic stated 
that it had not printed a copy prior to bid opening.  Agency Report, 
Tab 5, Letter from Nordic to the agency at 1 (Sept. 9, 1998).

2. Nordic's ability to perform all aspects of the job properly has not 
been challenged by the protester and, in any event, is a matter that 
our Office generally does not review.  Bid Protest Regulations, 4 
C.F.R.  sec.  21.5(c) (1998).