EPA received bids from 10 bidders, including Prudent and Environmental Restoration. The contracting officer calculated the price for each bid by adding the CLIN amounts entered on the B-2 price schedule, including the 2-year base period and the option year, as well as the quantity options, as they appeared in the "total" column for CLINs 0005 and 1005. The negative incentive amounts in CLINs 0004, 0009, (and the corresponding option year CLINS 1004 and 1009), which were specified to be $1,000 per property, were not included in the agency's calculation, nor did the calculation include conditional pricing in CLINs 0006 and option year CLIN 1006 (a per-property price decrease in the event EPA provided the disposal area).

The low bid was withdrawn, and Environmental Restoration was found to have submitted the next low bid, which the contracting officer calculated from the firm's schedule B-2 CLIN pricing to be $12,160,354.52; Prudent submitted the third low bid of $18,826,500.00.

Environmental Restoration requested an opportunity to correct mistakes in its bid, noting a more than $6 million discrepancy between the total price the firm had bid in schedule B-1 and the agency's total evaluated bid price based upon Environmental Restoration's CLIN pricing in schedule B-2. Specifically, Environmental Restoration informed the contracting officer that the firm's $18,674,250 total bid price mistakenly included negative incentives and that this total bid price should have been $18,679,500. Environmental Restoration also informed the contracting officer that the firm had mistakenly not extended its unit price for CLIN 0005 to reflect that this CLIN provided for a quantity of 400 properties; rather, Environmental Restoration bid $8,895 for both the unit price and the total bid price for CLIN 0005. Similarly, Environmental Restoration bid $8,895 for both the unit price and the total bid price for the option year CLIN 1005, and thus the total price for CLIN 1005 did not reflect the quantity of 300 properties. AR, Tab 14, Environmental Restoration Letter to EPA, July 16, 2009.

The agency allowed Environmental Restoration to correct its bid, and this protest followed.

Prudent challenges the agency's decision to permit Environmental Restoration to correct its claimed mistake, arguing that the IFB's terms and instructions to bidders were unambiguous and that Environmental Restoration should therefore be held to the prices it submitted on schedule B-2 and the evaluated total bid price at bid opening.

A bidder may be permitted to upwardly correct its bid price prior to award where there is clear and convincing evidence that a mistake was made, the manner in which the mistake occurred, and the intended price. See Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 14.407-3(a); Odyssey Int'l, Inc., B-296885.2, Nov. 16, 2005, 2006 CPD para. 49 at 4. Because the authority to correct mistakes alleged after bid opening but prior to award is vested in the procuring agency, and because the weight to be given the evidence in support of an asserted mistake is a question of fact, we will not disturb an agency's determination concerning bid correction unless it is unreasonable. Id.

Here, we find that the agency reasonably concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that a mistake had occurred and the manner in which it occurred and the intended bid price. Specifically, with respect to CLINs 0005 and 1005, it was obvious that Environmental Restoration had simply failed to multiply its unit price on the B-2 schedule by the quantity option's potential maximum amount, since it listed the same number for its unit price and total price.[3] In addition, it is clear that when Environmental Restoration calculated its bid amounts in the B-1 schedule, it mistakenly included the negative incentive CLINs (0004, 0009, 1004, and 1,009) as well as the CLINs representing the amount by which the bidder would lower its per-property price in the event EPA provided the disposal area (0006 and 1006). This is clear because Environmental Restoration's calculated total prices differed from the agency's calculated total prices in exactly the amount of these CLINs. Thus, when Environmental Restoration's unit pricing is extended by the appropriate quantities, and the extended prices are totaled, using the same calculation method as the agency used for every other bidder, the sum exactly matches the amount that Environmental Restoration requested for the correction of its bid.

In short, all of the information necessary to ascertain that a mistake was made, manner in which it was made, and the amount Environmental Restoration intended to bid, was apparent from the bid itself. Moreover, correction of the mistake does not result in displacement of any lower-priced bids. We find that the agency's determination that Environmental Restoration should be permitted to correct its mistake was reasonable.

