TITLE: Si-Nor, Inc., B-288990, December 17, 2001
BNUMBER: B-288990
DATE: December 17, 2001
**********************************************************************
Decision
Matter of: Si-Nor, Inc.
File: B-288990
Date: December 17, 2001
Sam Gdanski, Esq., for the protester.
Julia C. Novotny, Esq., Chad E. Miller, Esq., and Richard Welsh, Esq., Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, for the agency.
Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Agency reasonably denied firm's request for upward correction of bid where
the protester's claim of mistake was based on workpapers that the agency
reasonably found not to be in good order and that did not establish the
intended bid.
DECISION
Si-Nor, Inc. protests the denial of its request for upward correction of its
low bid under invitation for bids (IFB) No. N62477-00-B-1052, issued by the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command for refuse collection, recycling and
disposal services at the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia.
We deny the protest.
Three bids were received in response to the IFB by the July 18, 2001, bid
opening date. Si-Nor submitted the low bid of $726,522; Delmar Systems, Inc.
submitted the next low bid of $969,673.58. The government estimate was
$883,466.70. Agency Report (AR) encl. 2, Abstract of Offers.
As relevant here, Si-Nor bid the work as follows:
Line Item No. Annual Unit Price Total Price
Quantity
0001AA 62,140 $2.25 $139,815
0001AB 1,144 $12.50 $14,300
0001AC 5,200 $3.75 $19,500
0001AE 28,134 $12.50 $351,675
0001AJ 158 $350 $54,600
0001AL 130 $350 $45,500
AR encl. 3, Si-Nor's Bid.
On September 3, the agency requested Si-Nor to confirm its bid. On September
4, Si-Nor's Vice President submitted a letter to the agency requesting a bid
correction because he discovered "that my clerical staff made some errors."
AR encl. 4, Si-Nor Request for Correction. Specifically, the Vice President
stated that for line item 0001AB, his intended unit price of $17.50, was
incorrectly read and typed as $12.50. According to the Vice President, the
clerical staff crossed out on the worksheet his original extension in the
amount of $20,020, which was correct, based on a unit price of $17.50, and
entered $14,300. As shown above, the $14,300 extension price was then
included in the bid. The Vice President further stated that the clerical
staff made the same mistake on line item 0001AE and read and typed his
$17.50 as $12.50 and changed the extension price to $351,675 in place of his
intended extension price of $492,345. Id. The Vice President also stated
that certain service charges were not included for two other line items.
Specifically, for line item 0001AJ he wrote on his worksheet $350 with +40
in small print next to the unit price intending the clerical staff to add
these two figures together prior to computing the extended amount. This type
of error also occurred with respect to line item 0001AL where $35 was not
added to the unit price of $350. As a result, Si-Nor asserted that the unit
and extension prices were not correct for these two items. Based on these
four errors, the protester requested a total upward correction from $726,522
to $883,702. The protester enclosed with its letter his original worksheets;
a "Contract Cost Proposal" and revised bid schedule showing the alleged
intended bid; and several subcontractor quotes. None of these documents were
dated. The firm did not submit any sworn affidavits from the Vice President
or the "clerical staff" employees who allegedly participated in the
preparation of the worksheets or bid.
The first of Si-Nor's two relevant worksheets is reproduced on the next
page:
[Image]
After reviewing Si-Nor's submission, the agency concluded that there was
insufficient evidence to establish the amount of Si-Nor's intended bid. By
letter dated September 22, the agency informed Si-Nor that the firm would
not be permitted to correct its bid. The agency informed Si-Nor that it
could be considered for award based on the prices originally submitted or
that it could withdraw its bid. On September 25, Si-Nor filed this protest
with our Office.
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,
so long as the correction would not result in displacing one or more lower
bids. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 14.407-3(a); Holmes Mech.,
Inc., B-281417, Jan. 13, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 6 at 2. A request to correct a bid
must be supported by statements and shall include all pertinent evidence,
including original worksheets and other data used to prepare the bid, and
any other evidence that establishes the existence of the error, the manner
in which it occurred, and the bid actually intended. FAR sect. 14.407-3(g)(2).
Workpapers may constitute part of that clear and convincing evidence if they
are in good order and indicate the intended price. Pueblo Enters., Inc..
B-278279, Jan. 14, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 15 at 4. As a general matter, we view
agencies' reluctance to find that evidence meets the high standard required
for correction as protective of the integrity of the sealed-bid process. In
any case, whether 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. J. Schouten Constr., Inc.,
B-256710, June 6, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 353 at 3.
We have reviewed the report, as well as the information submitted by Si-Nor,
and we conclude that the agency reasonably found that the information
submitted here was inadequate to support correction. See Asbestos Control
Mgmt., Inc., B-279521, June 23, 1998, 98-1 CPD 169 at 5-6.
As noted above, the workpapers and other supporting documents provided by
Si-Nor to the Navy to support its mistake claim are not dated, and there was
nothing before the Navy to establish when and how the workpapers were
prepared. Moreover, the worksheets contain too many ambiguities to
constitute clear and convincing evidence supporting correction.
For example, a note on the worksheet states, "Ana, use my unit price and
multiply with quantity to get the correct extensions." However, as the Navy
points out, it appears that the Vice President had already calculated the
extensions based on the unit prices, and it is unclear why the Vice
President directed "Ana" to calculate the extensions, if the extensions had
already been calculated. As a more general matter, with all of the
crossings-out and unclear handwriting, it is impossible to determine from
the worksheet the intended bid prices for the line items at issue in the bid
correction request. For example, for line item 0001AB, the worksheet
suggests three possible intended unit prices--$11.50, $12.50, or $17.50, and
resultant extension prices. Other than the protester's post-bid-opening
explanations, it is not obvious which of those figures was the intended
price.
In his letter to the agency, the Vice President maintained that, for this
line item and line item 0001AE, the clerical staff misread the Vice
President's handwritten unit price as $12.50, instead of the $17.50 that was
intended. These mistakes in the unit prices allegedly resulted from
handwritten sevens that look like twos with a line slashed through them.
However, while the clerical staff allegedly incorrectly read the sevens as
twos on line items 0001AB and 0001AE, no mistake was made with respect to
line item 0001AC's unit price of $3.75, even though, as reproduced above,
this seven looked identical to the seven which was allegedly mistaken as a
two on the bid for line items 0001AB and 0001AE. There simply is no
explanation as to how or why the alleged mistakes in reading the figures
were made under certain circumstances and not others. The post-bid-opening
explanation for the "+40" notation on line item 0001AJ and the "+35"
notation on line item 0001AL is equally problematic. In our view, the Navy,
faced with this confused picture, reasonably concluded that Si-Nor had not
provided clear and convincing evidence of the intended prices. [1]
The protest is denied.
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
Notes
1. After filing its protest with our Office, Si-Nor filed declarations from
the Vice President and from the secretary of Si-Nor who typed the bid. We
are not persuaded that these submissions meaningfully explain the mistake in
bid. In any event, the protester's submission of these declarations to our
Office is irrelevant to the question before us, which is whether the
agency's denial of the request for correction had a reasonable basis in the
record before the agency at the time. Moreover, such tardy submission of
statements supporting key contentions, which should have been part of the
initial explanation to the agency, raises credibility concerns. See Pueblo
Enters., Inc., supra, at 5 n.2.