Allegation That Awardee Omitted Unit Prices From Bid

Two companies operating as a joint venture protested the award of a contract for the manufacture, testing, delivery, and installation of selective withdrawal and penstock trashracks issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. The protesters contended that the low bid of the awardee was nonresponsive because it did not contain required unit prices, and that the second low bid was ambiguous because it contained a discrepancy between a unit price and the total bid price; therefore, the protesters argued that these bids should have been rejected. The Corps replied that the omission of unit prices may be waived as a minor informality when price, quantity, or quality were not affected, and because the unit prices could be derived from the face of the awardee's bid simply by dividing the total prices for each item by the quantity for each item. Therefore, since the awardee was committed to the unit prices by bid, no other bidder was prejudiced. GAO held that the awardee's low bid was responsive, and the protest was denied. The argument concerning the second low bidder was not addressed.