The protest is denied.  (Prudent Technologies, Inc., B-401736.3, December 9, 2009) (pdf)

IAP argues, among other things, that the agency's decision to allow Trillacorpe to correct its bid was unreasonable because Trillacorpe failed to produce clear and convincing evidence establishing the bid that was actually intended. Comments at 4‑7. Specifically, IAP contends that Trillacorpe failed to show how the increase in the two line items set forth above would have increased its bid to exactly $19,074,444, because according to Trillacorpe's bid calculation worksheet, it intended to add [deleted]% to its costs for general conditions, [deleted]% to its subcontractor work for subcontractor bonds, and [deleted]% to its bid for Trillacorpe's fee. Comments at 7; see AR, Tab 17, Sworn Statement with Bid Worksheets, at 11. IAP argues that these charges would have increased Trillacorpe's intended bid to $19,227,149. Id. IAP contends that Trillacorpe's decision not to add these adjustments to its corrected bid price is a negotiation after bid opening, and, in any case, casts doubt upon the amount of Trillacorpe's intended bid.

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. FAR sect. 14.407‑3(A); Reliable Mechanical, Inc., B-282874.2, Sept. 13, 1999, 99-2 CPD para. 52 at 2; Holmes Mechanical, 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, subcontractors' quotations, if any, published price lists, 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). In judging the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider factors such as the closeness of the corrected bid and the next low bid as well as the range of uncertainty in the intended bid. Western Alaska Contractors, B‑220067, Jan. 22, 1986, 86-1 CPD para. 66 at 4. In general, the closer an asserted intended bid is to the next low bid, the more difficult it is to establish that it was the bid actually intended. Id. Correction of a bid may be permitted to reflect the omission of direct costs without any increase for profit where the bidder requests correction in such form and the bid would remain low whether or not the low bid is amended to reflect profit. Matzkin & Day, B‑167068, Feb. 10, 1970, 49 Comp. Gen. 480 at 483. 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. J. Schouten Constr., Inc., B-256710, June 6, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 353 at 3.

We conclude from the record that the agency's decision to allow correction of Trillacorpe's bid was reasonable. In this regard, Trillacorpe submitted its subcontractor quotes showing the correct prices, which are then reflected on the bid worksheets, but with misplaced decimal points. Thus the number $1,070,000 was incorrectly entered as $1,070, and the number $529,460 was incorrectly entered as $52,946. The difference between these two numbers is $1,545,444, the exact amount by which Trillacorpe requested to adjust its bid.

While we recognize that Trillacorpe has elected not to add to the corrected amount the percentage charges for general conditions, subcontractor bonds, and fee--that are shown on its bid worksheet--even if these charges had been added to the bid, it would have increased only to $19,227,149, an amount still over $300,000 lower than the next lowest bid. See Comments at 7. We have held that, if there is a range of uncertainty regarding the intended bid, correction should place the contractor at the bottom end of that range. Western Alaska Contractors, supra, at 6. We also note that correction of this bid is not prejudicial to the other bidders. See Matzkin & Day, supra. Further, the agency requested and received a sworn statement from an individual who participated in the preparation of the bid, explaining the mistakes and attesting to the authenticity of the documents submitted.

Based on the record presented here, we find nothing unreasonable in the agency's decision to allow Trillacorpe to correct its bid, or the award to Trillacorpe.  (IAP-Leopardo Construction, Inc., B-401923, December 2, 2009)  (pdf)

The Navy issued the IFB to obtain dredging and related services at Submarine Base New London. The IFB required bidders to supply both unit prices and extended prices for 10 line items, and a total of the extended prices for all lines. The IFB also instructed bidders to submit both an original and one copy of their bids.

The first line item shown in the bid schedule, with a quantity of one "LS" (or lump sum), was mobilization. Since offerors therefore priced mobilization as a single lump sum, the unit price and extended price for this line should have been identical.

At the bid opening, the Navy received two bids: one from Cashman, and one from Great Lakes. Cashman's bid was consistent and complete, and reflected a total price of $9,834,765.50. Great Lakes's bid showed a total of $9,584,079.55, but it contained an apparent error on the first line item.

Specifically, on the original bid submitted by Great Lakes, the unit price for the mobilization line was $425,000, while the extended price was $1,425,000. The total bid price of $9,584,079.55 was the sum of the $1,425,000 amount for mobilization, and the extended prices for the other nine lines (which were accurate).

