Protest challenging the agency’s decision to allow a competitor to correct an error in its bid is denied, where the existence of the mistake and the intended bid was ascertainable from the handwritten information on the bid itself.
Wright & Morrissey protested the Army’s award of a construction services contract to Stewart Construction Inc., arguing the agency improperly allowed Stewart to correct a mistake in its bid, which displaced the protester as the low bidder.
When the contracting office opened bids, he noticed handwritten comments on Stewart’s bid that suggested the potential for a bid mistake. The notes suggested that some items were priced within the base bid CLIN and priced separately under two additional CLINs. Because he expected that he would need further legal guidance regarding the matter, the CO did not disclose the presence of these notations during bid opening and did not take account of the handwritten notes when calculating Stewart’s bid.
To calculate Stewart’s total bid price, the CO added the prices listed for each of the eight CLINs, and used the same calculation methodology to determine the total bid price for the other bidders. Wright & Morrissey submitted the apparent low bid of $5,172,000, and Stewart submitted the second low bid of $5,220,950.
After the agency posted the abstract of bids, Stewart contacted the CO regarding its total bid price and the CO asked the firm to verify its bid. Afterwards, the CO gave Stewart the opportunity to modify or withdraw its bid. Stewart asked to correct a mistake in its bid, which lowered its price by $54,700, the total price for two CLINs. The offeror explained that it had mistakenly included the bid price for CLIN 0002 and CLIN 0003 in its bid price for CLIN 0001, the base bid. According to the firm, because the IFB identified a list of optional requirements, CLIN 0004 through CLIN 0008, Stewart assumed that its bid amount for CLIN 0001 should include the bid amount for CLIN 0002 and for CLIN 0003, which were not listed as optional requirements. The offeror explained that the handwritten notes on its bid were intended to notify the agency of its intent regarding the pricing of these items.
The CO and cognizant agency official agreed that allowing Stewart to correct its bid was reasonable. After Steward made its correction, its bid became the lowest priced and was accepted for award. Wright & Morrisey protested.
As an initial matter, GAO explained that a request to correct a bid after bid opening but prior to award may be granted when there is clear and convincing evidence of both the existence of a mistake and what the bidder intended. When a correction will displace a lower priced bid, an agency may not allow a correction unless these factors are ascertainable substantially from the invitation and the bid itself.
The protester argued that the bid error was not evident from the bid itself and that the agency should have disregarded Stewart’s handwritten notes because they obfuscated the actual bid.
GAO disagreed, finding that the agency reasonably concluded that the bid itself clearly and convincingly established both the existence of the mistake and what Steward intended. The handwritten note stated that the two CLINs were included in the base bid and that Stewart assumed these CLINs were requested to break out individual pricing for the items. The CO reasonably understood this notation to be an indication that Stewart had included the prices for CLINs 0002 and 0003 in the price of CLIN 0001 as part of its base bid. In so doing, the CO concluded that Stewart had double-counted the costs of CLINs 0002 and 0003 by including those costs in CLIN 0001, its base bid, and determined that Stewart’s intended bid was evident from the face of the bid. Because this error and the awardee’s intention were both clear, the agency allowed Stewart to correct its base bid price.
While the protester suggested the handwritten notes were subject to multiple interpretations, GAO noted the protester did not suggest an alternative. GAO found the agency’s decision was reasonable and denied the protest.
Wright & Morrissey is represented by Marc Heath of Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC. The government is represented by Scott N. Flesch and Brian Habib, Department of the Army. GAO attorneys Paula A. Williams and Edward Goldstein participated in the preparation of the decision.