(paragraphs deleted)

Cashman argues that the Great Lakes bid was contradictory, that the bid could not be corrected as a clerical mistake, and therefore the Great Lakes bid should have been rejected.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) recognizes two principal situations in which bid errors may be corrected before award. First, a clerical mistake that is apparent on the face of a bid may be corrected by the contracting officer prior to award, if the contracting officer is able to ascertain the intended bid without the benefit of advice from the bidder. See G.S. Hulsey Crushing, Inc., B--197785, Mar. 25, 1980, 80-1 CPD para. 222 at 2. Such a correction is allowable if the discrepancy admits to only one reasonable interpretation ascertainable from the face of the bid, or from reference to the government estimate, the range of other bids, or the contracting officer's logic and experience. Id.; FAR sect. 14.407-2.

Second, an agency also may allow a bidder to correct a mistake in its bid after bid opening. However, in order to protect the integrity of the procurement process, a bidder's request for upward correction of a bid after bid opening but before award may be granted only where the request is supported by clear and convincing evidence of both the existence of a mistake and the bid actually intended, and only where the correction would not result in displacing one or more lower bids. FAR sect. 14.407--3(a); Stanley Contracting, Inc., B‑282085, May 27, 1999, 99--1 CPD para. 104 at 3. Where neither situation is present, the bid may not be corrected. Bighorn Lumber Co., B-299906, Sept. 25, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 173 (protest sustained where agency improperly allowed the awardee to correct an alleged error in its bid).

The Navy argues that with reference only to the bid documents, it was proper to correct the Great Lakes bid pursuant to FAR sect. 14.407-2. AR at 4; AR, Tab 15, Agency-Level Protest Decision, at 1. We agree.

In our view, the Navy correctly concluded that Great Lakes had mistakenly omitted the digit "1" from its mobilization unit price on the "original" of its bid, while correctly reflecting the intended amount in the extended price for that line, and in the bid total, and in the correctly-completed "copy" of the bid. We have permitted correction where bidders have mistakenly omitted a digit (or inserted an extra digit) from a price, but have correctly reflected the intended amount elsewhere on the bid. E.g., Action Serv. Corp., B‑254861, Jan. 24, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 33 at 3-4 (protest denied where bid was properly corrected when bidder mistakenly inserted extra digit in unit price); North Landing Line Constr. Co., B-239662, July 20, 1990, 90-2 CPD para. 60 at 2 (protest denied where bid was properly corrected when bidder mistakenly omitted a digit from line item price).

In our view, the considerable evidence supporting the Navy's conclusion that Great Lakes made a clerical mistake, and that the intended bid was readily discernable, persuasively overcomes Cashman's claim that the Great Lakes bid was so contradictory that the error could not be resolved, and had to be rejected.  (Cashman Dredging and Marine Contracting Co. LLP, B-401547, August 31, 2009)  (pdf)

SDV contends that the agency improperly permitted JRS to correct its bid from its alternate #2 bid amount of $1,055,750 to the award price of $8,104,376. Under FAR sect. 14.407-2, the contracting officer may correct apparent clerical mistakes in bids, so long as the contracting officer obtains from the bidder a verification of the bid intended. We have recognized that a bidder’s failure to follow IFB instructions precisely with respect to how to enter bid prices for deductive bid items is an obvious clerical mistake that can be corrected where the intended bid is evident from the face of the bid. See Transcon Assocs., B-204991, Apr. 20, 1982, 82-1 CPD para. 361 at 2-3. Here, it is clear from the face of JRS’s bid that it mistakenly inserted the amount that it intended to deduct from the base bid in the deduct alternate items on the bidding sheet rather than inserting the net amount after the deduction. As noted, the agency verified the intended bid with JRS. While SDV notes that the agency initially determined that this was a minor informality that was waivable under FAR sect. 14.405 instead of a clerical error correctable under FAR sect. 14.407-2, the record here demonstrates that the error was a correctable clerical error and that the agency complied with FAR sect. 14.407-2 in correcting the bid. (SDV Construction Group, LLC, B-400703, January 7, 2009) (pdf)

Bighorn challenges the agency decision to correct Trapper’s bid. The agency responds that Trapper’s bid may be corrected to reflect the $22.13 bid rate because the contracting officer found clear and convincing evidence to support that an error had been made in Trapper’s bid, the manner in which it was made and Trapper’s intended bid price. In any event, the agency argues that there is no prejudice to Bighorn because Trapper’s bid is high with or without the adjustment. An agency may allow a bidder to correct a mistake in its bid after bid opening when the bidder presents clear and convincing evidence that a mistake occurred, the manner in which it occurred and the intended bid price. A & J Constr. Co., Inc., B‑213495, Apr. 18, 1984, 84-1 CPD para. 443 at 5. Since the authority to correct mistakes alleged after bid opening but prior to award is vested in the procuring agency, and because the weight to be given the evidence in support of an asserted mistake is a question of fact, we will not disturb an agency’s determination concerning bid correction unless there is no reasonable basis for the decision. Id.  First, we agree with the agency that there is clear and convincing evidence that a mistake in Trapper’s bid occurred. Trapper’s bid of $522,281.10, resulting in a total bid value of $12,326,356,241.10, was obviously an unreasonable amount.  The record shows that the agency assumed that Trapper had made a clerical error in not entering the requested WAM bid rate but instead entering the total value, that is, the intended WAM bid rate multiplied by the total estimated sawtimber stumpage covered by the prospectus, and that Trapper’s intended WAM bid rate could be ascertained by dividing Trapper’s bid as submitted by 23,601 ccf, that is, $22.13. A clerical error that is apparent on the face of a bid may be corrected by the contracting officer prior to award, if the contracting officer is able to ascertain the intended bid without the benefit of advice from the bidder. See SCA Servs. Of Georgia, Inc., B-209151, Mar. 1, 1983, 83-1 CPD para. 209 at 4; G.S. Hulsey Crushing, Inc., B-197785, Mar. 25, 1980, 80-1 CPD para. 222 at 2. Such a correction is allowable if the discrepancy admits to only one reasonable interpretation ascertainable from the face of the bid, or from reference to the government estimate, the range of other bids, or the contracting officer’s logic and experience. G.S. Hulsey Crushing, Inc., supra.  However here, contrary to the agency’s assumption, the $22.13 WAM bid rate was not logically ascertainable from the face of Trapper’s bid--$522,281.10 divided by 23,601 ccf equals 22.129617, not $22.13. If this mistake were simply that of inserting the extended value on the bid form instead of the requested WAM bid rate, no such discrepancy would be expected. In fact, Trapper advised the agency that its intended WAM bid rate was $22.22 for Lodgepole Pine and Other, and that Trapper intended this bid rate is confirmed by the fact that if $22.22 were multiplied by the 23,505 ccf quantity of Lodgepole Pine and Other, the product would equal Trapper’s actual bid of $522.281.10. Thus, this mistake was not a correctable clerical error apparent from the face of the bid. See Sundance Constr., Inc., B-182485, Feb. 28, 1975, 75‑1 CPD para. 123 at 5 (contracting officer could not ascertain intended bid by multiplying quoted unit prices by correct units).  Nevertheless, as indicated above, the mistake can be corrected if the bidder presents clear and convincing evidence that a mistake occurred, the manner in which it occurred and the intended bid price. A & J Constr. Co., Inc., supra. There is no evidence that $22.13 was Trapper’s intended WAM bid rate. Indeed, Trapper’s request to the agency to correct its WAM bid rate to $22.13 was not supported by worksheets or any other form of bid calculation documents. In fact, the record shows that it was not Trapper who calculated this amount, but the agency’s bid official. See AR at 3. While the agency asserts that Trapper’s bid rate would be higher than Bighorn’s in any case, there is no evidence in the record supporting this assertion. In fact, Trapper, by its own admission, did not account in the $22.22 WAM bid rate for the 96 ccf of True Fir timber, and there is no evidence in the record whether this failure was intentional or the result of a mistaken or erroneous interpretation of the bid instructions, much less any indication as to how this would have affected Trapper’s WAM bid rate. This leaves open the possibility that Trapper may, in the exercise of its business judgment, have found it uneconomical to harvest True Fir under the terms of the prospectus or that its bid rate would have been more significantly affected if it had been accounted for, such that its bid could closely approach or be displaced by Bighorn’s bid. See Protester’s Comments at 5 n.5. Where a bidder fails to include a price for a contract requirement, and there is no clear and convincing evidence of the intended bid if this price had been included, the bidder may not be permitted to recalculate its bid to arrive at a bid not intended before bid opening. See Astro Quality Servs., Inc., B‑280676, Nov. 5, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 107 at 3-4. To allow a bidder to correct its bid in such circumstances would prejudice the other bidders and the competitive bid system. See Panoramic Studios, B-200664, Aug. 17, 1981, 81‑2 CPD para. 144 at 5. Accordingly, the agency’s decision to allow Trapper to correct its bid was not reasonable. Instead, the agency should have permitted Trapper to withdraw its bid. See id. at 4-5. We recommend that award be made to Bighorn if otherwise appropriate.  (Bighorn Lumber Company, Inc., B-299906, September 25, 2007) (pdf)

We conclude from the record that the agency’s determination to allow ERS-JV to correct its bid lacks a reasonable basis. Our concerns are twofold. First, the bidder’s explanation is illogical in view of the way its electronic spreadsheet was structured, and raises questions as to whether a mistake occurred at all. Second, the agency’s rationale for concluding that clear and convincing evidence supported the bidder’s request not only fails to address these questions, but relies on mischaracterizations of ERS-JV’s explanation.

ERS-JV prepared its bid using a computer-generated spreadsheet that contained imbedded formulas to automatically calculate various costs, as well as the total dollar amount for each line item. For the [deleted] line item under both the base and option requirements, the spreadsheet was set up so that the manual entry of figures in the cells for estimated quantity, unit of measure, and unit price would automatically generate and insert figures in the cells for unit overhead cost, total overhead cost, total direct cost, and total dollar amount. When these first three figures are manually entered into the base requirement section of the spreadsheet, the total dollar amount in the final cell--[deleted]--is automatically calculated and inserted. Likewise, when these first three figures are manually entered into the option requirement section of the spreadsheet, the total dollar amount in the final cell--[deleted]--is automatically calculated and inserted. These figures result from operation of the spreadsheet’s imbedded formulas.  ERS-JV’s explanation for its alleged mistake is as follows: its director ignored the formulas set up in the spreadsheet and overrode the automatically “calculated” total amount of [deleted] for the base requirement by inserting, instead, a “non-calculated” (that is, not calculated by the formulas) amount of [deleted]--but that he actually intended for the amount to be the “calculated” amount of [deleted], the amount he overrode. Likewise, the director ignored the formulas set up in the spreadsheet and overrode the automatically “calculated” amount of [deleted] for the option requirement by inserting, instead, a “non-calculated” amount of [deleted]--but that he actually intended for the amount to be the “calculated” amount of [deleted], the amount he overrode. In view of the automated features of the spreadsheet, which are readily apparent from its electronic version, this explanation is illogical and raises several questions ERS-JV does not answer. The ERS-JV director does not explain why he ignored the formulas set up in the spreadsheet and overrode the automatically calculated figures. He does not explain the discrepancy between that intentional act and his current claim that the figures he overrode, calculated by the formulas he ignored, were, after all, the intended figures. He does not explain the derivation of these non-calculated figures or why he inserted these particular figures. He does not explain why he did not realize an error had been made as soon as he inserted the “non-calculated” amounts, even though, with respect to the option requirement, this action automatically resulted in insertion of a negative number in the total direct cost cell, in plain sight next to the total dollar amount cell on the computer screen before him. The questions raised by ERS-JV’s incomplete explanation cast doubt on its claim that there was a mistake at all.  The agency’s determination that ERS-JV’s request for bid correction was supported by clear and convincing evidence fails to address these questions and, in fact, relies on mischaracterizations of ERS-JV’s explanation.  (Miramar Construction, Inc., B-298609, October 31, 2006) (pdf)

A bidder who seeks upward correction of its bid price prior to award must submit clear and convincing evidence that a mistake was made, the manner in which the mistake occurred, and the intended price. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 14.407-3(a). Workpapers, including records of computer generated software spreadsheets/workpapers (hardcopy printouts, computer disks, tapes or other software media), may constitute clear and convincing evidence if they are in good order, and indicate the intended bid price, and there is no contravening evidence. Holmes Mech., Inc., B-281417, Jan. 13, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 6 at 2. Whether the evidence is sufficient to meet this standard is a question of fact that an agency must decide. Our Office only questions this decision where it lacks a reasonable basis. H.A. Sack Co., Inc., B-278359, Jan. 20, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 27 at 3. Correction of the bid is not precluded merely because the corrected bid price is close to the next lowest bid price; while such a case requires a higher degree of scrutiny to ascertain the amount of the intended bid, the bid still can be corrected if the intended price is clearly established and the bid remains low. Pacific Components, Inc., B-252585, June 21, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 478 at 7. Here, the agency acknowledges, and we agree, that Odyssey’s documentation establishes by clear and convincing evidence that Odyssey made a $1,000,000 error in transcribing its structural steel subcontractor’s quote in section 5120 of its spreadsheets. There is also no dispute that when this error is corrected and the markups and rounding are taken into account that Odyssey’s corrected bid would be $7,317,216. The only dispute concerns the sufficiency of the spreadsheets as evidence of the intended bid because of additional alleged mistakes, other than those claimed by Odyssey, that DOL suspected were made in the other areas of the spreadsheets, which in DOL’s view meant that Odyssey’s spreadsheets were not in good order so as to establish by clear and convincing evidence its intended bid price. In our view, DOL did not act reasonably in determining that Odyssey’s spreadsheets were not in good order and did not provide clear and convincing evidence of Odyssey’s intended bid. DOL’s reversal of its initial decision permitting Odyssey to upwardly correct the bid was based upon what DOL regarded as possible additional mistakes in the spreadsheets beyond the one Odyssey claimed. Under FAR sect. 14.407‑1, in cases of apparent mistakes and in cases where the contracting officer has reason to believe that a mistake may have been made, the contracting officer is required to request from the bidder a verification of the bid, calling attention to the suspected mistakes. Since DOL suspected other mistakes in Odyssey’s bid than the one Odyssey was requesting to correct, consistent with FAR sect. 14.407-1, it should have requested further verification of Odyssey’s bid price, and called Odyssey’s attention to the suspected mistakes in its spreadsheets. In this regard, FAR sect. 14.407‑3(g)(1)(iv) provides that to ensure that the bidder will be put on notice of mistakes suspected by the contracting officer, the bidder should be advised as appropriate “of any other information, proper for disclosure, that leads the contracting officer to believe that there is a mistake in bid.” See Enco Dredging, B‑284107, Feb. 22, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 44 at 6. Here, the agency did not advise Odyssey of these additional suspected mistakes prior to rejecting Odyssey’s request for correction (which effectively served as a rejection of Odyssey’s bid). Based on our review of the record, including the spreadsheets, the CD, and the hearing testimony from the individual responsible for preparing Odyssey’s bid, we find that none of the items referenced by DOL (or all these items in total) as indicating a possible mistake beyond that claimed by Odyssey provides a valid basis for denying Odyssey’s correction request. (Odyssey International, Inc., B-296855.2, November 16, 2005) (pdf)

Here, we find that the agency properly allowed Mr. Fletcher to participate in the auction, notwithstanding the discrepancy in its total stated amount, because the total amount intended by Mr.Fletcher can readily be determined from the bid to be $4,895.55, and the bid was therefore responsive. That is, because Mr. Fletcher indicated that he was bidding the minimum acceptable bid rate of $22.77, his total bid value is easily determined by multiplying $22.77, the minimum acceptable bid rate, by 215, the estimated MBF of salvage ponderosa pine sawtimber. Since Mr.Fletcher's qualifying bid was at least $4,895.55, it was properly considered to be responsive, such that Mr. Fletcher could participate in the auction. See Hughes-Sillers Constr. Co., Inc. , B-241466, Jan. 3, 1991, 91-1 CPD 7 at2; TCI, Ltd. , B-220578, Oct.21, 1985, 852CPD 433 at 3. (Kenneth Ashe, B-295587, March 3, 2005) (pdf)

For upward correction of a low bid, workpapers, including records of computer-generated software 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. Alpha Constr. & Eng’g, Inc., B-261493, Oct. 5, 1995, 95-2 CPD ¶ 166 at 3; McInnis Bros. Constr., Inc., B‑251138, Mar. 1, 1993, 93-1 CPD ¶ 186 at 5. In addition, where the mistake has a calculable effect on the bid price and that effect can be determined by a formula evident from the bidder’s workpapers, the overall intended bid may be ascertained by taking into account the effects of the error on other bid calculations based on the mistaken entry. Continental Heller Corp., B-230559, June 14, 1988, 88-1 CPD ¶ 571 at 3. Moreover, correction may be allowed, even where the intended bid price cannot be determined exactly, provided there is clear and convincing evidence that the amount of the intended bid would fall within a narrow range of uncertainty and would remain low after correction. McInnis Bros. Constr., Inc., supra. Our Office treats the question of whether the evidence of the intended bid meets the clear and convincing standard as a question of fact, and we will not question an agency’s decision in this regard unless it lacks a reasonable basis. Id. We find that the agency reasonably determined that Emerson’s evidence of its claimed bid mistake and intended bid price was sufficient to meet this standard and permit correction of the bid. Our review of the record, including Emerson’s computer-generated spreadsheets, confirms that the price at spreadsheet cell number D159 (for electrical work) was not included in the subtotal at cell number D160. Based on the format of the spreadsheet, it is clear that the $3,702,025 price at cell number D159 was intended to be included in the firm’s subtotal price. The record is also clear that the subtotal price was to serve as the firm’s base price for application of its mark-up price adjustments for certain costs such as bonds, insurance, and fee; the amount of the mark-ups then was to be based on the firm’s standard rates for similar sized contracts for the same kind of work. (Roy Anderson Corporation, B-292555; B-292555.2, October 10, 2003)  (pdf)

We recognize the inconsistencies and gaps in the record that Gulf-Atlantic focuses on, and we believe that the Army could have reasonably decided to deny Advance's correction request. Nonetheless, because the Army decided to allow correction, we cannot sustain the protest unless we conclude that the Army's decision was unreasonable. Although we view this as a close call, we conclude that the Army's action was not unreasonable.  (Gulf-Atlantic Constructors, Inc., B-289032, January 4, 2002)

Protest of contracting agency's decision to decline to allow upward price correction of allegedly mistaken low bid is denied where agency reasonably concluded that the worksheets and other supporting material submitted by protester do not provide clear and convincing evidence of the protester's intended bid.  (Metric Constructors, Inc., B-285854, October 17, 2000)

The critical piece of evidence submitted by Cooper in support of its claim is its worksheets. This Office has held that, as long as the bid remains low after correction, worksheets may constitute clear and convincing evidence if they are in good order and indicate the intended bid price, and there is no contravening evidence. See, e.g., Reliable Mechanical, Inc., supra; J. Schouten Constr., Inc., supra. We are unpersuaded by the agency's arguments that Cooper's worksheets are not in good order.  (Cooper Construction, Inc., B-285880, September 18, 2000)

Agency's decision to permit upward correction of the apparent low bid is reasonable where the low bidder's worksheets reasonably established clear and convincing evidence of the mistake and the bid intended, and the protester's contentions are premised on apparent differences between the methodology by which it calculated its bid and how the awardee prepared its bid.  (Reliable Mechanical, Inc., B-282874.2, September 13, 1999)

For upward correction of a low bid, worksheets, including records of computer-generated software spreadsheets, may constitute clear and convincing evidence if they are in good order and indicate the intended price, and there is no contravening evidence. Asbestos Control Management, Inc., B-279521, June 23, 1998, 98-1 CPD para.169 at 5.  We conclude from the record here that the agency's decision to allow LHK to correct its bid was unreasonable because there was no reasonable basis to find clear or convincing evidence either of the specific mistake claimed or of the intended bid.  (Stanley Contracting, Inc., B-282085, May 27, 1999)

Mistake in bid may not be corrected where the correction would result in the bid's displacement of two lower bids and the amount of intended bid cannot be ascertained from the bid and solicitation.  (H. Angelo & Company, Inc., B-281228.2, April 12, 1999)